Category: Crap For Brains

The answer is that he’s too senile.

Biden Is Too Old to Be President Says — the New York Times?

When the New York Times begins to question your fitness for office, maybe retiring to your Rehoboth beach house doesn’t look like such a bad idea.

It’s extraordinary for a partisan news outlet like the New York Times to publish an in-depth look at such an “uncomfortable” issue as the president’s age. But the 2,500-word article makes a case that Republicans could never make without being accused of partisanship.

Joe Biden is too old to be president. The Times doesn’t come out and say it, but they quote plenty of other people — close aides, friends, and Democrats — who admit that Biden is showing his age and that it might not be such a great idea for him to run for president in 2024.

Mr. Biden’s public appearances have fueled that perception. His speeches can be flat and listless. He sometimes loses his train of thought, has trouble summoning names or appears momentarily confused. More than once, he has promoted Vice President Kamala Harris, calling her “President Harris.” Mr. Biden, who overcame a childhood stutter, stumbles over words like “kleptocracy.” He has said Iranian when he meant Ukrainian and several times called Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, “John,” confusing him with the late Republican senator of that name from Virginia.

It’s not a state secret. Biden’s difficulties with age are well known to foreign leaders, who tried their best to cover for him last month during his trip to Europe.

During his European trip last month, foreign leaders followed his lead while protectively treating him like a distinguished elderly relative. At a photo opportunity, Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany gently pointed Mr. Biden in the direction of the cameras. Just before a meeting, a reporter twice shouted a question about getting grain out of Ukraine. When Mr. Biden could not hear the question, Boris Johnson, the British prime minister, rescued him. “We’re working on it,” Mr. Johnson responded.

Those aides closest to Biden try their best to hide his infirmities, but it’s a nerve-wracking job to prevent the president from embarrassing himself.

But they acknowledged Mr. Biden looks older than just a few years ago, a political liability that cannot be solved by traditional White House stratagems like staff shake-ups or new communications plans. His energy level, while impressive for a man of his age, is not what it was, and some aides quietly watch out for him. He often shuffles when he walks, and aides worry he will trip on a wire. He stumbles over words during public events, and they hold their breath to see if he makes it to the end without a gaffe.

“I do feel it’s inappropriate to seek that office after you’re 80 or in your 80s,” said David Gergen, a top adviser to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. “I have just turned 80 and I have found over the last two or three years I think it would have been unwise for me to try to run any organization. You’re not quite as sharp as you once were.”

Experts on age say there’s no evidence Biden is incapacitated, but even partisan “experts” question whether he should run again. Jay Olshansky, a longevity specialist at the University of Illinois Chicago, told the Times that “there’s no evidence that the age of Biden should matter one ounce” in your vote for president. But what if he wins re-election?

Still, Professor Olshansky said it was legitimate to wonder if that would remain so at 86. “That’s the right question to be asking,” he said. “You can’t sugarcoat aging. Things go wrong as we get older and the risks rise the older we get.”

OK, professor. It won’t matter “one ounce” that Biden is going to be 86 after his second term. We’ll just cross our fingers and hope that things won’t go wrong in his second term.

Biden’s approval rating has dropped off the edge of the earth. It’s down to 30%, according to the Civiqs tracking poll. Biden is deep underwater with voters in every age bracket, every educational level, and both genders. Biden’s age may be of secondary concern to Democratic Party primary voters given Biden’s hugely unpopular stewardship of the nation.

Of course, Biden’s age is a legitimate issue — now that Democrats are making it one. It may be a little premature, but it’s a pretty safe bet that Biden is not going to run for re-election. The question now becomes one of timing. Biden may wait until after the midterms. He may even want to give Kamala Harris a leg up and resign from the presidency “for health reasons.” Giving Harris the “incumbent” tag may help her in the primaries, but she’d still be toast in the general election.

The Democrat’s gamble of presenting Biden as a “sane” alternative to Donald Trump has failed. And there’s no one on the horizon for Democrats who have the heft or stature to fill the leadership void.

BLUF
Republican voters deserve better than this. They deserve leadership in Washington that cares about more than just the next news cycle. Mass shootings are, unfortunately, inevitable until the nation gets ahold of the mental health crisis gripping isolated, depressed young men. The foolish decision to pretend as if passing some federal law would stop them has only backed Republicans further into the corner. Will any lessons be learned? Don’t count on it.

Republicans Play the Fool After Compromising on ‘Gun Control’

With the recent mass shooting in Highland Park that took the lives of seven people, a renewed call for “gun control” from Democrats has begun. That comes just weeks after Republicans lined up to sign on to a gun control bill (now passed into law) with the idea that doing so would provide common ground on the issue.

As predicted, though, that didn’t even buy the GOP enough goodwill to make it through the next mass shooting, much less did it put the issue to bed for any length of time. Here’s what I wrote when Sen. John Cornyn was first announced to be negotiating with Democrats on gun control.

Here’s the thing, though. When whatever red flag laws that get passed fail to stop the next mass shooter, the call to “do something” will only grow louder. And the next “something” will be an even further encroachment. I understand the desire to act in good faith and attempt to take some of the heat off, but Republicans have to understand that the Democrat push for gun confiscation and an “assault weapons” ban will not stop with whatever compromise legislation arises here.

That leaves the obvious question for Republicans: Is it smart to give ground when the end goal of the Democrats is being telegraphed to you? I know my answer.

In the case of the Highland Park shooter, he had every red flag imaginable and Illinois’ red flag law still failed to stop him from obtaining guns. That was always the problem with any GOP compromise on this issue. When you concede ground, all you are doing is providing gun control proponents fodder to say “See, your solutions didn’t work so we need to do it my way now.”

I also shared similar thoughts on social media after the text of the then-bill was leaked.

Continue reading “”

Gov. Hochul: Here’s What the Data Actually Says

It only took 30 seconds, that’s all. New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul held a press conference calling back her state’s legislature for an “extraordinary” session to pass more gun control after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s restrictive and subjective “may issue” pistol permit license scheme.

In 30 seconds, she vocalized why her gun control agenda is destined to fail.

Failed Approach

Gov. Hochul exclaimed, “I’m absolutely shocked,” after the Supreme Court held in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding Americans to carry a firearm in public for self-protection. She shouldn’t be. It only takes a simple reading of the actual amendment.

She called her state’s Democratically-controlled legislature back to Albany to restrict where licensed conceal carry permit holders can lawfully carry their firearms. The new laws include even more restrictive provisions like background checks and a state database for ammunition purchases, increased training requirements to obtain the permit, a mandatory sit-down, in-person interview and even requiring applicants to submit social media accounts for content review.

“Do you have the numbers to show that it’s the concealed carry permit holders that are committing crimes? The lawful gun owner will say you’re attacking the wrong person,” asked Albany-based CBS 6 News anchor Anne McCloy. “It’s really people that are getting these guns illegally that are causing the violence, not the people that are going to get the permit legally and that’s the basis for the whole Supreme Court argument. Do you have the numbers?”

“I don’t need to have numbers,” the governor shot back. “I don’t have to have a data point to point to to say this is going to matter.”

That’s what is called “the tell.”  These laws aren’t aimed at stopping criminals. They’re designed to rob law-abiding citizens of their rights.

What’s The Data Say?

Some estimates suggest New York has more than 200,000 concealed carry permit holders. For the entire United States, it’s over 21.5 million. These are law-abiding gun owners that meet state requirements and were approved after an FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verification. New York is one of the states with the most stringent conceal carry requirements.

The actual data shows that concealed carry permit holders are among the most law-abiding people in America. The Heritage Foundation’s 2019 data says, “… concealed-carry permit holders accounted for 801 firearm-related homicides over a 15-year span, which amounts to roughly 0.7% of all firearm-related homicides during that time.”

A Fox News report paints a picture Gov. Hochul would rather ignore. According to the FBI, Census Bureau, and Rand Corporation data, states with lower rates of gun ownership and more restrictive gun control – like New York – have more firearm murders per 100,000 residents as a percentage of the gun-owning population than states with high gun owner rates.

New York ranks fifth, with just 19.9 percent of households saying they possess a firearm and 1.53 firearm homicides per 100,000 residents. The Violence Policy Center attempted to “fact check” a claim about concealed carry holders committing fewer crimes but ended up “revealing” there were 37 firearm incidents (not specifically intentional homicide) involving concealed carry permit holders between May 2007 and May 2022. That’s less than 2.5 per year in the entire country.

Crime rates, especially in New York City, continue to climb.

Gov. Hochul and Albany Democrats praised themselves for their “fast work” to jam through more restrictions on law-abiding New Yorkers. The policies won’t stop criminals from perpetrating their crimes. It will, however, turn law-abiding New Yorkers into criminals overnight when enacted in a few months.

Gov. Hochul isn’t to be bothered with facts.  She doesn’t need the data or the science. She doesn’t even need to focus laws on holding criminals accountable. When it comes to gun rights, Gov. Hochul needs only the echo chamber of New York’s legislature to nod in agreement as they strip New Yorkers of their rights.

Highland Park Mayor Rotering Says the Nation Is ‘Enslaved to Guns,’ Calls for Nationwide Ban

The disconnected and feckless responses of local leadership to the shootings in their cities over the July 4th weekend have been nothing short of abysmal. If you do a perusal of the cities that suffered violence this past weekend, you’ll find that the majority are run by Democrats.

Color me shocked.

My colleague Sister Toldjah wrote about the truly disgraceful and tone-deaf response by Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney to a mass shooting in Philadelphia.

During a press conference, Kenney – after going on a rant about gun violence – essentially told a CBS Philly reporter in so many words “f*** it, I can’t wait to get out of here” because he could never stop worrying about what would happen next in the city that elected him:

“There’s not an event or a day where I don’t lay on my back and look at the ceiling and worry about stuff. So everything we have in the city over the last seven years, I worry about. I don’t enjoy Fourth of July, I don’t enjoy the Democratic National Convention. I didn’t enjoy the NFL draft. I’m waiting for something bad to happen all the time. So I’ll be happy when I’m not here, when I’m not mayor and I can enjoy some stuff.”

When he was asked to confirm that he was “looking forward to not being mayor,” Kenney responded with a smile and said “yeah.”

He’s a Democrat, of course.

Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering is no better. Instead of updating the national press about the ongoing investigation into shooter, Robert “Bobby” Crimo, and the state of the survivors, Rotering is pushing the gun control narrative, complaining to NBC’s Meet the Press NOW that this nation has not done enough to stop gun violence.

“People need to recognize these guns are absolutely meant to destroy human life. And again, I question national leadership’s decision to allow these to continue to be in the United States.”

It’s as if Rotering thinks Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer can just wave a magic wand and make them all go away. Rotering acts like there is no such thing as the Constitution and the Second Amendment, let alone human agency and free will. Not to mention those pesky Supreme Court decisions from Heller to Bruen which continue to uphold that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

The founders failed to include a mass shooter clause, much to the Democrats’ chagrin.

At least Rotering admits that Illinois and Highland Park already had gun control measures in place before the July 4th shooting occurred.

As much good as it did them.

Continue reading “”

Hmmmm. Pritzker is wrong. I guarantee, with near metaphysical certitude, he knows he’s wrong too and is simply lying because he thinks that most people are too stupid to realize he’s lying.

Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans…. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people  —Tench Coxe ( a member of the “second rank” of this nation’s Founders and a leading proponent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote prolifically about the right to keep and bear arms

Illinois Democrat Gov. J.B. Pritzker: Founding Fathers Would Not Support ‘Constitutional Right to an Assault Weapon’

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) reacted to the Highland Park parade attack during a Monday press conference by suggesting America’s Founding Fathers would not support a “constitutional right to own an assault weapon.”

Pritzker tweeted a video of his comments on the attack, saying, in part, “Our Founders carried muskets, not assault weapons, and I don’t think a single one of them would have said that you have a constitutional right to an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine.”

In another portion of his comments Pritzker said, “It does not have to be this way, and yet we as a nation, well, we continue to allow this to happen. While we celebrate the Fourth of July just once a year, mass shootings have become … our weekly American tradition.”

The muskets used by the Founding Fathers–the muskets they used to defeat the British military and secure freedom–were very much like the military-issue muskets British Redcoats used when shooting at colonists and members of George Washington’s forces.

U.S. House candidate and former Navy SEAL Eli Crane reacted to Pritzker’s statement on muskets vs. “assault weapons” by telling Breitbart News, “The gap between the firepower of U.S. citizens and the military now is far greater than the gap that existed between colonists and the combination of regimented and ad hoc military forces that had just defeated Britain.

“Think about it. The military has Predator drones–that can drop a Hellfire missile and erase your home without you even knowing it was above you–and they have nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers. Now compare that to what we’re allowed to own today. There’s just no comparison. The American people are greatly outgunned by the 21st century military, far more so than were the colonists in the 18th century.”

Los Angeles public schools training teachers that ‘merit,’ ‘individualism’ rooted in ‘whiteness’
Los Angeles teachers told ‘the idea of meritocracy’ must be challenged in schools

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is training teachers and staff that “merit” and “individualism” are concepts rooted in “whiteness” that must be challenged in schools.

LAUSD required all employees to undergo “implicit/unconscious bias training” guided by Tyrone Howard, a critical race theory (CRT) advocate and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, prior to the 2021-2022 school year.

The training materials, which were obtained by Fox News Digital through a California Public Records Act (PRA) request, instructed educators to work toward being “antiracist” by challenging whiteness at school, which Howard argued exists in the concepts of “merit” and “individualism.”

“This idea that white is the standard, white is the norm, white is our default has to be challenged,” Howard said in the training video.

Merit, or meritocracy, “assumes that each person operates and achieves based on his or her own personal capacity,” the training handout reads. “It incorporates the notion that the work put forth, the effort invested, explains why some groups and individuals do well and others do not. It does not consider historical factors or account for opportunities, advantages, and privileges to which some groups have access both historically and in the present.”

“The idea of meritocracy,” Howard said in the video, “I think we have to challenge that because we have to recognize that some groups have had much more opportunities, some groups have had far more advantages, and some groups have certain types of privileges that other groups have not had.”

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) required all employees to undergo "implicit/unconscious bias training" prior to the 2021-2022 school year.

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) required all employees to undergo “implicit/unconscious bias training” prior to the 2021-2022 school year. (Screenshot / Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD))

 

Continue reading “”

No, We Don’t Want Women to Have the Same Rights as Guns

Nearly every time the pro-life movement achieves a significant legislative or judicial victory, progressives create either memes or protest signs riffing on conservatives’ commitment to gun rights. These takes were out in full force after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, both because of the magnitude of that ruling and because the previous day, in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court struck down a New York law that required individuals to demonstrate a need to carry guns outside the home.

Leftists on Twitter said they wished that “women in America had the same rights as a gun.” They must have tweeted these wishes in fits of passion without really thinking about them, because putting women on the same legal footing as guns would be pretty sexist. If Democrats had their way in Bruen, women would have to demonstrate to the government a need to leave their homes. Here’s what else would happen if we were to treat women like guns:

Men would need a permit to bring women outside the home. While Bruen made it unconstitutional for the government to require people to demonstrate a need to carry guns beyond their doorstep, most states in the union require gun-owners to possess concealed-carry permits. The requirements for these permits vary from state to state, but most require applicants to be a minimum age (usually 18 or 21) and take a class on firearm safety. Putting such regulations on women going beyond their doorstep would seem more fitting for a country like Afghanistan than for the United States.

Women would not be allowed to attend school. We often hear about gun-free zones after school shootings. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 criminalizes the possession or discharge of a firearm in a school zone. If we were to treat women like guns, K–12 schools would become “woman-free zones.” Similarly there are many college campuses that do not allow students to carry on campus. There were times in our country’s history when men and women were not allowed to attend school together, and those were not good times. Progressives describe the decision in Dobbs as “going backwards,” but that would be more apt if we treated women the same as guns.

Women could be bought and sold. If we are worried about objectifying women, calling to give them the same rights as literal objects is not helpful.

In short, this idea that “women should have the same rights as guns” would be more like The Handmaid’s Tale than any pro-abortion caricature of pro-life legislation ever imagined. Our political slogans are not meant to be the height of discourse, but we should expect them to be minimally coherent.

Biden advisor on Thursday:
Americans Need To Pay More for Gas To Defend ‘Liberal World Order.’

Today, from the senile clabberhead

And how much of that sticks to the fingers of his cronies?

Secretary Buttigieg to Spend $1 Billion to Combat Racist Highways

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is on a mission. He’s looking for highways with a racist past and is aiming to “help reconnect cities and neighborhoods racially segregated or divided by road projects.” Buttigieg is examining interstate highways, built with federal dollars, “where a piece of infrastructure cuts off a neighborhood or a community because of how it was built,” said Buttigieg in a speech announcing the $1 billion “Reconnecting Communities” program.

“How it was built”? What does that mean? Does that statement refer to the racial makeup of businesses and residents? This is just more of the “disparate racial results” of government action, not because there was a racist intent behind it.

We’re told that these divisions deliberately targeted black neighborhoods because, well, racism, of course. States and communities will be able to “apply for the federal aid over five years to rectify harm caused by roadways that were built primarily through lower-income, Black communities after the 1950s creation of the interstate highway system.”

There are perhaps thousands of communities across the United States “harmed” by the building of the interstates. How many towns and cities that the Interstate Highway System bypassed withered and died on the vine because of an arbitrary decision by some soulless bureaucrat in Washington?

Associated Press:

“Transportation can connect us to jobs, services and loved ones, but we‘ve also seen countless cases around the country where a piece of infrastructure cuts off a neighborhood or a community because of how it was built,” said Buttigieg, who was announcing the pilot program later Thursday in Birmingham, Alabama. He described Reconnecting Communities as a broad department “principle” — not just a program — to address the issue with many efforts underway.

“This is a forward-looking vision,” Buttigieg said. “Our focus isn’t about assigning blame. It isn’t about getting caught up in guilt. It’s about fixing a problem. It’s about mending what has been broken, especially when the damage was done with taxpayer dollars.”

Does this sound like it’s going to “mend what’s broken”?

New projects could include rapid bus transit lines to link disadvantaged neighborhoods to jobs; caps built on top of highways featuring green spaces, bike lanes and pedestrian walkways to allow for safe crossings over the roadways; repurposing former rail lines; and partial removal of highways.

Is there a reason there are few “green spaces, bike lanes and pedestrian walkways” in these neighborhoods now? Just asking.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis called the program the “woke-ification” of federal policy, which isn’t entirely accurate. This is good old-fashioned government goodies going to a favored constituency. There’s nothing remotely “woke” about it.

If it’s from a Yale law professor, you can bet it’s unconstitutional

Yale law prof suggests new route to carry ban, but is it constitutional?

Short answer? Almost certainly not, based on what the Supreme Court said last week in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen, but as we’ve already seen in states like New York, New Jersey, and California, anti-gun activists aren’t letting a little thing like a Supreme Court decision get in the way of their desire to disarm average, everyday Americans.

So what is Ian Ayres’ big idea? Basically, he wants to flip the current law in the vast majority of states to make concealed carry banned on private property unless the owners of that property decide to allow it.

You might be surprised to learn that when you ask someone to come and repair your dishwasher, they can legally carry a concealed weapon into your kitchen unless you expressly object. In all but three states and D.C., any visitor can, by default, carry a firearm into your home without your explicit permission. The repairman has a Second Amendment right to bear arms, but you have a right to control whether people carry guns onto your land.

A central attribute of property ownership is the right to exclude unwanted people from your land. Forty-seven states fail to adequately protect this right of landowners to control their property because they provide the wrong default rule regarding the right of invitees to bear arms. Property owners cannot make an informed choice if they don’t know they have to object (more than two-thirds of people are unaware of these default rules). And it is hard for a property owner to know that she needs to object when the objectionable firearm is concealed.

The same problem exists regarding private commercial land. All 50 states permit individuals to carry their firearms into private retail establishments by default. Private businesses must post “No Guns” signs to make their stores gun-free, and these signs must often meet strict requirements. Many retailers fear customer backlash if they post signs either restricting or permitting gun carry in their stores. So, they are inclined to stick with a state’s default rule regardless of their preferences.

If this idea sounds familiar it’s because New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has decided to implement this idea, at least when it comes to businesses, as part of plan to defy the Supreme Court and make it as difficult as possible for New Yorkers to exercise their right to armed self-defense in public.

There are two big problems with Ayers idea; one constitutional and one practical. As Ayers himself notes, every state in the union says that if you want to ban guns from commercial properties you can do so, but you must provide notice to the public in some form or fashion. 47 out of 50 states take the same view when it comes to non-commercial private property. These laws are widespread and longstanding, and there is nothing in the history or tradition of the right to keep and bear arms that supports what Ayers (and Hochul) are demanding. Given the negative implications that these policies would have on the right of the people to bear arms for self-defense in public and the fact that they have no similar analogues in American history, I don’t think there’s any way that they would be upheld by the Supreme Court.

From a practical perspective the idea is just as flawed. Ayers acknowledges that “it is hard for a property owner to know that she needs to object when the objectionable firearm is concealed,” and that wouldn’t change if all privately-owned spaces become gun-free zones by default. It would be just as difficult to determine if someone was carrying in violation of the law, but we’d also likely see far more individuals inadvertently doing so because of the reversal of the longstanding status quo. Ayers idea wouldn’t stop a single violent criminal, but would turn a lot of otherwise law-abiding citizens into accidental outlaws because they would no longer be able to legally carry in most of the places where they’ve been able to exercise their right to bear arms in the past.

Part of Ayers’ problem is that he, like many other gun control fans, still just doesn’t want to accept that the right to keep and bear arms is a real right. In his piece at The Hill, the Yale professor claims that the Second Amendment is about “individuals’ ability to defend their homes by arming themselves.” That is simply not true. The right to keep and bear arms is fundamentally about protecting yourself, not your property, and as the Supreme Court made clear last week, the right of self-defense doesn’t stop once you set foot outside your front door. If private property owners want to ban lawful carrying on their premises they can do so, but in a country with a right to keep and bear arms, the default position has historically respected that right and must continue to do so in the future.

Biden Admin Super-Charged Military Recruitment Crisis With ‘Woke Policies

The U.S. military under a Biden Pentagon has sacrificed meritocracy for wokeness in recent years, sending a message that discourages new applicants and worsens the recruiting crisis, an expert told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Military recruitment in 2022 has plummeted, NBC News reported, leaving the pentagon scrambling for ways to fill the ranks of U.S. forces. Alienation of traditional families, who constitute the military’s core recruiting market, through things like diversity quotas, refusing religious exemptions and teaching critical race theory at military institutions have all contributed to a growing unwillingness to enlist, according to Center for Military Readiness President Elaine Donnelly.

The result, she said, is a loss of prestige and meritocracy in the armed forces.

“The culture of the military has been eroded by several years of social engineering and woke policies. It’s been accelerated by the current administration,” Donnelly, who has been studying social issues in the military for over 30 years, told TheDCNF.

The Biden administration’s emphasis on “woke” ideas “sends a poor message” that discourages parents and other influencers from supporting careers the all-volunteer force, according to Donnelly.

For example, one of the first things Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin did upon assuming office was announce a full stand down to investigate what Donnelly claimed were over-hyped instances of extremism in the ranks, focusing on ideologies that fall to the far right and ignoring instances of far left and Islamist extremism. “It sends a message that if your son or daughter joins the military, if they’re not of a certain skin complexion or sex, they might be investigated for extremism,” she said.

A highly competitive employment arena, decrease in the population of individuals eligible to serve and general disconnect between the Army and broader U.S. public have all contributed to the Army’s recruitment struggle, Army public affairs officer Maj. Charles M. Spears told TheDCNF. Propensity to serve, a measure of “whether an individual indicates an interest in military service” according to the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, hit 9%, the lowest since 2007, Spears said.

Donnelly compared the Biden Pentagon to Disney, who lost financial privileges in Florida partially because of its “gay agenda” and produced a LGBT-promoting film that flopped in the box office, according to the Washington Times.

“They alienated their constituency,” Donnelly explained. “When you see the U.S. military make the same mistakes and losing their audience, it becomes a matter of national security.”

The Pentagon attributed a poor recruiting environment to a “disconnected and disinterested youth market” that is unfamiliar with military service, resulting in an overreliance of military stereotypes,” Maj. Charlie Dietz, a Department of Defense spokesperson, told TheDCNF.

The Army announced a plan to in March temporarily reduce the size of the active-duty force, from 485,000 soldiers in fiscal year 2021 down to 473,000 by 2023, for “quality” considerations, Army Undersecretary Gabe Camarillo said in a press briefing.

“We made the decision to just temporarily reduce end strength, as opposed to lowering our standards,” said Camarillo.

However, recruitment standards have changed. The Army dropped the high school diploma or GED-equivalent requirement for new recruits in June, according to a statement, and relaxed tattoo guidelines, Task and Purpose reported.

Donnelly predicted the recruiting environment would get worse under the Biden administration, especially as up to 60,000 troops are up for discharge for refusal to take the COVID-19 vaccine according to The Washington Post. “What effects will these individuals have on recruiting?” she asked.

“The military belongs to everybody and is there to defend the entire country, not to enforce political agendas or teach exotic ideas that cannot be defended by science,” Donnelly said.

The specter of a shrinking military comes as the U.S. faces a growing threat from China and seeks to bolster overseas deployments as a deterrent to Russian aggression.

“It’s not the end of the all volunteer force, but it’s going into a very dark place now,” said Donnelly.

The Liberal Media’s ‘Rising Stars’ Always Seem to Crash and Burn

Those who’ve been around more than five minutes know that the mainstream media is little more than a collection of homogeneous, biased hacks that do little more than support the Current Thing(TM) being pushed by Democrats and leftist activists.

It’s great for Democrats who enjoy uncritical coverage of their nonsense, but often outlets such as The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, et al. get a little too far out over their biased skis when they begin to fall in love with their latest object of obsessive attention.

Take a walk down memory lane with Townhall as we look at some of the mainstream media’s recent “rising stars” — who get treated as saviors — only to fall on their faces.

Continue reading “”

Former Idaho AG doesn’t know how rights work

When something is your right, it means it cannot just be taken away. Not unless you break the law and your rights are removed as punishment. If something can be taken, it is a privilege, and privileges can be removed anytime if whoever grants them decides to stop granting them.

This isn’t exactly high-level constitutional law stuff, either. This is a basic understanding the Founding Fathers had from the get-go. It’s why they fought a war against the most powerful nation on Earth. Having their rights respected was worth the risk.

Yet, for former Idaho Attorney General Jim Jones, rights don’t really work like that, apparently. That’s based on his writing over at The Hill.

Two groups of conservatives made contradictory decisions last week on whether there should be a balance between the safety of the American public and the rights of a small, but very vocal, minority. A group of 15 Senate Republicans broke with their party and voted for a modest gun safety bill. At the same time, the GOP-appointed majority on the U.S. Supreme Court made sure that there will be more guns in public places. The Senate’s action will save lives; the court’s action will likely add to the tally of gun deaths.

The six Republican-appointed members of the Supreme Court struck down a century-old New York law requiring a showing of “proper cause” to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun. Although the ruling was an immediate blow to public safety, the longer-term effect of the decision will pose an even greater safety threat.

The court departed from a consensus view developed by lower courts over the last decade that allowed gun rights to be limited by concerns over public safety. Instead, it focused the inquiry solely on whether a restriction is based on “history or tradition.” If a similar historical analogue for a gun limitation cannot be found, it may well be unconstitutional, without regard to the effect on public safety.…

More than anything else, our governmental entities and public servants must understand that private rights ought to give way to the public good. We don’t believe a person’s First Amendment rights extend to falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Second Amendment rights must also yield when they infringe upon the paramount right of the people to be safe in public places.

Uh…no.

Not only no, but hell no.

Of course, Jones invokes the old canard of yelling fire in a crowded theater, as most who try to justify an infringement on our gun rights tend to do, but you’d think a former attorney general would understand that this was a hypothetical presented by a justice during a case and that decision was ultimately overturned in part by Brandenberg v. Ohio. That case found that speech could only be regulated if it were likely to cause imminent lawless action.

Plus, let’s understand that if we take Jones’s word that private rights ought to give way to the public good, then the question becomes, where do we draw the line? It’s clear that Jones favors restricting our right to keep and bear arms as a means of trying to ensure public safety, but what else is on the table?

Can we seize his home so we can house the homeless? Can we seize his car so it can be used for public transportation? Can we lock Jones in chains and make him do road work for no reason other than we simply need the road to be built?

Where would such a line be?

The problem here is that the line would be subjective. What’s “far enough” for Jones wouldn’t be far enough for someone else. There are those who actually do support things not unlike the examples mentioned above, after all.

The way you deal with this is to draw a line with objective criteria. These are your personal rights, and they shouldn’t be infringed upon simply because someone thinks it’s good for the public. The truth is, the smallest minority is the individual. Empower them, and everyone is equally empowered.

Our gun rights aren’t up for debate. First of all, we don’t buy the idea that gun control yields any of the benefits Jones seems to believe. Yet even if we did, rights don’t work that way.

 And thank God for that.

Dër Grëtchënführër™ apparently feels she hasn’t been paid as much attention as her ego requires

Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer Does Not Condemn Leftist Violence When Asked About Threats In Michigan.

WATCH:

Whitmer made the remarks during an interview on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” with host Margaret Brennan as the topic of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade dominated the segment.

“I want to ask you about this homeland security warning that domestic violent extremists may intensify violence,” Brennan said. “In the bulletin that CBS obtained, it specifically mentioned an incident in Michigan, related to a pro-abortion rights group.”

One of the incidents mentioned in the memo “involved vandalism claimed by ‘Jane’s Revenge,’” a far-Left group, “on a building that houses a U.S. Representative’s campaign office and a pro-life advocacy group.”

“How concerned are you about violence?” Brennan asked. “What are you seeing on the ground?”

“I am concerned about a lot of things happening in the United States right now,” Whitmer said. “And frankly, the last couple of decisions that came out of this United States Supreme Court are make America a lot more dangerous, more guns, fewer rights, less health care, it is scary. And as a lawyer it, it crushes me to say that even I am losing faith that these important institutions that are supposed to be above the politics of the day, are now being corrupted. And that’s what we’re seeing out of our United States Supreme Court. And I am very concerned about our long term prosperity, our homeland security, and our safety.”

Brennan again had to press Whitmer on the matter since Whitmer did not address the question.

“But, this warning about threats to federal [and] state government officials, including judges, are you concerned about active threats in Michigan?” Brennan asked.

“Of course, I am,” Whitmer claimed before she pivoted to blaming former President Donald Trump. “I have been the recipient of so much ugliness and hate often stoked by the former president. This is a really scary moment. And with the proliferation of the ugly rhetoric, the scary proliferation of guns in America and fewer and fewer restrictions. I think that any parent who sends their child to school, any politician or policy maker who makes a hard decision, we now have to be much more fearful on a whole new level.”

As if we didn’t already know

Joe Biden Just Told Us Who He Really Is

As expected, radical pro-abortion Democrats are beside themselves with rage and are already issuing disturbing threats in the aftermath of Friday’s anticipated Supreme Court ruling where a majority of Justices voted to overrule 1973’s Roe v. Wade decision that “legalized” abortion.

Contrary to fanatical leftists’ claims about today’s ruling, it did not make abortion “illegal” nationwide. What the ruling did do, however, was to put the issue back to the states. While some red states have already responded to the ruling by putting bans in place effective immediately except in specific instances where the health of the mother is involved, blue states are already banding together to radically expand access to abortion on demand for any reason.

In the midst of all the emotion from both sides surrounding the Supreme Court’s decision, one would hope that the President of the United States would work to turn try and turn down the temperature if for no other reason than to potentially head off another attempt on a SCOTUS Justice’s life at the pass. But as we previously reported, that’s not what Joe Biden did in his lie-filled speech responding to what was handed down by our nation’s highest court.

In his remarks, Biden said today was a “solemn moment” and a “sad day for the Court and for the country.” Later on in the speech, he declared the Supreme Court, in a nutshell, to be full of right-wing extremists who were primed and prepped throughout their legal careers to overturn Roe v. Wade once they were in a position to do so.

“It’s a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the Supreme Court, in my view,” he stated. “With this decision, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court shows how extreme it is, how far removed they are from the majority of this country.”

But though Biden urged protesters to be “peaceful, peaceful, peaceful” and proclaimed that “threats and intimidation are not speech,” what he still did not do is expressly condemn the actions of 26-year-old Nicholas John Roske, who was arrested in the early morning hours of June 8th after an admitted attempt at assassinating Justice Brett Kavanaugh ahead of today’s ruling. Nor did he expressly condemn the acts of intimidation and violence by pro-abortion radicals that have taken place in churches and at pro-life centers across the country over the last couple of months.

What the Biden administration has done, however, since the draft majority SCOTUS opinion leak in early May is to fan the flames of outrage by encouraging radical activists on the left to continue “protesting” outside the homes of the Justices. Never once did they condemn the doxxing of the Justices and the posting of their private information online, despite the fact that not only is it dangerous, but also because protesting outside of the homes of members of the court for purposes of influencing a decision in a court case is against U.S. Code.

Further, in the speech Biden gave earlier, he noted his administration was going to use every tool in their power to do an end-run around the SCOTUS ruling, something also confirmed by DOJ Attorney General Merrick Garland.

As all of this sinks in, keep in mind that Biden and other Democrats (and their allies in the mainstream press) have been lecturing Republicans for the last year and a half since the Capitol riot about the need to “respect the courts” and to not “undermine democratic norms” in our society. And yet what do they do in response to today’s 6-3 decision? Exactly what they’ve said their political opponents shouldn’t – this from the same people who once gloated after the Supreme Court voted to uphold Obamacare that it was “settled law” so “deal with it.”

All of this is just further proof of the old saying about how if the left didn’t have double standards they’d have no standards at all. And in the case of Joe Biden, it’s just one more instance of him showing Americans who he really is – a feckless leader who is entirely beholden to extreme special interest groups on the far left who would turn this country into something oppressive and unrecognizable if left to their own devices.

Biden encouraged people to vote accordingly in November in response to today’s Supreme Court’s decision in a desperate bid to put people in the Senate and the House who he believes could somehow “federalize” so-called abortion rights. Unfortunately for him, it’s too late to appeal to the masses to give him a helping hand in the fall midterms, because at this point the polls make clear in no uncertain terms that very few people in this country support him anymore, and that includes a sizable chunk of his own base.

He is right, just not in the way this gun grabbing communist is thinking though. People who want to be free to enslave you, want to take away your right to keep and bear arms.

Professor Ibram Kendi links ‘freedom to enslave’ with gun rights.

There are some who fight for ‘freedom to exploit, freedom to have guns,’ Kendi said

There is a link between the “freedom to enslave” and the “freedom to have guns,” according to Boston University Professor Ibram Kendi.

Kendi told host Margaret Brennan that “throughout the nation’s history, there’s been two perspectives on freedom, really two fights for freedom.”

“Enslaved people were fighting for freedom from slavery, and enslavers were fighting for the freedom to enslave, and in many ways, that sort of contrast still exists today,” Kendi said.

“There are people who are fighting for freedom from assault rifles, freedom from poverty, freedom from exploitation, and there are others who are fighting for freedom to exploit, freedom to have guns, freedom to maintain inequality,” Kendi said.

Kendi did not further elaborate or explain the connection between white supremacy or “the freedom to enslave” and gun ownership.
[He can’t ‘further elaborate‘, because there is no connection. He just thinks you’re so stupid you’ll simply accept his BS ]

Continue reading “”