Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Washington DC

by -
Driving Crazy
"Well, Bruce, it looks like you were going 87mph in a school zone"

The famously corrupt local government surrounding the nation’s capital is offering gender-neutral driver’s licenses, even though it violates federal law. Beginning next week residents in Washington D.C. can obtain the gender-neutral licenses, according to a local news report that quotes the D.C. councilwoman behind the measure proclaiming “you have the right to make a choice between male and female.” In the article the lawmaker, Brianne Nadeau, is referred to as a gender-neutral “council member.”

Residents will have an array of gender choices that include “non-binary” and “undesignated,” according to the D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Depending on what option is chosen, an “X” will appear on the card in the place of an “M” for male or “F” for female. Councilwoman Nadeau, who represents Ward 1, is sponsoring a bill to make the gender-neutral licenses part of the permanent city code. She’s concerned that the gender-neutral license program can be revoked by a new administration in D.C. government.

“The District has always sought to be a safe and welcoming place for our LGBTQ community, and today we are continuing to deliver on that legacy,” the councilwoman said in a statement posted on her official website. “Gender is a spectrum and some of our residents do not identify as male or female. Current licenses force residents to conform to genders that don’t accurately reflect their identity. This has not only a practical impact but also a deeply negative emotional and mental health impact. This bill changes District identification documents so they can accurately reflect the needs of our residents.”

D.C. is the nation’s second jurisdiction to offer gender-neutral licenses. Oregon was the first, allowing residents to mark gender as “not specified” on applications for learner’s permits, identity cards and driver’s licenses. Beginning next month, the state is also allowing residents to change the “sex designation” on existing licenses or ID cards. “The information you provide to DMV when changing your gender designation will be kept confidential,” according to the Oregon DMV website.

Not surprisingly, California is also working to pass a similar measure and the state’s Senate has already approved a bill (Gender Recognition Act), that also includes gender-neutral birth certificates. The California bill states that “every person deserves full legal recognition and equal treatment under the law” and the legislation aims to “ensure that intersex, transgender, and nonbinary people have state-issued identification documents that provide full legal recognition of their accurate gender identity.”

The problem with all this is that it’s at odds with federal law, at least the driver’s license portion. The REAL ID Act, passed by Congress after the 9/11 terrorist attacks specifically requires gender on each driver’s license and identification card issued to a person by a state. The law was enacted in 2005 at the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission to establish minimum security standards for state-issued driver’s license and ID cards. It also prohibits federal agencies from accepting for official purposes licenses and identification cards that do not meet these standards.

Title II of the act specifically states that “features on each driver’s license and identification card issued to a person by the State” must include: The person’s full legal name; the person’s date of birth; the person’s gender; the person’s driver’s license or identification card number; a digital photograph of the person; the person’s address of principle residence; the person’s signature; physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes; a common machine-readable technology with defined minimum data elements.

Under the Real ID Act federal agencies are prohibited from accepting driver’s licenses or ID cards from noncompliant states for official purposes, including boarding an aircraft, accessing federal facilities and entering nuclear power plants.

by -
Scalise Shooting
Please pray for Scalise, and the policemen and staffers who were injured in this attack.

It didn’t even take an hour before liberals on Twitter began their partisan snark regarding the attack on GOP members of Congress this Wednesday morning as they gathered in Alexandria for baseball practice.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, one of the main chearleaders of Paul Ryan and Donald Trump’s American Health Care Act, was reportedly shot in the hip. Two Capitol Hill police and at least one Congressional staffers were also shot during the attack.

On Twitter, @thatgirlfrmOhio was quick to weigh, telling her 507 followers “Many weapons are used to kill people. Republicans have chosen healthcare as their weapon.”

Sergio Dericks (@sergio_dericks) posted “Scalise..Hope you pass gun control when you get better . . . You got Shot by AR 15! Need to ban all Assault weapons!

Note that at the time of this writing, all that was known as a rifle was used by the shooter.

Jen Smith (@JenSmith230) complained by the distraction saying, “Can we get back to covering #ImpeachTrumpNOw? This #Scalise thing is only dividing #TheResistance. We don’t need distractions. #Resist.”

Chris Le (@ChrisLeDC) was more pointed with his post, “Scalise, isn’t Karma something?”

Pratt Falls (@PrattFalls) jumped into the specifics when he asked, “Wonder what Scalise & Capital [sic] Police think about silencers after today’s horrible events? We need sensible gun laws.”

Pratt was referring to the Hearing Protection Act that will lift administrative restrictions on the purchase of suppressors.

Regardless of the political motivations of the shooter, it’s clear that the political Left will use the attack to promote their agenda to restrict gun ownership in America – despite that known fact that the majority of mass shootings in America have been committed by Liberals.

Twitter user C.T. summed up the Left’s judgement with his post:

Comment below.

by -

Pope Francis has landed in the United States for the first time ever–but he would’ve been here a little bit sooner, had Obama not intervened.

According to reports from The Atlantic, President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were running late to meet the pope. So they forced air traffic control to put the pope into a holding pattern over North Carolina.

It’s visible on the tracking for the papal jet–an Alitalia jet that’s been given the call sign Shepherd One: it made a few loops over southeastern North Carolina on its way from Havana, Cuba, where the pope’s previous stop had been, to Washington, D.C.

As if putting the pope into a holding pattern wasn’t insult enough, that still didn’t give Obama enough time: the pope was standing at the top of the air stairs for two minutes and eighteen seconds. According to reports, he could be seen hanging back near the plane’s bulkhead, waiting to get greeted by a White House official.

President Obama and the pope finally met for the first time on the tarmac shortly after.

Immediately, Obama’s lateness and lack of respect for the head of the Catholic Church was slammed on Twitter and in the media.

Radio host Brian Sussman summed it up succinctly: “Obama’s Papal diss? Even if you aren’t Catholic you don’t keep the Pope waiting.”

The White House, however, fired back on claims–saying that Obama’s meeting with the pope had been scheduled for 4pm–and that Obama had arrived at the airport at 3:31, before the papal jet. Other reports say that, because Pope Francis left early from Cuba, he had to circle in order to arrive on time in Washington, D.C.

But, if the pope really had been the victim of Obama’s schedule, it wouldn’t be the first snub Obama has planned for this week: his official reception with the Holy Father will include a number of Catholic dissidents, including transgender activists and pro-abortion nuns.

After his time in Washington, Pope Francis will continue his American tour with visits to Philadelphia and New York.

by -

Imagine the outrage from the “civil rights industry” if bureaucrats required citizens to give government a “good reason” why they should be able to vote in an election… or speak freely… or practice their religion… or gather together in peaceful protest… or to petition the government for the redress of grievances.

There would be hell to pay.

But to some in government, the outrage reserved for other civil God-given rights does not extend to the Second Amendment right of all law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms for hunting, shooting and self-defense.

In Washington D.C., a long time bastion of gun bans and anti-Second Amendment schemes, the government has been requiring people applying for a concealed carry permit give a “good reason” why they need one or the answer is no.

Thankfully, U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. for the D.C. federal district court doesn’t agree.

This past week, Judge Scullin placed a hold on Washington D.C.’s mandate that firearm owners have a “good reason” to get a concealed carry permit in the District saying the requirement is arbitrary and designed to take away citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

Prior to the hold, lawful gun owners had to go hat in hand to the government and give anti-gun bureaucrats a “good reason” why they should be allowed to exercise their gun rights. If the bureaucrats decided your reason for a permit was not a “good reason” – which was the “rubber stamp” outcome to virtually all applications – you would be flat out of luck.

Judge Scullin granted the preliminary injunction against enforcement of the “good reason” gun ban scam in response to a lawsuit brought by three gun owners who sought to overturn the D.C. gun law claiming the regulations make it impossible for the majority of law-abiding citizens to qualify for a D.C. firearms permit.

“For all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms,” Judge Scullin wrote within his 23 page opinion.

Local anti-gun politicians created the D.C. gun permitting process as an end run around Judge Scullin’s ruling last year that the District’s ban on carrying firearms in public was unconstitutional.

Prior the passage of the gun permit law, the D.C government allowed law-abiding citizens with permits from other states to carry in D.C. for a period time before the District took legal action to end the brief carry period.

While this move in the chess game the D.C. government has been playing with Judge Scullin over the Second Amendment didn’t go D.C.’s way, no one should expect this latest setback to be D.C.s the last move in the game.


Sanctuary City

Days after Judicial Watch exposed a new policy banning Phoenix police from contacting the feds after arresting illegal aliens, alarming pressure on the city council and...