BLUF
They assume they are exempt from following the law because they believe they are our moral and intellectual superiors.

And so for the next four years, they will once again insist they can ignore or violate with contempt any federal law they please—as the nation is heading toward widespread civil insurrection of the left’s own neo-Confederate making.

Who is the real, or fictional, inspiration for the new insurrectionary wing of the Democrat Party?

The fictitious Hollywood insurrectionist, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “James Mattoon Scott” (Burt Lancaster), who in the 1964 film Seven Days in May attempted to overthrow the presidency?

Or perhaps Jefferson Davis? He ultimately ordered the attack by South Carolina state forces against the federal garrison at Fort Sumter, which ignited the Civil War.

Or is the better inspiration the “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door?” Alabama Governor George Wallace likewise vowed to use his state’s law enforcement to nullify a federal law.

Yet how odd that the left, which had lectured us so often about a January 6th “insurrection”—a charge that not even the Javert-like special counsel Jack Smith ever lodged against Donald Trump—now talks frequently about the proud nullification of our nation’s federal laws.

The New Confederacy

Democrats weirdly boast of the subordination of the Constitution to international statutes. Our governors and mayors in blue states and cities take neo-Confederate vows to oppose the national government’s right to protect its own property, to direct its own employees, and to enforce our shared federal laws.

Over a decade ago, some 600 “sanctuary cities” declared that they were immune from the full enforcement of federal law. They further boasted that they would not hand over illegal aliens, detained by state or local authorities, to federal agents.

These were strange threats. Not long ago, at the 1992 and 1996 Democratic conventions, liberal grandees like Bill and Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi had vowed to stop all would-be illegal aliens from unlawfully entering the U.S. Apparently, they all flipped to open borders when spiraling numbers turned the undocumented into a new Democratic constituency.

Moreover, being the left, their loud nullificationist vows were, of course, purely political and never principled.

Once, an exasperated Arizona governor, Jan Brewer, had beseeched the Obama administration in vain to enforce its own federal laws at the southern border. In frustration, she finally sought ways to use her own state’s resources to do what Obama refused.

And the reaction of the Obama administration?

It was certainly not gratitude for Brewer’s efforts to enforce federal law. Instead, the Obama crowd sued her. It successfully sought out left-wing judges to stay her state’s efforts.

How strange that our current “principled” district judges once ruled that states could not interfere with federal border policing—even in cases where the federal government was illegally refusing to enforce its own laws.

Continue reading “”

The Islamist Hillbillies

Fred Aaron

When I was a kid, one of my favorite shows was the Beverly Hillbillies. This farce was about a bunch of uneducated, backwards country folks who fell assbackwards into tons of money when the patriarch of the clan, Jedd Clampett, found oil on his property while hunting a raccoon for dinner. Called Texas tea, the family of poor mountain folk were suddenly millionaires (which, adjusted for 2026 dollars, but put them in the same place as the Al Thani and Elon Musk). The comedy in the series came from the fact that all that money didn’t change the Clampetts. They were still the same old hillbillies wearing country attire, eating possum, and driving their banker friends nuts.

In all humor, there is a kernel of truth, and with the Beverly Hillbillies, it showed what could happen if you found wealth through no real efforts of your own. Instead of working for it, the money is just given to you. As a result, you don’t develop in the same way you would if you had earned a professional degree, moved up in the ranks of a trade, invested well, invented something, or excelled in the arts, athletics or entertainment. Those kind of experiences change a person, and when it happens at a societal level, it advanced a culture.

So what happens on a cultural level? We actually know the answer to that question. Until oil became big commerce at the turn of the 20th century, most of the Muslim world was in decline. In fact, it had been in decline since the failure of the Ottomans at the Siege of Vienna. While Europe, Asia and the Americas went through an industrial revolution, the Muslim world stagnated. Trapped with a 7th century ideology, limited resources, and a massive chip on their shoulders, the Muslims were going nowhere fast. Until oil. That black gold changed everything.

Suddenly, the Muslim countries found themselves literally sitting on a mountain of money. However, it was money that was completely unearned, it was just the happenstance of geography and geology, combined with the internal gas engine beating out electricity to power vehicles. Oil was cheap and plentiful, and the Muslims found themselves sitting upon its largest reserves.

And just like the Beverly Hillbillies, they didn’t change a damn thing about themselves. They still wore the same clothes, bore the same grudges, followed the same ideology. They hadn’t undergone any cultural development. They hadn’t learned the life lessons that come from sweat equity. They didn’t get the development that comes from education.

So this is why we are in this situation today. A people with a 7th century ideology and a vendetta against the West suddenly found themselves with untold riches. But they continue to live like it is the 7th century. At the same time, practically everyone in their midst who tried to modernize things, drag the Muslims kicking and screaming into the 20th century wound up dead, like the Shah and Anwar Sadat.

The key difference is that the Beverly Hillbillies were well meaning. They didn’t hurt anyone (except a stray raccoon or possum that ended up in Granny’s stew pot). Sure, they drove Mr. Drysdale and Miss Hathaway crazy (they were the Clampett’s beleaguered bankers). But they didn’t send out suicide bombers, oppress other religions, and use their wealth to undermine the West. The same cannot be said for the Islamist Hillbillies. Where the Beverly Hillbillies was comedy, the Islamist Hillbillies are tragedy.

Mamdani and His Jewish Supporters
Jewish Naïveté in the Age of Mamdani

My apologies to my Jewish brethren. But, to those who voted for socialist Zohran Mamdani this is unfortunately an exercise in deep self-deception.

First of all, Jewish naïveté didn’t begin on New York’s election night. No. Jews have been in the forefront of many campaigns for social and revolutionary change, only later to shockingly face betrayal by the very movements they helped to foster.

As many readers know, I started my Substack column looking at history, particularly American New Left history. I once was an avowed Marxist and was a roommate with Chicago 7 defendant Rennie Davis.

As might be expected, I personally met and collaborated with many so-called “revolutionary” New Left leaders in the 1970’s from Abbie Hoffman to Jerry Rubin. I was an idealistic romantic about the many benefits of socialism. And I’m Jewish.

History is replete with Jews who were naïve about socialism and socialist ideas.

One of the biggest Jewish leaders who embraced the Leninist Soviet dictatorship is a long-forgotten Jew named Grigori Zinoviev. That’s how he was publicly known. But his original name was Hirsh Apfelbaum. He was a Jew.

Zinoviev became one of the biggest global salesmen for communism after Vladimir Lenin appointed him as the President of the Soviet COMINTERN, known as the Communist International. He traveled to Europe and the United States to propagandize about the wonders of socialism. He also served as one of the troika with Joseph Stalin in governing the Soviet Union.

Zinoviev foolishly thought he was advancing the socialist revolution for the Russian working class. But after decades of being a loyal and an enthusiastic communist, Stalin prosecuted Zinoviev. He sent the Jewish leader before one of his despicable “Show Trials.”

Then in 1936 he sent Zinoviev – or Apfelbaum – before a firing squad. Despite claiming his innocence, he was executed in August of that year.

As the moderate Jewish organization Aish noted about Zinoviev in a 2024 article titled, “For Jewish Anti-Semites, A Cautionary History Lesson: “Yet, for all of his devotion to the cause and his role in giving Stalin the leadership position, his idealism would reveal itself to be naive. At the end of the day, as far as the enemies of the Jews were concerned, a Jew is a Jew.”

Aish further observed that, “As far as his fellow Jews, Zinoviev did not use his influence to help them. He spent his life building the regime that would utterly destroy the Soviet Jewish community.”

Zinoviev, like many of today’s progressive Jews, turned his backs on Judaism. He really didn’t care about his religion or about the Jewish people living in the Soviet Union. Today, many of the Jewish-born pro-Mamdani supporters also elevate their progressive socialist ideas over their affinity toward Judaism. Many also reject Israel outright.

According to exit polls, one out of three New York Jews were ecstatic about Mamdani and voted for him. They did so even though Mamdani is openly anti-Israel, has embraced many antisemitic tropes, along with dogmatic Islamic edicts.

Continue reading “”

The Armed Awakening of America’s Radical Left
When moral outrage meets live ammunition.

Unless you live under a rock — or teach gender studies — you won’t be surprised to find that people with strong left-leaning political attitudes score far higher on traits like neuroticism and psychopathy than many of their conservative counterparts. These psychological signatures — emotional volatility, heightened threat sensitivity, and explosive aggression — are more pronounced the further left you go. Add to that the recent murder of Charlie Kirk, the attempts on Donald Trump’s life, and a surge in gun purchases by self-styled progressive activists, and the picture turns even darker.

The same movement that once mocked the Second Amendment is now shopping for suppressors.

The same movement that once mocked the Second Amendment is now shopping for suppressors. From trans shooters to queer collectives and “rainbow rifle clubs,” the left’s new hobby isn’t mindfulness and manifesting — it’s marksmanship. Conservatives tend to buy guns to defend their families; leftists now seem to buy them to prove they can. The mood has shifted, from preachy to predatory.

It wasn’t always like this. During the George Floyd riots of 2020, the radical left burned cities and, yes, cracked a few skulls along the way. Innocent shopkeepers were beaten, officers ambushed, and neighborhoods torched. Yet for all the carnage, most of the movement’s foot soldiers weren’t locked and loaded. They fought with fists, bricks, and stupid slogans. But times have changed. What began as “defund the police” has metastasized into “arm the resistance. The irony writes itself: the same people who argued that no one should own a firearm now brag about their “community arsenals.”

The pandemic made everything worse — politics, paranoia, and people. Isolation fermented into delusion. Online echo chambers turned into pressure cookers. Every disagreement became a moral emergency, every rival a fascist. Locked indoors and glued to screens, millions mistook outrage for purpose. Those who once feared guns now fear obscurity. For a movement built on emotion, weaponry has become the new therapy — something cold, mechanical, and finally under their control.

But something more dangerous is happening right now: ideology is mutating into insurgency.

The post-Floyd left has convinced itself it’s fighting for survival. To question its dogmas is to threaten its existence. That’s why dissent within the ranks is punished with medieval brutality. But something more dangerous is happening right now: ideology is mutating into insurgency. The left has discovered that it likes the smell of gunpowder.

And why not? The rhetoric has been primed for years. “Punch a Nazi.” “Burn it down.” “No justice, no peace.” It was only a matter of time before soundbites became strategies. While conservatives debate calibers and carry laws, progressives are turning their causes into armed crusades. The so-called “John Brown Gun Club” trains members to prepare for civil conflict. What was once fringe is now fashionable.

Again, to be very clear, the modern left is not just angry — it’s unwell. Anxiety and depression rates among self-described progressives have skyrocketed, especially among the young. To those on the far left, Trump and his supporters aren’t political opponents but existential threats. They are embodiments of evil to be eradicated, not engaged. When politics becomes pathology, violence stops feeling like a crime and starts feeling like self-defense.

For decades, the right was caricatured as paranoid doomsday preppers. Now it’s the left that’s preparing for the apocalypse. Once, revolution was an aesthetic — Che Guevara shirts and campus protests. Now it’s a lifestyle brand with tactical vests.

Meanwhile, conservatives — those caricatured as the violent barbarians — are mostly watching this unfold with disbelief. They’ve always known that guns aren’t inherently evil; intent is. What terrifies them isn’t the weaponry but the warped conviction behind it. A man protecting his family is predictable; a lunatic avenging an ideology is not.

We are entering uncharted territory. The United States has seen political assassinations, riots, and radical groups before — but never with this cultural reach. The internet ensures that every grievance finds both a trigger and a target. Fury is now networked, outrage algorithmic. And unlike the extremists of old, today’s radicals don’t hide in compounds. They scroll beside you, shop beside you, share your workspace, and sleep next door.

You can’t mix apocalyptic language with live ammunition and expect harmony. A society can survive hypocrisy. It cannot survive hysteria with high-capacity magazines. Every revolution begins with the belief that violence will heal what politics can’t. It never does. It only creates new tyrants with a taste for blood.

Perhaps, in some dark corner of their minds, the new progressives believe they’re the heroes in history’s next great moral war. They forget that history has a habit of eating its heroes. It also has an excellent memory. It remembers every bullet, every boast, every cause that mistook fury for faith. And it will remember who called it justice when they started killing the innocent.

The Politics of Anarchy: Socialists regard disorder as a means to an end: government control.

Anarchists detonated a bomb in 1920 at J.P. Morgan & Co.’s headquarters at 23 Wall St., killing 38 and wounding more than 100. Scars from that bombing are still visible today. So are anarchists. As the little girl said in “Poltergeist II,” “They’re back.”

Will new socialist New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani lead to disorder? Free party buses and no cops! Here’s a hint: He tweeted in 2020, “Taxation isn’t theft. Capitalism is.” How about a 100% tax rate, comrade?

Anarchy is in the air. Alex Soros celebrated the New York mayoral result by tweeting, “The American dream continues!” His father’s Open Society Foundations have a history of funding anarchy-producing criminal-justice reforms and antipolice movements. Some American dream.

Why anarchy and destruction of social order? Always ask: Who benefits? The breaking down of society is a means to an end—the long game of political control. Citizens scream, “Save me!” This isn’t new. The Reichstag fire. Food shortages driving a Bolshevik uprising. Pandemic riots. Anarchy works. I have no love for czars, but control often passes to political systems that are much worse. Socialism. Communism. Authoritarian control. Only the new rulers are better off.

But wait, isn’t society crumbling? Haven’t you heard that costs are skyrocketing, jobs are hard to find, late-stage capitalism is failing and the source of all evil? Many youths think, “Socialism, save me!” But there’s always economic upheaval. Unlike anarchy, economic chaos is driven by creative destruction, and productivity is a long-term plus. It generates societal wealth by breaking down a sclerotic status quo and bringing better living standards. Anarchy destroys wealth to grab power.

The 1970s were dismal. In 1976 the Sex Pistols released “Anarchy in the U.K.,” which goes: “Don’t know what I want, but I know how to get it / I wanna destroy passersby.” In “God Save the Queen,” Johnny Rotten sang, “No future, no future for you.” It resonated. Jobs were scarce, inflation was roaring, unions ruled, schools failed to educate. Sound familiar?

Today undereducated (and economically illiterate) youths, along with a quieter illegal-immigrant population, are complaining about no future. Will socialists and anarchy save them? Hardly. It wasn’t anarchists that ended the ’70s malaise. It was a different type of voter-frustration regime change that upended the status quo: free-marketers like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Constructionists, not anarchists.

Still, disorder sells. I’ve noticed the New York Times now labels the 2020 George Floyd riots as “broadly peaceful protests” because CNN’s “mostly peaceful protests” was ridiculed so badly. Anarchy ruled in Seattle’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in 2020 and in the smelly Occupy Wall Street encampments of 2011. Add to the list the Jan. 6, 2021, mouth breathers who stormed the Capitol.

The recent (partially funded by Iran) campus protests and progressive support of Hamas terrorists in Gaza and further Middle East unrest is all about anarchy. Same for Greta Thunberg’s Omnicause of grievances. Europe was left behind because of green spending. Anarchy, especially during cold winters. Again, why? Who benefits?

Now New York, Chicago, Portland and gerrymandered California are headed in that direction. Statists and soft-on-crime weak-knees enable anarchy. Like Orwellian newspeak, they instill nonsense like pregnant men and an existential climate apocalypse until even Bill Gates calls bull hockey.

Open borders and sanctuary cities create more anarchy. Anarchists are antieducation. Antigrowth. Antiprogress. Anticapitalist. Bring on a new social order, it takes a village, we’ll make the decisions, not you. Trump tariff chaos has a whiff of this. Maybe it’s why the left hates him so much—he’s executing their game plan better than they are.

It feels like the desired endgame is an overthrow of existing regimes for a more squishy communal paradise. That’s been tried, and instead autocrats take over and crush dissent, boots on throats.

Yes, we need change. Society always does. Progress never sleeps. But we need change driven by the next wave, which has its fits and starts. And those who were left behind: Luddites. Buggy-whip manufacturers. Local department stores. Phone operators and bank tellers. And now artificial-intelligence-threatened graphic designers, coders, teachers, lawyers and doctors.

Some confuse this for anarchy. It isn’t. Instead of entropy (physicists’ definition of disorder) you get productivity and enthalpy (more energy) in the form of societal wealth and progress.

Anarchists want to tear society down and revert to a more feudal world. Will we see the equivalent of New York’s early-1990s crack dens? Hope not. Instead, let entrepreneurs and capital markets thrive, build order and create opportunities for everyone from the lowest to highest rungs of the economic ladder, and move society toward a higher purpose. Health, wealth, happiness. Work hard, play hard instead of asking for free stuff. It’s better than “No future for you.”

More stand your ground lies

By Mike McDaniel

Since the Trayvon Martin case—my home blog Martin case archive is here–the racial grievance industry has endlessly claimed “stand your ground”—SYG—laws allow white racists to murder innocent blacks at will. Never mind that SYG was not implicated in that case and that neither the prosecution nor the defense raised it. An unmistakable case of self-defense, the local prosecutor refused to prosecute. So racially charged was the political atmosphere, then Florida AG Pam Bondi appointed a corrupt special prosecutor who lost the case.

The anti-liberty/gun industry continues to lie about SYG laws, and the Wall Street Journal has jumped on the creaky bandwagon:

The premise of the WSJ story is that Stand Your Ground laws have led to a 59% increase in the number of justifiable homicides in some states between 2019 and 2024, and that the law is allowing some folks to literally get away with murder.

As we discussed yesterday, though, none of the anecdotal cases cited by WSJ in support of that premise are slam dunk examples of murders that were deemed justified as a result of SYG laws. The data set used by the paper is also suspect, since it did not include the significant number of states where Stand Your Ground exists in common law but not specifically in statute.

The WSJ is, at least, misleading:

Even using the WSJ’s own flawed dataset, the percentage of homicides deemed justified in SYG states has climbed from about 2.8% in 2019 to 3.8% in 2024. We don’t know how many self-defense claims were raised in the 96.2% of homicides that were deemed murder, but we know the number isn’t “zero.” Stand Your Ground laws aren’t a “get-out-of-jail free” card for armed citizens, despite the slanted reporting from the WSJ and Gifffords’ wild suggestion that many or all of these justifiable homicides are actually murder.

Just because a state has a SYG law doesn’t mean SYG is implicated in every murder or justified instance of self-defense. All SYG laws do is remove any legal requirement that people unlawfully attacked run away before defending themselves. If they are legally present when and where attacked, they may “stand their ground” and defend themselves. That’s it. The legal criteria for the use of deadly force remain, and the good guys, not Democrat’s criminal constituency, have the advantage.

Keep in mind I’m not an attorney. I’m providing only general information available by reading the use of force statues of most states. Visiting attorney Andrew Branca’s Law of Self Defense site is also helpful.

Generally, one may use deadly force if a reasonable person in like circumstances would believe they are facing an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death. Whether those elements are fulfilled is the job of the police to determine. No detective is going to simply take a defender’s word for it.

They’ll exhaustively interview all witnesses. They’ll find and collect all video from the area—almost everything is recorded these days. They’ll determine if the defender’s account is supported by physical and forensic evidence. They’re required to investigate every unattended death, even if it initially appears to be an obvious case of self-defense, as a murder until they can conclusively prove otherwise.

In the Martin case, that’s just what they did and discovered George Zimmerman was telling the truth. Ambushed out of the dark by Martin, who broke his nose, knocking Zimmerman to the ground and straddling him. Ruthlessly beating him in “MMA ground and pound” fashion as a witness recounted, Martin repeatedly beat Zimmerman’s head on a concrete sidewalk. Unable to defend himself, Zimmerman managed to draw his legally carried handgun. One round ended the attack.

Would a reasonable person in Zimmerman’s position, pinned to the ground and being viciously beaten, unable to fight back, believe he was facing serious bodily injury or death? The jury, applying Florida law, thought so and so should any reasonable person.

SYG didn’t apply because Zimmerman couldn’t run even if he wanted to. All the evidence supported Zimmerman’s account.

Claiming people can “shoot first and ask questions later” or all people have to say is “I feared for my life officer,” and that SYG laws require nothing more is either a complete misunderstanding of the law or an outright lie. In the Martin case, that lie tried to further anti-white racism. Now, Giffords and the WSJ are trying to deprive Americans of their Second Amendment rights and necessary legal protections, which would only worsen criminal violence.

Both are as predictable as they are despicable.

Eric’s 26 Inconvenient Truths

Eric Florack

I’ve been refining this list for several years now. Earlier revisions have been posted in other venues, although most of them are gone now. Even Rush Limbaugh had his 35 Undeniable Truths. As for me — cough, cough — being somewhat less influential, I only have 26.

Buckle up, kids.

There is no such thing as civilized warfare. War is, by definition, the lack of civility and the lack of rules. The rules and the definition of civility are invariably decided by the victor.
Remember that everything Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong did, including the millions of deaths, was absolutely legal according to the laws of their respective countries. Law, therefore, is not the final arbiter of what is and is not moral.
At the same time, morality is not, and can never be, an individual choice.
People are far too easily fooled by the label of “compassion.” It often isn’t.
When speaking the truth becomes objectionable, be very suspicious about those who object.
Donald Trump did not bring division to this country. He was elected because division was already here, brought on by decades of the establishments of both parties moving in precisely the wrong direction.
Heaven has walls, gates, and a very specific set of rules for anyone wishing to enter. You must be of a specific mindset. Hell, meanwhile, has an open-borders policy and will take anyone regardless of their mindset.
The biggest single mistake that we have ever made as a country, a culture, and a people was to turn the education of our young over to the government. Does anyone expect a taxpayer-funded, government-run education system to properly teach the founders’ vision of limited government?
People who are not taught the value of individual freedom, and its relationship with prosperity, morality, and limited government, will never believe in it and will eventually work to destroy it.
Socialism and globalism have historically been rejected by the people subjected to them whenever they’ve had the power to do so. There’s a reason for that: neither actually works to the advantage of the people.
Just because concepts like socialism or global warming have been disproven several times over does not mean their backers will stop pushing those ideas. It’s all they’ve got to go with.
If you want to know who runs your life, look directly at those whom you may not criticize.
Today’s feminism isn’t feminism. For proof of this one need look no further than the large number of self-proclaimed feminists who spend a great deal of time trying to look like men.
The reason most feminists claim to hate men is because they surround themselves with liberal men who, in the final analysis, are not men at all.
There are two sexes: male and female. You can have all the operations you want, but it won’t matter: your DNA is not going to change. The surgical blade is not a means by which one can run away from the reality of one’s self.
Claims to the contrary not withstanding, because one is of the Republican Party does not make one a conservative. Consider the number of establishment Republicans who have been fighting Donald Trump on every point. Remember, also, that the establishment GOP wasn’t too happy about Ronald Reagan winning elections either and have subsequently gone well out of their way to erase his legacy.
The purpose of government, any government, should be to nurture, protect, and, if possible, extend the influence of the culture that gave it life.
Nothing is for free. Someone must pay for its being available.
Our freedom and our rights come from God, not from government.
The American culture is unique and worth fighting for. It is the basis of our prosperity and our very way of life.
John F. Kennedy wouldn’t want anything to do with the Democratic Party of today. Indeed, it’s a wonder that the Democrats hold Kennedy to be an icon of the party at all. Think: When’s the last time you saw a Democrat mention the man?
The proximate cause of most of our problems is the establishment of both parties, who have come to love the power of government more than is good for the upkeep of the principles put forward in the American Revolution. We desperately need these principles to return if we are to survive as a nation, a culture, and a people
The most glaring lesson taught to us by Donald Trump being elected twice is that both parties’ rank-and-file are rejecting their own establishments.
Ninety percent of what gets passed off as racial issues are actually cultural in nature.
A nation without borders ceases to be a nation almost immediately. That is in fact the goal of pushing for open borders.
Experience has taught us that the cause of world peace would be best served by the dissolving of the United Nations. There is no fixing it.

Enemies of the People

In 1993, I stood in front of someone and swore my oath of enlistment. I’d joined the United States Navy and vowed then and there to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

During my time in Uncle Sam’s Yacht Club, I was never called upon to defend against foreign enemies. However, now that I’m in civilian life, I keep finding myself needing to defend us from domestic enemies.

We call them the Democratic Party, unfortunately.

In recent weeks, the insanity has reached a fevered pace. We’ve got everything from former presidents calling for the regulation of what people say to some reality TV personality from Bravo threatening literally everyone who isn’t as rabidly leftist as she is. We’ve got a sizeable chunk of the Democrats’ base threatening to loot if they don’t get their free food money they did nothing to deserve from the government, even.

This follows weeks of celebration of the assassination of Charlie Kirk and generations of pushing to restrict our ability to resist a tyrannical government.

And yet, they try to present themselves as the people who can be trusted with the reins of power?

Let’s not even get into their own calls for “lowering the temperature” on rhetoric after Kirk was killed, which weren’t even directed toward their own side, but toward us.

These are not people interested in being our countrymen and women. They see us as scum that they must purge from society through whatever means available to them or, at a minimum, who must be suppressed into silence.

What else was cancel culture but an attempt to make everyone too afraid to say what they really wanted to say?

Now, it’s violence. They want us scared, not for our livelihoods this time, but for our very lives.

Reality stars on C-tier cable networks are more than willing to talk big on “going after” anyone who thinks violence isn’t the answer without any pushback from others on the Left, likely because they agree with her.

I don’t want to see violence from either side. I’d rather we battle things out with ideas and words than bullets and bombs.

But I won’t pretend that the people who want me dead are anything but my enemies. More than that, considering the direction the Democratic Party is going, even their own base is likely to be viewed as enemies at some point or another, simply because they’re not willing to completely destroy the country from within.

They are the enemies of not just conservatives or libertarians. They’re the enemies of the American people.

Simply put, we need to not just defeat them in elections, but we need to dismantle the entire governmental infrastructure they want control of so that they can put the screws to hardworking Americans who simply want to be left alone in peace. Take it apart, and they’re powerless no matter what they want to do.

Don’t, and they’ll just keep building it up until no one can stop it from destroying the greatest nation in history.

It doesn’t seem like a hard choice now, does it?

The Future of the Second Amendment: A Nation Divided, Armed, and at a Crossroads

The assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk has once again thrust the Second Amendment into the national spotlight. In the aftermath, media outlets and politicians are already seizing on the tragedy to rehash the same tired talking points about “common sense gun reform.”

But before we rush to legislate away rights, it’s worth revisiting what the Second Amendment actually says, and what it means.

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That single sentence, just 27 words, has done more to preserve freedom, individual autonomy, and resistance to tyranny than perhaps any other in human history.

The Real Debate Isn’t About Repeal

Despite what some pundits might imply, there’s no realistic effort underway to repeal the Second Amendment. Both sides know it’s a constitutional cornerstone, one that would require near-impossible political consensus to remove.

Instead, the modern debate focuses on how far the right to keep and bear arms should extend. Should “arms” include semi-automatic rifles? High-capacity magazines? Concealed handguns? To many Americans, Charlie Kirk among them, the answer is simple: freedom comes with inherent risk.

As Kirk once said, “It’s worth the cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”

He understood a truth that too many forget: that liberty isn’t free, and disarming citizens doesn’t make evil disappear.

Continue reading “”

Why Armed Women Are Safer: What Gun Control Activists Won’t Admit

I recently read an email from Moms Demand Action that led with a chilling statistic: more than 70 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner every month in the United States.

As someone who has spent the last several years teaching other women how to properly and safely use firearms, that number is heartbreaking. Every one of those stories is tragic. But what troubles me is how that statistic is being used to convince women that their safety depends on being disarmed, which is the opposite of empowerment.

Domestic violence is a horrific reality. I’ve looked into the eyes of women who’ve lived through it. Many of the women who come to my classes aren’t “gun people.” Some have never touched a firearm before. But they show up because they know that calling for help isn’t always enough when danger is already present inside the home.

As a matter of fact, I am a survivor of domestic violence. So, I hope that anyone who doubts my opinions or convictions on my personal right to keep and bear arms hears this message with absolute clarity.

The world is full of unexpected threats, not in the woods, but in our homes. Not strangers in dark alleys, but people we know.

Moms Demand Action claims that women are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser has access to a gun. What they leave out is that a woman who is trained and prepared to defend herself with a firearm is far less likely to be a victim in the first place.

When I was in my late teens and early twenties, I wanted nothing more than to own a handgun. However, my anti-gun home state had other things in mind, and I was legally prohibited from pursuing my concealed carry weapons permit as a means of self-protection, a tool that may have prevented my assault.

According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, 90 percent of perpetrators of sexual violence against women are men. In terms of domestic violence, statistics show that at least 85 percent of domestic violence victims are women.

Domestic violence is a choice that abusers make, regardless of laws and prohibitions. Abusers choose to abuse. Guns don’t cause abuse. Abuse starts in the heart. Taking firearms away from law-abiding women doesn’t make violent men less dangerous; it only makes their targets less capable of fighting back.

I have no doubt that many members of groups like Moms Demand Action mean well. They use the language like “gun safety” and “preventing domestic violence.” But the leaders of that movement and the billionaires who fund them are making women less safe by restricting our ability to choose the most effective means of protection.

Almost every woman knows someone who has been a victim of abuse, if not having been one herself. Guns are not the cause of abuse. Abusers are. The tool doesn’t create the intent; it’s the intent that seeks out the tool.

Instead of promoting disarmament and dependency, we should be promoting empowerment. Gun owners already lead the way in safety training and responsible ownership. The statistics bear this out. With hundreds of millions of firearms in the U.S., children under the age of five are far more likely to die from drowning, poisoning, suffocation, or auto accidents than from firearms.

Here’s what else they don’t tell you. The vast majority of defensive gun use never even makes the news. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention un the Obama administration has acknowledged that Americans use firearms defensively up to 3 million times every year. Most of those cases end without a shot being fired, because the presence of a gun stops the crime before it starts.

This October, during Domestic Violence Awareness Month, I don’t want to see another campaign that paints women as helpless and firearms as the enemy. I want to see one that teaches women how to be their own first responders.

Because the real crisis isn’t that too many women own guns, it’s that too many women are told not to.

At Empowered 2A, a project of Gun Owners of America, we believe America needs more firearms education and training, not more fear. We need more women at the range learning safety, confidence, and accuracy, not more laws that make them criminals for wanting to live how they choose. And we need policymakers who trust women to make their own choices about their own defense.

Not every woman will make the same choices I have. Some will choose a firearm, others won’t. That choice should be hers alone, not that of Washington politicians who are surrounded by some of the best-armed security on the planet, with a billion-dollar annual price tag.

If Moms Demand Action truly wants to save women’s lives, they should start by trusting women with the same tools police officers rely on to protect themselves. Because our lives are no less valuable.

And to the women involved in Moms Demand Action, I’d ask you to consider what you’re asking the government to do. You are asking your own government to take away your best means of self-protection and trade our essential liberty for the false promise of safety.

This October, I will wear purple for Domestic Violence Awareness Month in hopes that more women stand up and defend themselves rather than be disarmed waiting for help that isn’t coming. I will also carry responsibly. Not because I want to use my firearm, but because I never want to need it and not have the choice.

What Academics Consistently Miss When Examining America’s Gun Culture.

Fourteen years into my personal and sociological journey through American gun culture, I am constantly reminded of how difficult it is to find scholarship on everyday firearm use. Despite the longstanding presence of a robust legal gun culture, the social scientific study of guns is dominated by criminological and epidemiological studies of gun violence.

To be fair, criminologists study crime, and public health scholars study pathology. Sociologists tend to study what’s wrong with society rather than what’s right. We teach courses on “Social Problems” and “Deviant Behavior”; the unproblematic or nondeviant often remain unexamined. Studying the positive aspects of guns and of the communal life organized around their use falls out-side sociology’s analytic wheelhouse.

I understand the prevailing disciplinary view, to a point. Guns are, in fact, lethal tools. This is “a feature, not a bug,” as tech people say. Firearm lethality explains why, although the United States has only a moderate overall suicide rate compared to other developed countries, it has a firearm suicide rate that substantially exceeds these other nations. When people attempt suicide using guns, they die in up to 90% of cases. Firearm lethality also explains why, although the United States is not exceedingly violent or criminal, its criminal violence is more deadly.

The reality that 80 to 90 millionAmerican civilians own an estimated 400 million of these lethal tools means that guns will play a role in negative outcomes like suicide and homicide. But understanding the fun and community that can emerge from the responsible use of firearms is an important part of the story, too—and one that sociologists have neglected to tell.

In my analysis, guns resist simple categorization as either universally good or bad, dangerous or protective, fun or frightening. Instead, they are best understood through a “kaleidoscopic view,” considering the issue from multiple angles. To be sure, this requires maintaining a clear-eyed understanding of the lethal capabilities of firearms. But an exclusive focus on firearms-related harms fails to acknowledge—much less appreciate—the complex social realities of guns. As with other “serious leisure” activities, we need to appreciate the individual and communal pleasures associated with shooting—the pleasures that led me to fall for guns.

— David Yamane in How I Fell for Guns

Gaza On the Brink of A Civil War?
Palestinian Clans Are Battling Hamas

There now are warning signs that the Gaza Strip may be on the verge of a full-blown civil war.

Mayhem is reported to be occurring throughout the Strip as Hamas has begun to launch vicious assaults against its own Palestinian citizens. And local Palestinian clans are fighting back.

If an outright civil war does emerge, Palestinian citizens could dramatically alter their history of oppression at the hands of Hamas. And it appears that in various parts of the Gaza Strip, many Palestinians are seeking genuine liberation.

But the fight is going to be ugly and murderous for those who have the courage to stand up to the terror group. Could we see a bloodbath by Hamas as it tries to suppress the open rebellion?

Today, the British Telegraph reported on the brutal display of public executions by Hamas. According to the Telegraph’s Henry Bodkin, “Hamas has carried out a mass execution in the streets of Gaza as part of a series of bloody reprisals following the withdrawal of Israeli forces from key urban areas.

“Footage has emerged appearing to show around eight kneeling, blindfolded men, bearing signs of beatings, being shot dead in front of a crowd,” he wrote.

For months, there’s been ample evidence of a rising Palestinian rebellion against Hamas throughout the Gaza Strip. My own Substack post from last May highlighted various clans that were mobilizing against the terror group.

But even as yesterday’s international conference in Sharm El-Sheik promised to end the power of Hamas, the terror group has decided to strike back by launching murderous street battles across the Strip against rebellious Palestinian clans.

Yesterday, it appeared that President Trump gave Hamas temporary “approval” to still use its security forces to keep public order. But today in a White House meeting with the Argentine President, he seemed to reverse himself, saying, “If they don’t disarm, we will disarm them. And it will happen quickly and perhaps violently.”

But Hamas is used to its power to behave with total abandon and without any international restraints. As Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip acutely know, Hamas has ruled with a mafia-style grip that threatens and murders all of its opponents.

The Jerusalem Post’s Seth J. Frantzman observed the current state-of-play: “Hamas will want to settle scores and also show that it is still in control. Hamas will not remain in the shadows, it is already deploying men with AK-47s in areas of Gaza. It will want to show that it still has a mafia-like grip on power. It won’t want any of the various clans, tribes and militias to get any ideas. It will want to cement itself in power before any new interim administration is appointed. Then it will hand a fait accompli to anyone who thinks they can remove Hamas from Gaza.”

Even the BBC confirms Frantzman’s report, arguing that Hamas is seeking to “reassert control over Gaza as fears of renewed internal violence emerge following the withdrawal of Israeli forces. The mobilization has been widely anticipated as uncertainty grows about who will govern Gaza once the war ends – this is a key sticking point for later phases of Trump’s plan.”

The latest reports of pitched, murderous battles against the Palestinian clans also were filed yesterday by the Saudi state-run news agency Al-Hadath.

The Saudi news service reported that explosions were heard in the Gaza City neighborhood of Sejaia. Hamas claims it is launching a “large campaign” against rebelling clans.

The BBC also reported other battles in the Strip: “Masked Hamas gunmen exchanged fire with clan fighters near the city’s Jordanian hospital, witnesses said.”

The British news agency reported on eyewitness accounts of the clashes that erupted in the Tel al-Hawa neighborhood in southern Gaza City. The BBC stated, “a Hamas force of more than 300 fighters moved to storm a residential block where Dughmush gunmen were entrenched.”

Their reporter recounted stories of sheer mayhem: “Residents described scenes of panic as dozens of families fled their homes under heavy gunfire, many of them displaced multiple times during the war.

“This time people weren’t fleeing Israeli attacks,” one resident said. “They were running from their own people.”

According to another report about the Doghmush clan fighting in Gaza City was from the Israeli outlet Ynet. They stated that 52 members of the Doghmush clan were killed, and 12 Hamas terrorists died in brutal battles.

The outrage expressed by local Palestinians opposed to Hamas is palpable. The Jerusalem Post quoted Hussam al-Astal, the commander of an armed group that’s fighting Hamas in Khan Yunis. He published a defiant post on his Facebook page, harshly attacking the organization, according to the Post.

“To all the Hamas rats,” he wrote, “your tunnels are destroyed, your rights no longer exist. Repent before it’s too late – there is no Hamas from today onward.”

Clearly, the clans also are gunning for major Hamas figures. The infamous Hamas “influencer” and blogger Salah al-Ja‘farawi was one of the most prominent pro-Hamas voices in the Gaza Strip who celebrated the butchery of October 7. He was found dead, reportedly shot in the head.

Interestingly, the wife of New York Democratic mayoralty candidate Zohran Mamdani, Rama Duwaji, mourning his killing. She shared an image of al-Ja’farawi on her Instagram post, accompanied by four broken-heart emojis, according to the Daily Caller. The Caller added she also shared a separate post referring to the “beloved Ja’farawi.”

Also killed by the Palestinian rebels was the son of a senior Hamas military intelligence official, Basem Naim.

The clans clearly are challenging the international narrative about life in Gaza under Hamas. Wrote one clan member, “We are trapped. They arrested all the youths, lined them up against walls, pointed weapons at their heads. There is a massacre here.”

“Children are screaming and dying, they are burning our houses,” another clan member told the Israeli news outlet, Ynet.

The British Telegraph reported in an exclusive interview with Khan Younis clan leader Hossam al-Astal who describes how he and others who hate the terror group await the moment to liberate Gaza.

“It was in the streets of Khan Younis that Hossam al-Astal, a sworn enemy of Hamas, gathered his men for battle against the terrorists after they had attacked the neighboring al-Majayda clan,” the Telegraph reported.

The British news agency further noted, “The bloody battle was the first serious clash between Hamas and the rebel leader’s militia, which he calls Strike Force Against Terror.”

The Telegraph added that the hate for Hamas was deep: “‘No place for Hamas dogs’ reads a slogan emblazoned on a social media picture of the militia leader alongside eight heavily armed men, which was posted around the same time as last week’s battle.”

There are a number of key clans that are leading the uprising. One is Yaser Abu Shabab, a clan leader who I wrote about in my previous Substack. He commands groups of armed men in Gaza’s Rafah area. They patrol and protect aid convoys while openly challenging Hamas’ power.

“Call us counter-terror forces. Our goal is to protect Palestinian human rights from Hamas terrorism,” he has said.

Another is the Doghmush clan whose members were killed this week by Hamas. The clan is large and has weapons. Hamas is gunning for its defiant leaders.

A third is the al-Mujaida clan, one of the largest clans in Gaza’s south. BBC reported that, “The southern Gaza city of Khan Younis has witnessed one of the fiercest internal confrontations since the war began, between a Hamas security force and gunmen from the al-Mujaida clan.

Then there are the community-grown rebel centers like that created by Hossam al-Astal.

Hamas won’t admit that Palestinian unrest is due to the opposition from local clans that are fed up with the terror group. Instead, they’re issuing the ever-weakening claim that Palestinians who oppose Hamas are “collaborators with Israel.”

It’s unclear how quickly an outside security force by Arab states can be mobilized to disarm Hamas and bring some calm to the Strip. This is part of the “second stage” of the 20-point agreement written by President Trump and supported by European and Muslim nations.

Until then, expect Hamas hopes to brutalize those who challenge it. They will probably intensify their killing spree.

Might the Gaza Strip become the Cambodia killing grounds from the 1970’s when communist leader Pol Pot murdered 1.5 to 2 million of its citizens – about a quarter of the country’s population? Might a brutal civil war engulf the small strip before international forces can replace the murderous Hamas?

Only time will tell

My latest Substack essay: The Insurrection Act: A short guide to President Trump’s options.

With resistance to ICE in many blue cities, there’s been a lot of talk about Trump invoking the Insurrection Act. There are other, lesser statutes that he can employ, but this is the big gun. It intentionally gives the President enormous freedom and power to put down resistance to the law.

This is the relevant part of the Insurrection Act:

§252. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

So first, it’s discretionary to employ: “Whenever the President considers.” This language leaves no room for judicial review, by design; it’s up to the President to determine when the predicates for invoking the Act apply. Second, this phrase, “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” seems to fit perfectly with what’s going on in places like Portland or Chicago.

Third, discretionary language again: “as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”

It’s entirely up to the President under the statute. You may think it’s a bad idea — I’m not so sure it is, because I don’t think it’s a good idea for state and local governments to have a veto on federal law enforcement actions — but it’s entirely lawful. And, properly understood, not subject to judicial review. (The Insurrection Act, once triggered, also overrides the Posse Comitatus Act’s prohibition on using the military for law enforcement purposes.)

Invoking the Insurrection Act wouldn’t be unprecedented — it’s been done thirty times in the history of the Republic, or a bit less than once every 8 years. A state actively resisting federal authority could be met with the full power of the U.S. military — and the President could even recognize a competing, alternative state government. There’s no meaningful opportunity for judicial review under the Insurrection Act as its invocation is a “political question” and hence non-justiciable. (The same is true, as the Supreme Court held almost 200 years ago, in the case of Luther v. Borden, of recognizing one of two competing state governments as the legitimate government of a state).

“Political question” just means that the decision is left to one or both of the political branches of the government, leaving no room for judicial resolution. There is discipline, just not judicial discipline; instead it comes ultimately from voters.

And invocation of the Insurrection Act carries a special political resonance, though how much of one depends on how it is used. Using it to send troops to Portland to control a mob isn’t likely to be too controversial. Using it to replace the government of California, or to support a breakaway state of “New California,” would be more so.

Unless pushed, I don’t think Trump will go very far with this. Politically, it suits him to have Democrats, who yammered about “insurrection” for the past several years, acting loudly insurrectionary. And he seems to be able to accomplish a lot with threats — a threat to send the National Guard in to Chicago produced a sudden flurry of action from the Illinois State Police.

As Clay Whitehead used to say, the value of the Sword of Damocles is that it hangs, not that it falls. That may be the case here, too. But if the sword of the Insurrection Act falls, it can fall very heavy indeed.

Cynical Publius

🔥MRS. DR. PUBLIUS ALERT🔥

To the women of the Western world – I have a sober urgent message.

Please listen carefully. For those of you who believe the toxic rhetoric of the left -PLEASE LISTEN CAREFULLY.

You must stop this nonsense – raging war against Western civilization. Western men do not (as a cultural norm) rape children or adjudicate cases of rape by allowing the rapist to marry the victim as reparations. That’s not our cultural norm.

Western women, we must use our voices and platforms wisely. Our entire culture is under attack – our real enemy will be the implementation of Sharia law. Please investigate the tenets of Sharia law for yourself- don’t take my word for it. Step back and look at the situation. Even without a profound understanding of history, we must look beyond today’s headlines and think strategically.

I’ve spent several months reading from different resources describing what Sharia law really means for non-Muslim, Western women. With certainty, you WILL lose all of your independence/autonomy – you will lose control over your own body – you will lose control over your own life – things you currently possess in our culture. These things don’t exist for Muslim women.

STOP listening to the left – they don’t care if you become subjugated against your will. Look at the Christian churches being burned in Nigeria or in Sudan’s North Darfur- Christians are being killed or young girls are being stalked and raped by rape gangs in the UK – all at the hands of Muslim men. This is the Muslim community’s idea of tolerance. If we in the West don’t reverse course – stand up and state the obvious truth – the numbers don’t lie – our culture will succumb to the will of people who desperately do not share like values with us. This is our very survival.

Women, it is the preservation of our constitutional rights that gives us true equality with men – and it is Christianity that reflects this authentic equality most clearly in our modern world. I don’t care if you are offended by that – history confirms my stance.

This needs to be said – the left is waging a war of distraction while the real travesty of what illegal immigration has done to Europe (and to a lesser extent the US) is being obscured – this policy is engulfing Western civilization because Islam does not practice tolerance of other religions/cultures in its home countries. This isn’t about “working families,” healthcare is a right, or any of the corrupted rhetoric of the left to engender class warfare – neither is the offensive racist rhetoric against white men. The left only pulls these sound bites out for their convenience.

I understand Islam is a religion and in the U.S. people have a right to practice their religion (unless it infringes on the rights of others), all because our Constitutional rights are the great equalizer. However, once Muslims take over our government at all levels by sheer numbers – they will implement Sharia law – this is why Islam is incompatible with our constitutional republic. Under Sharia law, Muslims may mislead non-Muslims in order to benefit the spread of Islam. So today, the left touts an ephemeral alliance with Muslims against Israel, but under Sharia law, these same neo-Marxists will be executed for being homosexual or transgender or having sex outside of marriage, and Christians will be enslaved, reduced to dhimmitude and/or executed for their faith. Convert or die – that will be the only choice – that is the reality.

So, that’s what awaits us if we don’t STOP this nonsense now and if we don’t change course, the perpetrators who engineered this catastrophic collapse of Western civilization will be enjoying their Mai Tais on their private islands while our culture lay in ruins.

Even the globalists who think they will still be in control when Western civilization has imploded are truly deceived – because they will face the irrational hoards of Islamic jihadists thirsting for their severed heads.

The women of the left have alienated the very culture that would have defended them. Please consider my arguments, and reverse course while there is still time.

Peace and prepare.

Cynical Publius

I’d like to add my own 2c here, A lot of Americans think what my missus is saying is hyperbole. Ask any veteran of Iraq or Afghanistan if this is all true. Ask anyone who has ever lived or worked in a Gulf state if this is all true. Not only will they confirm it, but they will tell you Mrs. Dr. P. Is holding back.

@TonemanLives

What are the real reasons Dem leaders do not want Trump to send in reinforcements to clean up these dangerous drug filled, crime ridden cities?

The first reaction is, they don’t want to be embarrassed. They don’t want to look weak and or be exploited for their wrongdoings

But there is a reason for all of it. The lack of policing, lack of arrests, lack of protecting the people.

These corrupt loud mouth corrupt politicians aren’t worried about being embarrassed. Hell, they’re Democrats and never show or feel any shame.

What they are truly worried about is Trump coming in and cleaning up their shitholes. Why? Because these dirty scumbags need this. All of this to survive.

I’m talking about the Dem leadership needs these areas for political control. The worse the area the more money gets pumped in. The more money that comes in the more money they get to control. Just look at the war chests of every one of these politicians in these disgusting 3rd war cities.

It’s right out of the Dem playbook. Money and control. Dems would rather rule over the ashes as long as their money flow continues

The Dems never care about the people. Show me any instance anywhere, where the Dems went in and did something good. Show me a place that the Dems made safer or a place where they are taking criminals off the streets and incarcerating them for long periods of time.

You won’t find any because there aren’t any. The Dems thrive on crime. Crime is good for business. Crime is good for politics.

The Dems are masters at playing with crime numbers and know exactly what it takes to keep getting voted in. They purposely keep the numbers down and are in control of their police departments. They tell them who to arrest and who not to bother. Their control goes beyond the people, it also goes to every state agency they are a part of

You lie about how much you care for the people, you continue to give them crumbs just to survive. You promise as long as you are there you will take care of the people. Then you lie about the crime numbers and tell the people that crime is down even though none of them feel it.

It’s called control. As long as things are bad these politicians thrive. They are masters at it and have been doing this for many years.

What do the scared citizens do? They go out and continue to vote for these same recycled scumbags.

They are afraid of change, and afraid to lose what little they get from these corrupt scumbags. There is a reason this has been a rinse and repeat operation for all these years. It keeps their political carousel turning. It keeps them getting reelected.

Now look at the other side of the equation. Trump comes in and what couldn’t be done in decades because the Dem leadership made them all believe that lie, Trump comes in, conquers and cleans up their shithole in a couple of weeks.

What happens next? The people who were lied to and told what couldn’t be done is not only all of a sudden fixed but they suddenly realize they have been lied to the entire time.

They realize the cities they fear to live in didn’t have to be that way. For the first time in their lives they will know what safety is, what drugs taken off the streets feels like, what living their lives and walking safely down the streets feels like.

Trump coming in and doing a major cleanup in these battle ridden cities is bad for business for the Democrats. It is bad for their party. This is what they fund off of. People living in fear. Once Trump eliminates the fear, Dems are no longer wanted. In fact these lost Americans will finally find their way. They will finally be contributing to society, a society they were all taught they would never be a part of.

Trump is decimating the Dems in more ways than one. These cities which are predominately black are all opening their eyes and it is all because of Trump. That is why Trump’s popularity is at all time highs with the black community. Trump is getting it done. Trust the process. My two cents

Violence and the Left’s Five-Part Strategy

President Trump’s designation of Antifa as a “major terrorist organization” is a major step in dealing with the epidemic of left-wing violence that has gripped the country. For the first time, we have a president who understands that riots with pallets of bricks that show up at just the right time and place, attacks on law enforcement and on passing motorists, physical attacks on opponents and even assassination do not just arise organically but instead are all part of a larger subversive strategy that enables and supports the left’s violence.

Just prosecuting a violent leftist here and there without countering that subversive strategy is like swatting a mosquito or two while leaving in place the pool of stagnant water that breeds them. Consequently, the president’s executive order recognizes that any effort to stop left-wing violence has to address the larger ideological, organizational, and financial feeder system that breeds and incites that violence.

Now comes the challenge for mainstream Americans. The radical left knows that the political will to carry out President Trump’s directive will depend on continuing support from mainstream America, and so the left will mount a counter-offensive to wear away public support for any attempt to counter the left’s subversion. If you think leftists get unhinged when someone simply disagrees with them, wait until you see their reaction when their support network is investigated, their funding is threatened, and they feel exposed and cornered. The left-wing media and elected Democrats who supported the weaponization of government against peaceful opponents during the Obama and Biden administrations have already started a propaganda campaign with cries of “fascism” and “dictatorship” at the prospect of leftists being held accountable for inciting and committing political violence.

To hold fast in the face of the left’s counter-offensive, mainstream Americans need to see how the pieces of the left’s strategy work together to demoralize and destabilize our system of government. In his must-read book, The Memo: Twenty Years Inside the Deep State Fighting for America First, Rich Higgins describes in detail the pattern of subversion that he encountered within America’s security apparatus and his attempt to warn President Trump about it. In addition to a shocking account of delay and subversion from within the deep state, Higgins also reveals in this book and in his other work how leftist violence is only one of five lines of effort in the Maoist approach to political warfare. Expanding on his work, we see the outlines of the left’s five-part strategy:

(1) Forming alliances of grievance groups: Socialists, radical feminists, minorities, gender identity groups, climate extremists, Islamists, and other grievance groups are pulled together toward a common aim, the destruction of the Judeo-Christian foundations of America and the West. Supported by a complex web of foreign and domestic funding, conflicting interests such as those of the LGBT movement and those promoting sharia law are tempered—at least for now—by that shared aim.

(2) Non-violent action: Many of the left’s tactics are non-violent in themselves but promote a dangerous climate for anyone who disagrees with their authoritarian agenda. Condemnatory terms such as “homophobic,” “Islamophobic,” “transphobic,” or “fascist” and characterizing opposing opinions as driven by hate are all intended to intimidate and silence any viewpoints deemed politically incorrect by the radical left. Boycotts of companies that don’t toe the party line as well as deplatforming and debanking of opponents create a climate of fear and send a clear message that you will pay if you cross the left.

(3) Violent action and intimidation: The above tactics provide propaganda air cover for looting, riots, attacks on people who disagree, and even assassination as supposedly legitimate means of bringing down “fascists” and the hateful and oppressive system they support. As was the case with the paramilitary Red Guard in China, we see that young people are particularly enticed to join in the destruction of the existing cultural and political order.

(4) Sanctuary: Subversive actors need safe spaces where they can be encouraged and protected from the consequences of their actions, and so speech codes and leftist indoctrination in our education system make it clear that only left-wing opinions are permissible and that open exploration of ideas should not be tolerated. Left-wing DAs who view criminals as victims and victims as oppressors release dangerous offenders on the street, undermining public trust in government protection.

(5) Direct political action: The above tactics then enable the election of radical leftists who use the formal power of government to attack and undermine our constitutional system. You don’t’ have to search long to see a number of public officials who already spout the Marxist line under the cover of “progressive” or “democratic socialist” labels.

When we see the full extent of the left’s multi-front campaign of subversion, it becomes clear that only a multi-front response such as that in President Trump’s directive has any hope of protecting public safety and restoring our ability to have civil discussion of differences without threats of violence from the left. When you hear the left bemoaning “weaponization” of government, remember that an age-old tactic of the left is to accuse their opponents of what the left actually does.

Dr. Tim Daughtry is co-author of Waking the Sleeping Giant: How Mainstream Americans Can Beat Liberals at Their Own Game. F

Original Intent: What the Founders Had to Say About Guns
The very idea of American freedom hinges on the right to keep and bear arms.

The US Constitution took effect March 4, 1789 – and the Bill of Rights a while later on December 15, 1791. Among other freedoms, this included the Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. But now it’s 2025, more than 230 years removed from that great work of America’s Founding Fathers. So where do our gun rights stand – and what would those men think if they could see us today?

The Birth of Gun Control Meant Death to Liberty

In 1934 – more than 140 years after the Bill of Rights and nearly a century after the last remaining Founding Father, James Madison, died in 1836 – the nation’s first successful gun control bill became law. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was president, and he led a trifecta in the Swamp that included a supermajority in the Senate and a large majority in the House. The gun control that they passed regulated, for the first time, various types of firearms differently. Even with the majorities necessary to bulldoze the minority opposition, they knew an outright ban wouldn’t fly. So, instead, they passed a bill technically regulating the sale and taxation of certain types of arms – and, in practice, pricing out most Americans from owning them.

Three decades later, Democrats once again held both houses of Congress and the presidency. And, once again, they capitalized on a series of crises to justify further restricting the right to keep and bear arms. With the Gun Control Act of 1968, we got the establishment of prohibited persons – entire groups of people who would be stripped of the right to be armed. Guns could no longer be bought and sold commercially without going through a federally licensed dealer, in person.

In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and the background check as a way to weed out prohibited persons. This was followed quickly by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which made certain semi-automatic firearms illegal for anyone, though it expired in 2004. Democrats have been trying ever since to pass another ban – this time, without a sunset clause.

Every gun control law passed in this nation’s history – and the time between them seems to shrink with each one – brings us farther from the Founders’ vision of liberty. Yes, in the last few years, Supreme Court rulings, executive actions, and the spread of the constitutional carry movement through the states all seemed to push back on this slow march to disarmament. But freedom today doesn’t mean what it did to the Founders. They envisioned something quite different, and nothing paints a better picture of that vision than their own words.

Continue reading “”

The Correct Argument for the Second Amendment

Taking a person’s quote out of context is unfair and disingenuous. Doing so when that person is not present to defend themselves is truly heinous and cowardly. Such has been the case in the weeks following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Of all the misrepresentations and outright lies surrounding Charlie Kirk, his beliefs and actions, perhaps the most insidious is the one used to justify his murder. His quote circulating on social media goes as follows: “It’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.” The deliberately fallacious logic of the Left then concludes that by Kirk’s own words, he deserves to be one of those unfortunate casualties. They leave out, of course, the part where Kirk stresses that while the Second Amendment allows us to protect many of our God-given rights, this decision comes with an imperative to reduce gun violence.

Rather than waste time justifying the value of Charlie Kirk’s human life to the soulless who do not care to hear it, it is both in better service to the memory of Charlie Kirk and more edifying to focus on just why a full gun ban should not exist in the United States of America.

There are two common answers conservatives give in defense of the Second Amendment, and both are not only insufficient but fundamentally incorrect. The first and most useless is hunting. While in simple terms, the right to hunt animals is self-evident, guns for the sole purpose of hunting would logically exclude the necessity of semi-automatic weapons and AR-15s. As Joe Biden was wont to say, deer do not run around in Kevlar vests. Furthermore, the benefits of hunting are persuasively dismissed by a side that ostensibly argues for human lives. For the average American influenced by media narrative, it is unjustifiable to allow school shootings in order to allow middle-aged men wearing camouflage to shoot deer.

The second is self-defense. This argument holds up considerably better, though it is still lacking. There exist evil actors, some with guns. The best way to counteract this unfortunate reality is by having good actors with guns, both for deterrence and defending against such actors. Taking away Second Amendment protections leaves good-faith actors susceptible to attack, and leaves the likelihood that bad actors will procure firearms illegally. The argument against this, however, is that an effective repeal of the Second Amendment and large-scale gun confiscation would produce a world with no guns for evil actors, eliminating the need for self-defense from gun violence. From a procedural perspective, a full gun confiscation is unfeasible and would not yield the utopian society the Left desires. While these are valid arguments, they are questions of practical application rather than objective principles.

The argument that Charlie Kirk makes, and the argument made by the Founding Fathers, is in fact the correct one. Americans have the right to bear arms because we have the right to possess a physical check against a tyrannical government. In the aftermath of the Revolutionary War, the Founding Fathers were careful to create a constitution that would prevent their new government from devolving into the tyranny they had escaped under the British. An armed citizenry is a blunt solution to this problem. The Swiss resistance model, for example, inspired the American Revolution and the Second Amendment. It allowed the Swiss people to fend off time and again both foreign and domestic tyranny. Consent of the governed does not mean anything at all if the citizens do not have an alternative option. Without the right to firearms, consent of the governed is a vacuous phrase meant to cleverly enslave the population using the delusion of freedom.

Unfortunately, this is a far more uncomfortable argument. The modern American does not like the idea of rising up to fight a tyrannical power. While the Constitution is one of the great written works in the history of the world, it rests on values and assumptions greater than the document itself. One of these values has been lost by the American spirit, namely, a willingness to die for something. The founders, though differing in theological details, held a deep respect for eternity and the final end. Only with that worldview is it at all reasonable to throw away an earthly life for another person, an ideal, or simply God Himself. The modern American has lost this.

This does not mean that every American should be thirstily awaiting civil war. It is simply a reminder that love for America means a respect for its founding principles. Respect here means more than tacit agreement to these principles — it requires a willingness to defend them. If this sentiment were commonly held among Americans, the right to bear arms would not be a rigorous debate but an assumed fundamental bedrock of our country. When Charlie Kirk acknowledged the risk of gun violence, he did so because he understood this fact. Charlie Kirk’s message and legacy are greater than himself. The fact that his enemies are so intent on distorting his words is a sign that we should listen more carefully to them.

Oft Evil Will Shall Evil Mar
Charlie Kirk’s Assassination and a New Great Awakening

The title to this essay is a line from Tolkien. But I’m also reminded of two distinct lines from Star Wars, paired:

If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

I dunno, I can imagine an awful lot.

Charlie Kirk was a powerful force. He went from campus to campus and he talked to people. Generally when he was debating, he would put his microphone down, to reassure his partner that he wasn’t going to talk over them. He was respectful, and he was highly effective. He played a major role in winning over Gen Z to the conservative side. That’s why he was killed — murdered. He was murdered not because he was “hateful,” or “extreme,” but because he was effective.

But now, even dead, he’s beating them, worse than he ever did when he was alive.

For all the fear of “Christian Nationalism,” a shallow, largely fictitious bogeyman for years, the murder of Charlie Kirk has effectively called it into being as a force.

(Ron Coleman, by the way, is an observant Jew.)

Trump couldn’t, and wouldn’t, have called Christian Nationalism into being himself. (Though, to be honest, it’s currently in a form FDR or Truman would have been comfortable with, if not Obama.) But Charlie Kirk’s murderer did. Christianity has historically advanced martyr by martyr. The way to kill Christianity is to ignore it. But the left can’t do that, of all things.

For one thing, leftism has the instinct to extirpate all potential rival power centers. And at a more fundamental level, since leftism was (to invoke Tolkien again) created in mockery of Christianity, as the Orcs were created in mockery of the Elves, there’s a fundamental hatred there that can’t be tamped down for long.

That hatred isn’t really returned by its objects. But if you get people’s attention, well, you may not like what comes next.

Why are they afraid? Erica Kirk today offered forgiveness.

Her full eulogy is here. On the other hand:

Forgiveness doesn’t mean avoidance of responsibility, or of consequences in this world.

But the real — and most hated — consequence won’t be FBI raids, and RICO prosecutions against the leftist groups that organize and finance terror, though those are likely to happen. It will likely be in another Great Awakening. There have already been signs of a religious revival among the young, both here and even in Europe. My University of Tennessee colleague Rosalind Hackett has been predicting for some time that the big religious force of the 21st Century is going to be militant Christianity, not militant Islam.

Tyler Robinson played a major part in helping to move that prediction closer to reality. I hope he reflects on that, in whatever time he has left.

No, It Wasn’t Ironic That Second Amendment Advocate Charlie Kirk Was Shot
All liberty involves tradeoffs. So does repressing liberty.

Inevitably, in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, some observers looked at the problem of a radicalized young man who drove hundreds of miles to plan and carry out the murder of somebody whose political views he abhorred and concluded that the problem is the tool used by the assassin. A few of those observers even gloat that Kirk was shot after defending the right to keep and bear arms when he discussed the tradeoffs inherent in balancing the benefits and dangers of liberty.

Much political discourse was already stupid, but too many people want to make it even stupider.

After Kirk’s assassination, amidst widespread mourning over his death as well as despicable celebrations of the conservative activist’s murder, came a spate of malicious chuckling over the nature of the crime. Charlie Kirk, you see, was shot with a rifle, and he’d once called shooting deaths the price of keeping the Second Amendment. How ironic!

Except that’s really not what Kirk said.

I had a lot of disagreements with Kirk, but this wasn’t one. His comment about the Second Amendment and deaths was part of a larger discussion about the dangers inherent in liberty. He emphasized that you can’t have the good parts of being free without also suffering the negative consequences.

Asked at an April 5, 2023, Turning Point USA event about the Second Amendment, Kirk answered:

“The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government….Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price—50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That’s a price. You get rid of driving, you’d have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving—speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services—is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road.”

“You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But I am—I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal,” he added.

Kirk might also have mentioned that free speech is also dangerous. Unfettered speech is important to the function of a free and open society. But protecting speech risks the popularization of vicious, totalitarian ideas like those of Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler. It runs the danger of the radicalization of lost souls who encounter bad ideas, embrace them, engrave “Hey fascist! Catch!” lyrics from the antifascist song “Bella Ciao” and gaming memes on rifle cartridges, and then murder their political opponents.

Undoubtedly, the same people would have found that equally ironic.

And Kirk’s larger point is true across the board. Any freedom that allows us to live to our fullest, any restriction on state intervention into our lives, can be abused by the worst among us. Evil people are shielded by Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, as are good people. We give up such protections at our peril in hopes of rooting out evil.

What peril? Kirk touched on this in his 2023 talk when he said, “the Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government” and noted that “governments tend to get tyrannical.”

Yes, freedom can be abused by bad people. But if we can’t trust everybody to use freedom wisely, why would we trust people in government to wisely administer a more restrictive regime by which they get to disarm the public, censor speech, invade homes at will, and more? Those who seek coercive power over others by working in government are at least as prone to abuse their position as is anybody else.

There are tradeoffs not just in liberty, but in restricting liberty. Given that we have a natural right to be free, and that Kirk was correct to say that all governments tend towards tyranny, we’re better off trusting in more freedom, rather than less. That’s a recognition that there are no risk-free options.

The Call for Gun Control Gets Even Dumber

But the focus on Kirk’s death by gunshot gets even stupider. The conservative activist was reportedly killed with a single round from a Mauser Model 98 .30-06 caliber bolt-action rifle. The Mauser 98 was originally designed in the 19th century for military use but has long since been largely supplanted in that role by semi-automatic and then select-fire weapons, most using less-powerful cartridges (yes, the most common cartridges used in AR- and AK-type weapons are generally less-powerful than other cartridges used for hunting).

But the old design remains ideal for hunting large game animals. It is accurate if properly zeroed, has a longer effective range than many modern military weapons, and cartridges such as the .30-06 are likely to cleanly drop an animal with a single shot. That’s why many of the old rifles were adapted, sometimes with modifications, for hunting. Modern bolt-action hunting rifles used for stalking deer, boar, elk, and the like are variations on designs that go back to the Mauser 98 and similar rifles.

That is, the hunting rifle allegedly used to murder Charlie Kirk is an example of the only type of firearm gun control advocates say they don’t want to ban or restrict. No major law advocated in recent years, such as magazine capacity limits or bans on semi-automatic weapons, would have affected it.

Blame Culture?

Some observers are upset that the left—the radical fringe of it, anyway—is blamed for Kirk’s murder when Tyler Robinson’s family is conservative, Mormon, culturally traditional, and comfortable with firearms. But the Robinson family didn’t shoot Charlie Kirk. Tyler Robinson committed this crime after he adopted views very different from those of his family, embraced the use of violence against political foes, and inscribed antifascist slogans on his ammunition before taking a fatal shot.

If we’re going to delve into culture wars, we could mention the unfortunate use of speech in the social media cesspool. That’s where Robinson was seemingly radicalized, where people celebrated Kirk’s death, and where a few even called for more targets. But that’s part of the tradeoffs of liberty.

If we’re all to be free, and we should be, some will use freedom in repulsive ways. We should punish those who push action to criminal extremes. But all liberty can be misused. And not only are the risks of liberty worth the dangers, they’re also far less perilous than granting governments enhanced powers that they’ll inevitably abuse.