I think that the flip-flop by the ADL is the real story here — not Dunham.
 March 28, 2015 at 12:01pm
“So who is the racist that is profiling here?”
Well, I would say “nobody.”
But if you are sore about me bringing Obama and Holder into it, then I can give you a phony “apology” like: “I’m sorry if I have offended you”.
Feel better now?
 March 28, 2015 at 3:10am
“they didn’t really listen to what I had to say.”
If Obama had a true son!
@Chuck, you are right!
They didn't REALLY LISTEN to what he had to say!
No two people are alike. Don't pigeonhole use! Don't number #2 pencil us! (Don't standardize us and don't common core us)! It's been going on for too long and it's barbaric!
Tyrannical governments never "listen to what you have to say." That is one of the biggest red flags showing that you are living under tyrannical rule.
Your friends and neighbors are the ones that are going to fix this problem. You have the ability to get the word out now. Utilize the American people for help. There are more than a few ready to protect their own rights and the rights of others. You have the right to keep and bear arms granted to you by the supreme law of the land (The Constitution for those on the left) and no state government can make a law that supersedes the U.S. Constitution if specifically addressed in the Constitution. Know your rights and keep the American people as close friends and neighbors. They will support you. You are looking for help from the wrong folks. Just need to get the word out to your real friends........The American people.
Here's a clue..lose the homo/metrosexual earrings sissyboy
A black man who wants to be a Cop.
A black man who actually works a responsible job and wants to be a contributing member of the American society.
A black man who doesn't seem to fall into a single one of the stereotypes that so damned many of them revel in.
Why on Earth would the NAACP want anything to do with him?
Even if they helped him, they wouldn't be able to control him for the rest of his life.
 March 28, 2015 at 2:09am
“This country is going down, and unless you start focusing on the things that are making that happen, and start ignoring the things that won’t change anything at the moment, then it’s just going to keep going down faster and faster.”
O.K., but there ARE battles in the “abortion front” that are very “winnable” in the near term and that the Left will lose support in fighting.
Best example I can think of: Partial Birth Abortion
 March 28, 2015 at 2:03am
2015 is shaping up to be “The Year of the False Equivalency”
 March 28, 2015 at 1:58am
No. Sorry, but no standing.
Now — where a nut job picks out a target (say, a movie theater) because it was “gun free” (let’s say it was in Colorado, as a random example) and shoots people at the target establishment, then there COULD be a lawsuit against the establishment for the hazard placed on patrons by the “gun free” policy. State law would have a lot to do with any case like that.
 March 28, 2015 at 1:53am
gotta flag your sarcastic comments
(there ARE folks who post to the Blaze who might actually MEAN what you posted)
 March 28, 2015 at 1:48am
Funny thing about The Economist. I subscribe & I read that issue.
It was totally “Rah, Rah, Latinos!”
I hear that every day here in Tampa... like I'm living in a third world Country where English is the secondary or nonexistent language.
 March 28, 2015 at 1:04am
The article doesn’t mention it, but Obama has also proposed eliminating the step up on basis for property that is transferred at death.
As it is currently, if your dad bought stock for $1,000 in 1960 and it is worth $500,000 today, and he passed it to you via his wills, then you could have a “basis” of $500,000 in the stock. Thus, if you sold it immediately, there would be no capital gains tax (which has, of course, been raised by Obama). Obama would like $499,000 of that sale to be taxed as capital gain.
 March 28, 2015 at 12:53am
@ ultraright, wathingitall, and ConservativeConservationist
I’ve got some opinions on the matter, but that’s not why I’m commenting.
Just want to give kudos to each of you (each with strong opinions and different perspectives) for “keeping civil” a spirited discussion-argument.
 March 28, 2015 at 12:42am
There is prosecutorial discretion and there is police discretion.
In younger days, I benefitted from police discretion.
Never such lavish police discretion, but I benefitted none the less.
 March 27, 2015 at 11:31pm
Hey — she apologized, didn’t she?
She is orders of magnitude more responsible than Obama and Holder combined.
The headline might have been.. 'The Empire Strikes Back'.
Or considering the beating she likely gave her kid... "The Empire Strikes Black"
So who is the racist that is profiling here?
She is sorry because she got caught, publicly. The cop should go back and reinstate the charges and let the good boys mother get a taste of reality.
"So who is the racist that is profiling here?"
Well, I would say "nobody."
But if you are sore about me bringing Obama and Holder into it, then I can give you a phony "apology" like: "I'm sorry if I have offended you".
Feel better now?
I see it as a "back-handed" apology. There is a huge difference between a "mother" defending her son - without knowing all the facts than a "mother" immediately tossing the race card - without knowing all the facts. I understand a parent is going to defend and protect their child - except when that first line of defense is automatically the "race card." The apology came only after the video was released - NOT after the officer was more than professional and cut that poor little law breaker serious slack. I'm not buying it.
 March 27, 2015 at 11:25pm
No, she isn’t.
Not in the least.
 March 27, 2015 at 9:13pm
Gowdy would “only” need the metadata (message to, message from, date and time of message) — then go after the records from that angle.
They only spy on Tea Parties and our Allies.
Like we live in a sci-fi movie with a really stupid plot.
 March 27, 2015 at 7:09pm
kkik is correct, Lordchamp
Article V of the Constitution:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof . . . .
The Framers knew what they were doing.
Note: 20 years ago, my thoughts were EXACTLY as yours are now on this subject.
 March 27, 2015 at 6:41pm
Speaking of the “tense” of an amendment: the 14th starts with “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
You know how Bill Clinton said: “It all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.”?
What if the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment merely overrode the Dred Scott decision? What if all of the “birthright citizenship” decisions of the Supreme Court were based upon a misinterpretation of the word “are”?
NOTE: nowhere else in the 14th Amendment is the simple present tense used. All other instances use “shall” and “shall be” (at least that’s how I read it).
 March 27, 2015 at 6:31pm
I was dead set against a Convention of States.
Then I listened to Levin’s arguments — he turned me around on that one.