Category: Crap For Brains

Well, she was unable to define what a woman was either, so her gobbletygook here shouldn’t have been a surprise.

KBJ’s Jumbled Musings on the Fourteenth Amendment

In today’s [Oct 3rd ] oral argument in Merrill v. Milligan, Justice Jackson capped her very long questioning of Alabama solicitor general Edmund LaCour with a speech/question that went on for around four minutes and that runs a full three pages (57:2-60:2) in the transcript. In her speech, Jackson states that the Framers of the 14th Amendment adopted it “in a race conscious way,” as they were “trying to ensure that people who had been discriminated against, the freedmen in — during the reconstructive — reconstruction period were actually brought equal to everyone else in the society.” As she puts it, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 “specifically stated that citizens would have the same civil rights as enjoyed by white citizens,” and the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to ensure that the Act had a solid “constitutional foundation.”

Somehow Jackson leaps from these propositions to the assertion that the 14th Amendment doesn’t embody “a race-neutral or race-blind idea in terms of the remedy” for discrimination against freed slaves.

I don’t understand her leap. By her own account, the very purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was “to make sure that the other citizens, the black citizens, would have the same [civil rights] as the white citizens.” It was designed to remedy a situation in which “people, based on their race, were being treated unequally” by the states. And the 14th Amendment had the same goal.

The proposition that the 14th Amendment requires that the government be color-blind is open to challenge both as to what exactly that means and to whether that meaning is well founded. But Jackson seems to think that the color-blind position is somehow at odds with the fact that the 14th Amendment was designed to ensure equal treatment—when that of course is exactly what advocates of the color-blind position maintain the 14th Amendment requires.

Jackson seems to confuse herself with her own terms. Yes, of course, the Framers can be said to have adopted the 14th Amendment “in a race conscious way”—if that means that the central purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that freed slaves received equal treatment in fundamental ways. By its plain text, the 14th Amendment ensures that states shall not “abridge the privileges or immunities” of citizens, irrespective of their race; shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” irrespective of the person’s race; and shall not deny any person the “equal protection of the laws,” irrespective of the person’s race.

But how is this elementary recognition at all at odds with the color-blind position? In his great dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the first Justice Harlan celebrates that the post-Civil War Amendments “removed the race line from our governmental systems.” In his very next sentence, he states that these amendments had “a common purpose, namely, to secure to a race recently emancipated, a race that through many generations have been held in slavery, all the civil rights that the [white] race enjoy.” (Internal quote omitted.) He of course goes on to characterize the amended Constitution as “color-blind.” On what conceivable basis are we to think that there is any tension among Harlan’s statements?

Insofar as Jackson might be arguing that the 14th Amendment allows race-conscious remedies, she doesn’t touch on the critical questions of what counts as a race-conscious remedy and when such a remedy is permissible. Some scholars cite the Freedmen’s Bureau Acts as evidence that the Equal Protection Clause does not require colorblindness. But as law professor Michael Rappaport points out in “Originalism and the Colorblind Constitution,” even apart from the question whether those Acts inform the meaning of the 14th Amendment, they gave benefits to freedmen and refugees (most of whom were white) not on the basis of race but on the basis of the oppression and hardship they were enduring. Further, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas—leading proponents of colorblindness—agree that states can act to provide benefits to blacks (or persons of other races and ethnicities) when they have been victims of discrimination.

The usual suspects are going gaga over Justice Jackson’s remarks. But neither they nor she appear to understand the position they think they are contesting.

SCOTUS turns away challenges to Trump-imposed ban on bump stocks

The Trump administration-imposed ban on bump stocks, crafted through ATF regulations instead of actual legislation, will remain in effect for the foreseeable future after the Supreme Court turned away two challenges to the ban that had been winding their way through the courts since shortly after the ban was imposed in 2019.

The Court declined to intervene to stop the administrative action from taking effect several years ago, but Second Amendment activists and gun rights groups continued to challenge the ban in the years since, and last week justices took up the two cases in conference. Monday’s order list didn’t contain the good news that 2A advocates were hoping for. Instead, the Court rejected the challenges without dissent from any of the six justices who voted earlier this year to overturn New York’s “may issue” carry laws in NYSRPA v. Bruen.

The bump stocks challenge, however, did not deal directly with the scope of the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. The challengers instead said the government did not have authority to ban bump stocks under the National Firearms Act, a law enacted in 1934 to regulate machine guns. In 1968, the Gun Control Act expanded the definition of machine gun to include accessories “for use in converting a weapon” into a machine gun, and the ATF concluded when it issued the ban that bump stocks meet that definition.

The groups challenging the ban said the legal definition of machine gun has been distorted beyond recognition and argue that courts should not defer to the federal agency’s interpretation.

The court turned away two related appeals, one brought by Clark Aposhian, a Utah gun lobbyist who had purchased a bump stock before the ban took effect, and another led by Gun Owners of America and other gun rights groups. Lower courts upheld the ban, although judges on the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals were divided in both cases.

To say this is a disappointing result would be putting it mildly, and there most certainly will be consequences to the justices’ refusal to hear either case. The Biden administration has already used the same executive authority that then-President Trump used to direct the ATF to craft its bump stock ban to target unfinished frames and receivers sold in DIY gun-making kits, and the Court’s inaction will only embolden anti-gun officials and the gun control lobby to further abuse the scope of executive branch authority to impose even more gun control laws that don’t have enough support to win congressional approval.

The decision is also very bad news for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who lawfully purchased bump stocks before the ATF suddenly reversed course and declared them to be machine guns. Possession of a bump stock is now the same as possessing a machine gun in terms of federal law, which makes any gun owner who still owns one of the devices subject to a $250,000 fine and the possibility of up to a decade in federal prison.

While the Supreme Court will have other opportunities to weigh in on executive branch overreach that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, unfortunately that’s because there are other areas of infringement taking place. Not only are the ATF’s new rules on frames and receivers being challenged in court, but the pending rules that could turn millions of AR-style pistols equipped with shoulder braces into short-barreled rifles subject to the registration provisions of the National Firearms Act are also facing litigation. Still, the gun control lobby and the Biden administration are almost certain to take advantage of today’s inaction by SCOTUS, and with gun control groups already lobbying behind the scenes for the ATF to regulate AR-15s and other semi-automatic firearms as if they’re machine guns as well, the ATF could soon take aim at the tens of millions of modern sporting rifles in the hands of gun owners… not to mention the lives and liberties of those gun owners themselves.

Joe Biden Trashes Italy’s Giorgia Meloni in Massive Self-Awareness Fail

As a massive hurricane slammed into Florida on Wednesday evening, the President of the United States attended a fundraiser for the Democratic Governor’s Association. That followed a banner day where Joe Biden asked where a deceased congresswoman was at an event and got confused trying to exit a stage later at the White House.

The optics of Biden hobnobbing with his party’s elite while people’s homes while devastation descended on the Sunshine State wasn’t lost on many observers. So what did the president talk about?

If you guess that he ranted about threats to “democracy,” which is basically the one-note Democrats continue to desperately play over and over this election cycle, pick up your winnings at the window. But it was who Biden cited as an example that raised eyebrows. Apparently, he attacked Giorgia Meloni’s rise, insinuating that what “happened in Italy” illustrated the destruction of “democracy” around the globe.

For those keeping score at home, we are now at the point where Democrats will quite literally claim that a democratic election, voted on by the people, is actually a threat to democracy if the “wrong” people win. In this case, Meloni’s right-wing coalition won an overwhelming victory after Italy’s left ran the country into the ground.

The lack of self-awareness here is so thick you can cut it with a knife. It is self-evident that you can’t claim that “democracy” is in danger if you yourself don’t respect the results of democratic elections. Is Biden suggesting that Italy’s election was rigged? Or is he really saying that any outcome that goes against the globalist left is illegitimate on its face?

Whatever the reason, what Biden is promoting is not “democracy.” It’s authoritarianism wrapped in meaningless fluff disguised as respect for freedom. Real democracy can’t exist if voters aren’t able to choose the representatives without condemnation and hyperbolic proclamations from their supposed betters, of which Biden is decidedly not. The World Economic Forum and the like doesn’t get to decide who governs the people. The people do.

In short, it is not Italy’s Meloni and her coalition that are a threat to free and fair governance. Rather, it is the global left that seeks to cram down its ideology at all costs, even if it means spitting on the choices of voters that go against their wishes.

The backlash that happened in Italy is just the beginning. The left has destroyed so much that so many people held dear, and while Biden lashes out at Meloni, he’s got the same problem at home as his own Democratic Party falters. In the end, outcomes matter, and no amount of squealing about “democracy” is going to keep convincing people to vote against their own interests, whether in Europe or in the United States.

The Perils of America’s Woke Military
The high – and destructive – cost of Marxism’s infusion into our Armed Forces.

Last week we shared the disturbing news that the Sergeant Major of the Army recommended our soldiers apply for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), aka food stamps, to keep up with the growing inflation. I find it unconscionable that we are sending billions of dollars to foreign nations, but our troops are being told to sign up for assistance to afford food.

But this is just a small example of what is happening for our military. The perilous infusion of cultural Marxism into our Armed Forces is far more dangerous.

Recently, the Department of Defense Chief of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Kelisa Wing, who self describes herself as a “woke administrator,” made some very disconcerting comments towards white Americans…or folx as she asserts. I have to ask, how much is this racist person being paid while our soldiers are being told to apply for food stamps? But even more troubling is that such a radical individual is allowed access to our military? How can we have an effective, cohesive fighting force when you have a radical Marxist disparaging one demographic of our military force? Cultural Marxism has no place in our Armed Forces and the last thing we need is an office of diversity, equity, and inclusion in our Department of Defense, a cover for enabling these radicals.

It was not too long ago that our military was being focused on combat readiness, capability, and capacity to fulfill its mission. Now, we have a Secretary of Defense, with whom I served at Ft. Bragg NC, who is issuing memorandums telling members of our military to get used to troops suffering from gender dysphoria entering shower and latrine facilities with them. Basically, female troops are being told that biological men will be naked, showering with them. Now, if you are an adult and want to play make believe, fine, go ahead, but this should not be happening in our military. As well, the American taxpayer should not be responsible for subsidizing hormonal therapies or surgical procedures for individuals affected by this mental condition…the previous diagnosis of the American Psychiatric Association.

Just this past week, the United States Air Force Academy announced new rules about promoting gender neutral language. Can you imagine that the USAFA now advises against saying such simple things as Mom and Dad? They are advising cadets to inquire about a person’s desired pronouns before making any declarations. A few months ago, the U.S. Navy issued a video about correct pronoun usage. Hmm, I can remember some very interesting names that Drill Sergeants would use, and they did not inquire about pronouns. Matter of fact, knucklehead is gender neutral, along with stuck on stupid. There seems to be a lot of that in our military and its senior leadership at this time.

But what has to be most worrisome for our military has been the illegal, immoral, unethical, and unconstitutional COVID shot mandate forced upon our servicemen and women. Earlier this month, seven cadets at the US Coast Guard Academy were expelled for refusing to take the jab; the same has occurred at the United States Military Academy, West Point. And we are all aware of the countless stories of men and women in uniform who are being persecuted for not taking this shot. There are troops who are being segregated into deplorable living conditions, treated like lepers. They are having their constitutional rights denied, such as religious exemptions. They share their stories with us at the American Constitutional Rights Union’s Committee to Support and Defend, America’s constitutional conservative Veterans organization.

What should cause us concern is that our troops are being treated in such a disgusting manner even as we now know that Dr. Deborah Birx admitted they knew the shot would not prevent being infected with the virus. SecDef Austin, Commander in Chief Biden, and Dr Fauci all contracted the virus after having the shot and boosters. Last week, Joe Biden stated that the pandemic is over, so why are we still punishing our troops and mandating this shot on some of the most physically fit in our country? When you study the objective facts and statistics you will see that the infamous shot has caused more harm than what is being reported. There are countless cases of cardiac issues such as myocarditis. One has to ask, will our troops be able to file lawsuits against those who forced this untested shot upon them? Yes, it was only under emergency use authorization, not full FDA approval.

Will there be legislation passed in the U.S. Congress that will allow our troops to seek legal recompense? Will military members who were discharged from the military be reinstated? Heck, if the GOP is successful in the midterm elections, will the Department of Defense office of diversity, equity, and inclusion be defunded? Will our military find senior leaders who will honor their oath to the Constitution, not to political ideology, certainly not to cultural Marxism?

America’s constitutional conservative veterans’ organization, the Committee to Support and Defend, is taking the lead on these issues. Our U.S. military is being led down the perilous road of “wokeness.” The last thing America needs is a politicized military and kommissars advocating an ideology that is anathema to our rule of law, our Constitution…of which our military members take an oath to support and defend.

Steadfast and Loyal.

 

BLUF
At this point, after multiple ignored corrections, it’s a stretch to pretend that the president’s misstatements are accidental; he obviously doesn’t care about their truth. What’s important to him and his supporters is achieving their policy goals, even if they have to lie to do so.

President Biden Lies About Guns. Again.
Amidst official hysteria over “misinformation,” the president continues to willfully misrepresent the facts on firearms.

Government lies aren’t new; political fibs have such deep roots in history that you could open a museum of official mendacity and have enough rotating exhibits to keep things fresh. But now, amidst much hysteria over “misinformation,” we see a resident of the White House misrepresent facts in pursuit of restrictions on legal ownership of firearms and ignore corrections. President Biden’s claim that bullets fired from AR-15’s are impossibly speedy is only the latest example of his continuing lies about guns.

“There’s no justification for a weapon of war. None. The speed of that bullet is five times that that comes out of the muzzle of most weapons. It can penetrate your vests,” President Biden huffed last week. “What in God’s name do you need an assault weapon for?” he added.

This wasn’t the first time the president insisted on the supposed superpowers of so-called “assault weapons” and especially of AR-15s, which are popular among gun owners.

“Do you realize the bullet out of an AR-15 travels five times as rapidly as a bullet shot out of any other gun, five times—is lighter—and can pierce Kevlar?” he insisted on August 30 while touting his administration’s “Safer America Plan,” which includes tighter firearms restrictions.

Really? Well, no.

“President Biden’s statement that a bullet shot from an AR-15 travels 5x faster than a bullet shot out of ‘any other gun’ is false,” Greg Wallace, a Campbell University law professor who focuses on Second Amendment issues, told The Washington Post early in September. As for bullets fired from AR-15s piercing Kevlar, “that is true of almost all centerfire rifle bullets. Body armor protection against rifle bullets require steel, ceramic, or composite plates.”

“Biden was clearly wrong in his statement this week,” the Post‘s Glenn Kessler concluded.

In fact, the 5.56x45mm round most commonly fired by an AR-15 (which can be chambered in multiple calibers) is faster than many rifle rounds with a muzzle velocity of roughly 3,100 feet per second, but slower than others (a few exceed 4,000 fps). And speed only partially measures the lethality and utility of a cartridge. Military types, hunters, and enthusiasts are forever debating the issue. So is Biden.

“A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body,” the president improbably claimed in May about the popular handgun cartridge, again while touting gun restrictions. Knowledgeable people had fun pointing out that Biden seemed to have confused the round with a cannon. But Biden lies about cannons, too.

“When the amendment was passed, it didn’t say anybody can own a gun and any kind of gun and any kind of weapon,” Biden insisted with regard to the Second Amendment in February. “You couldn’t buy a cannon in—when the—this—this amendment was passed.”

“As other fact-checkers noted when Biden made versions of this claim at least twice before, nothing in the Second Amendment said that citizens could not own cannons, and there is no evidence that any federal or state laws barred possession of the weapons at the time,” the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s FactCheck.org pointed out.

Biden had been called out on precisely that point the previous year, by The Washington Post, and in 2020 when PolitiFact rated his claims as “false.” So, the fibs appear deliberate, not just slips of the tongue. So are his misstatements about legal protections for the firearms industry.

Continue reading “”

Thumbnail

Who’s our real president? Joe Biden — or the staffers who keep walking back his comments?

Is Joe Biden President? That’s the question to ask after staffers walked back Biden’s latest remarks on Taiwan.

During his rather uneven “60 Minutes” interview with Scott Pelley last weekend, Biden firmly and clearly announced that the United States would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion.

This was a dramatic statement, and a substantial shift from America’s traditional policy of “strategic ambiguity” on Taiwan, in which our response to Chinese saber-rattling over the island nation was essentially “fool around and find out.” Biden was not at all ambiguous: If China went to war with Taiwan, it would be war with the United States and its allies.

That departure made some sense. Back in February, Biden seemed to grant Vladimir Putin a green light to invade Ukraine. White House spokesmen quickly walked that back, but the green light, coming directly from Biden’s lips, apparently convinced Putin that he could launch an invasion without blowback.

That turned out to be wrong, of course, and now the United States is involved in a proxy war with Russia, while sanctions and export disruptions cause the world’s food and fuel markets to go crazy and have Europe looking at a long, cold winter of gas shortages and electrical blackouts. So firmness, this time.

But Biden’s firmness was short-lived. Within hours, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and other spokesmen were loudly proclaiming US policy had not, in fact, changed at all.

Gordon Chang writes: “This is the fourth time that Joe Biden as president, has publicly stated the U.S. will defend Taiwan. He made that pledge last August to ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos. The President repeated his words to CNN’s Anderson Cooper last October.

“Biden also said the same thing to a reporter in Tokyo in May. White House and administration officials, both anonymously and on the record, have contradicted the President all four times.”

In the Curtiss-Wright Export case, the Supreme Court declared the president the “sole organ” of the nation in foreign affairs, noting the importance of speaking with one voice when dealing with other nations. The formulation, and authoritative expression, of US foreign policy is supposed to come from the president.

Yet over and over again, Biden has been undercut by subordinates who basically said, “Pay no attention to the old man in the Oval Office.”

This won’t do. Either Biden is president, or he is not. If he’s president, then policy should come from him, and it’s the job of subordinates to make that policy work. If they’re doing otherwise, they’re engaged in a sort of coup against the duly elected commander in chief. That presents a serious problem.

If Biden is, instead, a dotard whose pronouncements on foreign affairs should be ignored in favor of the presumably more measured statements of unelected White House apparatchiks, then the office of president is effectively vacant. And that presents serious problems of its own.

A president incapable of serving should resign. There seems no chance Biden will do that. Failing that, he can be removed using the 25th Amendment. Though there was a lot of talk about that amendment under the previous administration, we’re not hearing much about it now.

Removal under the 25th Amendment is difficult and requires most of the Cabinet to go along. Worse, in our situation, it would mean replacing Biden with Vice President Kamala Harris, in whom most people have no more confidence. Harris’ political career was short, and her stint as vice president so far has been unimpressive. Her speeches are, if anything, even less intelligible than Biden’s.

(And next in line of succession is Nancy Pelosi, who, to put it mildly, isn’t a comforting prospect as chief executive.)

So at a time of crisis, our nation is effectively leaderless. Nor is this an accident. The 2020 election was, if not rigged, at least heavily tilted in favor of Biden. Media and Big Tech companies blacked out criticism and allowed Joe to campaign from his basement, where he faced no tough questions. Harris also got a pass, because of her historic status.

Shortly after the election, Time magazine bragged about how a “cabal” of business and media and government folks “saved” the election by ensuring that Biden took office.

Now America has to live with the consequences. Thanks, cabal.

‘Fact’ Checker Glenn Kessler Claims Fetal Heartbeat Is a ‘Misnomer,’ Instantly Regrets Getting Out of Bed Today

Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post’s intrepid “fact” checker, must have been salivating over his plan to “own the cons” when he retweeted Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams’ claim that “there’s no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks.” Abrams (D-Tinfoil Hat) claimed that a fetal heartbeat is just a Grand Plot by men to “take control of a woman’s body.”

Kessler weighed in with, “FWIW, ‘fetal heartbeat’ is a misnomer. The ultrasound picks up electrical activity generated by an embryo.”

“The so-called ‘heartbeat’ sound you hear is created by the ultrasound,” he added. “Not until 10 weeks can the opening and closing of cardiac valves be detected by a Doppler machine.”

Apparently, a memo went out on the Left this week with the new pro-abortion talking point to justify the murder of unborn children. Dr. Stacey Abrams, M.D., and Kessler wasted no time running to Twitter to shout the New Abortion Narrative.

Radiologist Pradheep J. Shanker quickly pointed out that Kessler has no idea what he is talking about:

Continue reading “”

It’s bizarre when a senile President actually seems to believe his own BS.
And I know a perfect rationale for owning ARs & AKs. The founders were very concerned about what our goobermint might turn into – SloJoe and his puppetmasters being a prime current example – and made the best provisions they could against such within the Constitution & Bill of Rights.

Joe Biden: Continued Sale of ‘Semiautomatic Weapons Is Bizarre’

During the September 18 airing of CBS News’s 60 Minutes, President Joe Biden described the continued sale of semiautomatic weapons as “bizarre.”

Scott Pelley conducted a wide-ranging interview with Biden, but when it turned to guns and gun policy, Biden pledged once again to ban “assault weapons.”

Biden suggested that “there is no rationale” for owning firearms like AR-15s, AK-47s, etc.

He talked of visiting Uvalde, Texas, after the May 24, 2022, school shooting, saying he not only visited there but “every one of those places.”

Biden observed, “The NRA continuing to push the sale of assault and semiautomatic weapons is bizarre.”

On August 26, 2022, Breitbart News noted that Biden renewed his pledge to ban “assault weapons” if Democrats manage to hang onto Congress after the November midterm elections.

The Washington Post quoted Biden saying, “I want to be crystal clear about what’s on the ballot this year … Your right to choose is on the ballot this year. The Social Security you paid for from the time you had a job is on the ballot. The safety of our kids from gun violence is on the ballot.”

He later added, “If we elect two more senators, we keep the House … we’re going to get a lot of unfinished business done.”

Biden stressed that banning “assault weapons” is part of the Democrats’ unfinished business.

 

The Pandemic Is NOT Over, Says the White House
If Biden doesn’t represent the Biden administration, who does?

By now, the pattern is familiar: President Biden says something stupid and/or insane and/or contradictory to his administration’s stated policies, and his beleaguered staffers need to run around denying that he meant what he very clearly said. This might be the first time they’ve had to do so twice in one day, though.

First they had to walk back Grandpa Joe’s comments on Taiwan. And now, inevitably:

Twitter avatar for @betsy_kleinBetsy Klein @betsy_klein

President Biden told CBS the “pandemic is over,” but those comments do not constitute a change in the administration’s Covid-19 response policy, an official tells CNN White House says Covid-19 policy unchanged despite Biden’s comments that the ‘pandemic is over’ | CNN PoliticsThe Biden administration is largely downplaying President Joe Biden’s comments declaring the coronavirus pandemic “over,” suggesting his remarks signal a continuation of the White House’s evolving stance toward the pandemic over the past few months.cnn.com

September 19th 2022

Did you get that? The president of the United States doesn’t speak for the White House. Biden is not in charge of the Biden administration.

So… who is?

Who’s running the show? It sure isn’t Kamala. And Jill — excuse me, Doctor Jill — is just barely more lucid than her husband. Who’s the boss of that house? Ron Klain? Susan Rice? Ex-PFC Wintergreen? What the hell is going on?

Joe Biden Delivers a Mess of a 60 Minutes Interview, Leaves His Handlers Scrambling

Joe Biden appeared on 60 Minutes on Sunday evening, and it was an absolute disaster of an interview. As I type this, stories are already coming out about how he blindsided officials in his administration and how his handlers are scrambling to clean up the mess.

In fact, within an hour of the interview premiering, the first clarification had already dropped regarding comments the president made about defending Taiwan from a Chinese attack. That was the second time in the last few months that the administration has had to walk back Biden’s comments on the subject.

Things didn’t get better as the topics changed. When asked about inflation, Biden gave perhaps the worst answer imaginable.

When it comes to bad economic news, there are two ways to handle it as a president. The right way is to admit the truth and then lay out a quantifiable plan for how to improve things. Americans are very forgiving of politicians who speak plainly to them. On the other hand, the wrong way is to simply pretend like everything is actually great and that anyone who doesn’t think so is an idiot. Guess which strategy Biden has chosen?

The dismissive snark about an 8.3 inflation rate that is crushing the poor and middle-class is just astonishing to witness. His skin is so thin you can see straight through it, and while I know Biden doesn’t have to live with any of the consequences of his policies, you’d think he could at least fake it a little. Besides, his excuse doesn’t even make sense. Who cares if the rate only went up “an inch” if the overall rate is still sky-high? Core inflation continues to rise, mainly driven by food and housing (including rent) prices.

Continue reading “”

How Hochul’s gun laws will make churches less safe

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has been on an anti-gun tirade pretty much since she took office. Any hopes she’d be a smidge better than her predecessor on the Second Amendment have been well and truly dashed. The only thing she may be better on is not sexually harassing her female subordinates.

Following New York’s epic smackdown by the Supreme Court, Hochul and the legislature rushed through a measure seeking to try and adhere to the letter of the Bruen decision only as much as they felt they had to.

Yet that law includes a prohibition of guns at any place of worship.

As noted at our sister site PJ Media, that’s going to make those places of worship a lot less safe.

For your consideration:

  • On June 17, 2015, a man walked into the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., where a prayer meeting was being held. He shot and killed nine people, including the pastor, State Senator Clementa Pinckney. The shooter was charged with a hate crime.
  • November 5, 2017 — a man entered the Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church in Texas. He was dressed in black and wearing tactical gear. By the time he finished shooting, 26 were dead and 20 were wounded.
  • On a Sunday morning in December 2019, a man walked through the door of the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, and opened fire during services. Two victims died in the attack. The gunman was killed by two parishioners, one of whom was the security guard.
  • October 27, 2018 — a man came into the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. After shouting “All Jews must die!” he shot and killed 11 people. Six others were wounded. He was known for posting anti-Semitic rants on Gab.
  • One person was killed and three were injured when a man entered Chabad of Poway in California and opened fire with a semiautomatic rifle in April 2019.
  • In January of this year, a man held four people, including the rabbi, hostage at Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas, for 10 hours before being killed by police. The suspect said that he had hidden bombs in undisclosed locations.
  • In May 2022, the New York Post reported a rise in anti-Semitic activity in the city. This included vandalization of synagogues and attacks on individual people.

It should be noted that if you want to go further back, you can find still more places of worship being targeted.

What’s more, many churches and synagogues can’t afford to hire professional armed security, yet there’s no provision in state law for volunteers to step in if the church so desires.

Look, one area where I tend to infuriate my fellow Second Amendment supporters is that I think a property owner has the right to ban guns on their property. I’m fine with laws that give signs the force of law, even. I want to know where I’m not welcome, after all.

But the flip side of that is that I cannot tolerate laws that tell property owners that they can’t make that determination for themselves. That’s precisely what Hochul’s law does since the churches and synagogues are, in fact, property owners in most cases.

Looking at this list, it’s easy to see that places of worship get targeted by maniacs looking to kill as many people as possible.

Hochul and folks like her probably think this law will stop that, but it won’t. I mean, if a law would stop such a thing, then wouldn’t the laws against murder do the trick on their own?

They don’t, though.

Instead, these places of worship cannot allow their congregations to be lawfully armed as a defensive measure. That means these very places become better targets for the deranged.

And when it happens in New York, remember that it was Hochul and her buddies who made that target so attractive.