EDWARD PALTZIK – Maine is well known for its picturesque collection of 65 historical lighthouses. These beacons have long saved sailors from the calamity of shipwreck in the darkness along Maine’s primeval coastline. Fittingly, this longtime refuge of independent thinkers is rapidly cementing its status as a leading beacon of liberty amidst the backdrop of a decaying nation. Government rarely gives stolen liberties back to the governed. Politicians and bureaucrats typically justify these freedom thefts with dishonest assertions of “public health, safety and welfare.” However, with two simple moves – ditching the permit requirement for concealed handgun carry last week and increasing speed limits last year – Maine’s lawmakers have shown that a little bit of common sense can make life a lot better.
On July 8, 2015, Governor Paul LePage (R) signed Legislative Document 652, “An Act to Authorize the Carrying of Concealed Handguns without a Permit” (“LD 652”) into law, thereby eliminating the concealed carry permit requirement for individuals 21 or older and military personnel age 18 to 20, effective October 2015. State Senator Eric Brakey (R), who accurately called it a “common-sense measure,” sponsored LD 652. With Governor LePage’s stroke of the pen, Maine joined Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Vermont and Wyoming as pure “constitutional carry” States, in which no permit is required to carry a handgun concealed or openly. Even before LD 652, Maine had a strong hunting tradition, did not require handgun ownership permits and allowed open carry; with LD 652 a done deal, Maine vaults into the top echelon of Second Amendment havens. The fact that LD 652 passed resoundingly with strong bipartisan support despite efforts to thwart the measure by Michael Bloomberg and other gun-control jihadists makes this freedom victory all the better. LD 652 is also symbolically significant because it provides a measure of balance against the ludicrous handgun-permitting schemes in other locations that insidiously reposition our Second Amendment right to purchase, own and carry handguns as a privilege. These unconstitutional schemes serve only two purposes: to generate government revenue and to increase government control over our lives. We are all freer and safer when good people have easy access to guns. It’s refreshing to see that Maine’s lawmakers recognized that concealed carry is a right rather than a privilege, didn’t let loss of permit revenue stand in the way of sensible public policy, and ignored the left’s gun-control hysteria. Maine already had one of the lowest crime rates in the country and is now even safer.
Meanwhile, if you are returning to Maine this summer after having not visited in a while, you may be pleasantly surprised to see speed limit signs on Interstate highways emblazoned with a tantalizing “70.” Effective May 27, 2014, the Maine Department of Transportation increased the speed limit from 65 to 70 MPH on almost all of I-295 and long stretches of I-95. Additionally, on August 11, 2014, the Maine Turnpike Authority increased the speed limit from 65 to 70 MPH on other stretches of I-95 totaling almost 100 miles. Maine was already the fastest State east of the Mississippi since 2011, when the Legislature passed a law raising the speed limit from 65 to 75 MPH on the remote northernmost 110-mile stretch of I-95. As the Turnpike Authority conceded, most people drive over 70 MPH on highways regardless of the speed limit. Unrealistically low speed limits promote disrespect for the law, hinder freedom of movement and do nothing to improve safety. It’s great to see that Maine’s road-keepers realized that faster is better on highways, although Maine still has a long way to go to catch speed champion Texas at 85 MPH.
No law can ever eliminate Maine’s horrendous black flies and mosquitoes, or change the horrible reality that Maine voted for Obama twice. However, it has an endless supply of idyllic scenery, plenty of fresh lobster, and very few crowds. Now you can enjoy it all with your favorite carry gun and a really fast car. As Maine’s slogan says, that’s “The Way Life Should Be.”
HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP
“Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance.
Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.”
Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump.
Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon.
“Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.”
Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday.
The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.”
But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why?
At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime.
“The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained:
For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code.
However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct.
A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.”
However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him.
. Obama’s Iran nuke deal
Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server
Obama IRS targets conservatives
Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters
Obamacare & Obama’s false promises
Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order
Operation Fast & Furious
5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl
‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session
Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval
Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law
Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act
Illegally conducting war against Libya
NSA: Spying on Americans
Muslim Brotherhood ties
Solyndra and the lost $535 million
Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress
Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers
Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’