by  |
| Attributed to “Freeper Paul Dragoo” |
hypocrisy
CCRKBA Nails Chinese On Hypocritical Comments
I mentioned the Red Chinese criticizing the US for human rights violation the other day. For the ChiComms, those violations were that we allowed citizens to own firearms. I thought that was rich and so does the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
BELLEVUE, WA – When the People’s Republic of China accused the United States of violating human rights because of our Second Amendment, they voluntarily became the world’s laughing stock, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
China’s State Council Information Office in Beijing criticized the United States’ human rights record because of this country’s high level of firearms ownership. In their report, the Chinese alleged, “The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens’ lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership.”
An outraged CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb noted, “It’s appalling that the Chinese complain that our constitution and Bill of Rights allows wide civil liberties latitude, including the right to keep and bear arms.” He accused the Chinese of engaging in world class hypocrisy by complaining about poor human rights in another country.
“The Chinese have hardly set a sterling example for protecting and advancing human rights,” he observed. “Perhaps what offends them most is that our Second Amendment was authored to prevent this country from going down the same road toward totalitarianism that rulers in the People’s Republic have embraced. We are not like China, and we will never be like China so long as American citizens retain their right to keep and bear arms, and they know it.”
The Chinese also criticized this country’s crime rates, to which Gottlieb responded that in the United States, citizens accused of crimes have the right to a fair trial, legal counsel and judgment by a jury of their peers.
“We don’t imprison political dissidents simply for speaking their minds,” Gottlieb noted. “We consider people to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not the other way around. We afford an array of legal rights to people accused of crimes. Of course we don’t have a perfect system or a perfect country, but it’s better than all the rest. When was the last time we saw an American asking the Chinese embassy for political asylum?”
Remember, She Is More Important Than You Peons
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has placed a hold on the two Senate versions of national right-to-carry reciprocity, S. 2188 and S. 2213. While she reportedly no longer holds a California concealed carry permit, at one time she held the only such permit issued in San Francisco. While there have been others who have obtained carry permits for San Francisco, you can usually count the number of permits outstanding on the fingers of your hand with a finger or two left over.
From the Huffington Post article on her move:
In putting a hold on both bills, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012,” and the “Respecting States’ Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012,” Feinstein is denying them the easiest avenue of passage: unanimous consent.
The hold does not eliminate the possibility of passing the bills through regular order, with 60-vote requirements to start and end debate. But it’s unclear whether enough support actually exists in the Senate. Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), for instance, has said he would oppose the first bill, which cleared the House of Representatives in November with 43 Democrats supporting it and only seven Republicans voting against it.
Her move was quickly applauded by Mark Glaze, executive directors of Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors, who said, “We hear regularly that senators of both parties are getting tired of being ordered around by the gun lobby, and forced reciprocity is exhibit a.”
I think these senators ought to remember that the “gun lobby” is you and me. Currently, Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) is in the process of learning this as he now trails Richard Mourdock according to some polls.
The full letter is embedded below:
Feinstein – hold – Concealed Carry Reciprocity Legislation
A Little Historical Perspective On “Delays” In Confirming Judges
Yesterday, the Senate refused to invoke cloture and end the filibuster of the confirmation of Caitlin Halligan to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The White House released a statement in response saying, in part:
But today, her nomination fell victim to the Republican pattern of obstructionism that puts party ahead of country. Today’s vote dramatically lowers the bar used to justify a filibuster, which had required “extraordinary circumstances.”
This is rich coming from one of the most partisan administrations in recent history. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) spoke on the Senate floor yesterday regarding the Halligan nomination as well as the other judicial nominations considered. The historical perspective provided by Senator Grassley illustrates the hypocrisy that lies behind Obama’s statement on the Halligan filibuster. The relevant part of what Senator Grassley said is below:
With regard to the vote tomorrow, there will be some who say that this nomination has been vacant for too long, and that this nominee is being treated unfairly – needlessly waiting on the Calendar for too many weeks. Well, such arguments fail to consider the history of this seat or of the record established by my colleagues on the other side, regarding the consideration of nominations to the D.C. Circuit.
This seat has been vacant for over six years. It became vacant upon the elevation of John Roberts as Chief Justice back in September 2005. Following Justice Roberts appointment, Peter Keisler was nominated to fill the vacancy in June of 2006, with a hearing held on August 1, 2006. With a Republican majority in the 109th Congress, one would wonder why he never made it out of committee.
Well, it is not that he didn’t have the votes in Committee. The fact is – the Democratic minority would not allow a vote. This was accomplished by holding him over at his first markup, which the rules permit and is a legitimate exercise of the right of the minority. However, for the remaining executive sessions in September of that year, prior to final adjournment, they either made sure the committee did not have a quorum, so we could not vote, or they took the extraordinary step of invoking the 2-hour rule so the committee could not meet. I would note that a quorum was present early in one meeting but evaporated when Mr. Keisler’s nomination was the pending business. So basically, the opponents ran out the clock on this nomination. He didn’t get a committee vote; he didn’t get the courtesy of floor consideration – not even a cloture vote. Mr. Keisler was renominated in January 2007, when the Democrats again assumed control of the Senate. But his nomination sat in committee with no action until it was returned to the President in January 2009. He was the recipient of a pocket filibuster.
This was despite being rated unanimously Well-Qualified by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary and possessing outstanding qualifications to fill this position. So, complaints about this seat being vacant for too long just ring hollow with this Senator.
Likewise, when one considers the treatment of previous nominees to the D.C. Circuit, it is evident that the nomination of Ms. Halligan is not being treated in an unfair manner. In fact, her nomination is proceeding far better than many nominated to this court. I would remind my colleagues that previous nominees were subjected to delayed or multiple hearings, to extensive delays in committee, to multiple filibusters on the Senate floor. These include the nominations of Miguel Estrada – a Hispanic immigrant with a compelling personal story and outstanding judicial qualifications who was subjected to seven cloture votes; Janice Brown, an African-American female who had two cloture votes; Brett Kavanaugh, and Thomas Griffith. While all of these individuals, other than Mr. Estrada, were eventually confirmed, the procedural tactics used in their nominations made the confirmations difficult. I am not suggesting that is the pattern to follow, but it is relevant to the argument that Ms. Halligan is being treated differently or in an unfair manner.
As might be expected, the New York Times on its opinion page conveniently ignores this history just as did the White House.