Iran’s Attack on Saudi Arabia Reveals Our Foreign Policy Muddle
We’re stuck in fossilized paradigms while our enemies grow stronger.

The mad mullahs aren’t mad, but moslem schemers that have to, at least, be contained, or otherwise ‘rendered inert’.

Hard upon President Trump’s misguided outreach to the Taliban, rumors are circulating of a meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the upcoming UN General Assembly meeting. Trump has also publicly stated he doesn’t want regime-change in Tehran. This “let’s make a deal” mentality, even with foes who have repeatedly declared and carried out their malign intentions against us, bespeaks more than just the president’s volatile personality and experience in Manhattan real estate.

Indeed, after the probably Iranian-engineered missile attacks on Saudi oil refineries that knocked out half its productive capacity, Trump’s gestures of outreach to the mullahs have now become even more dangerous, and made the need for long-overdue significant military action to punish and deter the mullahs more urgent,

Equally urgent is the revision of a foreign-policy paradigm many years in years in the making and mired in received wisdom. It took root after World War II ended the malign ideologies of fascism, Nazism, and Japanese racist militarism. Even though those murderous movements put the lie to the long dream of a global “harmony of interests” institutionalized in transnational treaties and supranational organizations, the West created the UN, NATO, the World Bank, and other global institutions that would help contain the Soviet Union while the global economy increased wealth and distributed it more widely. The collapse of the Soviet Union fed the illusion that the triumph of liberal democracy was assured, and that its last ideological rival was dispatched without another world war.

But multinational institutions didn’t bring about the end of the Soviet Union, or the communist ideology still riling some parts of the world, and also gaining popularity in this country in its “kinder, gentler” manifestation as “democratic socialism.” Likewise, despite the orthodox paradigm of our foreign policy and national security agencies, NATO did not “keep the peace” in Europe. Peace was achieved by U.S. nuclear weapons, forward-deployed military forces, and “proxy duels” fought to contain Soviet-sponsored aggression. And Soviet communism as an ideology was discredited by visionary leaders like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II. They saw beyond the shibboleths of “détente” and “outreach” and “summits,” and realized that given an “evil empire”–– as Reagan called it to the scorn of foreign policy savants–– that was ideologically committed to our destruction, the only strategy should be, “We win, they lose,” as Reagan famously said. Diplomacy works only when the enemy believes in your commitment to use lethal force.

Before that recovery of nerve, Jimmy Carter bungled our response to the Iranian Revolution and its jihadist mission to “fight all men until they say there is god but Allah,” as Mohammed instructed. Thus the Islamic Republic of Iran, came into being, a consequence of Carter’s foreign policy idealism, which empowered the mullahs rise to power. Carter ran an “international rules-based order” foreign policy, and he believed that American restraint and “principled” example on human rights would promote the spread of democracy and peace. His speeches and writings were redolent of the post-Vietnam “crisis of confidence” and “recent mistakes,” and counseled that America had “recognized limits.” Rather than the wars of containment, Carter highlighted “our commitment to human rights,” and promised that “we will not behave in foreign places so as to violate our rules and standards here as home.” “Moral principles,” he intoned, “were the best foundation for the exertion of American power and influence.” This statement is good example of what historian Corelli Barnett called the “moralizing internationalism” that had been developing since the late 19th century and reached its gruesome repudiation at Munich and the 60 million dead that followed.

The problem with such idealism is, as the cliché goes, the enemy has a vote about what comprises “moral principles,” and it’s unlikely that good examples, foreign aid, or restraint in the face of aggression will change their minds. A readiness to punish swiftly and brutally attacks on our security and interests, the willingness to employ the “mailed fist,” as Duff Cooper said of dealing with Hitler, rather than “sweet persuasion,” creates the prestige that deters aggressors. After 9/11 we did recover some of that lost respect with the swift victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those successes were the monitory “examples” that got Syria’s Bashar Assad out of Lebanon, and convinced Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi to dismantle his nuclear weapon facilities–– and to let us watch him do it.

Prospects for Trump gun deal grow dimmer

When even The Hill believes nothing’s going to happen….

Prospects for a bipartisan deal on gun control legislation have dimmed significantly as President Trump and Democratic leaders appear to be far apart on the key issue of expanding background checks.

Republicans expect Trump to put forward a proposal addressing gun violence later this week, but Democrats predict it is likely to fall far short of what is needed and that they may not vote for it.

Democrats are pressing Trump to agree to a gun control bill already approved by the House, but the president has yet to even signal support for a scaled-down background check bill sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).

“I don’t think anyone thinks he’s going to endorse the Toomey bill, which is weaker than the House bill,” said a senior Democratic aide, expressing growing doubt on Capitol Hill that Trump will strike a bipartisan deal.

As a result, the likelihood that Congress will fail to take action on gun violence a month after a new spate of shootings across the country appears to be growing.

What Your Sons and Daughters Will Learn at University

Universities in the 20th century were dedicated to the advancement of knowledge. Scholarship and research were pursued, and diverse opinions were exchanged and argued in the “marketplace of ideas.”

This is no longer the case. Particularly in the social sciences, humanities, education, social work, and law, a single political ideology has replaced scholarship and research, because the ideology presents fixed answers to all questions. And, although the most important thing in universities today is the diversity of race, gender, sexual practice, ethnicity, economic class, and physical and mental capability, there is no longer diversity of opinion. Only those committed to the ideology are admitted to academic staff or administration.

Universities have been transformed by the near-universal adoption of three interrelated theories: postmodernism, postcolonialism, and social justice. These theories and their implications will be explored here:

There Is No Truth; Nothing Is Good or Bad

All Cultures Are Equally Good; Diversity Is Our Strength

The West Is Evil; The Rest Are Virtuous

Only the West Was Imperialist and Colonialist

Israeli Colonialists Are White Supremacists

Canadian? You Have No Right to Stolen Native Land

White Men Are Evil; Women of Color Are Virtuous

Individuals Are Not Important; Only Category Membership Is

Justice Is Equal Representation According to Percentages of the Population

Members of Oppressor Categories Must Be Suppressed

Victims of The World Unite!

Being Educated Is About Being on The Right Side

Beto O’Rourke: We’ll Use Fines to ‘Compel’ Compliance with AR-15 Ban

The opinion of some pretty informed political analysts is that O’Rourke knows his campaign is going nowhere. So, for some future consideration, he’s been tasked with being the rabid radical nutjob spouting these grandiosely idiotic plans so that the real gun-grabber agenda can be pointed at as more ‘reasonable’. But that still doesn’t cut him any slack with me.

Robert “Beto” O’Rourke explained he plans to use fines to “compel” American gun owners to comply with his AR-15 ban, during a weekend exchange with reporters.

O’Rourke made his claim in a video posted by Fox4 DFW’s Teresa Riley.

Pres. Trump & GOP Must Not Buckle To Press & Dems Looking to Destroy Second Amendment

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.” ~ George Orwell, writer and essayist, from his novel on a Dystopian society, 1984

Engaging in compromise with those who abhor firearms and who detest those who choose to exercise their sacred right to keep and bear arms will serve only to compromise that right, destroying the Second Amendment.

The American citizenry are a free, powerful, sovereign people living in a free Constitutional Republic; a Nation that belongs to the entire citizenry, not to a select few individuals among the citizenry; and definitely not to the Government, an entity created to serve the citizenry, not to subjugate and oppress it. The words codified in the Second Amendment make this fundamental truth plain. The exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms make this truth a reality. The New Progressive Left seeks to erase the words of the Second Amendment from the Constitution.

If these radical Left-wing elements succeed in compromising the Nation by undercutting the Constitution, then the American people, like the populations of the EU, will face unending misery; misery manifesting in the suppression of basic freedoms, constant surveillance, control over thought and conduct, and penury; a sad, oppressive life, nay, something less than life: mere existence—in a new political, social, economic, and cultural construct; one that has erased the independence and sovereignty of our Nation and of all Western nation-states; destroying, as well, the constitutions, laws, and jurisprudence of all nation-states.

But to accomplish their goal, the New Progressive Left in our Country must indoctrinate our children, and reeducate those adults who aren’t so easily susceptible to prolific proselytizing and propagandizing; those adults who are not so willing to accept the fiction that our fundamental rights and liberties aren’t rights at all and never had been, but are merely man-made constructs, mere privileges, bestowed on the American people by grace of Government and by that same authority of Government would those same privileges be rescinded.

If the public believes the fiction—if, in fact, the public believes that fundamental, immutable, inalienable rights are not, at all, rights preexistent in man, bestowed on man by a loving Divine Creator, but are mere privileges, vouchsafe granted by Government to men—then these Marxists, Socialists, and Communists, will find it much easier to weaken and ultimately negate the one right that alone serves as the means of preventing subjugation of the American citizenry, and it is that one, fundamental right that most concerns them: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The problem for those of us who seek to preserve and strengthen our sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms is found less in the Radical Left or New Progressive Left elements now controlling the seditious Press and who have insinuated themselves in and are now legion in the Democratic Party but:

The growing possibility is that the U.S. President and Congressional Republicans might actually consider negotiating with the Democrats and in so doing, weaken rather than preserve and strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

What we must do is to make plain to both the U.S. President and to Congressional Republicans that they must not capitulate. We must make clear to President Trump and to Congressional Republicans that to cave in to Democrat demands for “muscular new gun control proposals,”—that Progressive Left Democrat Candidates for U.S. President, Joe Biden, and Elizabeth Warren, are calling for, as reported by The New York Times, on September 3, 2019, in an article titled, “Demanding Gun Control, but Differing on Tactics,”—is not the way to deal with these gun grabbers.

Liberals Want to Grab Guns…but Who Will Do the Grabbing?

I don’t think I’m alone when I say it’s frustrating having the same conversation over and over and over again.  I’m frustrated trying to explain the difference between a semi-automatic and a “military-style assault” weapon, parrying asinine retorts of how our Founding Fathers “only had muskets,” and being told by strangers what weapons I “don’t need.”  I’m frustrated with citing statistical evidence showing that the vast majority of gun violence in America is the result of suicides and of criminals who have obtained their guns illegally.  I’m frustrated with trying to justify my personal choices to people who are completely ignorant about guns and who are completely unwilling to learn.

I’m frustrated because it’s an exercise in futility.  They return the very next day to push their very same debunked talking points that I’ve spent the last conversation refuting.  Deploying factual evidence works only when dealing with people for whom factual evidence is valued, acknowledged, and conceded.  When they simply ignore it and continue to talk over you, there is no benefit in trying to make them see reason.  It is like talking to a brick wall.

If reducing gun violence were an honest aim of the Left, leftists would follow the evidence where it leads.  But leftists oppose gun ownership not out of any heartfelt reaction to mass shootings (though they routinely go through the necessary public genuflections).  They don’t care about dead students, dead Walmart shoppers, dead worshipers, dead police, or dead black Americans.  They don’t care about getting help for the mentally ill.  They care about the consolidation of political power into a centralized totalitarian entity, which they arrogantly assume they possess the competence to administer.

Lawmakers such as state senator Julie Morrison (D-Ill.) have smugly threatened mass confiscation, and others such as Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) have suggested prosecution and prison time for noncompliance with mandatory buyback programs.  During the September 12 debate, the floundering Robert Francis O’Rourke (D-Nowhere) gazed up from his water bong to yelp, “Hell, yes, we are going to take your AR-15!”

Scary words, to be sure.  But these threats raise the question of who exactly they plan on sending out to do the actual confiscating.  Do something! they scream from the podiums and across the Twittersphere, with no intention of ever actually doing that “something” themselves.  The bell-collared audience who noisily bleated their approval for O’Rourke’s rhetorical feed bucket?  They’re not going to “do something,” either, other than demand someone else do it.

That’s the job of the police, they say?  Good luck with that.  Out of the 250 million adults living in the United States, approximately one third of them own one or more guns.  That’s over 80 million doors for police to bust down in unconstitutional searches and seizures (these would be clear violations of the Fourth Amendment, but we wouldn’t even be having this discussion if the Bill of Rights were something the Left even pretended to respect).

Like combat soldiers, police can refuse orders they deem immoral or unconstitutional.  Polls continuously show (herehere, and here) that police overwhelmingly support the right of law-abiding citizens to own semi-automatic rifles, including AR-15s.  So how successful will be the efforts of the anti-police Left to convince the very same officers they hate to bust into American homes to steal guns the police think they have a right to own?  The growing trend of elected sheriffs and officials creating Second Amendment sanctuaries by publicly opting to not enforce unconstitutional gun laws should give pause to leftists who feel that America’s police will do their dirty work for them.

Even if a hypothetical Presidente O’Rourke were able to cajole every American police officer to act as his own personal Stasi, such a force would still be inadequate for the task of disarming millions of gun-owners.  This reality is amplified by the fact that about three quarters of gun-owners say gun ownership is essential to their freedom, giving a sense of just how much non-compliance such an effort would encounter.

Nor should they count on the members of a woke population to voluntarily disarm themselves.  The much touted New Zealand buyback program has confiscated under 10% of known banned weapons.  Mandatory registration laws in deep blue ConnecticutNew York, and California have garnered compliance rates of 15%, 4%, and 3%, respectively.  This is not even for confiscation, but for registration only.  How well do they think buyback programs will fare in Texas or Ohio?

Nope.  If they want guns confiscated, they’ll have to do it themselves.

 

CCRKBA: O’ROURKE’S ‘HELL, YES’ CANDOR BARES DEMOCRATS’ TRUE INTENT ON GUNS

Friday, September 13th, 2019BELLEVUE, WA – Democrat presidential hopeful Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke’s outburst on gun control during Thursday evening’s presidential debate, and the applause that followed, effectively erased any doubts about the true intent the candidate, his party and their followers have toward the Second Amendment, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“Hell, yes,” O’Rourke blurted, “we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47!”

“O’Rourke’s comment was brutally revealing,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “and so was the reaction from the audience. His intent to confiscate privately-owned firearms got the biggest cheer of the evening. Even more alarming was the fact that not one of his colleagues on stage made an effort to disagree. That should concern every gun owner in the country.

“Second Amendment activists have been ridiculed by Democrats and the gun prohibition lobby for years,” he continued. “Their condescending assurances that ‘nobody is going to take your guns’ just went out the window, thanks to O’Rourke, who even said the same thing last year while campaigning for the U.S. Senate.

“O’Rourke can’t walk that back,” Gottlieb observed. “His outburst is getting more media attention than anything else he’s said on the campaign trail. The reaction from the audience, and the silence of other candidates confirms what we’ve been saying. Just look online; they’re already selling T-shirts with his comment on the front!

“Thanks to O’Rourke,” he noted, “Democrats have just graduated from being the ‘party of gun control’ to officially being the ‘party of gun confiscation,’ and nobody in the firearms community is going to forget that.

“From this moment forward,” he predicted, “when Democrats talk about ‘gun reform’ or ‘gun safety,’ the whole country will know they’re not just talking about gun control, they’re talking about taking firearms from law-abiding citizens who have committed no crime.

“Obviously,” Gottlieb stated, “O’Rourke’s party is no longer interested in piecemeal erosion of the Second Amendment. Their intent now is to smash it. How can Democrats expect any gun owner to believe otherwise unless the party, especially the other candidates, immediately disavow and condemn O’Rourke’s remark? Their silence is both deafening, and damning.”

3 masked teens shot to death outside Conyers home

CONYERS, Ga. — Three masked teenagers were fatally shot after a shootout with a homeowner in Rockdale County early Monday, authorities said.

The incident happened just after 4 a.m. off Flat Shoals Road on White Oak Court in Conyers.. The sheriff’s office said the teens, two 16-year-old boys and a 15-year-old, were killed during an exchange of gunfire. It appears the teens were attempting to rob three people in the front yard, authorities said.

A neighbor described a Conyers residential shooting that left three teens dead as what sounded like a “home invasion gone bad for the invaders” in what the Rockdale County sheriff said could “possibly” be a Stand Your Ground or self-defense case.

Rockdale County Sheriff Eric Levett said the three teens were wearing masks.

“When deputies arrived they did discover masks on the young men. Again, that rose our suspicion,” Levett said. “So now we are out in the communities, speaking with witnesses, speaking of course with the homeowner involved. And of course trying to identify the young men and notify their families.”

Rockdale County deputies were able to later determine that one of the attempted robbery suspects brandished a gun and fired shots at the residents, but one of the intended victims returned fire.

One of the teens was dead at the scene, while two were transported to a hospital where they later died.

 

The Arizona Supreme Court Strikes a Powerful Blow for Free Speech and Religious Freedom.

Ruling

Free speech and religious liberty are on a winning streak. Last month the Eighth Circuit Court of appeals ruled that Christian wedding photographers could not be compelled to use their artistic talents to help celebrate same-sex weddings.

Today, the Arizona Supreme Court reached a similar holding, this time on behalf of Christian calligraphers and painters Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski. The case, brought by my friends and former colleagues at the Alliance Defending Freedom, is similar to multiple other wedding vendor cases.

The plaintiffs do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (they happily serve gay customers). They merely refuse to produce art that advances ideas they find objectionable.

BIDEN AND CORN POP, KAVANAUGH AND PORN COP

The symptoms of age-related cognitive decline include being unable to remember whether you’re in Vermont or New Hampshire, and what the talking points of your own presidential campaign are, but recalling exactly what you said nearly 60 years ago when you had a summer job as a lifeguard at a pool in Wilmington, Del. and a ‘bad dude’ called Corn Pop took umbrage when you ordered him to put on a shower cap so he looked like an old lady and then, to further emasculate him in front of his ‘boys’, called him ‘Esther’……

The Kavanaugh and Corn Pop stories must at all times be considered separately, for two reasons. First, if taken together, these stories show the extent to which pro-Democratic media, even the upmarket kind which advertises its fact-checking, will go in order to slander its enemies and support its team — and that the obvious cognitive decline of the Democratic frontrunner might not be as alarming as the obvious ethical decline in the press, because a party can find a better candidate, but the Times, it isn’t a-changin’.

Second, there’s the risk that the two stories will merge into a single image in which Joe Biden’s friends push his penis into Corn Pop’s hand in order to prove his tolerance, while Brett Kavanaugh the Porn Cop stands pink and proud for family values. This composite is the true image of American politics today, so is best not considered at all, let along pushed into anyone’s face as part of a presidential nomination strategy

Lies, Damned Lies & Politicians

Q: “How do you tell when a politician is lying?”  A: “His lips are moving.”

This is particularly true when the political topic is guns.We have even seen commentators on the left questioning their own side’s stance on gun control.

Jeffrey Goldberg’s 2012 Atlantic article“But these gun-control efforts, while noble, would only have a modest impact on the rate of gun violence in America. Why? Because it’s too late.”

Justin Cronin’s New York Times 2013 article“. . . I am my family’s last line of defense. I have chosen to meet this responsibility, in part, by being armed. It wasn’t a choice I made lightly.”

Jamelle Bouie’s Slate 2015 article“. . . assault weapons—there’s no official definition for the term, which makes identifying them for prohibition difficult, if not impossible . . . But out of 73 mass killers from 1982 to 2015, just 25 used rifles of any kind, including military-style weapons. Most used revolvers, shotguns, and semi-automatic handguns. Which gets to a related point: We might feel safer if we ban “assault weapons,” but we won’t be safer. Of the 43,000 Americans killed with guns since 2010, just a fraction—3.5 percent—were killed with rifles.”

Leah Libresco’s Washington Post 2017 article“By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, . . . But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them.”

Alex Kingsbury’s New York Times 2019 article:  “. . . [C]alling for military-style rifles bans—as I have done for years—maybe making other lifesaving gun laws harder to pass.  America’s gun problem is far larger than military-style weapons, the mass killer’s rifle of choice. There are hundreds of millions of handguns in the country . . . The guns . . . are here to stay.”

After each mass shooting the demand for more gun control rises in proportion to the death toll.  Few Democrat politicians forego the opportunity to denounce guns in civilian hands.  Even a few Republicans now vie for their place in the line before the microphones.  But all this clamor for gun control is another BIG LIE.

Even if that progressive wet dream—repeal of the Second Amendment—happened, gun owners would defy the ban, burying their Cosmoline coated guns in PVC pipe.  Merciless enforcement might scare some, but there would remain hundreds of millions of firearms in patriot hands.

The most remarkable aspect of gun control advocacy is that proponents cannot explain how their “common sense”, “reasonable” measures will reduce gunshot mortality and morbidity.

Background checks are a perfect example of the unwillingness to acknowledge the ineffectiveness of a gun-control measure.  For more than 20 years we have had in place an extensive regime, the National Instant Background Check System, required of all retail dealers.  And almost all mass killers have passed this background check.  A few stole their guns or bought them illegally, sometimes violating state laws mandating background checks on private sales.  Occasionally, the NICS failed due to weaknesses in implementation.  Also, straw buyers routinely buy guns on behalf of prohibited persons—yet these violations are rarely investigated or prosecuted.

Background checks can’t stop anyone with a modicum of craftsmanship from building his own gun.  Nor can they influence robbers, traffickers or other criminals.

We should strive to improve the existing background check system for licensed dealers before expanding its scope, because it produces far too many false positive (and temporary) prohibitions.  “Universal” background checks will not be the magic bullet that stops criminal “gun violence”.

“Assault weapon” bans are another example of a gun-control proposal that doesn’t stand scrutiny.  The FBI reports more homicides by hammers, clubs and cutlery than by all rifles. Yet, no one speaks of banning cutlery or clubs (except in England, of course).

Just what would be banned as an “assault weapon” anyway?

Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy was asked: “What is a barrel shroud?  And why should we regulate that?”  She finally admitted:  “I actually don’t know what a barrel shroud is . . . I believe it a shoulder thing that goes up.”  A barrel shroud is just a fore grip that prevents the user burning his hand on a hot barrel. Neither this, nor any fore grip, have any influence on lethality of “military-type guns”.

There is no practical definition of an “assault weapon” that distinguishes it meaningfully from most other types of firearms. The attempt to do so would lead down the slippery slope to outlawing all semi-automatic firearms. But it’s politically and practically impossible to confiscate the ubiquitous semi-auto long gun in America, while handguns have already been defined by the Supreme Court as in common use and therefore inviolable.

In fact, none of the supposedly “reasonable”, “common sense” gun controls proposed stand up to political or practical scrutiny.  Gun control advocates know this and refuse to debate the effectiveness or economics of implementation and enforcement.  When challenged they always retreat immediately behind the shield of “We have to do SOMETHING!”

Stated clearly, we are being lied to. Politicians promise gun control to satisfy their fearful constituents, yet there is never any measurable impact on gunshot deaths or wounding.

Why? Because no gun control measure short of successful nationwide confiscation of all firearms could substantially affect these casualties.

Two-thirds of gunshot deaths are suicides, and a single-shot weapon does as well as one with a 100 round magazine for that. One-third of gunshot deaths are homicides;, and almost all injuries are attempted homicides. These are committed mostly by convicted felons, gang members, and in drug-related crime. Meanwhile, mortality due to firearm accidents has practically become a rounding error.

Until we are prepared to criminalize as much as half of Americans, repeal of the Second Amendment won’t happen.  Nor could it be passed while 42 states are Right-to-Carry jurisdictions and just 13 opposing states could block any amendment.

Politicians using gun control to mobilize their base on Election Day are also inflaming gun owners to vote to against them. These effects seem, so far, to offset one another.

Why do progressives risk jeopardizing the rest of their platform for the promise of “reasonable” and “common-sense”, but impotent, “gun control”?  Why do they pursue incremental gun control that can’t deliver on its false promise of reducing gunshot mortality and morbidity?

Maybe they’re lying to themselves as much as to the rest of us. 

Warren’s fix for government corruption is to turn all power over to government

Statists gotta state you know.

Chief Elizabeth Warren, who lies constantly, has a plan to end corruption.

Repeating her anti-government rhetoric, in a piece titled, END WASHINGTON CORRUPTION, Warren writes that big insurance companies and hospital conglomerates put profits ahead of the health and well-being of the American people, and dump piles of money into political campaigns and lobbying efforts to block any move toward Medicare for All.

This comes from a woman who has no problem with unions and Planned Parenthood sinking a fortune into Democratic campaigns, including hers. She has no problem with their lobbyists or those of far-left groups.

In order to get her unaffordable Medicare for All through, she must demonize hospitals, many of which are just trying to survive.

Railing against fossil fuels, she claims they are promoting false studies and preventing the Green New Deal from seeing the light of day. That’s the same Green New Deal that will take away our planes, our cars, and our hamburgers but provides incomes to people who don’t’ want to work.

Pharmaceuticals and their lobbyists are also on her hit list.

Her answer to all of it is to spend trillions of dollars we do not have and to take away our liberties.

Her last paragraph calls for Universal Childcare, criminal justice reform, and affordable housing [paid for by the redistribution of wealth]. Naturally, she wants gun reform. Somehow, turning over control of all sectors of society to the big corrupt government will fight corruption in the big government and its cronyism.

She won’t admit middle-class taxes will go up under Medicare for All.

Why AR-15s Are The Plastic Straws Of The Gun World

How did AR-15s become the plastic straws of the gun world? It’s simple: Demagogues need scapegoats. Yet just as banning plastic straws won’t make a dent in the ocean-polluting plastics problem, banning “assault rifles” (which aren’t) won’t save even one life.

It’s tragic how, just like faddish teenagers playing a dangerous or stupid social-media-driven prank, so-called adults go on misguided, media-driven, lynch-mob kicks. Remember when SUVs were demonized as planet killers approximately 15 to 20 years ago? Some environmentalists claimed that SUV drivers were essentially “hate group” members, and other vandalism-crazy greenies would, ironically, set fire to the vehicles to combat global warming. Yet SUVs currently appear more popular than ever, and all is quiet on the gas-guzzler front. What happened? The demagogues and their dupes have moved on to a different neurotic fixation.

Now the suburban soccer mom can drive her Panzer-size SUV (by the by, back in the “day” they were called “trucks” — ah, marketing) content in the “feeling” that she’s saving the environment because she supports banning plastic straws. Never mind that doing so likely won’t save even one marine mammal, since the U.S. is responsible for only one percent of ocean-polluting plastics, and straws account for just 0.025 percent of that. Never mind that anti-”strawism” began with erroneous claims in a nine-year-old’s science project (ugh, beam me up, Scotty). The lynch mob must be fed, and plastic straw users, well, really suck….

Joining straws in the dock, and giving new meaning to demonizing the one percent, are Assault Rifles™. Not only are they used in, approximately, just one percent of homicides, they aren’t even “assault rifles,” a term that had always referred to weapons that could be fired fully automatic or in more than one way (fully auto, three-shot bursts, etc). Now the term is being applied to semi-automatic (one trigger pull, one shot) rifles with certain cosmetic features (a military “look”), which is a bit like putting a Porsche body on a Yugo chassis and claiming the car will win races.

But, hey, as anti-gun crusader Josh Sugarmann once put it, these “weapons’ menacing looks,” coupled with the public’s confusion — “anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” Yeah, it’s a con.

That said, AR-15s are used in an inordinate percentage of high-profile mass shootings. But believing that outlawing them would reduce these incidents’ frequency makes as much sense as believing that banning the BMW 4 Series — which AutoBlog.com lists as the car most likely to be involved in a crash — would reduce the accident rate.

Quite apropos, AutoBlog’s subtitle boldly reminds readers, “Remember: People cause crashes, not cars.” The point is that outlawing a vehicle wouldn’t take the kind of people who drive it off the road; they’d just get into accidents in a different vehicle.

This point is even more relevant for AR-15-category rifles. The AR-15 is commonly used in mass shootings for two simple reasons: It’s the most popular rifle in America.

And it looks cool.

In reality, though, such a weapon isn’t the best choice for committing mass shootings, which generally involve attacking soft targets at close range. More effective would be a semi-automatic, 12-gauge shotgun or even a pump-action one (and a shotgun was used in the Aurora, Colorado, shooting in 2012).

In other words, not only would mass shooters simply choose a different weapon if AR-15-type rifles were somehow unavailable, but it’s arguable that the rifle’s criminalization could push them toward more effective weaponry.

Speaking of which, presidential contender Irish Bob O’Rourke said in March, echoing many, “I just don’t think that we need to sell any more weapons of war into this public.” He’d have been more accurate if he’d stopped after his first four words. But the pitch is rhetorically effective, conjuring up images of flesh-eviscerating machine-gun fire.

Yet leaving aside the common argument that allowing Americans the same firearms the military uses was the Second Amendment’s actual intent, first note that the AR-15 was never a standard issue US military rifle. In fact, while the M-16 — which uses the same platform but isn’t limited to semi-auto fire — was, it was supplanted a while back by the M-4; this, in turn, is set to be replaced by an entirely different rifle that will likely even use different, more effective ammunition (critics have long bemoaned the M-16’s/M-4’s relative lack of stopping power).

Moreover, how many guns weren’t designed as “weapons of war”? Bolt-action rifles were once state-of-the-art weapons of war. So was the flintlock. Go back even further, and clubs were weapons of war, and many people are still killed with them today. Should we outlaw baseball bats?

In fact, far from devastating, the AR-15’s standard round is small caliber (the same diameter as a .22) and has the second least power of the 41 cartridges found on this Rifle Cartridge Killing Power List page (note: When loaded with 5.56mm ammo, the power is somewhat greater but still relatively lacking). In other words, you can acquire any number of hunting rifles far more devastating than an AR.

This, mind you, is why some states have prohibited the AR-15’s use in deer hunting; its relatively weak round may not kill the animal, but simply send it off wounded and suffering.

It’s also why the nine-year-old girl in the video below could fire the weapon with ease. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDdHj6iCP0k

In contrast, I’ve seen a 240-pound man (who wasn’t prepared for the extreme recoil) almost knocked over by a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with a magnum shell.

So we can outlaw AR-15-type rifles if it makes us feel better, but just as banning plastic straws won’t save marine life, it won’t save even one human life. For this reason, it would also be followed by another scapegoated gun targeted for criminalization. Note here that Britain’s deadliest ever mass shooting, the Dunblane massacre in 1996, inspired sweeping anti-firearms laws — after being committed with handguns.

Oh, and London just surpassed N.Y.C. in homicides last year.

This is unsurprising since, as Professor Thomas Sowell illustrated, there’s no correlation whatsoever between stricter gun laws and lower murder rates.

This is why, more to fear than guns are demagogues — shooting off their assault mouths.

Two men shot and wounded in attempted home invasion in Statesboro on Lanier Drive

STATESBORO, Ga.- Statesboro police say two men were shot at Cambridge at Southern Pines on Saturday evening.

The Statesboro Police department says officers were dispatched around 9:30 Saturday to the apartments to find two male victims shot.

Officers believe this was an attempted home invasion that led to an exchange of gunfire, wounding one of the apartment’s tenants and one of the suspects.

Both men are being treated at Memorial University Health in Savannah.

At this time the investigation is still on going.


Drive-in theater manager kills man who beat her with bat

HOCKLEY, Texas (KTRK) — An attempted robbery suspect was shot to death after police say he beat a movie theater manager with a bat.

Deputies responded to reports of a shooting at the Showboat Drive-in theater located at 22422 Farm to Market 2920 around 2:30 a.m.

The Harris County Sheriff’s Office told ABC13 two managers were finishing up their shift when they spotted some motion inside the concession stand.

Deputies say one of the managers decided to go check it out and was confronted by two men.

One of the suspects pulled out a bat and started beating the manager, while the other suspect ran.

The manager reportedly pulled out a gun and shot and killed the man who was beating her.

Deputies are now searching for the second man.

Pelosi And Schumer Had A Call With Trump About Gun Control. This Is Their Non Negotiable.

About 2/3rd of the deaths in the U.S. that involve the use of a gun are suicides. No kind of a background check will in any way do one thing to decrease that number. Of course, SanFranNan & ChuckU are being their standard operational demoncrap selves.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Sunday had a call with President Donald Trump about gun control legislation. According to a statement from Democratic leadership, universal background checks are a non negotiable that must be included in any proposal Trump moves forward with. Specifically, Democrats want Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to bring the legislation to a floor for a vote.

“200 days ago, the Democratic House took decisive action to end the gun violence epidemic in America by passing H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112: bipartisan, commonsense legislation to expand background checks, which is supported by more than 90 percent of the American people.  With the backing of the American people, we continue to call on Senator McConnell to ‘Give Us A Vote!’

“Yet, for 200 days, Senator McConnell has refused to give these bipartisan bills a vote on the Senate Floor, again and again putting his own political survival before the survival of our children.  Every day that Senator McConnell blocks our House-passed, life-saving bills, an average of 100 people – including 47 children and teenagers – die from senseless gun violence.  Some 20,000 have died since the House took action on February 27th.

“This morning, we made it clear to the President that any proposal he endorses that does not include the House-passed universal background checks legislation will not get the job done, as dangerous loopholes will still exist and people who shouldn’t have guns will still have access.  For instance, someone prohibited from possessing a gun under an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) law could still obtain a firearm by exploiting the gun show and online loopholes that H.R. 8 would close. We know that to save as many lives as possible, the Senate must pass this bill and the President must sign it.  We even promised the President that if he endorses this legislation and gets Senator McConnell to act on what the House has passed, we would both join him for a historic signing ceremony at the Rose Garden.

“Congressional Democrats will continue to join with law enforcement, survivors, students and parents, health care providers, mayors and public health officials across the nation to accelerate a relentless drumbeat of action to force Senator McConnell to pass our background checks bills.  We will not stop until these bills are passed and our children’s lives are safe.  We call upon Senator McConnell to ‘Give Us a Vote!’

McConnell has made it clear that he wouldn’t bring any gun control proposals to the floor for a vote if President Trump has vowed to veto the bill.

“My members know the very simple fact that to make a law you have to have a presidential signature. They are working on coming up with a proposal that the president will sign,” McConnell said last week.

Brotherhood of Heroes: The Marines at Peleliu, 1944–The Bloodiest Battle of the Pacific War

On September 15, 1944, the U.S. 3rd Amphibious Corp consisting of the Marine Corps 1st Division, Army’s 81st Division & supporting forces, invaded Peleliu in the Palau islands southeast of the Philippines.

This Band of Brothers for the Pacific is the gut-wrenching and ultimately triumphant story of the Marines’ most ferocious—yet largely forgotten—battle of World War II.

Between September 15 and October 15, 1944, the First Marine Division suffered more than 6,500 casualties fighting on a hellish little coral island in the Pacific. Peleliu was the setting for one of the most savage struggles of modern times, a true killing ground that has been all but forgotten—until now. Drawing on interviews with Peleliu veterans, Bill Sloan’s gripping narrative seamlessly weaves together the experiences of the men who were there, producing a vivid and unflinching tableau of the twenty-four-hour-a-day nightmare of Peleliu.

Emotionally moving and gripping in its depictions of combat, Brotherhood of Heroes rescues the Corps’s bloodiest battle from obscurity and does honor to the Marines who fought it.

Speed of Saudi Oil Recovery In Focus After Record Supply Loss

(Bloomberg) — All eyes are on how fast Saudi Arabia can restore production after this weekend’s devastating strike on key facilities, which knocked out roughly 5% of global supply and triggered a record surge in oil prices.

Significant volumes could come back within days, people familiar with the matter said over the weekend, adding that it could still take weeks to restore full capacity. Industry consultant Energy Aspects estimated in a note Sunday that the country will be able to restore almost half the lost production as early as Monday. Saudi Aramco said in a statement dated Saturday that it would provide an update in about 48 hours.

“We need to know if it’s a 48-hour outage or if it’s a four-week outage,” Ashley Peterson, a senior oil market analyst at Stratas Advisors, said on Bloomberg TV. “That’s really what’s going to drive prices.”

The estimated 5.7 million barrels a day of lost Saudi oil is the single biggest sudden disruption ever, surpassing the loss of Kuwaiti and Iraqi supply in August 1990 and Iranian output in 1979 during the Islamic Revolution, according to the International Energy Agency.


Oil Prices Soar After Attacks on Saudi Facilities

Any excuse to jack up the price of U.S. oil.
At 12+ million barrels a day, we produce more than Arabia’s 11+ million!

Oil prices hit their highest in four months after two attacks on Saudi Arabian facilities on Saturday knocked out more than 5% of global supply.

At the start of trading, Brent crude jumped 19% to $71.95 a barrel, while the other major benchmark, West Texas Intermediate, rose 15% to $63.34.

Prices eased back slightly after US President Donald Trump authorised the release of US reserves.

Young conservative in burning face ad: ‘I don’t care about AOC’s feelings’

Elizabeth Heng has some things to say to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Heng — who is behind the New Faces GOP PAC which aired a negative ad about AOC and Dems during Thursday night’s Democratic debate — took to Twitter to respond to AOC’s recent meltdown.

“@AOC response is the Democratic party in a nutshell. They are more offended by truthful words than the acts of their political ideology that has killed millions of innocent victims. I don’t care about @AOC feelings — I care about stopping her lies about the lies of socialism,” Heng tweeted.