Category: Crap For Brains

No, the 13th Amendment isn’t a “new path” for gun control advocates

Gun control supporters really aren’t doing a good job of coping with the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Not only have we seen a number of blue states defiantly respond to the Court by adopting new laws that will almost certainly be declared unconstitutional, they’re struggling mightily to come up with legal arguments that might convince the Court to uphold some of their most treasured restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

One of the more interesting (though not convincing) arguments I’ve seen made since Bruen was handed down came from attorney Kirk Jenkins, who believes that the Thirteenth Amendment is a useful vehicle for gun control activists going forward… because, in his view, the only reason the Second Amendment came into existence was to promote the continuation of chattel slavery.

Properly interpreted as constitutionalizing the slave-holding South’s ability to arm its slave patrols brings the Second Amendment squarely into conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court has held that the Thirteenth Amendment extends beyond merely abolishing slavery and involuntary servitude to giving Congress power to sweep away its badges and incidents as well: power that Congress used in enacting the Civil Rights Act.

But is Congress empowered to decide what the badges and incidents of slavery are, or is that task assigned exclusively to the courts? The answer is yes: subject only to a test of rationality, Congress has the power to define the badges or incidents of slavery and enact legislation to address those practices.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull was clear: “the second section declares that Congress shall have authority by appropriate legislation to carry this provision into effect. What that ‘appropriate legislation’ is, is for Congress to determine, and nobody else.” Rep. Burton Cook agreed during the debate over the Civil Rights Act, saying that Section Two “meant … that Congress should be the judge of what is necessary for the purpose of securing to [the former slaves] those rights.”

Although for the first century following ratification the Supreme Court held that certain discriminatory practices could not rationally be found to be badges and incidents, the court has never questioned that Congress has the power to determine what the badges and incidents of slavery are.

It’s a creative approach, but it falls apart upon the slightest application of historical scrutiny. First, there was plenty of support for the individual right to keep and bear arms in northern states, despite the relative scarcity of slavery within their borders. In Federalist 46, Virginian James Madison made an explicit argument in favor of ratifying the Constitution by pointing out that the people, with their right to bear arms, would serve as a check on federal tyranny, not a slave uprising. Federalist 46 predates the ratification of the Constitution, much less the Bill of Rights, and clearly spoke of a non-racist motivation behind ensuring that right of the people to keep and bear arms would not be infringed if the Constitution was adopted as a replacement to the Articles of Confederation.

Shortly after the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by Congress and the states as well, and during the congressional debates over the protections afforded to newly-freed slaves, it’s clear that Congress intended to protect their right to keep and bear arms in self-defense.

Deprivations of freed slaves’ Second Amendment rights featured in debates over bills leading to enactment of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Rep. Thomas Eliot, sponsor of the former, explained that the bill would render void laws like that of Opelousas, Louisiana, providing that no freedman “shall be allowed to carry fire-arms” without permission of his employer and approval by the board of police. He noted that in Kentucky “[t]he civil law prohibits the colored man from bearing arms . . . .”

Accordingly, the Freedmen’s Bureau bill guaranteed the right of freedmen and all other persons “to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right to bear arms.”

Senator Garrett Davis said that the Founding Fathers “were for every man bearing his arms about him and keeping them in his house, his castle, for his own defense.”

Many of those members of Congress who voted to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment were around for the debate and ultimate vote to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment as well, and if they viewed the Second Amendment as a stain on the soul of the nation that needed to be repealed in the name of abolishing badges of slavery they could have.

They did not. Instead, they chose to ensure that all law-abiding Americans, including freed slaves, possessed the right to use arms in defense of themselves, their families, and their communities. Today, black women are the fastest growing demographic of new gun owners; a badge of freedom and the individual right of self-defense, not slavery or subjection to violent actors.

That’s reason enough for the courts to reject Jenkins’ approach, but his biggest problem is going to be convincing the Supreme Court that it got it wrong in Heller, McDonald, and now Bruen.

Heller was wrongly decided. The Second Amendment would never have been ratified if the slave state ratifiers had been told that it protected an individual right of all persons, including free African Americans, to stockpile and carry concealed weapons in public. Properly understood as guaranteeing Southern states their “right” to organize and arm slave patrols, the Second Amendment was a fundamental pillar of the slave system—every bit as essential as the infamous slave codes and Reconstruction-era Black Codes. As such, the Second Amendment is an incident of slavery that the Thirteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to regulate.

The problem with Jenkins’ argument is that it places more importance on an assumption of what the Founders would have done rather than the reality of what they did do. You could also make the argument that the First Amendment never would have been ratified is slave state ratifiers had been told that it would one day protect the sending of abolitionist pamphlets through the mails to southern states, or that it would one day protect an individual right of all people, including free African Americans, to advocate for the freedom of those who continued to be held in bondage.

But the First and Second Amendments weren’t rejected by the Founders. They were added in to the Constitution because, in the words of the Bill of Rights’ preamble, “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.”

Jenkins’s entire argument is a misconstruction and abuse of the Constitution’s powers, but that’s pretty much the only legal argument the gun control lobby has left; the Supreme Court got it wrong, and everything it’s said to date about the right to keep and bear arms should be disregarded. That might make them feel better about themselves, but it’s not going to carry the day at the Supreme Court.

Tags: GUN CONTROL GUNS SECOND AMENDMENT VIDEO GUN OWNERS FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

From all the breaks, up to that point, it’s clearly apparent he’s having problems just keeping on teleprompter. My most probable guess is, he finally ran out of steam from all the takes, and had to get another shot of whatever cocktail of stimulants he gets loaded up with so he could finish. And with all those edits, there’s no telling how long it takes to get him back on his feet if they could at all, for each take they then splice together.

Democrats shocked… Shocked! To learn that gun companies charge money for firearms

Today the House Committee on Oversight and Reform held the first in a series of hearings designed to support efforts to enact new gun control laws. Invited to testify at the hearing were the CEOs of a number of prominent firearms manufacturing companies, including Daniel Defense, Smith & Wesson, Sig Sauer and others.

If you find yourself wondering what these CEOs have to do with this ongoing process, you’re not alone, but most of them agreed to show up. Ahead of the hearing, the committee released a lengthy statement penned by Democratic Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney. In it, she indicated that they would be releasing their findings from an “investigation” into the sales reports of the various companies as if it was really all that difficult to find their sales records.

Maloney announced what she clearly seemed to think was a shocking statistic. The combined companies racked up more than one billion dollars in sales of certain styles of semiautomatic long rifles that Democrats refer to as “assault weapons.” Oh, and they advertise their products. You’re shocked, I know. Here are a couple of excerpts from Maloney’s letter.

“How much are the lives of America’s children, teachers, parents, and families worth to gun manufacturers? My Committee’s investigation has revealed that the country’s major gun manufacturers have collected more than $1 billion in revenue from selling military-style assault weapons to civilians.

These companies are selling the weapon of choice for mass murderers who terrorize young children at school, hunt down worshippers at churches and synagogues, and slaughter families on the Fourth of July. In short, the gun industry is profiting off the blood of innocent Americans.

“My Committee has found that the business practices of these gun manufacturers are deeply disturbing, exploitative, and reckless. These companies use aggressive marketing tactics to target young people—especially young men—and some even evoke symbols of white supremacy. Yet we found that none of these companies bothers to keep track of the death and destruction caused by their products.

Maloney is obviously just trying to gin up anger against the firearms industry in hopes of forcing a vote on more gun control legislation. But let’s take a moment and look at the three major complaints she raises in the letter. One can only hope that she doesn’t come across this article and read it because I would hate to see her become even more traumatized than she clearly already is.

First, she notes that the various firearms companies have “collected” more than one billion dollars selling these rifles. (I love the use of the word “collected” to create some sort of sinister connotation.) To her credit, Maloney is absolutely correct. These companies do charge money for their products. The reason they “collect” so much for these various “Bushmaster” style rifles is that they are some of the most popular models in the country. But while the mass shootings draw a lot of media attention, it’s also worthwhile to point out to the congresswoman that the FBI has told us year after year after year that long rifles of any type are the least common type of firearms used in the commission of crimes, including murder. More people are killed on average every year by murderers using blunt objects, knives, or even their bare hands. Moving on.

She complains about the advertising themes that the firearms manufacturers employ when trying to boost sales. Again, she is correct. These companies produce advertisements to attract customers. In not one single ad we’ve ever seen have any of them suggested that these products should be used to kill human beings, though it’s clear that such a thing might happen if you are forced to defend yourself and/or your family from a home intruder. They are most commonly used for hunting or target shooting. This is another nonsensical “accusation.”

Her final complaint is that none of the gun companies are “bothering” to keep track of the number of people killed by people using these products. Really? How shocking. You’re telling us that civilian manufacturers of firearms are not in the business of collecting crime data from law enforcement agencies? Of course, if they did “bother” to do that, assuming they could legally extract the information from law enforcement agencies all around the country, they would discover that the number is minuscule compared to deaths caused by handguns, knives, and baseball bats, as I mentioned above. Perhaps they should start including that data in their advertising.

It’s kind of admirable that these CEOs were willing to travel to Washington and sit through all of this nonsense with a straight face. The Democrats in Congress are once again putting on yet another circus to try to distract the country from the disastrous state of the country at the moment and the failures of their own policies. But it’s a midterm election year so we probably should have expected this.

Joe’s eyes don’t move or blink in this whole clip and it has to be a deepfake but it’s his official account. Please help me understand.

Those eyes

Are they taping them open?? Is it the Botox??

Is the dude amped up on Adderall???

Also, is he trying to turn cops against Americans for disagreeing with unconstitutional Democrat power grabs and calling it insurrection?

I don’t know… I can’t think about anything other than those eyes.

House Democrats’ ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Prohibits Semiautomatic Pistols Too

The “assault weapons” ban legislation that passed the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday not only prohibits AR-15s and AK-47s, but numerous semiautomatic pistols and shotguns as well.

The legislation, H.R. 1808, is sponsored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI).

On July 15, 2022, Breitbart News warned that H.R. 1808 bans the manufacture and sale of at least 45 specific AR-15 rifles , including, “Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Chiappa Firearms MFour rifles, Colt Match Target rifles, CORE Rifle Systems CORE15 rifles, Daniel Defense M4A1 rifles, Devil Dog Arms 15 Series rifles,” as well as the Diamondback DB15 rifles.

Moreover, it bans the manufacture and sale of all AR-pistols, and thirteen are specifically listed: “American Spirit AR–15 pistol, Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol, Chiappa Firearms M4 Pistol GEN II, CORE Rifle Systems CORE15 Roscoe pistol, Daniel Defense MK18 pistol, DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol, DPMS AR–15 pistol, Jesse James Nomad AR–15 pistol, Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol, Osprey Armament MK–18 pistol, POF USA AR pistols, Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol,” and the “Uselton Arms Air-Lite M–4 pistol.”

But the language of H.R. 1808 also makes clear the legislation bans numerous semiautomatic pistols as well.

The ban applies to semiautomatic pistols with detachable magazines and threaded barrels. Because of the popularity of suppressors for hearing protection, nearly every semiautomatic pistol manufacturer makes pistol models with threaded barrels. This means an untold number of semiautomatic pistols would be banned by H.R. 1808.

Also, any semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds would be banned, as would any semiautomatic shotgun with a fixed magazine holding more than five rounds.

H.R. 1808 also bans semiautomatic shotguns that accept detachable magazines and have a pistol grip.

‘Active Shooter Alert’ Bill, Designed to Scare, Draws in GOP Traitors and Suckers

“H.R. 6538, the Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022, is not a public safety tool, but rather an anti-gun propaganda program intended to further public hysteria by hyper-inflating the authentic number of ‘active shooter’ incidents to expand support for unconstitutional gun control measures,” Gun Owners of America advised members in a mid-July alert. “Under the Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022, justified self-defense shootings, gang violence, drug violence, or accidental shootings will be used to send alerts to the American people about the presence of an ‘active shooter’ to intentionally misguide the public and create mass hysteria.”

I imagine an uninterrupted night’s sleep would be damn near impossible on an average weekend in Chicago.

You’ll note whenever GOA uses the term on its own (as opposed to citing what the bill is named) they put the words “active shooter” in quotation marks. There’s a reason why that’s appropriate, and something gun owners should emulate. Per Firearms Coalition Managing Director and “proud active shooter” Jeff Knox:

“It is inaccurate because it does not include any direct suggestion of criminality, using ‘shooter’ to infer that, and it is insulting because by doing this, it implies that shooting is a criminal activity.”

Rep. Thomas Massie describes the bill more bluntly.

“House Democrats are trying to condition Americans to repeal the Second Amendment,” he warns, and he’s not using hyperbole. Any longtime gun owner who doesn’t recognize by now that yes, the prohibitionists really do want to take your guns, is either an oblivious fool or in the enemy camp. (There are also citizens new to owning guns who have never given the matter much thought to see how they’ve been lied to, who are ripe for manipulation and the subjects of another analysis.)

Two points:

Repealing the Second Amendment would not invalidate the right to keep and bear arms, which the Supreme Court has recognized, first in Cruikshank and later cited in Heller:

“The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”

Massie knows that. He also knows the Democrats want us to believe rights come from them, using the term “bill of rights” to propose government-mandated privileges that are generally dependent on dragooning (that is, enslaving) others to provide the “granted” services. (See “FDR’s ‘Second Bill of Rights’ and UN Declaration Show How ‘Progressives’ View You.”)

The second point is addressed directly to Donald Trump in the (admittedly improbable) hope that someone who knows him will call it to his attention: Don’t you think it’s past time you to publicly apologize to Rep. Massie and admit that he was right for putting the Constitution over GOP Democrat Lite politics?

As for the “Active Shooter” Alert bill, it passed in the House of Representatives with 43 “Republicans” either knowingly signing on with or being suckered in by a confirmed enemy of the Second Amendment, bill sponsor David Cicilline (D-RI). He’s the professional worm tongue who out of one corner of his mouth professes, “We all respect the Second Amendment but…” and out of the other corner snarls, “Spare me the bulls*** about Constitutional rights.”

Continue reading “”

To have a volunteer force requires…..volunteers. When you have policies that insult and denigrate the largest group of people that volunteer, well…..
If a foreign government forced this on our military, it would righteously be called an act of war.

US Army Abandons Recruitment Goals, But Not Its Woke Policies

The Army cut its force size projections for 2022 and 2023 Tuesday in the midst of a historic recruitment struggle, raising questions about overall readiness as it clings to its “woke” agenda.

The Army could miss its recruitment goal for 2022 by 25%, Army Gen. Joseph Martin, vice chief of staff for the Army, told The Associated Press. Projected end strength, the total size of the Army including active and reserve components, is set to decrease by 10,000 troops this year and an additional 14,000 to 21,000 in 2023.

“Do we lower standards to meet end strength, or do we lower end strength to maintain a quality, professional force? We believe the answer is obvious—quality is more important than quantity,” Lt. Col. Randee Farrell, spokeswoman for Army Secretary Christine Wormuth, told the AP.

Investigations into extremism in the ranks, diversity quotas, rigid vaccination mandates and other “woke” policies have undermined military recruitment by alienating families, the military’s largest recruiting market, according to Center for Military Readiness founder Elaine Donnelly. The Pentagon’s insistence on social justice over meritocracy, lowering of standards and “anti-recruiting messages” pushes away potential recruits, Donnelly told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Secretary Wormuth is ignoring the ‘check engine’ light on her dashboard. She keeps driving on, failing to notice how the administration’s policies are making the recruiting crisis worse,” said Donnelly.

The Army has achieved only 50% of its overall recruitment goal of 60,000 soldiers for fiscal year 2022 that ends in October, according to the AP.

The Army attained 17,800 new recruits to active duty service out of a 2002 goal of 26,000 as of April, according to data from the Department of Defense. The recruitment objective fell 20% from 2021, when by April the Army had brought on 28,000 active duty recruits, well on its way to the yearly goal of 32,000.

For comparison, by April 2017, the Army had achieved nearly 100% of its active duty recruiting goal.

Addressing ways to improve Army recruitment, Martin focused on improving climate within the service, including on issues like extremism.

“To compete for talent, the Army must provide a workplace environment free of harmful behaviors, to include sexual assault, sexual harassment, racism, extremism, and the risk factors which lead to death by suicide,” he said at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.

Despite force size drawdowns and plans to increase personnel spending, service leaders have argued that Congress is underfunding military readiness accounts that deal with maintenance and operations, according to House Readiness Subcommittee Chairman Republican Rep. John Garamendi of California, who spoke at the hearing Tuesday.

“On the spending issues, Congress should start asking very specific questions about the costs of LGBT mandates, experimental training like the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) fiasco, replacements for personnel discharged due to COVID issues, etc.,” Donnelly told the DCNF. “Woke attitudes and mandates are not free.”

The Department of Defense did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment. The Army declined to comment.

 

A Pandemic of the Vaccinated: President Biden tests positive for COVID-19

President Biden has tested positive for COVID-19, despite being fully vaccinated and double boosted. Or perhaps it was because he’s vaccinated and boosted.

In July of 2021 he said this was impossible, lying to the American public about the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines.

https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1550141637959057409

That guarantee from Biden was significant. After that statement, there was a multi-pronged effort to scapegoat the continuation of the “pandemic” on the unvaccinated. Dr. Fauci blamed the unvaccinated for “propagating” the latest outbreak, saying we need to “do something to get them to be vaccinated.”

That term do something suggested action. State governments and cities began issuing their own vaccination requirements. New York City led the way, requiring “proof of at least one dose of a coronavirus vaccine for a variety of activities for workers and customers — indoor dining, gyms and performances — to put pressure on people to get vaccinated.”

The media called for more extreme measures, demanding Biden institute a “no-fly list for unvaccinated adults.” They called for mandates. They begged for the federal government to raise “the costs of remaining unvaccinated.” Thankfully, they didn’t get much of what they asked for. COVID-19 cases are rising in many of the most vaccinated states, including California. The mandates and the vaccines haven’t stopped the spread.

As to Biden’s current COVID-19 diagnosis?

At least it isn’t cancer. The remarkable thing about Biden’s purported cancer “gaffe” – apart from (incorrectly?) saying he has cancer – is that he didn’t notice he said he has cancer. A normal mind might correct itself after making such a seismic error. Biden didn’t comprehend the significance of his statement. He just continued mumbling along, reading words off a screen as fast as he could before getting out of that riverfront hellscape.

Anyways, who gave President Biden COVID-19? You better believe the person had their shots and was boosted.

It’s a pandemic of the vaccinated.

 

Garen J. Wintemute. That name rang a bell.

Garen Wintemute’s Conclusions Aren’t Supported By His Own Data…But He Won’t Let That Stop Him
UC Davis’s Dr. Garen Wintemute runs something called the Violence Prevention Research Center. Translation: he’s a hoplophobic grifter with a university sinecure who sucks up millions of dollars to keep his anti-gun rights operation going thanks to the largesse of like-minded individuals, foundations and, of course, California tax payers.

BLUF
Additional authors of the study include Colette Smirniotis, Christopher McCort and Garen J. Wintemute from the VPRO and the California Firearm Violence Research Center.

Machine learning identifies gun purchasers at risk of suicide

A first-of-its-kind study from the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis shows an algorithm can forecast the likelihood of firearm suicide using handgun purchasing data.

A new study from the Violence Prevention Research Program (VPRP) at UC Davis suggests machine learning, a type of artificial intelligence, may help identify handgun purchasers who are at high risk of suicide. It also identified individual and community characteristics that are predictive of firearm suicide. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

Previous research has shown the risk of suicide is particularly high immediately after purchase, suggesting that acquisition itself is an indicator of elevated suicide risk.

Risk factors identified by the algorithm to be predictive of firearm suicide included:

older age
first-time firearm purchaser
white race
living in close proximity to the gun dealer
purchasing a revolver

Continue reading “”

It’s like they are mad that more people didn’t get murdered. Well, of course they are. They don’t care about people. They care about banning guns and once again, their narrative that people can’t really defend themselves literally got shot down.

Why We Can’t Have Nice Things: ‘Good Samaritan’ Who Saved Indiana Mall Goers Is Denounced as No Hero

What makes someone a hero? How about a Good Samaritan? Evidently, such questions are contentious.

And a Sunday incident has some insisting a brave bystander shouldn’t be celebrated.

At the Greenwood Park Mall in the Indianapolis Metropolitan Area, a man opened fire. As reported by Deseret News, 20-year-old Johnathan Sapirman got off 24 rifle rounds.

Tragically, three were murdered: Victor Gomez, 30; and couple Rosa Rivera de Pineda, 37, and Pedro Pineda, 56. Two more were injured: a 20-year-old female shot in the leg; and a 12-year minorly wounded by a deflected bullet.

After entering the mall, Sapirman headed straight to the bathroom and was there for over an hour before exiting the bathroom and opening fire.

“The most puzzling piece…was the amount of time that he was in the bathroom,” [Chief James Ison] said. “We believe he was getting ready.”

But the man’s plans were thwarted because more than bad guys carry guns. Elisjsha Dicken, 22, stopped the mass shooter’s spree.

Footage…showed that Dicken shot 10 rounds from his handgun, while motioning for citizens at the mall to exit behind him.

Chief James has praised Elisjsha’s intervention:

“Many more people would have died last night if a responsible, armed citizen hadn’t been present…”

On Sunday evening, the chief compared Elisjsha to a biblical character. He did so again Monday:

“The shooter was confronted by our Good Samaritan. … The Good Samaritan was armed with a pistol and engaged the shooter as he stood outside the restroom area firing into the food court. [Elisjsha] fired several rounds, striking the suspect. The suspect attempted to retreat back into the restroom [but] fell to the ground after being shot.”

Does that sound like a hero to you? It doesn’t to a Bloomington traffic anchor. Murrow Award-winning journalist Justin Kollar was flabbergasted by the chief’s framing. He expressed his dismay in a tweet:

“The term ‘Good Samaritan’ came from a Bible passage of a man from Samaria who stopped on the side of the road to help a man… I cannot believe we live in a world where the term can equally apply to someone *killing* someone… my God.”

 

And he was none too impressed with Elisjsha packing heat.

“It’s against the @simonmalls code of conduct for anyone to carry a weapon inside the mall. However, Greenwood Police are thankful the…man was.”

Some online were in agreement. One user offered, “What you have is two gunmen — one of whom obeyed the law for a little longer than the mass shooter.”

More remarks:

  • “[A]sk yourself if you really want your mall experience to be like the wild…west.”
  • “Why did he bring a gun shopping, in a specified gun-free zone? Hmm, not so good by definition. What if he was there to shoot people?”
  • “I am horrified to see that term used in this context.”

So goes America’s divide over guns. For many advocates, if a firearm is used to do evil, it’s apparently the fault of the weapon. But if a gun is used to stop the act, that implement earns no points. Nor does the person who rightfully employed it.

Continue reading “”

“…targeted the very Americans who traditionally enlist.”?
Hmm, maybe that’s not a bug, but a feature

NO ONE WANTS TO JOIN THE MILITARY ANYMORE
Our elites’ culture war has targeted the very Americans who traditionally enlist

Imagine you are an eighteen-year-old, white, Christian male in Georgia with a family history of military service. As you progressed through your teen years, you watched Confederate statues being torn down and military bases being renamed, endless media and elitist demonization of your culture as racist and deplorable and backwards, and military and civilian leadership that thinks diversity and inclusion (i.e. fewer white men) is best thing since sliced bread. Would you volunteer? Identity politics works both ways. Trash my tribe and I won’t associate with you, let alone risk my life. It shouldn’t be a shock, then, that those expressing a “great deal of trust and confidence in the military” dropped from 70 percent in 2018 to 45 percent today.

The long-term health of the all-volunteer force that began in 1973 now appears to be in serious jeopardy. The general public’s declining connection and trust in the nation and its institutions paired with the elites’ incessant culture war targeting the very Americans who traditionally served in the highest numbers spells trouble.

Last week marked the 246th birthday of the United States. This year also marks, according to Lieutenant General Thomas Spoehr of the Heritage Foundation, when we “question the sustainability of the all-volunteer force.” As reported in late June by NBC, all branches of the military are falling short of their 2022 recruiting goals.

The Army, for instance, has met only 40 percent of its enlisted recruitment target for the fiscal year, which for the military services ends on September 30. Those in the Pentagon tasked with attracting candidates have listed reasons they are struggling to meet their mission: lack of eligibility, Covid restrictions putting a damper on outreach, competition from a robust civilian employment market, and a lack of a desire to serve.

Despite unprecedented bonuses of up to $50,000 for enlistment and retention, the writing is on the wall. The youth aren’t lining up for Uncle Sam like they used to. And while all the above-mentioned reasons carry some weight, it’s the issue of desire that ought to be most alarming to the services. This crisis runs much deeper than a paycheck.

and unto this

“few details” That’s because it’s BS, which I think he actually believes

Biden Vows Executive Orders on Climate, Health Care Amid Legislative Stall

President Joe Biden on Friday stated he would pursue executive action on climate change and health care unless Congress sent legislation to his desk consistent with his agenda.

“So let me be clear: if the Senate will not move to tackle the climate crisis and strengthen our domestic clean energy industry, I will take strong executive action to meet this moment,” he said in a Friday statement. “My actions will create jobs, improve our energy security, bolster domestic manufacturing and supply chains, protect us from oil and gas price hikes in the future, and address climate change.”

Biden gave few details as to potential actions but encouraged the Senate to “move forward” with legislative efforts on these issues.

While the Democratic Party currently maintains a majority in the House and has passed a plethora of legislation on climate and health care issues, the evenly divided Senate has largely shut down such measures. Though Vice President Kamala Harris may act as a tie-breaking vote, Democrats must overcome the filibuster’s 60-vote threshold to send legislation to Biden’s desk.

Biden’s domestic agenda has largely stalled in Congress, with Republicans and Democrats alike delivering blows to critical legislation. West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin on Thursday declined to support a Democrat-led economic package due to concerns about the climate and tax provisions in the legislation and record inflation.

Alongside Democratic Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, Manchin has also resisted his party’s efforts to abolish or circumvent the Senate filibuster to push pivotal legislation over Republican objections, including on major issues such as abortion rights.

Legislative success has bot been entirely elusive for Biden, however, as his party successfully wooed 15 Republicans in late June to pass the Bipartisan Safe Communities Act, a modest gun control bill expanding background checks and funding mass shooting prevention programs following a string of such incidents.

What’s ‘troubling’ is not this display of his senility. It’s that he’s the one who – supposedly – is in charge of the most lethal military and nuclear arsenal in the world.

BLUF
If that’s how our friends deal with him, what must our enemies be thinking when they see things like that?

Biden Has Troubling Moment as Israeli Leader Has to Guide Him to His Seat

Joe Biden has been in Israel and it’s been a challenging time for him.

The minute he landed he appeared confused asking, “What am I doing now?” He then managed to insult Holocaust survivors with another gaffe.

Then he gave an interview to an Israeli news station where he got snippy with a reporter and lied about the great peace achievements that President Donald Trump had achieved in the Middle East, claiming that he’d withdrawn from the Middle East. Biden also hilariously gaffed when he tried to blast the “Mega Party,” inadvertently building up the GOP and making it sound great.

On Thursday, he revealed that he’d been given a list of reporters to call on and continued to lie about Trump withdrawing from the Middle East.

Doesn’t he know that the Israelis know differently and had a great appreciation for all that Trump did to support them? Far more than Barack Obama or Joe Biden ever did. He doesn’t seem to care about how those lies might go over. But that doesn’t stop Biden from making comments that only make him look petty.

Continue reading “”

It’s not guns. It’s the hands the guns are in.

Countries with strict gun control hit by recent mass shootings and gun violence
Denmark, South Africa, and Sweden have all attempted to combat gun violence despite strict restrictions

South Africa, Denmark, and Sweden have been combating a wave of gun violence and mass shootings despite strict gun control laws in all three countries.

South Africa was the latest to see a mass shooting, with at least 19 people being killed in two separate shootings last week in Johannesburg and Pietermaritzburg. In Johannesburg, 15 people were killed and many more injured when a gunman opened fire on patrons in a bar. A similar scene played out the same night in Pietermaritzburg, where two men entered an area bar and opened fire on patrons there, killing four people an injuring eight.

The two shootings happened despite tight gun regulations in the country, with GunPolicy.org rating South Africa’s firearms regulations as “restrictive.” Civilians in the country are not allowed to possess semi-automatic weapons without a special endorsement, while handgun ownership is permitted but only after obtaining a license under specific circumstances.

South Africa’s strict restrictions have led to a large black market for guns in the country, with almost 13,000 people being arrested in the country for illegal possession of firearms in 2020/2021, according to the Associated Press. 

Continue reading “”

What the News Media Gets Wrong About Guns and Armed Defense

We know that the news media distorts our view of the world. We see it every day in the way the mainstream media selects and edits their stories. I’m sure you see unusual things in the news that I miss. That is because each of us sees this media distortion most clearly in the individual subjects we know best. For the last decade, I’ve studied what our neighbors do with guns. I see where the news media dangerously twists the truth about armed defense. As ordinary citizens, we need to know more about the world than to be simply fed a copy of the police report after a crime. In fact, ordinary citizens keep their families safe every day but the media sells us a different story. Here is what the mainstream media won’t say.

Evil exists. We face real dangers. The world is simply not the way we want it to be. On average, someone in our family will be the victim of a violent crime during our lifetime. Merciless criminals use force to take what they want and the police are not there to stop them. It is not safe to be defenseless, not even at home. To begin, we face about 30 thousand home-invasion robberies a year, and two thirds of sexual assaults begin with a home invasion. Being unable or unwilling to defend the people we love is not a virtue. Those truths sound obvious to me, but they are absent from our contemporary news.

The media wildly over-reported stories where we were victims of violent crime. At the same time, the media horribly under-reported the many stories where we successfully defended ourselves. It is almost as if the news media didn’t want us to know that we faced dangers and saved lives.

Violence is sometimes the best answer. Your armed neighbor faced an unfair fight when three thugs broke into her home late at night and tried to rob her. She wasn’t out for vengeance or revenge when she grabbed her gun. She didn’t use a gun because she wanted to be famous, but so she wouldn’t be seriously injured or killed. She defended herself with a firearm until the criminals run away. Our neighbor grabbed her gun so she could safely call 911 and get help on the way.

Time and again we saw our neighbors use the threat of deadly force to defend themselves. That is the real pattern of armed defense that is repeated.. and unreported.. thousands of times a day. If the media presented the truth, then we’d know that we defend ourselves with a firearm over a million times a year. That works out to over 45-hundred cases of justified armed defense a day here in the United States. That is real news and somehow we don’t hear it from news media. We’d know that if the media reported the facts.

Armed defense is common. Our neighbors did a remarkably good job of defending themselves and their family. Firearms accidents by legal gun owners were wonderfully rare. Times have changed, and half of new gun owners are women. The bad guys ran away when they realized our neighbor wasn’t the unarmed victim the robbers hoped to find. Our neighbors didn’t shoot very often because the threat seldom rose to the level where it demanded the use of lethal force. When they were forced to shoot, then the good guys usually stoped shooting as soon as they could.

Together, we’ve faced over a million violent crimes a year. Despite that threat, armed citizens were forced to shoot and kill only a few hundred criminals each year, virtually the same number that the police were forced to kill. That is an amazing tribute to our character under very difficult circumstances.

We are wonderfully reluctant to take a life if there is any alternative. We also know who belongs in our home. That explains why armed citizens shoot the wrong person much less often that the police do. Since armed defense happens every day, you and I would know facts like these if the media actually reported the news.

Media distortion is dangerous. Because of biased reporting, we think that mass murder is common and that armed defense is rare. In fact, the reverse is true. We think our armed neighbor was a danger when she was in fact an armed savior. That truth has real world consequences. Since armed defense is so frequent, it is unbelievably hard to restrict the use of firearms without doing more harm than good. Gun control laws disarmed the victims of crime rather than disarming the perpetrators. That puts all of us at risk. Media bias costs lives, but not everywhere.

Most counties in the US did not have a single murder all year. Most criminal violence is localized to our failed cities. We see criminal violence explode where we’ve robbed young men of their future. We’d know that if the media didn’t spin their stories to fit their political agenda. Media bias cost the lives of young urban men.

The truth is out there and we have alternatives to the mass media. We can do our own reporting. We must do it because the mainstream US news media failed us so badly.

Not surprising for demoncrap tyrants

Gavin Newsom’s Weird Idea of ‘Freedom’
Newsom resembles a pathetic owner of a once successful but now run-down, high-priced gas station without clients.

In a run-up to what is likely to be a 2024 presidential bid, California Governor Gavin Newsom hit upon the bizarre idea of boasting in commercials that California is America’s true “free” state.

Part of his ad campaign is to attack Florida—currently run by Newsom’s possible rival, Governor Ron DeSantis.

Yet, with the most burdensome regulations and high tax rates, Newsom’s California is arguably the most unfree state in the union.

In return for these steep costs, the state’s public institutions, infrastructure, and services are among the country’s worst.

Continue reading “”

Not surprising for demoncrap tyrants

Politicians Defy the Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Right To Bear Arms
Several states are retaining subjective criteria for carry permits or imposing new restrictions on gun possession.

After the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms last month, some states promptly complied with the ruling by eliminating subjective requirements for carrying a gun in public. But other states are either dragging their feet or refusing to acknowledge the decision’s implications.

The Court said New York had violated the Second Amendment by requiring “proper cause” to carry handguns for self-defense, a standard that gave local officials wide discretion to reject carry-permit applications. But anti-gun politicians have other tricks up their sleeves, including similarly vague standards and bans on firearm possession in specific locations, that will invite further litigation to vindicate a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

New York responded to the Court’s rebuke with a law that eliminates the “proper cause” requirement but specifies a long list of “sensitive locations” where gun possession is a felony punishable by up to four years in prison. Those restrictions will make it impractical or legally perilous for many permit holders to actually exercise the right recognized by the Court.

In addition to listing myriad places where permit holders may not carry firearms, New York’s law bans guns in all private establishments open to the public unless they post conspicuous signs announcing that they are deviating from the default rule—a step many business owners will be reluctant to take. A bill backed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta takes a similar approach.

New York’s law retains a requirement that permit applicants demonstrate “good moral character,” an assessment that includes perusing their social media posts. Bonta likewise maintains that California’s “good moral character” standard remains constitutional, and he suggests that controversial opinions could be disqualifying.

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment specialist, thinks such a wide-ranging inquiry is “clearly unconstitutional.” Volokh notes that “the government can’t restrict ordinary citizens’ actions—much less their constitutionally protected actions—based on the viewpoints that they express.”

Although Massachusetts dropped its “good reason” criterion for carry permits, it still requires that an applicant be “a suitable person to possess firearms,” a standard that leaves considerable room for subjective judgments. The same vague requirement applies in Connecticut, where Attorney General William Tong has promised to resist any changes to the law.

Delaware requires that a carry-permit applicant demonstrate “good moral character” and “a good reputation for peace and good order.” The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), an industry group, reports that Delaware officials are taking a “wait and see” approach, meaning the law probably won’t be changed without additional litigation.

In Rhode Island, the attorney general “may issue” a carry permit based on “a proper showing of need,” while local licensing authorities “shall issue” a permit “if it appears” that the applicant is “a suitable person to be licensed” and either “has good reason to fear an injury to his or her person or property” or has “any other proper reason” to carry a handgun. Attorney General Peter Neronha seems to think his state’s rules are different enough from New York’s that no reform is necessary.

“This Case Involves a Religious Psychic Trying to Break a Family Curse by ‘Cleaning’ ‘Dirty’ Money”
By contrast, Hawaii Attorney General Holly Shikada last week said a concealed-carry applicant in that state will no longer be required to show he represents “an exceptional case” and has “reason to fear injury” to his “person or property.” Maryland and New Jersey recently dropped similar requirements: “good or substantial reason” in Maryland and “justifiable need” in New Jersey.

Even before the Court’s ruling, the vast majority of states either did not require permits for carrying firearms or had “shall issue” carry-permit laws, meaning applications generally were approved as long as gun owners met objective criteria. Those policies recognize, as the Court did, that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” cannot be treated as a privilege for the lucky few.

Some politicians still seem determined to reject that point. They will not respect their constituents’ rights until new constitutional challenges force them to do so.