1 - 10 Next
No, what made it a national story was the action of the media to chum the water to bring in the sharks to attack a man who defended his life with a pistol. The police didn't charge Mr. Zimmerman BECAUSE THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CHARGES! This is a case where people with agendas didn't let justice take it's normal course. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" was impossible to surmount by people taking their duties as jurors seriously. The case against Mr. Zimmerman was the equivalent of a lynching.
We will know in 31 days whether or not there will be justice for the American people. Title V of the US Code provides a federal employee 30 days to respond orally and in writing to charges and a proposal of adverse action (i.e.: a proposal to fire them). One the 31st day, a decision can be rendered by the official one step above the proposing official. Ms. Lerner may take the 5th before a court of law but not before her superiors in the IRS, or Pres. Obama as head of the executive. If she refuses to respond in a matter of official interest, she can be fired on charges of refusing to answer. It's an administrative matter and she does not enjoy 5th amendment protection in such matters. Given the egregiousness of the matters alleged, the IRS should certainly be conducting their own investigation and for an "EMPLOYEE" to refuse to provide answers would represent prima facie case for termination for misconduct. The law requires that a clear nexus be established between the alleged misconduct and the efficiency of the public service. Nexus is obvious in this circumstance where the integrity of the entire agency is being called into question. Congress should be talking to Ms. Lerner's superiors and asking them if they have put the question to her and, if so, why she is still employed --- after 31 days.
A scary girl indeed. As a matter of fact, despite the movies that show women kicking male butt, the only time I ever hear of women taking on men successfully is when they shoot them or team up on a single guy. All's fair in defense of life and liberty. It is easy to think liberals are morons --- but they really aren't. Their arguments are just the rocks they use to conceal their true agendas which, like all truly nasty, evil things, survive only by keeping out of sight.
In response to:

Abraham Lincoln

Larry_Townhall Wrote: Feb 20, 2013 3:38 PM
Interesting article. I note that Lincoln wrote, "... having the power, ...." Obviously, the southern states did not. I am also of a mind that we see God's hand in bringing the United States to a consistent application of its founding documents, for I am sure He loves the Negro as much as He loves any of the rest of us.
What is the point of the proposed restrictions? That is the questions that is at the top of American citizens who exercise their right to keep and bear arms. Citizens who have commited no crime ask how registration will stop criminals from securing and using guns for crime. Citizens who have shot no innocents ask how banning assault weapons will prevent sick people from securing and using guns to kill the innocent. What do those who desire gun control really want? Cui bono? Only tyrants benefit when citizens are disarmed.
Why is it that every time some crazy person misuses a gun the left looks to punish law abiding citizens by choking off more of their 2nd amendment constitutional right. Ms. Marsden is obviously clueless since the law abiding have no trouble with debate. It is precisely the wackos on the left that can't engage in civil discourse but constantly turn to violence when their arguments fall short. I would be glad to debate the left but can't get a word in edgewise for the screaming that soon begins to issue from their mouths and the body language that promises a violent response to anything further I might say. The solution to Mr. Lanza and his ilk are more armed citizens and NO GUN FREE ZONES. The government can't respond in time.
In response to:

Mayor Bloomberg Hates Bloggers

Larry_Townhall Wrote: Aug 21, 2012 12:22 AM
What's with, "The US is a net benefactor from immigration, particularly in the 20th century." Did Mr. Carter mean "beneficiary"? Although I would agree that taxpayers have not received from the illegals what they have cost. Of course, the freeloaders are doing fine, as usual.
In response to:

The Supreme Oxymorons

Larry_Townhall Wrote: Jul 01, 2012 4:37 PM
Roberts isn't supposed to be in the business of doing us favors. He is supposed to be interpreting the law --- AS IT IS WRITTEN. When you have smart folks playing fast and loose with their power to the point where we cannot expect equitable outcomes under the law, it is time to take them down a notch or two. Otherwise, why should we bring our case to court rather than taking matters into our own hands?
In response to:

The Supreme Oxymorons

Larry_Townhall Wrote: Jul 01, 2012 4:24 PM
We are ruled by the lawless.
In response to:

Romney's Media Handicap

Larry_Townhall Wrote: May 16, 2012 4:04 PM
My goodness! The mainstream media is acting just like Romney's PAC. I'm shocked --- outraged --- (lying). I imagine Romney's anger will work just about as well as Newt's did. In the world of deceit, I think Romney probably has a better grasp on how to handle the situation than Mr. Goldberg does. (That's a compliment, Mr. Goldberg.)
1 - 10 Next