During a House committee meeting, conducted on Zoom, Rep. Lauren Boebert’s background includes several firearms. This triggers a reaction from Democrats, and a response from Rep. Boebert. What’s her objective in this hastily-arranged display? What do Democrats gain from calling her out?
Bill Whittle, Stephen Green, and Scott Ott create 20 new episodes of Right Angle each month, thanks to our Members. Join us now.
Video below hosted at Rumble.
38 replies on “Rep. Lauren Boebert Triggers Democrats with Display of Firearms in Zoom Background”
Being provokative in defense of civil rights… I remember reading about another woman who was provocative in defense of civil rights. Her name was Rosa Parks.
This is why I often open carry, it forces the conversation.
The best defence is a good offensive.
Conservatives settle for such little things. Cool, she punked some libs with her gun display. We can all now fist bump each other while we let them vote in red flag laws and then censor every right wing person off of the internet. Come on.
You rock, Rep. Boebert! If only we could have a Representative like you in NY.
Rep Huffman strikes me as the kind of guy that likes to see women helpless.
Well, she has the guns, and she is hot, so what kind of loud car does she drive?
And if you are a member of Congress, how do you one-up that? Maybe by conducting your Zoom session from inside your own personal tank? Or from your own personal missile silo? Or maybe with your own castle and moat in the background? Oh, best of all would be while you are flying your very own A-10 or F-16.
The alternative is to have a physic like Hulk Hogan and wear very short sleeved T-shirts. Alternative #2 is to have hacked the Zoom server and show that you are in complete control of who gets to be heard or viewed, and to alter their sound or appearance at your pleasure (cyber arms?). But that would violate some other rights, as liberty is not license.
Bill – while Rep Boebert will likely be fundraising on this issue, my hope is that she takes a page from MB2A, and runs against Bennet for Senate and flips one of those seats back.
We need more people like Lauren in The People’s House. She represents the no nonsense America that I grew up in. Keep throwing wrenches in the works and God speed Lauren.
Well my 2 cents is this,That woman’s dirty dishes will kill her faster than Laurens weapons will, not only that bacteria dosen’t just stay on the dishes its everywhere,More people die from bacteria than they do from firearms also that other individual cant say anything nice about him but Bill had a good name for him.
I am sorry to say that Katie Porter is my Rep. She is every bit the woke, PC SJW that you would imagine. Pity me…
(but not for long! i’m making my plan to escape this asylum for the Free States!)
I am confusing Kate Porter with the Thruple Lady.
Should I feel badly about that?
I definitely have to take my hat off to you Rep. Lauren Boebert. You are not only standing up for our Second Amendment rights, but you’re taking fight to those liberals who are trying to take away our guns. As someone who has been raised and lived in Colorado, even though now I’m in Montana, I’m proud of what you’re doing for my home state. You don’t just wait for them to attack, you go after them like you did with these two liberals. God bless you.
Simple thought, how many of those political figures crying “No guns”, have guns displayed all around them. Their “guns” are just being carried by their personal guards, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, and every single place they go, including the airports. They have surrounded themselves with really big guns, the National Guard. So its not a “No guns” policy so much as a “NO guns” for anyone but them policy.
The Left is terrified of guns in the hands of private citizens … Did you ever wonder why that’s so? I mean have you thought deeper on the subject? What is the ideological basis that makes guns such an anathema taboo to Leftist ideology? Have you ever noticed that on principle the Left has no problem at all with guns as long as those guns are wielded by agents of the State?
Guns represent power. In fact, guns ARE power.
The Leftist agenda aspires to control and apply total power to the population – Through the State as the ultimate political entity.
The Founding Fathers saw the State as being a threat to individual liberty for this very reason. They sought to limit the degree to which the State could flex its influence over the citizenry because they knew that the reins of State would not always be the hands of good, patriotic, altruistic Statesmen. This is why they would not ratify a perfectly good Constitution until it had first been amended with ten of the most stringent limitations on State Power ever to be put in place by mankind.
They were very wise in this because they not only succeeded in their efforts to limit government, they also gave us a built in early warning system. When you see people who are trying to remove any of those limitations, or corrupt them away from their original purposes, you can be certain you are dealing with true enemies of Liberty.
So guns in the hands of private citizens are part of the system of stops and holds preventing the nation from barreling down the road to tyranny headlong and uncontrolled. Guns in the hands of private citizens are part of the system that keeps you from going to bed one night a free person and waking up the next morning as subjugated human livestock.
Still, the Founders could not do our work for us who would live in their future. We have to actually pick up the tools they left us and use them. It is a constant struggle that every generation must wrestle with.
The enemies of Liberty do not want to take your guns because they’re icky, scary, might be used in a mass shooting, or any of the other bullshit reasons they try to push on the public. They want to take your guns because they know they can take the State away from The People but that does them no good unless they separate The People from all recourse to power. Guns are the ultimate recourse to power.
The enemies of Liberty are always striving for a permanent, irrevocable lock on power for themselves only. That is impossible to achieve while guns remain in the hands of private citizens. Everything else, all other arguments, are just smoke and mirrors to get those guns.
My Zoom “off-camera” backdrop
Abby someone….
Hey, catty people need their noses tweaked periodically.
I’ll bet this is why Pelosi set up metal detectors in the halls of Congress. Aren’t DC’s gun laws unconstitutional?
Here we go with a couple of nits to pick. One light hearted the other.. Important, but actually accurate. 1 Gamma male. In a pack hierarchy, omega is the bottom, gamma is third. I mentioned that somewhere in previous comments, and someone thought omega was too cool: as in Omega Man. OK. Then this guy is the psi male. Psi is the second to last letter in the Greek alphabet.
2. It’s arms, not guns in the second amendment. You can be armed with a crowbar, or a knife. 200 years before our Constitution, the main weapons of war (arms) were swords and bows. Our founders knew that. Guns were the most powerful arms at that time. They probably thought “Hey, if we say guns, what if 200 years or more in the future the best weapons you could be armed with aren’t guns? We better just say arms to make sure.” Just my 2 cents.
I had to restart it I was laughing so hard.
We need more women like her, and not those shrill harpies that The Radical Left mutates young women into
love this. She can count on me for support. Lets get the representatives of rural Georgia in the same mindset!!
Ha ha, the little lady hits ’em with her best shots. I’m not too fond of women in politics – I know that’s not a popular opinion – so, since I already stuck my foot in it I’ll go ahead and include women in leadership positions in general. I’m a traditionalist, and not ashamed of it. Of course there are many exceptions, but typical women’s characteristics are better suited to other pursuits. Anyhoo, Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Green and Christy Noem certainly have what it takes to lead and so far seem to be anything but typical.
I agree a lot of women are not suited for positions of leadership. The women I’ve worked with/for have been catty, gossipy, political boot lickers, and tend to use their feelings when deciding versus logic, reason, rules, etc.
As a guy I probably shouldn’t stick my nose in here but I’m gonna anyway.
I own a company that provides IT services and support for small to medium businesses. In the 20+ years since I started this organization I’ve worked in a lot of business offices and as a rule have found that after they get used to seeing us everyone just ignores the IT people and behaves as if we weren’t there. Meaning I’ve seen a lot of unguarded behavior.
The very worst are offices that are 100% women. I’m not being misogynistic here either, guys have plenty of faults too. However, in an all female office the catty, backbiting, snide, and sometimes outright vicious behavior that some women can’t seem to resist affects everyone. It’s almost as if a male presence serves to tamp that down, if the male presence isn’t a complete beta soy-boy.
Seriously, I’ve felt sorry for some of the women I’ve seen working in those environments. I’ve also had to put my foot down at times and stand my ground against an “office queen” just to maintain mission integrity. I don’t want to get involved in their office politics and I won’t do that, but I won’t be a doormat, a minion or compromise my professional standing either.
Ok, now all of that said, I know some very strong, intelligent, reasonable women in positions of management/ownership and those people are generally very good to work with. I can’t speak for certain as to their motives but I think that they just see people as people and are trying to capitalize on people as assets no matter race, creed or gender.. Which is how I believe we should all be. That is the position that profits everyone the most.
Interesting conversation. My wife is one of those exceptions. She is the sales manager at a wood yard. She works with 25 men and three other women. For the most part, the only problems she has at work, are with the three women. She thinks the guys are great, those three women…not so much. She has 6 brothers and she has told me on a number of occasions, “I’m so glad I didn’t have any sisters”. I am truly a blessed man to have found her.
Thank you, De. Once again you ably expand upon my thoughts to just the right degree.
Thanks. I know there are good and bad leaders of both genders, but my experience with most women in supervisory or leadership positions has not been favorable.
Growing up I found most of the girls were scheming, clickish, and more concerned with looks than substance, etc.
I was more of a tom-boy and I guess that’s why I wasn’t interested in that type of “lifestyle” in school.
So I had a handful of true friends (mostly guys) throughout my life and the few women friends I have are rock solid good people. 🙂
Peter Principle? Affirmative Action? Cultural pressures?
Don’t know what you’re asking.
These women who were bad leaders, did they get promoted until they reached incompetence? Were they given the positions to meet gender quotas? Aren’t girls trained on how to be female by their mothers, their girl peers, and the media?
They got promoted because they slept with the boss, stabbed others in the back, played whatever political game needed to be played in order to get ahead, said whatever they thought would get them brownie points from management, gave a little coochie for favors, and basically transformed themselves into the female version of the worst male bosses.
All children are trained by their parents and schools and experiences to become whatever they become. It’s formed by age 6 or so.
The worst female bosses for me were those who were hired because of race quotas, were racists, and treated all the other workers “beneath them” like crap because they were “getting back” at the other race for all THEIR racism and oppression. Like “pay back”.
They did as little work as possible, intentionally caused people not of their race grief every day, gave poor performance reviews of other races, gossiped about other employees to ruin their reputation, and couldn’t get fired because they’d throw up the “race card” and scare HR or bosses into submission.
Racism, radical feminism, far left ideology, gender/racial quotas, and an insatiable need for power, money, and prestige is what killed America’s workplaces.
Every workplace I’ve been in is that way. Nonprofit, corporate, state, county, city government, federal govt. and even religious org’s.
Hope that answered your questions.
There are plenty of men unsuited to leadership also. Some women being eminently suited to it. Mothers lead.
I have had good and bad in both men and women. It is a character thing, not a hormone thing.
Character is a large part of the picture. Many whom seek leadership should not lead; as they are just seeking position/power and not responsibility. Thus, they have a selfish, self serving, character.
These “Leaders” are following examples of, and are picked by other “Leaders” whose leadership characters are sociopathic in nature at best.
In other words these “Leaders”, whether male or female, think only of enriching/empowering themselves. No concern for their subordinates/supporters and no service attitude.
This type of “Leadership” is short sighted and often destructive to the moral and psychological well being of the subordinates/supporters. These “Leaders” tend not to care whose lives they destroy as long as they can use the piled bodies to get access to whatever they want.
When sociopaths are put in positions of power, then don’t be surprised when they make sociopathic choices.
This applies to jobs, schools, and politics.
The popular (Leftist) phrase comes to mind “Whatever it takes”…..
My sister is currently involved in helping to sort out Mom’s financial matter.
We are near enough to having to turn to Medicaid to pay for Home Attendants and in the foreseeable future Assisted Living with an archway into Nursing Home Care.
Her leadership style is to very slowly go over every last word and if you are in the room shush you for even having a quiet conversation because it distracts her. She also blocks out all input from anyone else because she is supposed to be in charge after all.
This is not a Character issue. This is a Personality issue. I do not doubt she feels overwhelmed but does not want to admit that. I do wonder if this is Insecurity speaking. She wants to be smarter than she is, but intelligence can mean knowing how smart you really are.
I suspect more bad leaders of either gender are not evil, just overwhelmed, and on many occasions, too frightened to do NOT do something and be bloody-minded about sticking to it.
This is not a Left thing or a Right thing.
It is a Human thing.
Even the honorable can’t advance in their professions/careers without ending up in leadership positions. Good leaders can be undermined and ruined by bad subordinates.
Agreed, actually that is kind of my point. Honorable leaders, whether in careers/politics do get undermined by their very sociopathic underlings in order to get their jobs. Then these sociopaths get rewarded, because they are willing to do, “What ever it takes”. If that means lies, cheating, missed deadlines, leaked information, active sabotage, or todays favorite, social smears.