Category: Editorial O’ The Day

John Ʌ Konrad 

Just as I predicted yesterday…. MSM will falsely claim the Secretary of the Navy was fired because of Battleships.

And the NYTimes is actually worse than I thought. Let me explain….

The mainstream media will make this about the ships because the defense “experts” never want more hulls. They want money flowing into consulting fees, AI “solutions,” and think tank white papers. Steel produces nothing for the Beltway class. A flight deck you can launch F-35s off of does not generate PowerPoints.

But the NYTimes is running an even more sinister play.

Throughout the Biden administration, and later during DOGE’s audit work, I translated every major spending bill into a unit every American can actually visualize: one nuclear aircraft carrier.

Nuclear supercarrier cost: $15 billion.

Biden’s BEAD rural broadband program, which connected zero homes to the internet: $42.5 billion, or roughly three carriers.

Pete Buttigieg’s infrastructure package: $1.1 trillion, or seventy three carriers.

Total DOGE savings to date: $215 billion, or fourteen carriers.

Known Somali-linked fraud in Minnesota, per federal prosecutors: $18 billion, or one carrier plus an Arleigh Burke destroyer.

Why do I keep doing this?

Because for the past two decades the NYTimes has run the same story on loop: the military is the reason for America’s skyrocketing national debt.

That is a psyop. It conditions Americans to believe that steel and sailors, not social programs and grift, are what is bankrupting the country.

Human beings are not wired to understand $15 billion. The mind goes blank at that scale. But every American, left or right, understands the sheer weight and menace of a nuclear aircraft carrier. It is the most visible, most photogenic instrument of state power on earth.

So the NYTimes runs the obvious play.

Paint the carrier as expensive. Pile on delays and cost overruns. Quote an anonymous Pentagon source worrying about bloat. Then anchor the defense budget to “discretionary spending,” a small slice of the real pie, and express it as a percentage of that smaller number.

The Pentagon instantly looks like the whale in the room.

But Medicare alone, roughly $1 trillion in 2025, already eclipses the entire defense budget. Add Medicaid and ACA subsidies and federal health spending hits $1.8 trillion, more than double defense. None of those programs are labeled “discretionary,” so by NYTimes accounting, they “don’t count.”

This is a magic act. The NYTimes holds a shiny capital ship up in one hand to keep your eyes off the social programs bankrupting the country in the other.

Once you see the trick, you cannot unsee it. Every time the NYTimes runs a carrier or battleship exposé, ask one question: what is on the page they did not write?

Nine times out of ten, the answer is sitting just outside the “discretionary” column, quietly metastasizing, while a Ford class carrier gets blamed for the deficit.

America is not going broke building warships. Warships are one time expenses that last decades and are a tiny fraction of the total annual budget.

America is going broke pretending the ledgers that matter do not exist, while a national newspaper gets paid to keep the audience looking the other way.

That’s why they hate battleships. That’s why they tell you they are ridiculous and antiquated warships that are a waste of money. To make you think THIS is the reason why the nation is $39T in debt.

And the best part? Their psyop works on both sides of the aisle… on liberals who hate the military and conservatives who hate federal spending.

Battleships are not a waste of money. All the many fraudulent programs that cost more annually than a single carrier are.

The Most Important Lesson of the Iran War Is to Buy Guns and Ammo

It’s remarkable how the real world always illustrates the Founders’ wisdom, graphically and undeniably. Take the current situation in Iran. It’s a country with a great history, full of intelligent people run by a bunch of backward, semi-human savages with a ridiculous apocalyptic theology that is so brutal it killed 30,000 or so of its own people a few months ago just to stay in power.

And now it’s still in power, at least over its own people, despite the United States and Israel righteously devastating its conventional military capabilities. You can sync its navy, shoot down its Air Force, and smash its missiles; the power on the ground requires contending power on the ground. Our glorious alliance with Israel – suck on that podcast dorks – cannot kill every goat molester with an AK-47 and a conviction that the more he murders, the more virgins he gets.

That job belongs to the people of Iran, and unfortunately, they don’t have the tools to do it. They are disarmed, and therefore, they are serfs, not citizens, much like the English and Australians. In Iran, the answer to the problem of securing freedom and justice is the same as it is here in America and everywhere else:

Guns.

Guns are freedom. Guns are liberty. Guns are the last bulwark – a real one, not one that enjoys watching the pool boy cavort with his wife – of freedom. Of course, it’s not actually guns that secure freedom. It’s violence. Some dumb people will tell you violence never solves anything.

The only people who can tell you violence never solves anything are people for whom the problem of violence has been solved by other people who know what the hell they’re talking about and who use violence to solve the problem of violence.

Continue reading “”

Interesting point of view.

The Virginia Democrats’ gun legislation is reactionary, not progressive

The United States is an empire, with the most powerful military in the world. It’s also one of only two nations in the world with the right to bear arms enshrined in its founding legal documents, the other being Guatemala. The Second Amendment is considered by many to be the amendment that safeguards all other rights.

Nevertheless, many people have seen the Second Amendment as harmful due to the presence of powerful firearms, such as semi-automatics, in the hands of U.S. civilians. They point to tragedies, especially mass shootings, as justification for regulating firearms.

They see the “well-regulated militia” statement as a caveat that limits what firearms we can possess, claiming that “weapons of war” shouldn’t be in the hands of civilians. They see those who believe in these so-called weapons of war being in the hands of civilians as inherently taking a normatively right-wing standpoint.

For the sake of testing this argument, we can acknowledge that the right to bear arms shouldn’t be infringed only within the context of where there’s a well-regulated militia in the context of the necessity of the security of a free state. In that case, we must also understand what follows if we investigate the premise that the state itself has refused to self-regulate. When the state refuses to self-regulate, we can come to the conclusion that the civilian populace being armed to counter the unregulated militia becomes, in a sense, the regulation of the unregulated militia.

To those who call themselves progressive and also call themselves pro-gun control or pro-gun ban, I ask you to consider your thought process. Is the U.S. government a well-regulated militia when it’s enabling Israel’s genocide in Gaza? Is it a well-regulated militia when it’s engaging in wars to further the longstanding goals of American imperialism that benefit the richest and most powerful, such as in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the current war in Iran? Is the U.S. government a well-regulated militia when it violates Americans’ constitutional rights, prioritizes corporate interests and targets people based on race?

To me, the answer is no, in all of these cases. Nevertheless, gun-control advocates seem to believe that the government and military is more entitled than the civilian populace, which does not engage in these acts. The irony, to me, is that many within the gun-control advocacy sphere also happen to oppose at least one or more of the aforementioned operations. I join them in opposition to these actions, but I find their belief in disarming the populace to be self-defeating.

Continue reading “”

There Are No ‘Moderate’ Democrats When it Comes to Gun Rights.

Virginia’s Gov. Abigail Spanberger is determined to make her mark in the Old Dominion. She campaigned for office as a moderate Democrat, but Virginians are learning quickly that they’ve been hoodwinked. The reaction is astounding.

A recent poll conducted by George Mason University and The Washington Post found that Gov. Spanberger earned the highest disapproval rating from Virginians of any governor since 1994. Forty-six percent of Virginians disapprove of Gov. Spanberger’s job performance, just three months into the job. To put that into perspective, Gov. Spanberger won by 15 points in her race against former Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears. Her performance is also a glaring contrast to former Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s 53-39 job approval rating at the same point in his administration, according to Fox News.

Chief among those headwinds are two issues that the firearm industry is tracking very closely. First, Gov. Spanberger is expected to sign into law SB 749, which would unconstitutionally ban the purchase of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs), or the AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles — the most common rifle in America — as well as semiautomatic shotguns used for hunting and home defense and many pistols and standard capacity magazines. Gov. Spanberger is also considering a bill, HB21, that would attempt to circumvent the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to allow frivolous lawsuits against firearm industry members for the criminal misuse of firearms by remote third parties.

Add to that, Gov. Spanberger is backing a referendum effort to gerrymander the Congressional districts in Virginia that would bring a new hyper-partisan Virginia congressional delegation to Congress. If successful, it would change Virginia’s 11 Congressional districts that are currently comprised of six Democrats and five Republicans to 10 Democrats and just one Republican.

Continue reading “”

The who, what, and where of gun control

A Second Opinion is a recurring series by Haley Proctor on the Second Amendment and constitutional litigation.

My previous column examined what it means for a gun control measure to fit within “the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” This month I want to focus on how the court has analyzed gun regulations that limit (1) who may possess a firearm, (2) what arms people may own or carry, and (3) where they may take them.

Who may keep and bear arms?

As of writing, the court’s latest word on the Second Amendment concerns the “who” of gun control: may the government permissibly restrict the ability of certain types of people to keep and bear arms? The court provided important guidance on that question in the 2024 case of United States v. Rahimi, but significant questions remain open.

The Second Amendment secures to “the people” the right “to keep and bear Arms.” In District of Columbia v. Heller, the court held that “the people” refers “to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.” This means that the “plain text” contains no limitation on the right that would permit the government to deprive some category of persons of firearms without meeting its burden to show that the deprivation is consistent with the “Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The court has occasionally used the phrase “law-abiding, responsible citizens” to describe “the class of ordinary citizens who undoubtedly enjoy the Second Amendment right.” Some have inferred that this phrase limits the category of people who may assert a Second Amendment right. The court’s decision in Rahimi made clear that this reading was mistaken. If the government wishes to limit the ability of any “member[ ] of the political community” to keep or bear arms – even those who break the law or might be thought to be irresponsible – it must point to a historical tradition that justifies doing so.

Rahimi recognized a historical tradition that “allows the Government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others,” “temporarily.”  And it identified one group of individuals who the government may disarm consistent with that tradition: individuals presently under a restraining order issued upon a finding that the recipient poses “a credible threat to the physical safety” of another.

This term, the court has taken up the “who” question once more. The case of United States v. Hemani requires it to decide whether the same tradition permits the government to disarm individuals who unlawfully use drugs. Several additional “who” questions are in the offing.

First, despite Heller’s holding that the “people” includes “all members of the political community,” and despite the fact that 18-to-20 year-olds are undoubtedly part of the political community (and many shoulder the responsibility to bear arms for that community), some courts have continued to hold that they are not part of the “people” who enjoy a right to keep and bear arms. These courts have therefore rejected challenges to laws restricting adults’ ability to purchase or carry firearms until they reach the age of 21. There is a circuit split on this question, and the  court has been holding several petitions since November. It could be that the court plans to grant, vacate, and remand these cases in light of Hemani, but given that they focus on the meaning of “people” and a different aspect of the historical regulatory tradition, it’s doubtful that Hemani will supply much guidance.

Continue reading “”

John  Konrad V

What if America is already far richer than anyone in the swamp is allowed to admit?

What if the real drag on the Republic isn’t taxes, isn’t debt, isn’t even the deficit, it’s Europe?

What if NATO was never a mutual defense pact, but a 75-year subscription America forgot to cancel?

What if “burden sharing” is the most expensive euphemism in the English language?

What if the City of London cabal is draining our banks?

What if the advice from globalists is terrible advice that’s costing us big?

What if every European basing agreement, every forward-deployed brigade, every Ramstein runway, every Aviano hangar, every Souda Bay pier is a tax American workers pay so Berlin can run a welfare state and Paris can run a 35-hour week?

What if foreign aid to Europe isn’t aid, it’s tribute, flowing the wrong way?

What if transporting the vast majority of trade on European owned ships costs more than we realize?

What if the NGO archipelago in Brussels, Geneva, and The Hague is just a money-laundering loop where US taxpayer dollars get rinsed through a “civil society” conference and returned as lectures about our democracy?

What if the UN isn’t a parliament of man, it’s a Manhattan timeshare with diplomatic plates, an accounting black hole, and a Human Rights Council chaired by people who’d jail you for tweeting this?

What if “the rules-based international order” was always code for: Americans build it, Americans pay for it, Americans bleed for it, and Europeans grade it?

What if $36 trillion in debt looks a lot smaller the second you stop underwriting a continent that sneers at you in three languages?

What if you zeroed out the Europe line, the NATO line, the UN line, the NGO line, and woke up tomorrow in a country with the fiscal headroom to rebuild every shipyard, every foundry, every rail line, and every Navy hull we’ve let rot since the Cold War ended?

What if American tourists went to American cathedrals, American opera, American museums, American cities instead.

I’m not saying I believe all of it.

I’m saying maybe, just maybe, we could pay down all our debt and wouldn’t have to pay taxes at all if we cut Europe loose.

The Rational Animal

The average American today lives better than John D. Rockefeller did in 1926. That is not an exaggeration. It is a fact.

Rockefeller could not fly across the country in five hours. You can for $200. He could not video call his family from another continent. You do it for free. He had no antibiotics, no MRI, no air conditioning in July. He could not carry every book ever written in his pocket. You are reading this on a device that does all of that and more.

Americans throw away 30-40% of their food. Not because they are wasteful, but because food is so abundant that waste is affordable. Your car has climate control, navigation, and safety systems that did not exist at any price a century ago. Your home has heating, cooling, refrigeration, and entertainment that emperors could not have imagined.

None of this was voted into existence. None of it was redistributed from the rich. It was created by free minds operating in what remains of a free market. Every comfort you enjoy today is the product of a man who thought, invented, produced, and traded voluntarily.

This is what the remnants of capitalism still deliver, even while it is being dismantled. Imagine what a fully free society could build.

Virginia gun bills take aim at the Constitution

As a Virginia resident and a longtime advocate for the Second Amendment, I’ve spent decades covering the gun debate from every angle. I’ve spoken with lawmakers, law enforcement officers, gun owners and crime victims. And I can tell you this: What happened in Richmond this legislative session was both unnecessary and unconstitutional.

Virginia is the home of James Madison, who boasted that, unlike the monarchs of Europe who were “afraid to trust the people with arms,” the United States recognized the inherent right of the people to keep and bear them. It’s through that lens that we should look at our current situation.

Politicians in Richmond have advanced one of the most sweeping gun control packages our commonwealth has seen in years. Clearly, they don’t understand what the words “keep and bear” in our Second Amendment actually mean. Those words mean “it’s ours, and you can’t take it.” Supporters claim these bills are necessary to make our communities safer. But recent feedback from actual Virginians tells a very different story.

According to a new survey of Virginia voters, 90% say the criminal is responsible for violent crime. A firearm being used in the commission of a crime is only a tool for the havoc they cause, whether it’s a hammer or a handgun. That distinction is crucial.

Public safety starts with prosecuting violent crimes and putting offenders in prison. Dreaming up new restrictions on law-abiding citizens who already follow the rules should play no part in it and is against every principle of American freedom.

In fact, 63% of Virginians say tougher sentencing and better enforcement of existing laws is the most effective way to reduce crime. Only 16% believe adding new gun regulations will make the biggest difference. That’s not close, and we shouldn’t tolerate these infringements from a moral standpoint or a constitutional one. We already have the necessary gun laws on the books; what we should do is actually enforce them.

Just look at Senate Bill 749, which now awaits Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s signature to become law. The bill would impose a broad and unconstitutional ban on a number of commonly owned guns under the politically loaded and vague label of “assault firearms” — a phrase that is completely meaningless. The result is that Virginians would no longer be able to purchase or transfer some of the most popular firearms in the country, and that’s just the first step towards prohibiting their possession too. Reclassifying and banning widely owned firearms based on arbitrary criteria does not disarm criminals. It penalizes peaceable citizens who have complied with every regulation already on the books. And voters know it.

Sixty percent of Virginians oppose an “assault weapons” ban. Strong majorities oppose gun-related taxes which disproportionately impact regular families. Pricing a constitutional right out of reach for working adults isn’t justice, and it’s not about public safety. It’s political retribution for exercising a right too many Democratic lawmakers find objectionable.

Pakistan says a new round of peace talks with Afghanistan is underway in China after deadly fighting Pakistan says a new round of peace talks with Afghanistan is underway in China after deadly fighting

There are also efforts underway to undermine federal law which protects lawful businesses such as family-owned gun ranges and firearm manufacturers. This is not what we want, and it’s not who we are. The right to self-defense is not a fringe idea. It’s a mainstream value deeply rooted in our constitutional tradition.

Public safety and constitutional liberty are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they go hand in hand. Violent crime is plunging across the country and commonwealth, while the number of guns in the hands of lawful owners is at an all-time high. Spanberger should veto these bills and work to keep Virginia safe and free instead of fruitlessly searching for security at the expense of our fundamental civil rights.

Cam Edwards of Farmville has covered the Second Amendment for 20 years as a broadcast and online journalist, and serves on the board of directors for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

 

BLUF
Honest discussion requires acknowledging the data on who commits these attacks rather than filtering it through political narratives about which threats are acceptable to discuss.
If policymakers and the public want effective prevention, they must start with a clear-eyed assessment of the risks rather than with wishful thinking.

The Terror Threat Americans Aren’t Supposed To Discuss

John R. Lott Jr. is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center

Many commentators claim that Islam does not pose a threat of violence in the United States. Influencers such as Tucker Carlson often repeat this argument. Others, including then-President Joe Biden and FBI Director Christopher Wray, have argued that white supremacists represent the primary domestic threat.

Yet March alone saw multiple terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims. In Austin, a terrorist wore a sweatshirt reading “Property of Allah” during an attack. In New York City, bomb throwers shouted “Allahu Akbar” while throwing a homemade shrapnel bomb. At Old Dominion University, a shooter also yelled “Allahu Akbar” and had previously been convicted of supporting ISIS. Another attacker, whose brother was a Hezbollah terrorist commander, targeted Temple Israel in Michigan, and yet another attack, involving three men of Iraqi origin, targeted the U.S. embassy in Norway. The Austin, Old Dominion, and New York City bombers and the Michigan synagogue attackers were also all foreign-born individuals who were naturalized U.S. citizens.

Terrorist attacks take many forms. For example, the January 2025 truck attack in New Orleans, with an ISIS flag on the truck, left 14 people dead and 47 injured. But let’s focus the discussion on one type of attack that has been extensively studied: mass public shootings. Researchers define a mass public shooting as an attack in which a perpetrator kills four or more people at one time in a public place, excluding crimes such as gang fights or robberies.

Looking at all mass public shootings from 1998 through 2025 reveals several patterns. Muslims commit these crimes at a disproportionate rate. White males commit them at a rate below their share of the population. And most shooters express no clear political ideology.

Continue reading “”

Noah Pollak

One of Trump’s greatest legacies will be how he blew up a half-century of western diffidence, restraint, and failure on terrorism. As the era of Islamic terrorism began in the 1970s, western countries (very much including Israel) spun up all kinds of pseudo-sophisticated theories and excuses to avoid carrying out the only successful policy, which is killing terrorists — as many as you can, whenever you can.

There are entire university departments, think tanks, media outlets, NGOs, foundations, and political parties devoted to promoting self-defeating, enervating fictions about terrorism designed to tie the hands of the West. We just have to live with it, deal with it, accommodate it, accept the barbarism. Terrorists have grievances. It’s partly our fault, after all, because reasons. There are no military solutions. If we’re nice to the terrorists they will actually help us stabilize the region. The tropes go on forever and they are invented by people who want the west to lose, and who would rather be wrong but appear sophisticated than be right and appear crude.

Trump wants our side to win. The winning approach to terrorism is very simple. Bomb them to smithereens. Kill them off. Decapitate the regimes. Sanction them until they have no more money for jihad. Trump gets it, because unlike so many people in politics, he doesn’t care whether Harvard likes him.

Winning is going to generate a real peace dividend for America. Finally dealing with Iran — the head of the snake — will enable the US to step away from the Middle East. It will send a message to our adversaries that the big dog is still in charge. And very enjoyably, it will sweep aside decades of dumb elite groupthink about how we have no alternative but to cut deals with terrorists. Thank you President Trump.

The Graveyard of Destructive Ideas.

Elite fashions harden into dogma, dissent becomes taboo, institutions fall in line—and only when reality intrudes does yesterday’s madness begin its overdue collapse.

How do destructive ideas and bouts of collective madness so quickly become policy, law, and the status quo? After all, most have little public support—and are not Western nations supposedly rationally governed?

There is usually a multi-step process on the road to these self-destructive fits of society-wide insanity.

The suicidal impulse so often begins with left-leaning researchers in elite universities (i.e., the tenured in search of a novel, grant-getting theory). They begin insisting that a new existential threat requires immediate government intervention, novel legislation, ample funding, and public awareness of the impending danger.

So out of nowhere, the public is warned that the scorching planet will be inundated by rising seas in a mere decade. Or that millions of transgender youth are our next civil rights frontier, given that they suffer in silence without political advocacy, new laws, programs, and the chance for “life-saving,” powerful hormonal treatments and radical sex-reassignment surgeries. Indeed, the travel time from an outlandish idea by the faculty lounge to liberal status quo is a mere few years.

Next, the media, hand-in-glove with academia, springs into action to persuade the skeptical public to “follow the science” and “trust the experts.” It castigates any doubters as cranks or “conspiracy theorists” who spread “disinformation” and “misinformation”; or as racists, nativists, sexists, homophobes, and transphobes who must be silenced.

Hollywood and sports celebrities often piggyback on the frenzy, hijacking awards ceremonies and pre-game national anthems to out-virtue-signal each other, warning the public that they must adapt and change—or else!

Continue reading “”

What to do about Mexican Drug Cartels: Letters of Marque

By Lee Williams

SAF Investigative Journalism Project

Special to Liberty Park Press

The United States Congress still retains full authority to issue Letters of Marque, although none have been issued for more than a hundred years.

A Letter of Marque was actually a simple concept. They allowed private citizens in private warships to attack enemy vessels during wartime. These privateers could then take ownership of whatever plunder they seized—gold, weapons or the captured ships—after an admiralty court ruled in their favor and took a percentage of the profits.

Letters of Marque were used for hundreds of years across the globe, because they allowed a country to enlarge the size of their navy very quickly and cheaply.

The authority to issue Letters of Marque can still be found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power … to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

Congressman Tim Burchett, a Republican from Tennessee, and Senator Mike Lee, a Republican of Utah, who both have extremely solid Second-Amendment credentials, have drafted bills that would revitalize the Letters of Marque, in order to target Mexican drug cartels.

Congressman Burchett described the bill in a phone call Monday morning:

“It allows the president to contract out to privateers and go after the cartels,” he said. “These would be top-tier operators, SEALs, Special Forces, Marine Raiders and commando types. Some are still working as private operators. It allows private citizens to act against the cartels. In President Trump’s first term, when he got [Former Iranian Quds Force Commander Qasem] Soleimani, the Democrats just berated our military leaders because they didn’t ask for their permission. If the Democrats still want us to ask for their permission, we got some real problems. This is constitutionally provided and has been done before. We went after the Barbary pirates. It’s constitutionally provided and within the law. In this day and age, we need it. The constitution grants congress the power to grant these letters.”

Senator Lee’s bill is titled “S. 3567: Cartel Marque and Reprisal Authorization Act of 2025.”

It is described as: “A bill to authorize the President of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to acts of aggression against the United States by a member of a cartel, or a member of a cartel-linked organization, or any conspirator associated with a cartel, and for other purposes.”

It was introduced before the latest outbreak of cartel violence, which has targeted American tourists in Mexico.

It specifies that cartels “present an unusual and extraordinary threat to national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

Senator Lee’s bill would allow “privately armed and equipped persons” to use “all means reasonably necessary” to operate outside our borders and seize any individual and their property who the President has determined to be a member of a drug cartel, or a member of a cartel-linked organization, “who is responsible for an act of aggression against the United States.”

Congressman Burchett was asked if he has discussed his bill with President Trump.

“I have not yet, but I put it out there,” he said. “It is constitutionally sound. We live in dangerous times, and we’ve got American people who need it.”

The Elephant in Gladwell’s Room
Forthcoming book on gun violence by Malcolm Gladwell

A book club member tipped me off to a forthcoming book on gun violence by Malcolm Gladwell, The American Way of Killing (h/t JP). The book drops September 29, 2026. I think it deserves our attention and it is a likely Fall 2026 Light Over Heat Virtual Book Club selection.

Here’s why I’m genuinely interested: Gladwell has a rare ability to shape how millions of Americans think about complex social issues. Love or hate his counterintuitive approach, his work moves conversations in ways academic publications rarely do. A Gladwell book on gun violence may define how a broad public audience understands the issue for years to come.

I’m particularly hopeful because the book builds on his Revisionist History podcast episodes about guns, which I found genuinely curious about the issue’s complexities. Those episodes didn’t rely on easy answers or inflammatory rhetoric. They asked interesting questions and looked in unexpected places for answers. That approach, applied to a book-length treatment, could be valuable.

According to the online press release,

In The American Way of Killing (out September 29, 2026) Malcolm Gladwell, author of New York Times bestsellers including Talking to Strangers and host of the award-winning podcast Revisionist History, gets to the heart of America’s gun violence crisis: Where did America’s violence problem come from? And, why has it proven so difficult to address?

This promises to be classic Gladwell and, as such, could be genuinely important work.

Of course, as a scholar whose research focuses on gun culture rather than gun violence, I’m curious to see how Gladwell bridges these often-separate conversations. Of course, some questions remain about how this conversation will unfold.

There are some red flag warnings here — we are talking about discussions of American gun violence, after all. I certainly can’t criticize a book I haven’t read, but here the framing of the book raises a couple of questions for me.

Continue reading “”

The Riot Beat
Everyone’s debating what happened in Minnesota. Few are talking about the real problem: what these “protests” are really like

Two people are dead in Minneapolis.

The nation is now locked in a familiar and dark debate: Were the killings justified? Who’s to blame? The arguments will simmer for weeks, undoubtedly along partisan lines, litigated on cable news and social media until the next crisis distracts us.

But lost in the back-and-forth is a more basic question that almost no one is asking: What is actually going on at these protests?

The left has its answer ready. New York magazine put a masked protester on its cover under the headline “Your Friendly Neighborhood Resistance.” The image is striking, the title heroic. The subhead promises a story about everyday people “watching out for ICE at every corner, crosswalk, church, and school.”

It’s a compelling piece of mythmaking.

The truth is something much less glamorous. I’ve spent years covering left-wing protests and riots across America, from 2020 through the present. What I’ve witnessed on the ground looks nothing like the noble resistance portrayed in legacy media.

The reality: Chaos. Violence. Dishonesty. Truly, the street activists are among the most dishonest people I’ve encountered.

If you rely solely on their videos (the ones that feed the outrage machine on social media) you will be systematically and intentionally misinformed. Whether through misleading captions or selectively edited footage, left-wing activists are masters at manipulating sympathetic national media. This, in turn, feeds mainstream outlets more than happy to take their material and craft their preferred narratives.

The recent unrest in Minneapolis is a textbook example. Claims of “legal observers” being “brutalized” by federal agents are routinely disproven when other video evidence from the same scenes emerges. But by then, the narrative has already been set.

Of course, much has been made in recent weeks about the insurgent behavior of these groups: the “terror cell” comparisons, the accusations of organized resistance networks.

There is truth to that.

Unlike 2020, the dynamics of covering leftist violence have changed. I’ve raised my profile since covering those riots for my book. The downside of notoriety: Antifa knows exactly who I am, and it doesn’t take long for their networks to spread the word when I arrive.

I experienced this recently after covering Jake Lang’s rally in Minneapolis. Lang was chased out of the area, and the Antifa crowd started hunting for anyone who might have supported him. Minneapolis police had already left when someone in the crowd spotted me.

“Turning Point is here!”

The shout cut through the noise. In that moment, you’re presented with a few options.

You can run, but that instantly draws more attention. You can walk, but that gives people more time to notice the commotion. Or you can stand your ground, hit record on your phone, and roll the dice.

Getting surrounded by leftists on camera makes for compelling content. But I’d just watched this crowd attack Lang and others. I was alone. If I needed help, it would be tough luck.

I decided the best thing to do was to continue my work another day. I managed to separate from most of the crowd before the shouting spread. A few people followed, but they lost interest when I told them I wasn’t there for Turning Point. They eventually wandered off.

Later, I learned that Antifa networks on Bluesky had already notified their followers of my presence in Minnesota. The coordination is real. The infrastructure is real. These aren’t spontaneous gatherings of friendly concerned citizens, they’re organized operations with communication networks, reconnaissance, and target lists. I’m on the target lists.

So why do it? Why keep showing up to places where people want to hurt you?

Because the debate America is having right now is the wrong one.

We’re arguing over whether two deaths were justified—poring over body camera footage like sports referees watching the instant replay, assigning blame, sorting ourselves into teams. That argument will never be resolved. It’s not meant to be. It’s meant to be a distraction.

The real question isn’t whether federal agents were justified in Minneapolis. The real question is what kind of organized resistance has taken root in American cities and what it will take to uproot it.

These aren’t protesters. They’re not even rioters, not in the traditional sense. What I’ve witnessed over the past five years is the emergence of something else entirely: networked, coordinated, ideologically committed groups that operate more like cells than citizens. They have communication infrastructure, reconnaissance capabilities, and target lists. They can mobilize in hours and coordinate across state lines.

The New York cover wants you to see a friendly neighbor in a gas mask. What I see is something the country isn’t ready to confront.

The justified-or-not debate is comfortable. It lets us stay in familiar left versus right, cops versus protesters territory, the same worn-out arguments we’ve been having for decades.

But that debate is a luxury we may not be able to afford much longer. What’s building in Minneapolis, in Portland, Austin, Chicago, in cities across the country, isn’t going away after the news cycle moves on.

The only question is whether we’re willing to see it clearly.

Julio Rosas is an acclaimed journalist who has worked at The Blaze, Townhall, Washington Examiner, Mediaite, and the Independent Journal Review

Stop Falling for Weaponized Empathy
For all the gullible Christians angrily venting about ICE, your Christian love is not pure. You’re functioning as agents of chaos. Stop it.

For all the gullible Christians angrily venting about ICE, your Christian love is not pure. You’re functioning as agents of chaos.

Weaponized empathy is everywhere right now. And Christian, you have got to stop being so gullible and falling for it.

Seriously, your naivete might feel warm, nice, friendly, and loving. But that’s not how true Christian love works.

I saw a post by the radical progressive “pastor” Benjamin Cremer that was getting shared a lot on Facebook. The post listed all the “un-Christlike things” he claims that ICE is supposedly doing, such as using “children as bait,” “shooting unarmed protesters,” “teargassing families,” and “terrorizing immigrant communities and people of color.”

The whole post went on and on like this, dripping with moral outrage and emotional manipulation. It was a textbook emotional ambush. No argument, no evidence, just big feelings.

What troubles me is that so many Christians were sharing this as though it were wise and insightful. But it’s not—not in the slightest.

The logical holes were so massive you could drive a truck through them. But the author wasn’t making a case for his perspective based on biblical reasoning. His case was based entirely on feelings, and church people fall for that kind of thing all the time.

False teaching almost always bypasses the mind and works directly on the emotions. That’s why scripture warns us to watch out for it. Paul says false teachers “cause divisions and create obstacles” by using “smooth talk and flattery” to “deceive the hearts of the naive” (Rom 16:17-18). That’s exactly what Benjamin Cremer was doing in his post.

He was using emotional manipulation to make error feel like love. It works like a charm on naive people.

That’s a big problem in the modern church. Too many people are gullible, and gullible Christians are causing a lot of harm in the church. These people aren’t blue-haired radical leftists we see at ICE protests in Minneapolis. No, they are ordinary Christians who sit next to you in church on Sunday but are led by their emotions. They are the nicest people you’d ever meet. They just don’t have the stomach to face hard realities. They think being “Christlike” is whatever makes them feel good.

But here’s the truth: it isn’t Christlike to be gullible. It isn’t Christlike to believe and share debunked propaganda. It isn’t Christlike to be led by your emotions. It isn’t Christlike to outsource your critical thinking skills to the left-wing activists in the mainstream media.

So why are Christians so gullible? It’s because they’ve been trained to think “love” means whatever it feels like in their happy place. They assume Jesus just wants us to be nice and get along and never do unpleasant things like hold people accountable for their actions. They equate “love” with their feelings. They assume Jesus wants them to go around and feel sorry for people, no matter what they’ve done to bring harm upon themselves, because Jesus is all compassion and zero accountability. And if people are held accountable in ways that cause them pain, then that is not being “Christlike.”

This thinking is wrongheaded. Biblical love isn’t about pointing your emotions in a particular direction. Biblical love is defined by actions and attitudes prescribed in scripture. How you feel about it is secondary.

Look carefully at Paul’s prayer from the beginning of Philippians. He says, “And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ” (Philippians 1:9-11).

First, notice that Paul is praying that their “love may abound more and more.” That’s clear enough. We’re talking about genuine Christian love. But love isn’t merely an emotion. Paul describes the kind of love he has in mind.

Second, he prays that their love will abound “with knowledge and all discernment.” That’s important. Christian love is a thinking love. Christian love needs to be well-informed. Christian love is discerning; it makes proper distinctions and draws clear moral boundaries. But why is that important?

Third, these things matter so “you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless.” In other words, we need knowledge and discernment to anchor our love in what is good and right. Or as Paul says, to “approve what is excellent.” This is true Christian love, the kind of love that is “pure and blameless.”

Therefore, love that lacks discernment is not pure and blameless. In fact, undiscerning “love” is not real love. It is all feelings and no wisdom. That’s the kind of irrational, undiscerning, corrupted “love” we’re seeing these days from gullible Christians. They hear sad stories and believe them immediately. They don’t realize they’re being lied to and propagandized. They don’t think in biblical categories; they think in terms of their emotions. They equate “loving the stranger” with open borders. They assume every illegal immigrant is an innocent victim and we’re supposed to just “love” on them, just like Jesus would. Since they genuinely feel sorry for people and don’t want anyone to suffer, they assume that must be what Jesus would want them to do. After all, God is a God of love, and they assume God’s love is just as emotional as theirs. This is love without discernment, which causes a lot of harm.

Biblical love is love PLUS knowledge PLUS discernment. In other words, love requires discernment. Period. Discernment is the rope that keeps people tethered to reality. Without it, love becomes a weapon that evil people use against you. Undiscerning love makes people very easy to manipulate. All you need is a sob story to make people feel sad, and Christians will take up their cause.

Without discernment, love gets twisted into a sentimental monstrosity. For the gullible and undiscerning, this kind of pseudo “love” claims the moral high ground. It does have some rhetorical advantages, which is why so many people fall for it. It sounds biblical enough to convince undiscerning people it must be right. But it’s not. These are not arguments or facts. They are ear-tickling slogans, nothing more.

Just as discerning love is pure and blameless, undiscerning love is impure and blameworthy. Obviously, the unhinged rioters and agitators bear the blame for their actions. But their nice,  Christian enablers who feel big feelings of “love” bear some of the blame too. To claim the mantle of Christlikeness in the service of lawlessness is evil, even if the one doing it thinks they are just showing Christian love. Their undiscerning love is just a front for the wickedness they are enabling. So, the blame belongs to those Christians who are so desperate to feel compassionate that they’ll believe anything, question nothing, and call it love.

Christians, we are morally responsible for how we love. We don’t just get to feel sorry for an illegal immigrant and “stand up” for them and call it love. That’s not love, no matter how strongly you feel it. Love does not spread leftist propaganda, “love rejoices with the truth” (1 Cor 13:6).

So, for all the gullible Christians who are angrily venting about ICE, your Christian love is not pure. It is not blameless. You are functioning as agents of chaos. You bear the blame for your irrational outrage, even if you present it as love and care and compassion.

So, I’ll say it again. Being gullible is a sin. Being undiscerning is a morally culpable act. Allowing anti-Christian and anti-American radicals to manipulate you through weaponized empathy is a sin. It is wrong to carelessly wield the name of Christ, making false accusations against law enforcement and making excuses for criminals.

Your emotions and subjective ideas of Christlikeness don’t dictate reality. Truth does. And truth requires discernment, not just feelings. We don’t get to emote all over the place and call it love.

So Christians, stop being gullible. Start being discerning. That’s what real love requires.

Michael Clary is the Lead Pastor of Christ the King Church in Fort Thomas, KY

 

 

Functional Illiteracy

The Age of Functional Illiteracy

Functional illiteracy was once a social diagnosis, not an academic one. It referred to those who could technically read but could not follow an argument, sustain attention, or extract meaning from a text. It was never a term one expected to hear applied to universities. And yet it has begun to surface with increasing regularity in conversations among faculty themselves. Literature professors now admit—quietly in offices, more openly in essays—that many students cannot manage the kind of reading their disciplines presuppose. They can recognise words; they cannot inhabit a text.

The evidence is no longer anecdotal. University libraries report historic lows in book borrowing. National literacy assessments show long-term declines in adult reading proficiency. Commentators in The Atlantic, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and The New York Times describe a generation for whom long-form reading has become almost foreign. A Victorian novel, once the ordinary fare of undergraduate study, now requires extraordinary accommodation. Even thirty pages of assigned reading can provoke anxiety, resentment, or open resistance.

It would be dishonest to ignore the role of the digital world in this transformation. Screens reward speed, fragmentation, and perpetual stimulation; sustained attention is neither required nor encouraged. But to lay the blame solely at the feet of technology is a convenient evasion. The crisis of reading within universities is not merely something that has happened to the academy. It is something the academy has, in significant measure, helped to produce.

The erosion of reading was prepared by intellectual shifts within the humanities themselves—shifts that began during the canon wars of the late twentieth century. Those battles were never only about which books should be taught. They were about whether literature possessed inherent value, whether reading required discipline, whether difficulty was formative or oppressive, and whether the humanities existed to shape students or merely to affirm them. In the decades that followed, entire traditions of reading were dismantled with remarkable confidence and astonishing speed.

The result is a moment of institutional irony. The very disciplines charged with preserving literary culture helped undermine the practices that made such culture possible. What we are witnessing now is not simply a failure of students to read, but the delayed consequence of ideas that taught generations of readers to approach texts with suspicion rather than attention, critique rather than encounter.

This essay is part of a larger project to trace that history, to explain how a war over the canon helped usher in an age in which reading itself is slipping from our grasp, and why the consequences of that war are now returning to the academy with unmistakable force.

With anti-ICE fury, Democrats are playing with fire.

Democrats are playing with fire, but it’s the whole country that’s likely to get burned.

For a democratic republic to function, you need certain key elements.

First, elections must be generally regarded as honest.

Second, candidates and their supporters have to abide by the results of those elections when they occur.

Third, winners of elections must not behave in a way that makes losing the contest a matter of life and death (or lifetime imprisonment).

Democrats are undermining — or just outright wrecking — all three.

On the electoral trustworthiness front, Democrats are standing united against measures to ensure that only legitimate voters can cast votes, and that the votes cast are counted honestly and transparently.

When it comes to abiding by elections, the Democrats have treated President Donald Trump’s victories in both 2016 and 2024 as illegitimate. (In fairness, he did the same in 2020 — but accepted Joe Biden’s presidency after Inauguration Day.)

In Trump’s first term, Democrats formed a “resistance” movement — as if the administration of a duly elected president was analogous to a German occupation government in World War II — and pushed the patently false claim that his victory was a “hacked election” or the product of (nonexistent) “Russian collusion.” 

In his second term the “resistance” is expanding, with suggestions that Trump is ruling as a “king” — and now with the often violent protests aiming to block the legitimate enforcement of duly enacted immigration laws.

Democratic governors and mayors in Minnesota, Oregon and Illinois have gone so far as to actively enable the chaos by withdrawing police protection.

Finally, winners of elections must not pose an existential threat to the losers; they can’t carry out, or even hint at, mass imprisonment or blanket prosecution.

Take a lesson from history: Julius Caesar led his army across the Rubicon to seize power in Rome because his political enemies were plotting to subject him to political prosecutions that could have led to his death or exile.

Caesar saved himself (for a while) — but his action, and the behavior of his opponents that triggered it, killed off the Roman Republic.

Historically in American politics, electoral losers have accepted the results, however grudgingly, and concentrated on winning the next election.

This new trend of treating Republican electoral victories as inherently illegitimate is a departure — and very dangerous.

It’s made more dangerous by widespread threats from important Democratic figures to prosecute not only Trump and his administration, but lower-level officials — and now, even federal law-enforcement agents.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has been raising this specter for months, and other prominent leftists are following his lead.

In September, Jeffries said that Democrats would prosecute members of Trump’s Justice Department once they regain power: “Donald Trump and this toxic administration will be long gone, but there will still be accountability to be had.”

In December, he issued a message on X to “all these GOP extremists and [Trump] sycophants . . . the statute of limitations is 5 years! It will be well beyond the end of the Trump admin.”

We’ve heard similar statements from Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett, Democratic consultant James Carville and ex-CNN gadfly Jim Acosta.

This month, the drumbeat got louder amid stepped-up immigration-enforcement operations in Minneapolis, Minn.

Leftist commentator Jennifer Welch recently used her podcast to push “relentless” prosecutions of Trump, Elon Musk, Stephen Miller and other Republicans if Democrats regain power, arguing it would be necessary for “true national reconciliation.”

And just last week Jeffries was back warning rank-and-file ICE officers to expect a Democratic administration to prosecute them for any crimes it could discover (or perhaps, given the history of efforts to prosecute Trump in the past, invent).

“Every single one of these people who we see brutalizing the American people, they’re gonna be held accountable,” Jeffries said of ICE agents. “And the statute of limitations . . . is five years.”

As Caesar’s experience demonstrates, you can’t have a democratic republic if every election is an existential struggle in which the loser risks extinction.

People don’t want to be rendered extinct, and they can be expected to take steps to prevent it.

If Democrats keep up this thuggery, Republicans will be all but forced to respond in their own defense — and any action they may take could destabilize the nation even further.

The last time such a breach happened in the United States was in 1860, where pro-slavery Democrats seceded from the country rather than abide by the results of a presidential election.

That resulted in a Civil War that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans and devastated much of the nation — a war driven by Southern “fire-eater” rhetoric that’s not unlike what we’re hearing from some Democrats today.

It needs to stop, or the consequences might be much worse this time around.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds

BLUF
If Donald Trump and the mostly useless GOP Congress really want to actually make America great again, starting in 2026 they will turn their metaphorical guns and scalpels on the government itself and begin to bring back the primary idea that made America great in the first place:  Limited government. Without that, everything else is little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and the outcome will be the same.

The Very Revolutionary United States Constitution
The American revolution was a revolution, but it wasn’t revolutionary; what was revolutionary was the United States Constitution.

During college one of my professors in Political Philosophy said that the only real revolutions in modern Western civilization were the French and the Russian.  He was right, but I didn’t quite get it at the time.  I do now.

While the American revolution was ostensibly a revolution, in reality it was more of a divorce where the kids kept the same parents, they just lived with their Mom.  Their Dad was still their Dad, but they didn’t have much to do with him. In contrast, the French and Russian revolutions were basically the children taking their parents out back and shooting them….

The American revolution was a revolution, but it wasn’t revolutionary. But what was revolutionary was the United States Constitution.

For the first time in history, a government was formed by a written constitution that described rights that were inherent from God (as articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the constitution of most of the original 13 states) upon which the government could not impede.  What’s more, the entire thing was created for the specific purpose of limiting the power of government. This was made clear by the Bill of Rights, which—beginning with Massachusetts—became the quid pro quo for getting the Constitution ratified. And in case anyone missed the point, the last of the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

That was every bit as revolutionary as the French sending King Louis XVI to the guillotine or the Bolsheviks shooting Tsar Nicholas II and his entire family in a basement.  But what’s more, unlike those other two revolutions, the American Constitution didn’t result in rivers of blood and a collapse of society.  On the contrary, it set the American experiment on its slow but methodical march to revolutionize the world and unleash the potential of man.

The American experiment worked… for almost 200 years.  Of course it didn’t work perfectly for everyone all the time, nor for some people any of the time, but for the overwhelming majority of people who have lived in the United States over the course of its existence, life has been better here than almost any other place on Earth.

But that experiment is in the process of collapsing. Why?  Simple.  Because the nation that was birthed with a constitution specifically geared toward limiting government power has metastasized into a nation where the government controls virtually everything.

Continue reading “”

For Such a Time As This in Iran

The words of Esther 4:14 have never been more relevant. “And who knows if you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?”

The words were first spoken in Persia, by Mordechai to Queen Esther, imploring her to intervene with her husband, the King, to reverse the death decree against the Jewish people, not just in Persia but throughout more than 100 provinces under its empire.

In recent years, the verse has become widely used to motivate others to take action, to follow the path of Esther who risked her life to do so, and specifically among Christians to stand with Israel and the Jewish people. For such a time as this. But today the words have never been more important, not just for these important reasons but because they speak to modern Iran and Iranians, Persia, from a Jewish leader in ancient Persia.

“For such a time as this” is a call to action being echoed in different words across Iran today. Massive, even unprecedented protests have ignited tens of thousands of Iranians against the evil Islamic regime that hijacked Iran in 1979. Iranians know this may be the best opportunity since then to unshackle themselves,

Listen to their modern words echoing Mordechai’s charge to Esther in what the protesters are chanting.

My friend Marziyeh Amirizadeh has updated me and the world on developments as they occur. She was born in Iran, where she experienced the evil misogyny of the Islamic regime firsthand. She was arrested and sentenced to death in 2009 because she converted to Christianity and refused to renounce her faith. She’s shared videos of Iranians chanting slogans calling for the restoration of the Pahlavi dynasty and the return of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi.

“This is the final battle, Pahlavi will return.” “Reza Shah: May God bless your soul.” “O the king of Iran, please return to Iran.”

Parallel to chants of “Long live the Shah” Iranians have been chanting, “Death to (the) dictator” and “As long as the mullahs (Ayatollahs) are not buried, Iran is not (our) homeland.”

She has also shared that university students in Iran have joined the protests. This is significant because the Islamic revolution that brought the ayatollahs into power was largely led by students. This can be a corrective remedy, bringing down the Islamic regime that young people were fooled by two generations ago. Their chants are not just against the regime, but exposing three pillars of evil that prop up the regime. “Death to three corrupted groups, Mullahs (Ayatollahs), leftists (Reformists), Mojahed (MEK).”

In addition to calling for Pahlavi to return, protesters have addressed the corruptive global influence of the Islamic regime funding a wide-reaching terror network. “No Gaza, No Lebanon, my life for Iran.”

The latter is not just a charge to Iranians but also to the world. Of course, Israel has suffered the most from Iranian funding Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, but the regime’s tentacles spread much wider. It’s time for the world to stand up, once and for all, to bring down the Islamic regime, eviscerate one of the main sources of Islamic extremism, and bring us closer to the realization of President Trump’s resolution for 2026, “World peace.”

There is nothing more significant that can be done toward world peace than eliminating the global threats to peace posed by the Iranian regime. The future of the West and the entire world is at stake.

Continue reading “”