Judge Sullivan’s Final ‘Verdict.’

It’s tempting to say that Judge Emmet Sullivan’s final ruling in the Michael Flynn case reduced the judiciary to the level of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. But that would be unfair to today’s law enforcement.

Judge Sullivan finally, belatedly, churlishly dismissed the Flynn case as moot on Tuesday, two weeks after President Trump pardoned the former national security adviser. But the self-important Judge Sullivan couldn’t resist delivering a parting “verdict.” He issued a 43-page opinion in which he all but declared Mr. Flynn guilty of lying and perjury and the entire Justice Department corrupt.

Attorney General William Barr has at least been attempting to atone for the FBI’s and Justice Department’s scurrilous behavior during the 2016 campaign and after Mr. Trump’s election. Earlier this year Mr. Barr assigned a veteran prosecutor, Jeffrey Jensen, to review the original Flynn case—amid growing evidence the FBI had entrapped him and that special counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecutors had pressured him to plead guilty of lying to the bureau. Mr. Jensen’s findings were unequivocal. He said the FBI’s January 2017 interview of Mr. Flynn should never have happened, as it was “untethered” to a legitimate investigation. Mr. Jensen recommended the charges be dropped, which the department officially asked Judge Sullivan to do in May. Continue reading “”

Mandatory Voting Is Authoritarian

After the 2016 presidential election, I wrote an exceptionally unpopular op-ed for The Washington Post headlined, “We must weed out ignorant Americans from the electorate.” In it, I noted that “never have so many people with so little knowledge made so many consequential decisions for the rest of us.”

My assumption has always been that the Post only accepted the piece because its editors believed I was aiming my criticism exclusively at the right-wing populists who had just voted for Donald Trump. If so, they were wrong. My skepticism extends to all sides.

And to all elections. Indeed, today, the problem is even more severe. More Americans voted in 2020 than ever before even though the winner, Joe Biden, was rarely impelled to answer a substantive question on policy or even to show himself in public.

2020 might have featured the most vacuous campaigns in American history. This is what “democracy” looks like when propelled by fearmongering, ignorance, and the “common impulse of passion,” as James Madison warned. I mean that all around.

We encourage Americans to vote as if it is the only right of a citizen, without any corresponding expectations. And as if that constant cultural haranguing to vote weren’t annoying enough, after every election, no matter how many people participate, there is a campaign to force everyone to do it.

“America Needs Compulsory Voting,” writes a professor in Foreign Affairs. “A Little Coercion Can Do a Lot for Democracy.” “1 In 3 Americans Didn’t Vote. Should We Force Them To Next Time?” asks BuzzFeed.

Ideally, in a free nation, the answer to “Should we force them?” is almost always “no.” But for the folks at places such as the Brookings Institution and Harvard University’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, the answer is almost always “yes.”

In July, these think tanks laid out their case for mandatory voting in a report titled “Lift Every Voice: The Urgency of Universal Civic Duty Voting.” I wish I could whip up an equally anodyne euphemism for “ugly authoritarian instinct,” but none immediately comes to mind.

None of this is new, of course. Over the years, we’ve seen similar columns in The New York Times and Time.

Obama administration officials such as Peter Orszag, an advocate of compelling everyone to buy state-mandated health insurance, were arguing that the United States “prides itself as the beacon of democracy, but it’s very likely no U.S. president has ever been elected by a majority of American adults.”

Maybe the lesson here is that we should pride ourselves on how many freedoms we enjoy rather than how people vote.

“The hope is not that the United States of America tomorrow morning is going to adopt this,” E. J. Dionne, who is a Georgetown University professor of government, a Washington Post columnist, and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told BuzzFeed, “but we do hope that cities, counties, states would take a look at this and perhaps adopt it experimentally, the way, say, Maine has adopted instant runoffs.”

Some of us do not share the hopes of Dionne, a longtime proponent of forcing Americans to do all sorts of things.

The Constitution makes no stipulation that citizens must vote. It doesn’t even mention voting as an individual right. We have no civic duty to vote. I haven’t voted for president since 2000. I haven’t voted at all since 2004.

For me, this is a proactive political choice. But maybe some Americans don’t vote because they are anarchists, or monarchists, or nihilists. Some Americans might not be satisfied with any of their choices. Some might rather be watching cartoons. It’s none of Dionne’s business.

The last thing we should do is make those who aren’t interested, motivated, or feel unprepared to make sound decisions act against their will.

Whenever I mention that compelling people to participate in the political system is authoritarian, someone will ridicule me by noting that voting is the hallmark of “democracy.”

One wonders if citizens of, say, Hong Kong, who had no real vote as British colonial subjects for 150 years, feel freer today than they did 30 years ago.

Sure, mandatory voting exists in Australia and Belgium. But it also exists in Bolivia, Congo, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, and Lebanon. In fact, historically speaking, authoritarian states often adopt compulsory voting as a way of creating a false sense of democratic legitimacy. If you’re compelling people to participate, you’re not doing “democracy.”

2020 saw record turnout—though calling it a “turnout” is a bit misleading since the involvement was largely a function of states’ haphazardly mailing out paper ballots to everyone.

All mandatory-voting advocates are doing is further degrading the importance of elections and incentivizing more demagoguery.

If they truly believed democracy was sacred—rather than a way to accumulate power—they’d want Americans to put more effort into voting for the president than they do in ordering Chinese takeout. And they certainly wouldn’t want to force anyone to do it.

 

Something To Watch For

The Supreme Court’s recent 5 to 4 decision upholding the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion saw Chief Justice John Roberts in the minority. That’s right, SCOTUS fans: supposed Catholic and Constitutionalist Roberts voted against the protection of religious freedom. However, owing entirely to the timely nomination and confirmation of Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, religious freedom was upheld, albeit narrowly.

This puts me in mind of another recent Supreme Court Chief Justice, one remembered fondly by very few–and no, I’m not one of the few: the late Warren Burger. Have a snippet from Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong’s excellent book on the Burger Court, The Brethren:

     The Chief [Justice Warren Burger] spread a large sheet of plain butcher paper in front of him on the desk. Across the top were listed the names of Justices. Down the left side were the names of the cases heard so far that term. The sheet was Burger’s most powerful tool in controlling the Court. It represented the workload of each Justice. By tradition, the senior Justice in the majority at conference selected the Justice who was to write the Court opinion for the majority. Since the Chief was considered senior to all the others, he made the assignments when he was in the majority. Burger was careful, in his first term, to make sure he was in the majority most of the time—even if he had to adjust his views. Leadership in the Court could not be exercised from a minority position, he felt. [Emphasis added by FWP.]

Never mind why supposed Constitutionalist Roberts now votes with the Leftists most of the time. Just take it as written that he will continue to do so, whatever the reason. Now that the Barrett confirmation has put him and the “open” Leftists in the minority, Roberts will be tempted—possibly induced by outside pressure—to do as Burger did and “adjust his views” to vote with the five conservatives. That would allow him to assign the opinion in a case with a conservative majority to one of the Leftists, or to himself. That would enable him to vitiate a conservative decision with a Left-leaning opinion. If, as has been suggested elsewhere, Roberts is being controlled from outside the Court by blackmail threats, the addition of Barrett to the Court makes this a possibility to watch for.

My sincerest-sounding apologies for giving you something new to worry about while you’re still digesting your Thanksgiving dinner, Gentle Reader. The stuffing was really good this year, wasn’t it? Just the thing to soothe a troubled stomach. Warm up a little for lunch, maybe with some of the leftover gravy or cranberry sauce. After that it will be time to inventory the ammo once more.

Gun Rights Delayed are Gun Rights Denied.

This year, protests have coursed throughout the nation, and unfortunately, as Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has candidly acknowledged, “we’ve also seen . . . people who have embedded themselves in these seemingly peaceful protests and come for a fight.” As a result of such civic disorder, more people in jurisdictions such as Illinois and Minnesota, sites of widespread looting and even arson, have wanted immediate access to firearms. But some jurisdictions, including these, have failed to process licenses to purchase or carry firearms in a timely manner.

Such delays violate the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court expressly held that the right to possess a gun at home was of the essence of the Second Amendment, and the right was extended to the states by McDonald v. Chicago. Yet Illinois, for instance, now imposes lengthy delays to obtain even the licenses necessary to purchase a gun for home or business use. The statute permits as much as a 30-day delay, and in June it took an average of 51 days to get the necessary FOID card. A colleague of mine still has not gotten one after 170 days. A firearm delayed is self-defense denied. That is particularly problematic at a time of increased violence and looting. A gun—even one that is never fired—may make the difference between a burned-down store and a continuing source of livelihood. Continue reading “”

I can’t help but snicker at the irony.

Since Trump announced he was going to run for President, we have been subjected to the beating drum of he being a Nazi and the worse parts of Buchenwald were soon to be visiting our neighborhood. How the gays and Latinos were going to be thrown in concentration camps or sent across the border to die and other fascist delicacies.

Fast forward 4 years and a pandemic and it is the Democrats in positions of power turning cities into medical gulags and concentration camps ordering people to stay inside they home/barracks or otherwise violate laws created by then and not elected legislators. And in some cases, they have roaming gestapo agents trying to peek inside private property to make sure you are not violating the dictums of the Reichsmarschall.

And what should irk people more is at first we were told that we needed to “shelter in place” till a vaccine was created and we could be free again. But now that vaccines appears close by, they are already starting to rile against it because it was created under the Trump presidency and it would be a legacy they can’t undo. They want to be the saviors. They want you to know they saved you from Trump even if they created the disaster.

They want you dead or under subjugation.

Worse is coming.

 

A Dark Moment for Democracy Affirms the Need for the Second Amendment

Businesses in major American cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C. erected plywood barricades for fear of election day violence. To observers in other countries, the picture of boarded up businesses looked like they came from the third world. To historians, the pictures looked like they were taken from a country descending into tyranny.

We all know who these barriers were built to defend against. They weren’t built to defend against Tea Partiers. They weren’t built to defend against Proud Boys. They were built to defend against Antifa and Black Lives Matter, groups who Joe Biden has repeatedly refused to condemn despite their coordinated violence and property destruction.

Shortly before the election, Biden tweeted that he would ban “assault weapons,” implement “universal background checks,” and enact other allegedly “common sense” gun reform laws.

If he proves the victor, and the Democrats win one run-off race in Georgia, America will see an unprecedented assault on the Second Amendment. A Biden Department of Justice would try to bankrupt gun manufacturers in court. And gun confiscation would be on the table, given that Biden has promised to put Beto O’Rourke, who famously said “Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15s,” in charge of his administration’s gun policies.

Fortunately, over the last six months gun sales – especially to first-time gun-buyers – have shattered all historic records. This is because for hundreds of thousands of Americans, 2020 has settled the gun control arguments they hear so often in the media. The question “what could anyone need an AR-15 for?” has been answered by images of store owners standing guard against a mob with that gun as their neighbor’s businesses burned to the ground.

The argument that “people should rely on the police for protection,” has been countered by the reality that in major American cities our elected officials pro-actively refuse to allow the police the enforce the law. This wasn’t a matter of the police getting there moments too late. What we saw was elected officials refusing to allow the police to enforce the law because they agreed with the political aims of the violent mob. Continue reading “”

The 2020 Election is Not Over. The Fight is Now.

A Statement from The American Mind.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, breaking every rule that Democrats have screamed for months that President Trump was going to break, have all but declared themselves the winners of the 2020 election before the votes are counted.

But the 2020 election is not over. The fight has just begun. This is the moment that decides everything. Everything is now at stake. Republicans must rise to the occasion. This means rallies and protests as well as investigating and ensuring that this election was lawful.

Continue reading “”

Democrats Deny Voter Fraud Exists As They Plot To Steal Pennsylvania

I&I Editorial

For years, the left has denied that voter fraud is a problem by setting a curious standard: It’s not “widespread.” Never mind that voter fraud never is “widespread.” It’s always targeted at key races.

Case in point is Pennsylvania, which could be, if you will pardon the pun, the keystone state of the 2020 elections, and which Democrats have carefully laid the groundwork to commit targeted fraud.

Let’s assume that President Donald Trump takes the toss-up states where he is currently ahead in the Real Clear Politics average, and that Trump takes Florida and Arizona (where Joe Biden is barely ahead in the RCP averages). The electoral map would look like this: Biden, 260 and Trump 258. (See below.)

Real Clear Politics

That would leave Pennsylvania as the deciding state, which Trump won in 2016 by just 44,292 votes.

Biden clearly believes it to be key to his victory, spending the past two days there.

Well, guess what Biden’s fellow Democrats have managed to pull off in Pennsylvania. They’ve practically rolled out the welcome mat to voter fraud.

The rules put in place by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for 2020 allow:

  • Mail-in ballots to be received and counted up to three days after Election Day if they were postmarked on or before Nov. 3.
  • Ballots that arrived late without a postmark must be presumed to have been mailed before Election Day “unless a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it was mailed after Election Day.”
  • Signatures on the mail-in ballots don’t have to match those on record to be counted.

Pennsylvania’s high court, by the way, is elected in partisan elections.

“The Democrats on the state supreme court have effectively stripped Pennsylvania election officials of any practical way to challenge mail-in ballots of whatever provenance before they are counted,” notes George Parry, a former federal and state prosecutor, writing in the American Spectator. “Consequently, the outcome of the presidential election will come down to a post-Election Day ‘knife fight.’”

Don’t expect that to be fair, either.

Not only has the state’s supreme court tilted the scales, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro has all but promised that Biden will win the election, tweeting on Monday that “If all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose. That’s why he’s working overtime to subtract as many votes as possible from this process.”

In another tweet, he told Trump’s lawyers if you “want to try us, we’d be happy to defeat you in court one more time.”

Shapiro sounds awfully sure of how Pennsylvanians will vote, doesn’t he?

Trafalgar Group pollster Robert Cahaly recently said of Trump that “I think he’s going to need to win Pennsylvania by four or five (percentage points) to overcome the voter fraud that’s going to happen there.”

Cahaly’s firm correctly called elections in battleground states in 2016 that other pollsters had going for Hillary Clinton. This election, Trafalgar has Trump ahead in several battlegrounds that other polls are showing in the Biden camp.

You gotta hand it to Democrats.

When anyone brings up concerns about voter fraud, they scream that it’s a myth and accuse those who point out the system is rigged of trying to suppress the vote, or worse. Then Democrats effectively make voter fraud legal in a state that could very well decide the election.

There is always the chance that Biden or Trump wins by a landslide, which would make committing fraud in Pennsylvania pointless. But if the outcome of the 2020 elections is disputed because of that state, let’s make sure the blame is directed at the right people.

— Written by the I&I Editorial Board

THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.

As a professor for over 35 years, I thought I had seen it all. I was wrong. Who would have thought that the first words of our Miranda rights, rights enjoyed even by suspected criminals, would no longer be something ordinary people could expect to enjoy from members of their own community?

Now it seems that a desire to keep one’s thoughts to oneself can be regarded as immoral because “Silence is Violence.” Increasingly, people who are minding their own business are being pressured to make politically correct proclamations while in public, at work, and, incredibly, even at school. This includes colleges and universities, where free speech and free thought are supposed to be cherished. These are very dangerous developments for any free society because they are inconsistent with freedom.

For many years there were calls against politically incorrect speech, things you were not supposed to say because they were deemed politically repugnant by some group.

Over time, especially on college campuses, this flipped into a duty to be politically correct. This is a much more onerous and destructive requirement that forces thought and speech. Too often, it also has the effect of shutting down independent thinking far more than a mere insistence against politically incorrect utterances.

Our society is now running in reverse, demanding conformity from adults that was once demanded only of children. Small wonder, then, why increasing political correctness has increasingly infantilized adults. What’s the point in thinking for yourself if it can only get you into trouble?

One of our greatest freedoms is the right to remain silent — to mind our own business. But today, some activists threaten shaming and even violence against those who don’t take the initiative to endorse what they deem to be politically correct.

Not long ago, if someone made such threats, others would automatically say, “Hey, leave that guy alone. He has a right to his opinion, and he has the right to keep it to himself.”

Not long ago, most adults believed that not having an opinion was often a sign of maturity, an indication of waiting to hear all sides on an issue before making a judgment. Such persons were not presumed to be cowards. They were presumed to be thoughtful, mature, and wise.

So, when did opining about everything become a virtue? And when did repeating the party-line in lockstep with the mob become an act of courage?

The internet has allowed a great deal of opining to be done anonymously, which has dramatically sped up positive reinforcement for repeating popular ideas and negative reinforcement for failing to do so. Because we are hard-wired to crave acceptance, this has produced several generations of cowed adults. We are, as a society, forgetting how to think for ourselves and how to have civil arguments over important matters.

Those who love freedom and free speech need to be ready for the next time they see someone being badgered into stating any party line. Coercion to speak is just another form of bullying, and it must be pointed out. It is indecent, and it is un-American.

David C. Rose is a professor of economics at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, author of Why Culture Matters Most from Oxford University Press, and a member of the Missouri Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights since 2014.

Sorry, there will be no return to normalcy under Joe Biden

As the presidential campaign enters its final phase, one of the messages of the Biden campaign is that putting him, a 47-year veteran of national politics, into the White House will return us to something approaching normal. With Biden in charge, all the Trump craziness will expire, and things will be safe, sane and familiar.

In fact, there’s no chance of this happening. If Biden wins, things won’t go back to “normal.” You probably won’t even hear less from Donald Trump. And in a lot of areas, like foreign policy, it turns out the establishment’s version of normal wasn’t all that normal anyway.

Many of my lefty friends want Biden to win not so much over policy as because they have a visceral reaction to President Donald Trump. They hate the sight of his face, the sound of his voice, even the mention of his name. Electing Biden, they expect, will sweep Trump off the national stage.

But will it?

We are a long way from normalcy

Trump was big on the national stage long before he was president. Why would he go away after the election is over? He’ll still have tens of millions of (probably angry) followers, deep pockets and a huge megaphone.

There has already been some talk of Trump starting his own television network to rival Fox News, and/or his own social media platform — the latter made more plausible by the heavy censorious hands of those running Twitter and Facebook — and I suspect that Trump would regard a 2020 loss as a setback, not a defeat.

 Grover Cleveland came back to win a second term after losing the White House, Trump might reason. Why not me? He’ll probably hold campaign-style rallies around the country starting right after the election.

And the deep toxicity of national politics, which grew worse after the 2016 election but which has been brewing at least since the turn of the millennium, is not going to go away. In fact, a lot of what we’re hearing from Biden supporters suggests that it will get worse under a Biden administration.

Democrats are already calling for a Biden administration to pack the Supreme Court by adding new justices until Democrats have a majority, to pack the Senate by admitting Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., as states, and even to establish a “truth and reconciliation commission” in which Republicans will be dragged in front of the public and forced to confess the error of their ways. And, of course, abolishing the Electoral College. None of that is normal.

COVID-19 won’t simply disappear

Of course, maybe a “return to normal” really just means an end to worries about the coronavirus, which has in fact turned the world upside down. Biden is running commercials suggesting that tens of thousands of deaths from coronavirus are Trump’s fault.

That’s a pretty weak argument, given that Europe is doing no better than the United States, and arguably is doing worse.

Politicize things as much as you want — and Biden, who accused the president of xenophobia after Trump’s January order banning flights from China, and continued to hold mass rallies for two weeks afterward even after many states declared emergencies, is on thin ice here in claiming Trump acted too slowly — the coronavirus isn’t going away no matter who is in the White House on Jan. 21. It’s an aspect of nature, over which politics has very little influence.

So forget talk of a return to normal under Biden. It’s not going to happen. At most, you can vote for the flavor of abnormal that you prefer. Good luck!

Media’s double standard on the Second Amendment

The Colorado Springs Gazette covered the tragic killing of a Patriot Muster supporter by smearing the protest’s organizer, John Tiegen.

(You know Tiegen from “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi,” the movie based on the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. Tiegen and others guarding the compound fought off Ansar al-Sharia terrorists while pleading for help that never came.)

Though BLM/Antifa counter-protesters broke down a barrier and launched cans at the Patriots, they remained peaceful. However, as they were leaving, they were accosted in an ugly confrontation that culminated in the shooting death of one of their own. The shooter was immediately arrested and later charged with second-degree murder.

On the following Monday, Oct. 12, in a front-page feature entitled “Protest leader known in Springs,” the Gazette appeared to blame Tiegen for his death.

The article reprimanded Tiegen for being on a rooftop at an earlier BLM protest in Colorado Springs. It ominously described a rifle held by another man as “military-style” and noted a “sighting scope, like those used by military snipers.”

These are misleading terms used to scare us about guns. Some 16 million AR-15s are legally owned by Americans for self-defense and sport. While it has military roots, it is clearly a civilian firearm and not a machine gun. I wonder if the reporter would describe the Jeep Wrangler as a “military-style” vehicle?

Note that no shots were fired from that rooftop, no laws were broken and no arrests were made. Their choice of the roof guaranteed no confrontations ensued. Tiegen himself was holding a dog, not a gun.

Though the Gazette portrayed Tiegen’s presence as threatening behavior, isn’t it just as plausible to reason that Tiegen was there to keep someone from doing something stupid?

In fact, law enforcement counts on Tiegen’s power to persuade to keep the peace. For example, the reporter found this “coded” warning posted by Tiegen before the protest: “P.S. For Mechanical pencil that offers a concealed eraser, top lead advance and removable Clip no more than .15 mm lead allowed in each. City of Denver ordnance (sic).” Continue reading “”

Why Did it Have to be … Guns?, by L. Neil Smith

Over the past 30 years, I’ve been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I’ve thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn’t true. What I’ve chosen, in a world where there’s never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician — or political philosophy — is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians — even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership — hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it’s an X-ray machine. It’s a Vulcan mind-meld. It’s the ultimate test to which any politician — or political philosophy — can be put.

If a politician isn’t perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash — for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything — without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn’t your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn’t genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody’s permission, he’s a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude — toward your ownership and use of weapons — conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn’t trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn’t want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he’s sworn to uphold and defend — the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights — do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil — like “Constitutionalist” — when you insist that he account for himself, hasn’t he betrayed his oath, isn’t he unfit to hold office, and doesn’t he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They’re the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician — or political philosophy — is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn’t have a gun — but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn’t you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school — or the military? Isn’t it an essentially European notion, anyway — Prussian, maybe — and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won’t trust you, why should you trust him? If he’s a man — and you’re not — what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If “he” happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she’s eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn’t want you to have?

On the other hand — or the other party — should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn’t it? You don’t have to study every issue — health care, international trade — all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that’s why I’m accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn’t true, is it?

‘It’s Not That We Love Donald Trump So Much. It’s That We Can’t Stand You.’

Dear confused liberal,

If you are a liberal who can’t stand Trump, and cannot possibly fathom why conservatives would ever vote for him let me finally fill you in.

It’s not that we love Donald Trump so much. It’s that we can’t stand you. And we will do whatever it takes — even if that means electing a rude obnoxious unpredictable narcissist (your words not ours) to the office of President of the United States — because the only thing we find more dangerous to this nation than Donald Trump is you.

How is that possible you might ask? Well, you have done everything in your power to destroy our country. From tearing down the police, to tearing down our history, to tearing down our borders. From systematically destroying our schools and brainwashing our kids into believing socialism is the answer to anything (despite being an unmitigated failure everywhere), while demonizing religion and faith, and glorifying abortion, violence, and thug culture.

From calling us racists every time we expect everyone of any skin color to follow our laws equally, to telling us that our “tolerance” of lifestyles we don’t agree with isn’t nearly enough — no we must “celebrate” any lifestyle choice or gender option (forget science) you throw our direction or you think it’s fine to calls us homophobic or some other degrading slur you decide is okay to call us — ironically all while lecturing us on hate speech. While you gaslight us about 52 genders, polyamory, grown men in dresses sharing public locker rooms with little girls, and normalize the sexualization of young children, you simultaneously ridicule us for having the audacity to wish someone a “Merry Christmas” or hang a flag on the 4th of July, stand for the national anthem, or (horror or horrors) don a MAGA hat in public. So much for your “tolerance.” (See why we think you are just hypocrites??) Continue reading “”

This election will determine future of private gun ownership in US
JOHN LOTT

This past week, President Trump claimed the election will determine the future of private gun ownership in the United States.

He’s right. And Montana voters’ choice for the U.S. Senate looks set to determine its balance of power. If they gain control, Joe Biden and Senate Democrats promise to eliminate the filibuster, allowing them to pass any legislation they want with a simple majority vote.

But the Senate won’t just determine what gun control legislation gets passed — it will also determine what judges get confirmed.

There are few issues that divide Democrat- and Republican-appointed judges more consistently and completely than gun control. President Trump’s 200 federal judicial confirmations have only just brought the courts into balance, with Democrat-appointees still controlling circuit courts for 24 states plus D.C.

The states Democrats control judicially are ones that they also tend to control legislatively. These circuit courts approve any and all of the regulations they get passed, no matter how flagrantly they infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Don’t expect the Supreme Court to restrain these courts. All four Democrat appointments claim people don’t have a right to self-defense. Indeed, they have already noted they will vote to overturn the court’s 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald decisions. Those rulings merely ensured the government could not completely ban guns.

Four Republican-appointed justices clearly care about the right to self-defense. But they won’t take up gun control cases for fear Justice John Roberts will side with the liberal justices. He has already done so on religious freedom cases, DACA and Obamacare.

Montana’s two current senators are sharply divided who should be on the courts. Sen. Jon Tester voted for Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, who do not believe there is an individual right to self-defense. He opposed Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, who support that right.

Sen. Steve Daines has voted the opposite way.

If Gov. Steve Bullock replaces Daines this November and gives Democrats control of the Senate, that means more judges in the vein of Sotomayor and Kagan.

California shows us what the future of gun ownership can look like. For example, no one has figured out how to meet the state’s requirement for micro-stamping — a technology by which firing pins will supposedly imprint a unique identifying code on each shell casing. Even if someone could implement this expensive technology, a criminal could circumvent it by simply filing down the pin or replacing it. But handguns that don’t meet these impossible regulations will soon be banned. Given the 9th Circuit Court’s liberal bent, unless Trump fills another Supreme Court vacancy, California’s restrictions will likely be upheld.

This year, the Democrat’s convention platform is focused on a radical gun control agenda. It advocates licensing for gun owners, allowing gun makers to be held liable whenever someone uses a gun to commit a crime or cause an accident, and banning some types of semi-automatic guns based on appearance rather than on function. Neither Tester or Bullock have made any public comments opposing this platform.

Bullock attacks “Dark Money groups like the NRA, who are spending millions to try to divide this nation and thwart progress.” but he never criticizes the vastly greater amounts that New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg spends. While the NRA spent $18.9 million on all campaigns in 2018, Michael Bloomberg put up $110 million just for congressional campaigns, even more than that on state legislative races across the country.

Montanans cherish their freedoms. It would be ironic if Montanans provide the deciding votes that kill the Second Amendment and Americans’ right to defend themselves and their families.

BLUF:
According to its founders, NATO was created for three reasons: to keep the always aggressive Russians “out” of Europe, to keep the often isolationist Americans “in” to help protect it, and to keep the supposedly restless Germans “down” in order to avoid a replay of their invasions that ignited both world wars…….
That third mission seems ossified and silly now. But it is not entirely forgotten, and it may explain why many in Europe — and some in Germany itself — are worried when any American soldiers leave Germany.


A sort-of goodbye to Germany?

Victor Davis Hanson

President Trump recently ordered a 12,000-troop reduction in American military personnel stationed in Germany. That leaves about 24,000 American soldiers still in the country.

A little more than half of the troops being withdrawn will return home. The rest will be redeployed to other NATO member nations such as Belgium, Italy, and perhaps Baltic and Eastern European countries.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is said to be furious. She claims the redeployments will “weaken the (NATO) alliance.” German commercial interests chimed in that the troop withdrawals will hurt their decades-old businesses serving U.S. bases.

Perhaps, but Merkel surely cannot be surprised. Six years ago, all NATO members pledged to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Yet only eight of 29 so far have kept their word.

Germany spends only about 1.4 percent of its GDP on defense. As NATO’s largest, wealthiest and most powerful European member, it sets the example for the rest of the alliance. Continue reading “”

Biden clears a low bar, but now he can’t go back into hiding

HE did it, he really did it. Joe Biden got through the biggest speech of his life cleanly and coherently, without stumbling or mumbling or getting that faraway dazed look in his eyes.

That sounds like an incredibly low bar because it is, but it reflects the honest and serious debate about Biden’s fitness. His age, 77, past health problems and the obvious signs that his faculties have been diminished raised the unprecedented possibility that he would not be able to carry out one of the routine performances of a major party nominee — give an acceptance speech.

Coming into his party’s virtual coronation, the test was not whether he would give a good speech or a bad speech. It was whether he could give a speech at all.

So congratulations to Biden for clearing a fundamental hurdle. Now the bar is raised and he should be treated as any other candidate. He can start by releasing his health and medical reports, which he has so far refused to do.

Most important, there is no excuse for him to hide any longer in his basement. Hidin’ Biden must be a thing of history. Continue reading “”

Whew. When you’ve lost the Washington Post…………


The NRA is a cesspool. That doesn’t mean it should be dissolved.

Opinion by Ruth Marcus
⇒ Deputy editorial page editor⇐

I loathe the National Rifle Association. With its reflexive opposition to even the mildest gun regulation, it is complicit in the deaths of thousands.

And yet, I worry that New York Attorney General Letitia James has gone too far in her bid to dissolve the organization. Even assuming that the facts laid out in the state’s lawsuit against the NRA are true — and I believe every word about chief executive Wayne LaPierre’s jaw-dropping greed — the right remedy is fixing the NRA, not dismantling it.

The NRA has a First Amendment right to its misguided understanding of the Second. Forcing its dissolution has disturbing implications — made even more disturbing by the fact that the attorney general seeking that step is a Democrat who vowed during her campaign to “take on the NRA” and labeled it a “terrorist organization.” In this country, we don’t go after entities because of what they advocate.

James’s lawsuit against the NRA does not mention ideology, even if it strains credulity to think that James would have gone after the ACLU or Planned Parenthood with equal zeal if there were similar facts. Still, the facts as alleged are jaw-dropping — and, if you were a donor who dug deep in defense of gun rights, should be enraging. Continue reading “”

QOTD:
“Anyone with a brain and a bit of historical knowledge could have seen this coming, which is no doubt why it eluded so much of our political class.”


BLUF:
The thing to remember is, ultimately, police aren’t there to protect the public from criminals, but to protect criminals from the public. Before the invention of modern police by Robert Peel in London in the early 19th Century, the public dealt with criminals mostly on its own, and usually harshly. Arrest by the police and trial before a court was a big improvement over mob justice.

Now some want to go the other direction. I predict it will end badly.

Back to the future in policing? Civilian militias in American cities
Police being pulled back in blue urban areas has led to neighborhood patrols which lead to chaos, violence, gangs and prejudice.

“When the dawn patrol’s got to tell you twice, they’re gonna do it with a shotgun.” That’s a lyric from Steely Dan, but it also reflects what seems to be a new trend in two of America’s bluest cities: The replacement of police with civilian militias. (The press prefers to call them “neighborhood patrols” since they’re in Democratic cities).

There are some people who might favor this as a step forward for civil rights and racial justice, but the facts to date don’t support such a reading. In two cities where the police have pulled back from urban areas, they’ve been replaced by armed gangs demanding protection money, increased violence and, yes, prejudice against people who “don’t belong.” Anyone with a brain and a bit of historical knowledge could have seen this coming, which is no doubt why it eluded so much of our political class. Continue reading “”

Blowback due in charges vs. Missouri couple

By now all America knows Mark and Patricia McCloskey from the video showing the St. Louis couple holding legal firearms as they defended themselves and their home from a crowd of protesters trespassing on their property. A politically motivated prosecutor has charged the couple with unlawful use of a weapon.

The felony count is because they pointed their weapons at protesters. McCloskey said he did so because he was “scared for my life,” and that of his wife. No shots were fired. Yet now prosecutor Kim Gardner is charging them on grounds they made the trespassers fear for their safety.

The good news is that there’s been plenty of official blowback. Missouri Gov. Mike Parson tweeted that “We will not allow law-abiding citizens to be targeted for exercising their constitutional rights.” He has promised a pardon if they’re convicted.

Attorney General Eric Schmitt is working to get the case dismissed, noting that, in addition to the U.S. and Missouri constitutions, Missouri law recognizes the “castle doctrine.” This allows residents to use force against intruders, including deadly force, based on self-defense and the notion that your home is your castle.

Gardner contends that those who surrounded the McCloskeys were “peaceful, unarmed protesters,” and the couple were therefore interfering in the crowd’s First Amendment rights. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to Gardner that the guns they carried may be a reason events didn’t turn violent.

“I really thought it was Storming the Bastille, that we would be dead and the house would be burned and there was nothing we could do about it,” McCloskey told KSDK in an interview.

Even if the charges are dismissed, or the McCloskeys are pardoned after being convicted, again we have a public official responsible for upholding law and order wink at a mob while treating law-abiding citizens as criminals. If police cannot be counted on to deal with mobs, it’s even more vital that law-abiding Americans are free to exercise their Second Amendment right to protect themselves.

The Four Horsemen of America’s Apocalypse

It takes a lot to build a civilization, and though it is much easier to destroy a civilization, it takes a lot to do that, too.

But now we have four roots of evil that are guaranteed to do so.

No. 1: Victimhood.

The first is victimhood. The more people who regard themselves as victims — as individuals or as a group — the more likely they are to commit evil. People who think of themselves as victims feel that, having been victimized, they are no longer bound by normal moral conventions — especially the moral conventions of their alleged or real oppressors.

Everyone knows this is true. But few confront this truth. Every parent, for example, knows that the child who thinks of him or herself as a perpetual victim is the child most likely to cause and get into trouble. And criminologists report that nearly every murderer in prison thinks of himself as a victim.

On a societal scale, the same holds true — and being on such a larger scale, the chances of real evil ensuing are exponentially increased. One of the most obvious examples is Germany after World War I. Most Germans regarded themselves as victims — of the Treaty of Versailles; of a “stab in the back” German government; of the British, Americans and French; and, of course, of the Jews. This sense of victimhood was one of the most important factors in the popularity of the Nazis, who promised to restore German dignity.

That millions of black Americans regard themselves as victims — probably more so today than at any time in the past 50 years — can only lead to disaster for America generally and for blacks specifically. While victims generally feel free to lash out at others, they also go through life angry and unhappy.

No. 2: Demonization.

The second of the four ingredients of this civilization-destroying witches’ brew is demonization — demonizing a group as inherently evil.

That is being done now with regard to the white people of America. All — again, all — whites are declared racist. The only difference among them is that some admit it and some deny it. The notion that whites are inherently evil has long been associated with Louis Farrakhan. But it has apparently migrated out from his relatively small following to many blacks, even those who might consider Farrakhan a kook. Former President Barack Obama, hardly a Farrakhan follower, described America as having racism in its DNA. That is as close to inherently and irredeemably evil as it gets; you cannot change your DNA.

In that sense, not only are whites demonized, but America is, too. Unlike traditional liberals, the left regards America as a moral cesspool — not only racist but, according to The New York Times, founded to be so. The New York Times has created a history of America that declares its founding not in 1776 but in 1619, when the first black slaves arrived. The American Revolution was fought, according to this malign narrative, not merely for American independence but in order to preserve slavery, a practice the British would have interfered with. This “history” will now be taught in thousands of American schools.

The combination of victimhood and demonization alone is dangerous enough. But there are still two more horsemen galloping toward the looming apocalypse.

No. 3: A Cause To Believe In.

Most Americans throughout American history found great meaning in being American and in being religious — usually Christian. Since World War II, we have lived in a post-Christian, post-nationalist age. Until very recently, Americans would have found the expression “for God and country” deeply meaningful; that term today, on the left, is risible and execrable.

But people need something to believe in. The need for meaning is the greatest human need after the need for food. Leftism, with all its offshoots — feminism, environmentalism, Black Lives Matter, antifa — has filled that vacuum. In Europe, communism, fascism and Nazism filled the hole left by the demise of nationalism and Christianity. Here it is leftism and its offshoots.

No. 4: Lies.

The fourth and most important ingredient necessary for evil is lies. Lies are the root of evil. Ironically, slavery itself was made possible only because of the lie that the black was inferior to the white. Nazism was made possible thanks to the lie that Jews were not fully human. And communism was built on lies. Lenin, the father of Soviet Communism, named the Soviet communist newspaper “Truth” (“Pravda”) because truth was what the Communist Party said it was.

The New York Times, CNN and the rest of the mainstream “news” media are becoming our version of Pravda.

Objective truth doesn’t exist on the left. The universities have already declared “objective truth” as essentially an expression of “white privilege.” See what happens to a student who says in class, for example, that “men cannot give birth.”

The public self-debasement demanded of anyone who differs with the left — like New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees just did when he said not standing for the national anthem desecrated the flag and those who have died for it — happens almost daily. The only difference between this and what dissidents underwent during Mao’s Cultural Revolution is that the self-debasement here is voluntary — thus far.

Last week, when this Jew saw a store in Santa Monica with a sign reading “black-owned business” so as to avoid being destroyed, it evoked chilling memories.

That’s how bad it is in America today.