Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:

Profile Fields

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Upper Bucks County, PA
  • Interests
    Surf Fishing, Hunting, Shooting, Political Debate

Recent Profile Visitors

791 profile views
  1. Dr Fauci interviewed by Hugh Hewitt: HH: Now my last technical question has to do with the CDC and the testing breakdown. Was that because of regulatory capture? Was that because the CDC always prefers its own work? Was that simply because we were not, we’ve never, I think what the President was saying yesterday is while we’ve confronted Ebola and H1N1, we’ve never confronted as fast a moving virus as this one before that is so elusive to diagnose. What happened on the testing development? AF: You know, it was a complicated series of multiple things that conflated that just, you know, went the wrong way. One of them was a technical glitch that slowed things down in the beginning. Nobody’s fault. There wasn’t any bad guys there. It just happened. And then when we realized, when the CDC realized, and the FDA said both the system itself as it was set up, which serves certain circumstances very well, was not well-suited to the kind of broad testing that we needed the private sector to get involved in. The regulatory constraints, which under certain circumstances are helpful and protective of the American people were not suited to the emergence of this particular outbreak. So there was a confluence of a bunch of things. I believe now that the CDC and the FDA and the Department, that we’ve got it right now, because we’re handing much of it over to the private sector to heavy hitter companies that do this for a living. And I think what you’re going to be seeing looking forward is a major, major improvement in the availability of testing. HH: Was the glitch or anything about the production of the test President Trump’s fault? Or actually, let me put it more broadly, would every president have run into the same problem? AF: Oh, absolutely. This has nothing to do with anybody’s fault, certainly not the President’s fault. https://www.hughhewitt.com/dr-anthony-fauci-and-senator-tom-cotton-on-coronavirus-and-day-two-of-the-great-american-shutdown/
  2. That is one of the remarkable things about Covid-19; if what other nations say can be trusted, not one child under 10 has died worldwide.
  3. I was watching Tuesday's election returns on one of the DNC's news portals and a proposal was made that the November election should be all by mail . . . because Coronavirus!
  4. Please explain the leadership of Obunghole back with H1N1: First cases were in April, in June, 1 million cases had been recorded, by September the CDC had only shipped 1000 test kits. A week before Obama finally declaring a health emergency, (Oct. 24, 2009, which was 6 months after the virus first appeared in the USA), the CDC's tally for H1N1 in the USA was; 14-34 million people were or had been infected, 63K-153K were hospitalized and 2,500 to 6,100 had DIED. (chart from, https://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/estimates/April_October_17.htm )
  5. I agree the point about "yelling FIRE!" is moronic but that argument is a common tactic from those who advocate violating gun rights. Reasoning being, that since laws regulating the right to speech under certain conditions (like inciting riot or panic) are constitutional, the laws restricting simple possession and use of guns (like an "assault weapon" ban) would be constitutionally legitimate, QED. Leftist gun haters prove they don't understand why those speech laws pass constitutional muster and/or that comparable laws to "yelling FIRE" already exist pertaining to gun use. Laws that say one can not brandish a gun, threaten someone with it or actually shoot at someone, without justification, are unquestionably constitutionally legitimate; they follow right in-line the principles grounding the speech laws. What Joe needs to understand is that isn't illegal to yell "FIRE!", it is a time and place restraint; it might be good to yell "FIRE!" like if there actually was one . . . Just like one is is legally justified brandishing a gun, threatening someone with it or even shooting at someone, fully intending to kill them, if they are threatening you with bodily harm or death. If we want to make a comparison to speech laws, blanket gun bans would equate with a speech law forcing everyone to wear a gag at all times, in your home or out in public, just because someone might yell "FIRE!". Everyone should recognize that such a law would fail constitutional muster, thing is liberals are incapable of thinking in governing principles applied uniformly . . . which is why they are such constitutional ignoramuses . . . which they embarrassingly demonstrate with abandon. . .
  6. Biden gets a pass for not remembering what he's said and not knowing that the questioner was absolutely correct . . . After all, Biden is senile and declining fast. What's your excuse? Have you never seen the Anderson Cooper interview? Cooper asks Biden, "to gun owners who say a Biden administration means they will be coming for my guns" and Biden answers, "BINGO! You're right if you have an assault weapon . . . " And what exactly makes Robert Francis such a good pick to "take care of the gun problem, you're the one who will lead the effort" in a Biden administration? From my standpoint it is Robert Francis' emphatic "HELL YES WE ARE COMING FOR YOUR AR-15's, YOUR AK-47's". Even if the questioner "couldn't support" his claim at the moment (because he was yelled down and then Biden was whisked away) doesn't mean that isn't easily proven that Biden (and you) are the ones "full of shit" . . .
  7. Yes, kept her close but in limbo. She was due to appear for Senate confirmation on Thursday problem is, she would have needed to perjure herself to keep the coverup going about this Lawfare Resistance and even more important, the corruption of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Lui set up the deal that let Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Security Director James Wolfe off the hook for the leak of the unredacted first Carter Page FISA warrant to the NY Times. Intertwined in that is Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Mark Warner and his contacts with the crooked Russian oligarch connected attorney representing Christopher Steele. Barr reached into the bilge of the DOJ and cracked the seacock a bit and the rats are scrambling out . . .
  8. A+++++ Here's mine: A well maintained road system being necessary to efficiently commute to and from work, the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles shall not be infringed. Can the people only use automobiles to commute to and from work? Are retired persons or housewives or the independently wealthy to be "de-autoed" because they do not work? Can the people only drive on a governmentally maintained road system? Can they only drive on those specific roads deemed by the government to be necessary for commuting? Are the people barred from taking a scenic route to and from work, is the most efficient route the only one deemed "legal?" A well educated electorate being necessary for the perpetuation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. Can only registered voters (the electorate) keep and read books? Can only those books deemed "necessary to the perpetuation of a free state" be owned and read? Can books deemed NOT "necessary to the perpetuation of a free state" be banned? Can books that openly threaten the "perpetuation of a free state" be banned? Can only people with an government certified IQ above 120 and deemed "well educated" by the government, keep and read books?
  9. So much wrong with your statement. The most significant insurmountable and fatal flaw in your theory is that the right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. This foundational principle means that the right to arms is not conditioned by any words in the Constitution and more on point destroying your theory, the right to arms can not be deemed qualified upon a citizen's enrollment or attachment with the organized militia -- because that is an entity that is itself, entirely dependent on the Constitution for its existence (as established by and provided for in Art. I, § 8, cl's. 15 & 16 of the Constitution). Then of course is the fact that the 2nd does not "provide" in any manner for the militia, the declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment has never been inspected or held to inform on any aspect of militia organization, training or control. See, Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) (1820), Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) (1827), Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1917) and Perpich v. Dep't of Defense, 496 U.S. (1990). They are the SCOTUS decisions that decided conflicts and disputes in militia order and control and the 2nd Amendment is completely ignored. You are wrong on multiple planes; the philosophical, historical, legal and logical . . .
  • Create New...