Previous Post
Next Post


Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (courtesy

Last week, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healy unilaterally issued a diktat banning the sale of certain semi-automatic rifles. Firearms that have been sold legally in Massachusetts for the last 18 years. She claims that she has the authority to make that change in the law without any legislative action. She did it while the legislature was adjourned. She never even asked for legislative input.

But Healy doesn’t stop with abuse of her power to infringe on legislative authority, the separation of powers, and ever more infringements on the Second Amendment. She has equal disdain for the First Amendment.

Healey has also attacked several energy companies, particularly Exxon Mobile, on the shaky political theory that disagreeing on the scientific basis for man-made climate change somehow defrauds investors in Exxon Mobile.

Healey’s demanding that Exxon Mobile produce all documents that have any information about climate change for the last 50 years, pointing the sword of the State’s prosecutorial powers directly at the First Amendment rights of Exxon Mobile. From

This past week, Healey and her counterpart in New York — fellow Democratic Attorney General Eric Schneiderman — refused to comply with congressional subpoenas seeking records about their investigations into whether Exxon Mobil misled investors about man-made climate change.

The refusal was part of an escalating political fight with the Republican chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas.

Smith is seeking records from Healey and Schneiderman along with nine environmental, scientific and philanthropic organizations.

Remember: the most important First Amendment protections are those for unpopular speech. Anyone who agrees with the State is always protected. Shouting the praises of Hitler or Stalin was always protected in those totalitarian regimes. It is those who disagree who need the First Amendment to protect them.

I don’t expect any immediate result. President Barack Obama has put in place arguably the most partisan Department of Justice in American history since Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. The Obama DOJ has shown that it will delay, obfuscate and lie about matters that a Congressional committee is investigating, if it involves political allies of the President.

The Congress has a duty to investigate these crimes by Healy and others in power.  That is what checks and balances in U.S. government are all about. Those checks and balances have been drastically whittled down during the last eight years.

AG Healy is a classic example of the importance of First and Second Amendment rights, and how they are viewed as detrimental limitations by those who desire virtually unlimited political power.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Well since they do not want to obey the Constitution well we need not obey it either, arrest them without charges, and throw them into a jail cell for how every long we deem fit.

      If the grabbers want to throw out our rights, we not return fire in kind?

  1. Any firearms and gun-accessory manufacturers need to leave MA and relocate to a free state. Politicians will not listen to logic, but they will be forced to notice the economic impact of companies leaving the state and taking their jobs with them.

    • Gun manufacturers need to stop selling products to Massachusetts government employees like police officers and the like.

      • I would also add, gun owners should avoid companies that do sell guns to restrictive state governments. An example is POF that sells California restricted guns to the California government. We should be boycotting that company. Instead we should be spending our money at Barrett. “Barrett will not sell to or service any California or New York government agencies.” That quote is from their website. Hopefully they will add MASS to that list. I’m sure other companies do the same as Barrett. That would help our cause the most.

        • POTG should totally boycott ALL businesses located in those states… Why? Because taxes collected end up funding the totalitarian governments in those slave states. I Spend ZERO dollars on businesses located in CA, NY, IL, NJ, MA, MD, RI, (and CT at all possible; kinda hard because I temporarily reside in CT). I can get those same products from vendors/businesses in 2A friendly states. F ’em….
          Although; full disclosure here, I own YHM cans. And, wish they would move north to VT, now that suppressors are now legal up there

      • I disagree. If all of the freedom-loving people and businesses consolidate into half the states, and leave the freedom-restricting governments and people behind in other states, soon we will have (about) half the states VERY free, and the remainder very restricted.

        Then the inevitable will happen.

        • Yeah, the free states will have to support the bankrupt states. The Federal government has the power to tax and that power comes at the point of a gun. We better have a Conservative Congress and Executive when all this happens.
          We won’t just be fighting our own tyrants. A socialist government will allow their foreign allies to come in and kill a bunch of Southern white boys. We’ll give em one hell of a fight though.
          Adios America!

        • I encourage every libtard I meet to move to libtard states…. Better to keep their populace and political power contained. Convince them how wonderful NYS, MA, NJ, CA are; and why they should be there among like minded people…. Think strategically, guys…..

        • Keep dreaming guys….. The libtards will ruin their states, wonder “what on earth happened to my eutopia?”, then move to your free/family-friendly state and ruin it too…… THAT is what happens. It what always happens. Stand and fight. We’re gonna lose here in California, but at least we’ll keep the fight here.

      • I agree with Peter. Firearms freedom is the Maxwell’s Demon of American politics (without that whole violation of the second law of thermodynamics thing).

        Let fervent freedom lovers and sullen socialism believers self-select and self-segregate into separate states and whole regions of the country. Lay bare our divisions and irreconcilable differences and let’s proceed to an amicable, national divorce.

        There’s plenty of historical precedent for it and it need not result in bloodshed.

    • You think Andrew Cuomo could care less if Remington closed up shop in NY and Ilion became a ghost town? What’s one more ghost town in upstate NY? His old man created dozens of them back in the ’80s. Remington leaving NY is exactly what he wants. He would brag about it on the next campaign trail and the 8 downstate counties would eat it up, along with the rest of the State’s lunch.

      • The scumbag would love it for sure. Unless gun manufacturers stopped supplying his police state with arms. When his bodyguards can’t get a magazine or his police can’t get a replacement firing pin it will hit him.

        • NorincoJay,

          As much as I LOVE your sentiment, I am confident that the Almighty State would simply pass a law or have a sympathetic judge issue a court order that compels a local firearm manufacturer to provide parts and completed firearms to the Almighty State. And such a measure would pass with flying colors because it was necessary for “public safety” which, as we all know, trumps everything (including individual rights).

          Or, the Almighty State in question would simply import firearms from a foreign manufacturer such as Glock, Sig, FN, etc.

        • Your right foreign manufacturers definitely would have no problem with it. A court forcing a company to supply it I’m not sure about. Maybe they could, they tried forcing Apple to hack their own software. I don’t know what happened with that.

          But I know personally I won’t buy POF products after they sold restricted 14.5″ .308 ARs to the California game wardens. The barrel length I don’t care about the rest of it ticked me off big time. Which sucks. They are coming out with a wicked lite .308 AR. But I’m sticking to my guns. Pun intended.

    • Time for us to come out of hiding and speak up.
      End every 2A argument with “If the government tries to take my guns, I will shoot them in the face”.
      Long gone should be the niceties of “Don’t tread on Me” and “Molon Labe” and “from my cold dead hands”. Long gone is the rationalization that the right to bear arms protects us from tyrants. The tyrants have spoken and they have made demands and they have made laws. They rely on complacency for enforcement. THEY SHALL HAVE NONE OF THAT FROM ME!
      The attack on the 2nd amendment is a declaration of war. The war on drugs is easing as the war on the 2nd Amendment presses on. Progressives will have their war. I will fire the first shot right after they kick in my door. GA is a long way from that but I am prepared. But first, we need to stop skirting the issue. We are not using the 1st Amendment to it’s full potential out of fear of sounding militant. Damn right we are militant.

      • I’ve been coming ever closer to your way of thinking, hesitant because I don’t want to be a ‘criminal’ or considered some sort of ‘traitor’. I don’t want to go to prison or be shot dead, I’ve got too much to live for.
        But we have to realize that these attacks on our rights make them the real criminals and traitors.
        What’s the right approach? If we wait until they are kicking in individuals’ doors, have we waited too long?
        Should we begin organizing into neighborhood militias in order to back each other up?
        How do we accomplish that and not be accused of plotting to overthrow the government?
        Remember, a lot of folks that signed the Declaration of Independence suffered greatly. This political crap sucks. War sucks more. Slavery is worse. How bad do things have to get before we say, ‘No more’? (And are willing to back that up?)

        • ” I don’t want to go to prison or be shot dead, I’ve got too much to live for.”
          Nobody does. Many have. Thank God for them.

          “What’s the right approach? If we wait until they are kicking in individuals’ doors, have we waited too long?
          Should we begin organizing into neighborhood militias in order to back each other up?”
          Get louder. Tell the truth. Truth is we are not going to allow tyranny to take the easy rout. Open carry demonstrations are limited. Time to think long term. Fully armed loaded rifle demonstrations with the message that any peace officer coming to disarm a citizen merely for the crime of bearing arms will not meet a peaceful end.

          “How do we accomplish that and not be accused of plotting to overthrow the government?”
          We will be accused of much worse than that. That is how Progressives operate.

          “Remember, a lot of folks that signed the Declaration of Independence suffered greatly.”
          And they did not go about it wrongly. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner. A Republic has to be defended with force.

          “This political crap sucks. War sucks more. Slavery is worse. How bad do things have to get before we say, ‘No more’? (And are willing to back that up?)”
          We have to say it now and be 100% willing to back it up or it is useless rhetoric. The point of a strong, sincere threat is to avoid bloodshed. The Statists won’t be convinced, unfortunately, until a few of us and they die.

  2. Pity those that live in Massachusetts who can’t escape it’s authoritarian grasp! Please help make a large scale “go fund me page” to help Pro2@ Massachusetts residents escape and relocate in a “free-state!” Let freedom ring!

    • If Pro-2nd Amendment people of MA don’t possess the necessary skills to find jobs in free states and relocate on their own, they should probably stay in MA.

  3. “The Congress has a duty to investigate these crimes by Healy and others in power. That is what checks and balances in U.S. government are all about. Those checks and balances have been drastically whittled down during the last eight years.”


    While I’m sure you’re familiar with Wilkinson and Eastland, your statement isn’t entirely correct. Courts have long concluded that Congress — despite the absence of an express clause in the Constitution providing for that authority — has the implied authority to investigate particular areas that bear on ultimately legislative issues, there isn’t a formal duty to do so. A more proper course (and certainly one more properly endorsed by a strict constructionist) would be for the judicial branch to engage in an investigation and then report on that to Congress. Personally, and as an attorney, I’ve been deeply troubled by Congress’ willingness to involve itself in matters that are more property judicial than legislative in nature (investigations and hearings on BALCO, for example).

    But all of that aside, refusal to comply with a subpoena on the ground that production would interfere with or impact an ongoing investigation by a law enforcement agency is one of the strongest and most proper bases for objection to a subpoena — regardless of the issuer. One of the rare instances that would be stronger would be a subpoena that impacts national security, for example. Given as much, Healy was entirely proper in making the objection. The Science Committee may ultimately vote to overrule the objection, and she will have to produce the investigation files, but that’s down the line.

    As to Healy’s underlying investigation, I’m not sure I buy into the First Amendment issue argument. It is a very well-established principle of law that corporations may not make false or fraudulent representations regarding their knowledge of a product and its impacts. This is a reflection of the rule that when the speech is commercial in nature, the protections accorded to it are quite limited. In this instance, if Exxon made public statements regarding the impact of its business on climate change, while maintaining internally the contrary, then those statements are almost certainly not protected free speech — much like the tobacco companies were ultimately held liable for their public statements that contradicted their internal research, or like publicly traded companies are held liable for misstating earnings or projections. While I personally may think that expecting Exxon Mobil to tell the truth about what it really thinks about global warming or the impact of its business thereon is rather stupid and not something Healy should worry about, as an attorney, I am compelled to reach the conclusion that their statements are not properly protected when you get right down to it.

    • Generally agree.

      What’s good for the goose… Healy has opened the door for AGs who are not pants-wetting alarmists to subpoena solar/wind energy companies to investigate whether they have been defrauding investors by over-exaggerating the effects of AGW.

    • I’m sorry, I don’t see the exceptions you listed in the 1st amendment. I can stand on the street and lie my ass off, so can Exon Mobil. It’s not their job to tell you what their internal data shows.

      • XOM can lie all they want, but there are consequences for companies to lie about their products, false advertisement and stuff like that. But unlike the poster here I’m just pulling s**t out of my a**. I have no legal education.

      • “I’m sorry, I don’t see the exceptions you listed in the 1st amendment. I can stand on the street and lie my ass off, so can Exon Mobil. It’s not their job to tell you what their internal data shows.”

        Good luck with that.

      • Exxon Mobil made statements to its shareholders. If those statements were materially false, that constitutes securities fraud. This is not a First Amendment issue whatsoever. Nor, as a lawyer who has some knowledge int he area, can I think of a single reason that these records are not subject to production on the AG’s subpoena, any more than the testing and research done by the Tobacco Industry players. Thus, this is not a gun rights issue, and it makes no sense to have published it on this blog.

        And by the way, there are lots of places where it is a crime to lie. You cannot lie on a loan application, on a 4473, in court on the witness stand, or to a federal law enforcement officer (as well as police officers in some but not all states). You cannot lie on a stock offering, or on your taxes. If you are a fiduciary, you cannot lie to the people to whom you owe a fiduciary duty. The list goes on.

        • This is all bullshit.

          The truth is that no one actually knows if global warming is real and, if it is, if man is contributing to it. No one. Why exactly this is the case is a long post that doesn’t really belong here and I won’t bore you with it. Suffice to say, everyone has an opinion but that’s all anyone has at this point.

          Therefore Exxon would be expressing an opinion when it comes to global warming, as is their protected right under the 1A. As long as they are not materially misleading stockholders about the value of the company their stock reports are legit. Covering up the fact that they’re bleeding money on exploration while finding nothing would be a material misrepresentation and constitute securities fraud. Expressing the corporate opinion that global warming 1) isn’t a problem or 2) isn’t a serious problem for the company or it’s stockholders is perfectly legitimate.

          Even if the company has internal data that might show that some of their scientific teams think man-made global warming is a problem and that carbon emissions from fossil fuels contribute to the problem, they’re not materially misrepresenting themselves to stockholders by putting that information out if they believe that such a fact is immaterial to their business. So, if they have some internals that there might be a problem yet they recognize that for the foreseeable future there is no alternative that will damage their business or cause them to change their business model then they’re not defrauding their shareholders to say that AGW isn’t a problem for the company.

          Relating this to tobacco companies is disingenuous. Tobacco companies flat out knew that their product was dangerous to it’s users in many ways, when the product was used as expected and lied about it. They lied about this specfically to keep use up. Exxon isn’t providing you a product that tends to cause your car to explode or you to catch fire when you use it properly. The product doesn’t cause cancer and it doesn’t harm you directly unless you misuse it. Now, you might go the collectivist route and say it harms us all. However, as I previously stated that can’t be shown to be the case. There is no, pardon the pun, smoking gun the way there was was cigarettes and an increased risk of cancer or emphysema and therefore it cannot be demonstrated that Exxon is harming anyone. Further, there really is no alternative to what Exxon is offering. Sure you could get an electric car with a limited range, and your emissions on average would go up because the juice for charging the car would come from coal fired power plants. Further, you’d have a limited range and your charge times are many times the time it takes to fill a 16-20 gallon fuel tank and be back on the road. There is no comparable alternative to gasoline or diesel fuel at this point. Now, it’s true that the Obama administration is trying to put coal out of business. However, that will massively increase the price of charging your electric car, so again not comparable to using gasoline.

          Sorry, I’m not agreeing that Exxon isn’t protected here and I’m certainly not going to say the AG should have unfettered access to anything she wants based on a bunch of trumped up bullshit that has, at this point, very nearly 0 evidence to support it. At absolute best allowing this to go forward would be akin to allowing any warrant or subpoena to be allowed based on what is obvious hearsay.

          If John told you that he heard from Sally, who heard from Barb, who heard from Tom across the street that Mike is dealing cocaine would you argue that John’s word is enough to issue a search warrant for Mike’s house?

    • “It is a very well-established principle of law that corporations may not make false or fraudulent representations regarding their knowledge of a product and its impacts.”

      Please do tell how can a company makes a false statement about climate? Are they required to state how their energy products create jobs, not only for their industry but the entire manufacturing base and service sectors as well?

      They’ve removed lead from fuels, albeit directed by regulations, which perhaps is the single most important thing to clean up air in the 60 &70’s. Natural gas has dropped sulfur levels 100 times faster than wind or solar and keeps the price of electricity hovering around 9 cents per kilowatt hour 3x lower than renewable cost.

      Exxon has done more good for the world than climate scientist than have questionable computer models and known for lying about climate facts.

      • “Please do tell how can a company makes a false statement about climate?”

        Our products are safe for the environment would be one generic one. But, really, take a look at the myriad statements that companies like Exxon Mobil make to the government on a daily basis. Environmental reports, chemical safety data, output numbers, emissions numbers, on and on and on. Any one of those can be rendered false if the company has internal data to the contrary.

        • “Environmental reports, chemical safety data, output numbers, emissions numbers, on and on and on. Any one of those can be rendered false if the company has internal data to the contrary.”

          Untrue. That internal data would have to properly grounded in the scientific method (properly peer reviewed among other things) and it might still be incorrect. Incorrect data would lead to incorrect conclusions that would not invalidate their claims in reports but merely create the illusion of such invalidation. This means we would have to know that their internal data was actually correct which would require a rigorous study process extending years and possibly decades to determine.

          This is the problem with the government (politics and law) getting involved with science. They don’t know fuck all about science but they prattle on as if they do.

          I submit to you a question: If there is some internal Exxon data that suggests their reports are false and the AG gets a hold of that and screws the company, what happens if later scientific investigation proves that the company was right in it’s claims and that the specific internal data used to crucify them was incorrect? Does the company and/or it’s shareholders have recourse against the state of Massachusetts? Can they sue the state for fucking them by subpoenaing incorrect internal data and using it against them? Can Massachusetts claim sovereign immunity in that case? What recourse would these people have say 10-20 years from now if it turns out they were right all along and the state demonstrably damaged them?

    • I agree. The US Congress has no business “investigating” the Mass. AG over what the AG is investigating, and her objection to the subpoena rests on strong legal grounds. The Congressional investigation is obviously a partisan smear job designed to “prove” that there is no such thing as global warming, perhaps even at the behest of Exxon, who wishes the subpoenas quashed. And I do not care where anyone comes down on the global warming debate; this is not the way to go about arguing one’s position.

      • Since it took an act of Congress to allow the court systems in which she operates, and another one could take away those courts, how is she outside the purview of Congressional oversight?

  4. I’m glad I was only forced to live there for two years. It was nice being able to have my standard capacity magazines for my rifles and pistols. I had three Saiga rifles at the time, so it was easy to be compliant with the original pointless MA AWB. Fall could almost make you forget you lived in a police state, almost.

  5. resident Barack Obama has put in place arguably the most partisan Department of Justice in American history since Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

    Is there anything more likely to marginalize a pro-gun argument than bashing Abraham Lincoln?

    • Lincoln was one of the WORST presidents in history, anyone who disagrees should read a real history book sometime. More people should bash that scumbag.

      • You sound a little (D) Ed, if you’ve completed your protest on all the evil POS (D) prez’s and you’ve made your way all the way down to “one of the WORST” presidents Abraham Lincoln, then you didn’t consume the proper amount of attention bashing the POS (D) [and all of their POS voters].

        Everyone knows what a bunch of hugely detrimental POS’ the liberal_progressive_communist (D) are. MA is thick with them, and their AG can wallow in her stupidity.

        Guns are to protect you from your neighbors when they try to usurp power over you and then use their power to try to prevent you from preventing them from taking more.

      • Let me be crystal clear on this one: anyone who thinks bashing Lincoln is a great way to win converts to our cause in 21st century America needs to get out of their echo chamber / bubble.

        You can argue about gun rights and win. Or you can argue about how inaccurate history books / academics / mass media are concerning Lincoln and the Confederacy, antagonize a bunch of people who may have listened to your argument about gun rights with an open mind….and lose.

        Whatever Lincoln did or did not do happened over 150 years ago. He can neither help nor hurt you anymore. But voters and politicians can most definitely help or hurt our cause right now. And let me tell you: sprinkling in a few snarky remarks about Honest Abe is not the way to get 50%+ of American voters to saddle up with us.

        • More Americans died in the War Between the States than in WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam combined. The First Amendment was suspended, habeas corpus suspended. If Lincoln was a good President, I’m wondering what it would take to be a bad one.

        • @Ralph: If someone tries to get you fired up over something that happened 150 years ago, and they’re not a history teacher or a docent at a national park, they’re trying to get you to carry water for them in service of some other agenda.

        • Disagree.

          I try to educate people on Lincoln as much as a can – regardless of gun rights. Lincoln was a tyrant that died a tyrants death. Should slavery had been abolished? Sure. But the war wasn’t fought over slavery – it was fought over states rights, and Lincoln didn’t want to go down as the president in office that destroyed the union. Lincoln didn’t care anything for the slaves. He was a racist and a tyrant.

        • @Mr. Paulsen

          Feel free to keep carrying water for the the closest thing to Hitler the United States ever had, simply because it’s convenient. If not for the fact that Hitler was defeated, most of the world now would be singing his praises too.

          Lincoln was a criminal like the country had never seen and we have been fortunate to not see one since.

          Fuck winning hearts and minds; speak the truth and the rest will sort itself out. At the very least you’ll still have your integrity.

        • @Anonymous – the war was, indeed, fought over slavery. The people leading the charge for secession quite openly and enthusiastically acknowledged this in 1861 (e.g., CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens’ Cornerstone Speech: The idea that slavery had nothing or little to do with the war was a bit of what we might call politically correct revisionism.

          In Stephens’ own words:

          The new [Confederate] constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

          Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

      • What’s worst than the claim about Abe Lincoln was a small group of southern legislator’s, in the quest for holding power and having an entire economy based on cotton, driving this country to war. Their claim that slaves were property but demand 3/5 of their salves be counted as population to maintain parity representation in Congress is pure evil. Then to have 600K die to maintain that evil is reprehensible.

        • ” Their claim that slaves were property but demand 3/5 of their salves be counted as population to maintain parity representation in Congress is pure evil”

          Slavery was evil. But the South wanted to count the slaves as a whole person. 3/5ths was a compromise because the Northern states didn’t want to count them at all.
          BTW, Northern slave states were not included in the Emancipation Proclamation. Slavery would have ended without a war because nationwide sentiment was growing out of the Christian awakening. Lincoln used the slavery issue as propaganda to garner support for the bloodiest war in American history.

        • The evil was claiming salves as property but using them to pad representatives in Congress. The south wanted it both ways to consolidate politic power in a handful of men. The south wanted succeeded to maintain slavery for cotton production and their agricultural economic model. It was doomed before start noting the Confederate government levied a percentage of each farmers cotton crop to pay for the war. Trouble was Europeans would fund upfront the entire season, however after succession the cut off funding.

    • Well, the emancipation proclamation was certainly an unconstitutional abuse of power, but it was basically moot since the states it applied to had already seceded from the union at that point. It was little more than a PR stunt.

      Other than that, Lincoln was a man for his time. Both the Gettysburg Address and his Second Inaugural Address are considered among the greatest political speeches in American History. After the war, he sought reconciliation and rebuilding, rather than vengeance upon the rebel leaders. His leadership allowed the healing process to begin, while many were calling for more bloodshed.

    • Lincoln may or may not be the worst president in history (600,000+ dead in The War Between the States), but I defy anyone to show me the Article or paragraph or clause in our Constitution that says that once you are accepted as a State the federal government has the authority to force you to remain a State forever and to kill you if you disagree.

      This was the single most blatantly unconstitutional act of our national history rivaled only, and weakly, by the internment of Americans of Japanese descent in WW II.

      Lincoln may have had some good qualities, Constitutional conservatism wasn”t one of them.

      • Between the language of the Constitution concerning changing a state’s borders, and a Supreme Court decision involving Texas from the (IIRC) 1880s, a State may secede from the union…just not unilaterally. It would require consent of the American people via Congress to do so, which is something Congressional representatives from states attempting secession in 1861 singularly failed to ask for.

        Practically, there are a lot of issues that would need to be addressed, including: share of the national debt, disposition of federal property like courthouses, prisons, and military bases, trade, border crossings, a procedure for letting residents choose which country they wanted to be a part of post-secession, rights of property owners in the new country, etc. that would need to addressed one way or another. Unilateral secession would at a minimum guarantee a vicious legal fight, trade sanctions, etc.

      • If and when CA or Seattle or MA or the N.E. want to succeed because they are lib_prog-com POS (D)

        OR IF THEY WANT TO CONTINUE WITH THEIR ONE-WORLD GLOBALIST CRAP, we’ll need a good conservative president to beat that sh_t back down and waste their asses too.

        The role of Sherman in tonight’s performance of Civil War II, will be played by none other than Joe R. We hope you enjoy the show.

      • There is a very good discussion of this issue in “April 1865: The Month that Saved the Nation.” It is easily argued that in his quest to save the nation, Lincoln (a Republican) upended the constitutional separation of powers between the States and the Federal Government. While in the original document, the federal government was the servant and instrument of the States and of the People, after the war we see the inexorable rise of Federal Sovereignty. Which was, in many ways, responsible for the unified country we have today and the genesis of our superpower status. A weak central government, as with the Articles of Confederation, could never have accomplished this.

    • When you consider that Lincoln had to reign in states that had legitimately/legally seceded from the union it doesn’t take too much of an imagination to understand his actions and decisions were borderline unethical. The AG, Bates, served his country well and provided Lincoln and his not-so-nice administration with more than one legal headache.

      As Ed (above) said, Lincoln was not a good president. Most people assume he was a “good” president because he “ended slavery”. Anyone who knows anything about history understands that there is more to the story than that. The sad truth is that while Honest Abe wanted to end slavery he did not want them to become citizens. Surprise, he wanted all the black people in America shipped to other countries. He knew it would be impossible to accomplish this as long as slavery was legal, simply a means to an end. Makes you wonder what would have happened if he hadn’t been assassinated?

      It’s kind of like saying the fictional character Dexter was “good” because he rid the world of serial killers…

    • While we’re discussing that particular line in Dean’s article, it should be pointed out that the Department of Justice didn’t exist until five years after Lincoln’s death. Prior to that, there was an office of the Attorney General with a small handful of clerks, but the role of AG in those days was far more limited than it is today, mostly confined to providing (non-binding) legal advice to the President and litigating cases before the Supreme Court. Kind of an apples-and-oranges comparison.

  6. If not now, when is it time to start shooting?

    Anyone think we will make it out of this year without mass shootings on tyrant politicians?

    • It is not necessary nor even advisable to start shooting at politicians just yet. It is more important to maintain the capability so they understand that it COULD HAPPEN at any time.

      Why else are the Progressives so determined to erode the Second Amendment?

      • When they focus almost exclusively on rifles that account for less than 250 avg deaths a year it’s not for citizens “safety.” They would be focusing on cheap revolvers and small compact handguns which account for the vast majority of gun crime and suicides. But they don’t care about that. They are scared of free people with the ability to protect themselves from threats foreign and domestic.

  7. Obviously, any politician who would attack the Second Amendment, knowing that the consequences could include armed defiance, would be willing to destroy the rest of the Bill of Rights without question.

  8. Arrest her in addition to raiding her office. On top of that, seize her assets. If the other guy (or girl) is willing to use force you must be willing as well.

      • Should indite Murdering birds and bats on a grand scale, while the full force of government bears down on an oil driller if a bird flies into his rig.

  9. This is all just a warm-up for what Hillary wants to do. Trump had better get his act together or Gary Johnson needs to make himself better known.

  10. Sounds like she’s trying to compel them to produce evidence that she intends to interpret as criminal. Wouldn’t that be the fifth as well?

  11. “This past week, Healey and her counterpart in New York — fellow Democratic Attorney General Eric Schneiderman — refused to comply with congressional subpoenas …”

    How in the Hell does that work? If you or I did that, we would be in contempt of court or Congress and an agent of the state would promptly take us away to jail — under threat of deadly force if we refused to go quietly.

    The highest levels of our government only follow the rule of law when it suits them … and totally ignore the rule of law when it hinders them. This means that we are no longer a nation under the rule of law: rather we are a nation under the rule of men.

    Why are we obligated any longer to observe the rule of law?

  12. This is essentially the end game of the Democrat refugee program as well:

    1) Flood the country with refugees from the Middle East, some of which will be terrorists or radicals.

    2) When they inevitably attack, blame the violence on the easy availability of weapons and use the opportunity to weaken and/or eliminate the second amendment, whether judicially or democratically.

    3) When the attacks inevitably continue, blame the violence on provocative hate speak and use the opportunity to weaken and/or eliminate the 1st amendment by criminalizing arbitrary hate speech.

    We saw this play out in the Orlando attack. The Democrats are clever and know what they are doing

  13. And this is how the next Civil War starts. Regressive Left control freak politicians dismantling the Constitution a piece at a time.

    And I’m personally of the opinion it’s now officially a matter of time before we see our first Fort Sumter.

  14. I really hope the icecaps melt soon so that Boston, New York, DC, and the Left Coast will be flooded and uninhabitable.

  15. This is all nonsense. She just wants to make a name for herself with the loony environmental weenies so she can run for a higher officer like Governor or Senator.

  16. a) We’re living in a freaking ice age! The glaciers will be coming back and probably killing us all if we don’t warm the planet.
    b) Pants grow faster, produce more food and require less water when atmospheric levels of CO2 are higher.
    c) Atmospheric CO2 was at it’s lowest levels since complex multi-cellular life appeared on the planet before man came along.
    d) All this carbon we’re pulling out of the ground used to be in the atmosphere. It will take thousands of years to restore it all.
    e) Wind turbines and solar generators are slaughtering birds and bats at an alarming rate. There’s no way to get more than 2% of our energy out of these ‘green’ energy alternatives unless we’re willing to drive many species to extinction.
    f) Anthropogenic global warming fear mongering is the second most blatant form of science denial in history (behind prenatal science denial).


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here