Category: Rights

California bill targets First Amendment rights of Second Amendment supporters

Buying your kid a Browning t-shirt could soon be impossible, at least if you live in California. Democrat Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan has introduced a bill that is starting to get some attention in the state legislature, and it poses a clear threat to the First Amendment rights of Second Amendment supporters.

In Bauer-Kahan’s view, AB 2571 “seeks to restrict the malicious and manipulative firearms marketing geared towards children and youth,” but a perusal of the text shows her real aim is to crack down on parents who aim to educate their kids about safe and responsible gun ownership.

According to the current language of the measure, the proposed law would “prohibit a person or entity that publishes materials directed to minors in this state in any medium from marketing or advertising firearms in that material, as specified, and would prohibit a person or entity that publishes a marketing or advertising communication from publishing or disseminating marketing or advertising for firearms that is attractive to minors, as specified.”

What makes a particular communication “attractive to minors”? The bill is open-ended, but includes things like using cartoon characters to promote firearms or firearms products; offering firearm brand name merchandise, such as hats, t-shirts, or stuffed animals, for minors; or even offering firearms or firearms accessories with colors or designs that are specifically designed to appeal to minors.
Violations of the law could result in a $25,000 fine, which is clearly an attempt to chill pro-Second Amendment speech.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Mark Oliva tells Bearing Arms that it’s clear that state lawmakers “aren’t satisfied” with curtailing Second Amendment rights and now trying to infringe on the First Amendment as well.

“Commercial speech is still protected speech,” says Oliva, adding, “California’s bought-and-paid for gun control politicians might find it disagreeable that parents actually teach their children safe and responsible firearm ownership, but that is a reality, albeit one they are attempting to erase. Advertising images of parents and youths hunting together would be illegal. Youth hunting clothing branded with firearm and ammunition maker logos would be banned. The bill authors know this is a clear violation of First Amendment rights, but they give no consideration to fundamental rights when it comes to advancing a gun control agenda.”

Why would they, honestly? Most California Democrats don’t view the Second Amendment as a fundamental right that must be protected. At best they see it as an anachronism that has no place in 21st Century America, and far too many of them see our right to keep and bear arms as an evil that must be eradicated. They don’t see AB 2571 as the censorious pile of rat droppings that it is. No, they honestly believe they’re protecting innocent children from the evil and twisted firearms industry.. not to mention the deplorable gun-owning dupes those kids might have as parents.

Here’s my question for Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and other backers of this bill: even if gun companies were marketing their products to minors (which I don’t think is actually the case), shouldn’t all of the gun control laws on the books in California prevent minors from getting their hands on a gun? I mean, minors can’t legally purchase firearms or ammunition in the state, and there are background check requirements for all gun transfers and ammunition purchases. If California’s gun control laws work as well as Democrats say they do, then why do they believe this bill is necessary?

Sadly, I know the answer. This legislation isn’t about preventing minors from illegally acquiring firearms. It’s about demonizing the firearms industry.

I would love to say that this bill is going nowhere, but it already has the backing of Gov. Gavin Newsom and appears to be gaining some traction in the state Assembly, where it was referred to the Judiciary Committee on Monday. The time for California gun owners to speak out is now. I don’t know that even a wave of opposition from gun owners across the state will be enough to derail the bill in the legislature, but it’s the first step in what’s likely to be a long campaign to defend our First Amendment right to support the Second Amendment.

BLUF:
Elon Musk will not save free speech online. Even if his intentions really are good ones, the scale of the problem goes beyond one platform. And free speech online is too important to rely on the benevolence of billionaires. But his attempted takeover of Twitter has already done us a great service, in revealing how important censorship now is to America’s permanently hysterical elites. (Just call them what they are: wanna-be tyrants)

WHY ELON MUSK HAS RATTLED THEM

We stand here on the edge of tyranny… Elon Musk wants to buy Twitter. That, roughly speaking, has been the commentariat reaction in recent days as the world’s richest man has launched a takeover attempt of the social-media giant, citing his concerns about its censorious policies as his main motivation.

Musk revealed last week that he had become Twitter’s largest shareholder, with a 9.2 per cent stake. Now he’s offered to buy the whole company for a cool $43 billion, a nice premium on its current worth. As it stands, Twitter’s board is resisting and America’s great and good have gone berserk.

The Washington Post’s Max Boot was swift out of the blocks. ‘I am frightened by the impact on society and politics if Elon Musk acquires Twitter’, Boot tweeted. ‘He seems to believe that on social media anything goes. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.’

On an even more demented note, Robert Reich, veteran of the Clinton and Obama administrations, essentially argued that Musk buying Twitter would put us on a fast track to fascism; that Musk’s vision for an ‘uncontrolled’ internet was ‘​​the dream of every dictator, strongman, demagogue and modern-day robber baron’.

Reich wasn’t the only one gripped by this interesting idea that dictators love free speech and that more of it online will bring the Third Reich back. New York University journalism professor ​​Jeff Jarvis had this poetic response to Musk’s bid: ‘Today on Twitter feels like the last evening in a Berlin nightclub at the twilight of Weimar Germany.’

Continue reading “”

Alabama lawmakers pass bill meant to block Biden orders

Alabama is a very pro-gun state. They just passed constitutional carry earlier this year, for example, and it seems lawmakers there aren’t interested in resting on their laurels. They’re still trying to make pro-Second Amendment moves.

In fact, they just passed another law that’s bound to rustle the proverbial jimmies of the gun control crowd.

Alabama lawmakers have passed a bill intended to block state and local officials from enforcing executive orders by the president that restrict ownership or use of firearms.

The bill by Sen. Gerald Allen, R-Tuscaloosa, is called the Alabama Second Amendment Protection Act.

Allen and other Republican lawmakers have proposed similar bills since President Biden took office last year.

Democrats opposed the bill, questioning the purpose and practicality of the bill and citing the Supremacy Clause, which holds that federal law generally supersedes state law.

Rep. David Standridge, R-Hayden, the House sponsor of the bill, said people in Alabama are concerned about the possibility of presidential orders on firearms.

Standridge has said he believes states can decide whether state and local police enforce presidential orders. That state authority does not apply to federal officers, he has said.

And Standridge makes a valid point. After all, the law doesn’t dictate what laws are in effect within the state of Alabama’s borders, only what state and local law enforcement do with regard to those laws.

This will probably spark a legal challenge much like how Missouri’s SAPA did, but there are differences between the two measures.

Frankly, though, I’m not interested in hearing criticism of this measure from anyone who supports sanctuary measures at the state level for illegal immigrants. After all, this is fundamentally no different than those laws, really. The only difference is what is being tolerated.

Of course, for far too many anti-gun jihadists, guns are different. The rules are different and they should be free to enact whatever legislation they want, at least in their minds.

The thing is, that’s not how it works. Any tactic you try is fair game for someone else to give a go. Sure, what works in one policy arena may not work in another, but you can’t pretend to be offended when someone gives it a go.

So, Alabama did.

Now we’ll just have to wait for what the courts say. I suspect we’ll see similar arguments to what we’ll see in Missouri, but in the end, it doesn’t matter.

Even a decision that comes down against the Second Amendment will ultimately hurt the Democrats who are pushing this stuff. Instead of just winning for gun control, they’ll manage to epitomize the statement, “Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.”

However, truth be told, I don’t see that happening. Laws aren’t being nullified and insisting police enforce federal executive orders amounts to an unfunded mandate, which is problematic as well.

In the end, I suspect the law will fly and I suspect we’ll see a number of other states pass similar measures in short order.

Lasting COVID legacy: a nation of rulers, not laws

SACRAMENTO – “The United States is a nation of laws, badly written and randomly enforced,” noted the late musician and satirist Frank Zappa. I often think of that snarky comment as I write about the sausage-making process in city councils, state legislatures and the federal government. Did I mention that California’s state government has 518 agencies, boards and commissions?

Our system of checks, balances, more checks, additional balances, impact reports, legal challenges, voter initiatives, regulatory rulemakings and administrative hearings frustrates people who want to “get something done.” Americans spent $14 billion on the 2020 election cycle to influence political outcomes – and that was just for the presidential and congressional races.

I once ran a modest state bill to reduce the insanely onerous licensing regulations for people who shampoo hair at salons. After months of hearings and debate, the Assembly defeated it for going too far. That explains the public’s desire to cut through the red tape and, as Arnold Schwarzenegger once promised, “blow up the boxes” of government.

Yet after COVID-19, it’s obvious our democratic system of lawmaking is, as Winston Churchill put it, “the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Given the choice between a system resembling a Rube Goldberg cartoon (with his bizarre and overly complex contraptions designed to complete simple tasks) and one that’s streamlined and efficient, I’ll take Goldberg’s vision any day.

As we saw throughout the country but in California in particular, governors were happy to dispense with the usual checks and balances and impose rules by executive order and fiat. Some initial rules were defensible during a public-health crisis, but it wasn’t long before elected officials operated like czars – imposing illogical and contradictory restrictions that made no rhyme or reason.

Continue reading “”

Beyond Stand Your Ground: Second Amendment Immunity Defense is the Next Legal Frontier

Lee Williams;

Florida’s Stand Your Ground statute and similar laws in other states can offer immunity from prosecution when someone uses deadly force to defend themselves, and affords them quick access to an appellate review if the case doesn’t go their way.

In other words, if a defendant involved in a defensive shooting invokes a Stand Your Ground defense, their case can be dismissed before a trial even begins if it is proven they are entitled to statutory immunity, or appellate judges can be brought in quickly to make sure the case gets handled correctly.

When a defendant files a Stand Your Ground motion, their case is put on hold. Prosecution is halted. The trial court must hold a “Stand Your Ground” hearing – a sort of mini trial – to determine whether the defendant’s use of force meets the standards for Stand Your Ground immunity.

At this point, the burden shifts to the prosecutors, who must then prove by “clear and convincing evidence” why the defendant is not entitled to immunity from prosecution.

After this mini trial, the judge can either dismiss the charges or allow the case to go forward. However, if the charges are not dismissed, the defendant can file a Writ of Prohibition, which quickly bumps the case up to an appellate court for review. This writ can save the time it normally takes to get to the appellate level — usually as much as 18-months to two years — because it allows the defendant to forego a jury trial, sentencing and other delays and present their case directly to the appellate judges, who can affirm or deny their writ.

Stand Your Ground was created to protect people from unjust, malicious or politically motivated prosecutions after they acted in self-defense. By shifting the burden of proof to the state and by making an appeal quick and easy, the law has become a powerful tool, which some believe should be expanded to include other statutes involving Second Amendment rights.

“We need a Second Amendment immunity defense for anything involving the lawful possession of a firearm,” said former Florida prosecutor Lisa Chittaro. “It should mirror Stand Your Ground statutes, but it needs to be broader. It should allow defense attorneys to ask the court to find immunity under the protections of the Second Amendment quickly and efficiently and if they don’t, it should provide a quick route to the appellate level without having to go through the entire court process, which can take years.”

Chittaro pointed to several types of criminal cases that should be covered by Second Amendment immunity. Most involve arrests stemming from gun-free zones, such as schools, sporting events and airports. Many of them lack knowledge – a major factor in a criminal case – much less actual intent to commit a crime.

“If a parent picks up their child from school and they forgot their firearm and someone sees it and complains, they should be covered by Second Amendment immunity,” she said. “The same goes for other gun-free-zone prosecutions where there was no knowledge or intent.”

The problem with most of the prosecutions resulting from arrests in prohibited places, is that police and prosecutors often forget that Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. A trial judge and/or appellate court should review these cases to determine specifically if it involved this constitutionally protected right, or if the defendant knowingly and with intent committed a crime. Besides, in many states, the list of prohibited places grows every time their legislature meets. This is lawfare – pure and simple.

Every prosecution stemming from an arrest in a prohibited place should begin with an acknowledgement of the defendant’s Second Amendment rights, especially since gun-free zones infringe upon these rights. If a case involves absentmindedness, and not knowledge or the specific intent to commit a crime, judges need to toss them out. It is, after all, what the Framers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment.

This is how ridiculous weapon laws are in Merry Olde Englande

Don’t let the ‘perfect’ be the enemy of the good. The gun grabbers got us where we are today by winning step by step, and we’re winning by using the same process, because it does work.

SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT
Bill passes House, but not all gun rights supporters approve

CHEYENNE — A bill reinforcing individuals’ Second Amendment rights passed on a 43-15 vote in third reading in the Wyoming House Wednesday.

Despite gaining approval of the majority of the House, the bill divided gun-rights-supporting representatives, with several saying it did not go far enough to protect individuals’ rights.

Senate File 102, or the Second Amendment Protection Act, prohibits the enforcement of federal regulations of firearms by local law enforcement. The bill says if the federal government ever restricts firearms, law enforcement would be violating state law if they confiscated weapons from local gun owners.

Those who violate this section would face a harsh penalty. Any officer guilty of the misdemeanor will face imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of $2,000 or both.

Several legislators expressed concerns the bill “didn’t have teeth” and argued law enforcement couldn’t be trusted to protect citizens’ second amendment rights.

Continue reading “”

Yes, If America Is Ever Invaded, You Must Take Up Arms and Fight
When asked whether they’d flee or fight an invading force, far too many Millennials and Gen-Zers give the wrong answer.

As part of a recent survey of attitudes toward Russia’s execrable invasion of Ukraine, the polling firm Quinnipiac asked Americans whether they would stay and fight if the United States were invaded by Russia. The results make sobering — and often disgraceful — reading. Sixty-eight percent of Republicans said that they would “stay and fight,” with 25 percent indicating that they’d run away.

Among independents, those numbers are 57–36. Among Democrats, they’re in negative territory, at 40–52. Among 50- to 64-year-old men and women, the stay/leave numbers are 66/28. Among 18- to 34-year-olds, they are 45/48. Or, to put it another way: A majority of the prime-aged Americans whom the United States would need were such a crisis to arise imagine that they would flee if that crisis ever came.

For shame.

Lest the excuse-makers try to find nuance where none exists, let us note for the record that this is the most elemental question that a free man can ever be asked. There are no caveats or complexities here, and there is barely any politics, either. If the United States were to be invaded by Russia, America’s defense of itself could not plausibly be construed as “imperialism” or as “interventionism” or as a “foreign war” or “conflict of choice.” Nor could skeptics, à la Rupert Brooke, meaningfully complain that they were being asked to fight and die in a “corner of a foreign field.”

Continue reading “”

The article is out of date on current events, but the point is these anti-self defense politards shot themselves in the foot when trying make a saint out of a thug backfired on them. Another of their deceits is conflating and insinuating all homicides as criminal to pump the numbers, when a homicide is simply defined as one person killing another, and includes those determined to be justifiable.

Stand your ground laws proliferate after Trayvon spotlight

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — The “stand your ground” self defense law had been in effect in Florida for more than six years when it became part of the national vocabulary with the death of Trayvon Martin in 2012. When the 17-year-old was fatally shot, Florida was still one of the few states with the law that removes the duty to retreat before using deadly force in the face of danger.

Now, upwards of 30 states have some form of the law and recent research indicates they are associated with more deaths — as many as 700 additional firearm killings each year, according to a study published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The study found a national increase of up to 11% in homicide rates per month between 1999 and 2017 in those states with stand your ground laws. The largest increases, between 16% and 33%, were in southern states including Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Louisiana, the study found.

States colored in red or orange below have some form of Stand Your Ground law.

“These findings suggest that adoption of (stand your ground) laws across the U.S. was associated with increases in violent deaths, deaths that could potentially have been avoided,” the study’s authors concluded.

Advocates for the laws, especially the National Rifle Association, have argued they act as a crime deterrent by ensuring a person can protect themselves and others against a would-be assailant.

Continue reading “”

Convoy Rolls Through Oklahoma City to Protest COVID-19 Mandates

OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR)— A group of truck drivers called “The People’s Convoy,” trekked through Oklahoma City on Sunday.

The convoy started in Adelanto, California on Wednesday and is making its way to the Washington D.C. area with the mission to peacefully protest against COVID-19 mandates, as well as ending the state of emergency declared in 2020.

“The last 23 months of the COVID-19 pandemic have been a rough road for all Americans to travel: spiritually, emotionally, physically, and — not least — financially,” said The People’s Convoy in a press release. “With the advent of the vaccine and workable therapeutic agents… it is now time to re-open the country.”

Continue reading “”

Mere calls to end violence little more than theater

In most towns across the nation, you’ll find a community theater. There, locals will perform various shows that might have originated on Broadway but now find themselves on Main Street.

My wife spend an awful lot of her time volunteering and performing at one such theater here. I’ve taken a few trips across the boards myself over the years. I’m not going to insult theater folks in the least. Some of my favorite people are theater people.

But there’s a type of performative theater I keep seeing, and that’s those who basically use their performance to look like activism. I’m talking about people who do things like this.

Survivors, anti-gun violence groups and community leaders gathered Wednesday to tell Indianapolis to put the guns down.

Many of them live with the trauma of gun violence daily.

“Enough is enough,” said Deandra Dycus. “When are we going to get tired of seeing the daily news reports? A good doctor or a bad shooter is why my son survived when a stray bullet flew through the window and pierced him in the back of the head.”

They’re telling people to put their guns down.

Honestly, can anyone point me to a single person who heard such a call and thought, “Oh, crap! I didn’t realize me shooting up the city was a problem. My bad!” anywhere? Anywhere at all.

Now, I get that Dycus lost his son to such violence. He’s probably just looking for some way to prevent anyone else from going through what he did. But not everyone who gets involved in such “calls” has that excuse.

Then there are those who take their theater a few steps further, such as this gentleman from Michigan.

A 76-year-old community activist is crawling from Battle Creek to Kalamazoo to call for an end to gun violence.

Bobby Holley set out on the 23-mile trek Monday morning. Inching along the wet and icy road with pads strapped to his hands and knees, he said he’s crawling for a cause.

“To get attention to the issues,” he said. “If I walked, that wouldn’t get no attention… (Instead) I’m a person crawling, begging on his hands and knees to stop the violence.”

He wants to “get attention to the issues?”

I’m sorry, but is anyone unaware of the problem of so-called gun violence? Anyone? Seriously, no one is sitting there watching the news and thinking, “Holy crap! You mean people kill other people? And they use guns a lot of the time? I had no idea!”

It’s not happening.

Holley likely means well, and at least part of his crawling is to get attention on unsolved murders–something everyone knows exists but rarely thinks about–but he’s still just performing.

Something I’ve noticed through the years is that the people who make a big thing of their activism are rarely the people actually on the ground doing work. That’s because being on the ground, in the streets, trying to change things is hard work and you don’t have time for virtue-signaling nonsense.

But who gets the headlines? Who gets calls for media interviews? It’s self-aggrandizement in more cases than not, and the media eats it up.

Yes, I also think such could happen (anything’s possible), but 1, We’re not Canada and 2, I think that if SloJoe, or anyone else for that matter, tried to enact the sort of ’emergency measures’ martial law as Trudeau did in Canada, for anything short of global thermonuclear war, what would result is exactly what TPTB are scared to death of.

BARR: A Canadian-Style ‘Emergency’ Could Easily Happen Here

On Feb. 14, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gave Canadians a Valentine’s Day present, invoking the draconian “Emergencies Act” and suspending a wide range of civil liberties otherwise enjoyed by his countrymen.
Lest Americans conclude that our constitutional republic is safe from such facially dictatorial actions, they should know that under existing federal laws and the laws of every state, the president or a governor could take similar “emergency” action at any time they decide an “emergency” presents itself. COVID has demonstrated this is spades.
Regardless of whether a real emergency exists prior to a president or governor invoking such powers, and regardless of whether such declaration is for a statutorily limited time, consequential damage to the fabric of a free society results. At a minimum, declaring an “emergency” and suspending individual liberties serves as a “warning” to citizens that they had best be careful what they say and do in the future.
Trudeau’s actions in declaring a “national emergency” because of an irksome, but peaceful, trucker’s strike should cause Americans to pay far closer attention to “emergency powers” laws here at home. Doing so might force some of our countrymen to question the abject fear that has undergirded much of public policy in the United States since the terror attacks of 9/11 — made far worse by the manner in which governments at all levels have responded to the COVID pandemic in the past biennium.
From a practical standpoint, as we see in Canada, it matters little whether the declaration of the “emergency” fits clearly within the four corners of the emergency law that is invoked. What matters is the presence of circumstances in which an elected leader is able to stoke the flames of fear and anger in a sufficiently large segment of the electorate, so that the invocation of the law seems to constitute a reasonable response.
Once an “emergency” law is on the books of the sovereign entity, whether of a state or the federal government, all it takes is a “stroke of the pen, law of the land” (to quote former Bill Clinton adviser Paul Begala) to unleash the awesome powers at that sovereign’s disposal. Just watch the videos emerging from Ottawa to see how quickly the nightmare unfolds once the document is signed.
The actual form of the government declaring the emergency is of little consequence. Abuse of emergency powers can happen in a representative democracy such as ours just as easily as in a Canadian parliamentary system. Moreover, Republicans often are just as likely to play the “emergency powers” card as are their Democrat counterparts. It was, after all, Republican President Donald Trump who, in March 2020, invoked the powers of at least three federal “national emergency” laws to meet a perceived COVID emergency threat.
Granted, many emergency declarations by state and federal officials are focused toward and limited to natural disasters, such as hurricanes or floods, and used primarily to free up government assistance. However,  the actual powers nestled within those laws are frighteningly expansive. For example, a U.S. president arguably could, among other actions upon declaring a “national emergency “ (not expressly defined in federal laws), seize control of the internet pursuant to a 1930s era communications law or freeze individuals’ financial accounts in reliance on 1970s era laws.
At the state level, Second Amendment supporters will recall law enforcement officers in New Orleans seizing, at times forcibly, over 1,000 lawfully owned private firearms in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Even though subsequent legal action undertaken by the NRA and other gun-rights groups successfully challenged the seizures, many firearms never were returned to their owners.
Even today, with medical and scientific evidence clearly demonstrating that lingering COVID hazards are not dire and are manageable, many government agencies, including public schools in jurisdictions across the country, are refusing to hand back all the “emergency” powers they grabbed in early 2020.
Founding Father James Madison had it right when he wrote in Federalist 57 that placing the powers of all three branches of government in the hands of one entity (whether a prime minister, a governor or a president) is “the very definition of tyranny.”
Today, 234 years later, tyranny is still tyranny, even if it is only “temporary.”
Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

The Neoliberal War on Dissent in the West
Those who most flamboyantly proclaim that they are fighting fascists continue to embrace and wield the defining weapons of despotism.

When it comes to distant and adversarial countries, we are taught to recognize tyranny through the use of telltale tactics of repression. Dissent from orthodoxies is censored. Protests against the state are outlawed. Dissenters are harshly punished with no due process. Long prison terms are doled out for political transgressions rather than crimes of violence. Journalists are treated as criminals and spies. Opposition to the policies of political leaders are recast as crimes against the state.

When a government that is adverse to the West engages in such conduct, it is not just easy but obligatory to malign it as despotic. Thus can one find, on a virtually daily basis, articles in the Western press citing the government’s use of those tactics in Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela and whatever other countries the West has an interest in disparaging (articles about identical tactics from regimes supported by the West — from Riyadh to Cairo — are much rarer). That the use of these repressive tactics render these countries and their populations subject to autocratic regimes is considered undebatable.

But when these weapons are wielded by Western governments, the precise opposite framework is imposed: describing them as despotic is no longer obligatory but virtually prohibited. That tyranny exists only in Western adversaries but never in the West itself is treated as a permanent axiom of international affairs, as if Western democracies are divinely shielded from the temptations of genuine repression. Indeed, to suggest that a Western democracy has descended to the same level of authoritarian repression as the West’s official enemies is to assert a proposition deemed intrinsically absurd or even vaguely treasonous.

The implicit guarantor of this comforting framework is democracy. Western countries, according to this mythology, can never be as repressive as their enemies because Western governments are at least elected democratically. This assurance, superficially appealing though it may be, completely collapses with the slightest critical scrutiny. The premise of the U.S. Constitution and others like it is that majoritarian despotism is dangerous in the extreme; the Bill of Rights consists of little more than limitations imposed on the tyrannical measures majorities might seek to democratically enact (the expression of ideas cannot be criminalized even if majorities want them to be; religious freedom cannot be abolished even if large majorities demand it; life and liberty cannot be deprived without due process even if nine of out ten citizens favor doing so, etc.). More inconveniently still, many of the foreign leaders we are instructed to view as despots are popular or even every bit as democratically elected as our own beloved freedom-safeguarding officials.

As potent as this mythological framework is, reinforced by large media corporations over so many decades, it cannot withstand the increasingly glaring use of precisely these despotic tactics in the West. Watching Justin Trudeau — the sweet, well-mannered, well-raised good-boy prince of one of the West’s nicest countries featuring such a pretty visage (even on the numerous occasions when marred by blackface) — invoke and then harshly impose dubious emergency, civil-liberties-denying powers is just the latest swing of the hammer causing this Western sculpture to crumble. In sum, you are required by Western propaganda to treat the two images below as fundamentally different; indeed, huge numbers of people in the West vehemently denounce the one on the left while enthusiastically applauding the one on the right. Such brittle mythology can be sustained only for so long:

Reuters, Aug. 8, 2019 (left); BBC, Feb. 15, 2022 (right)

Continue reading “”

The Constitution may impede them, to an extent, but they still are trying.
It takes what Patrick Henry advised:
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

WaPo Writer Actually Declares Individual Freedom ‘a Key Component of White Supremacy’

George Orwell’s “1984” or “Animal Farm”? Nope. Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451”? Uh-huh. Some other dystopian novel about life in a future totalitarian America? No way. Straight from the pages of the Washington Post. You know, the “Democracy Dies in Darkness” guys?

More like “Individual Freedom and Liberty Dies in the Darkness of the Radical Left.”

In a WaPo “Made by History” op-ed titled The Ottawa Trucker Convoy Is Rooted in Canada’s Settler Colonial History, Taylor Dysart, a Ph.D. candidate in the department of history and sociology of science at the University of Pennsylvania, awkwardly argues that “one’s entitlement to freedom is a key component of White supremacy.” After carefully dissecting the garble, I was able to get to the root cause.

Before we begin, unlike the 187,594,632 (and counting) articles about the Freedom Convoy, totalitarian Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, or anything else to do with Ottawa, my focus will be on “none of above.” Instead, it will be about the crux of the lunacy of Ms. Dysart and other lunatics who believe as she does, and the unfortunate publishing of said lunacy by a once-proud American institution.

You’re welcome. Now, on with the show.

Continue reading “”

U.S. president Gerald Ford told Congress in 1974: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” That goes for rights too.

Canada Shows Why It’s Called ‘American Exceptionalism’

It’s shocking to me that some people are surprised by how the situation with the Freedom Convoy went down. It was never going to end well, the odds of them winning were as long as a summer day for a very simple reason: Canada is not the United States.

That may seem obvious, and in the easiest way, it is. But in the way that matters most, it’s probably not that clear.

We have a tendency to think things that simply are not true, like the Iraqi people yearned to be free and democratic when in reality they simply wanted Saddam dead so they could return to settling ancient tribal scores. They had no idea what “freedom” meant, and the concept of individual liberty never occurred to them. It went over like introducing Sharia Law to San Francisco would.

One thing to notice about the coverage of the Canadian Freedom Convoy is how the American media, particularly from conservative outlets, didn’t reflect the will of Canadians. You’d think Justin Trudeau going full totalitarian, turning into a little Fidel Castro (like father, like son – look it up), would bring about a collapse in his popularity, but it hasn’t. Most Canadians were upset he didn’t act sooner.

Canada is not like the United States. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants Canadians various rights that, if you don’t think about it, are similar in a lot of ways to the rights we enjoy here. But there’s a major difference.

Our Constitution grants exactly zero rights to anyone, it acknowledges the rights with which we were born and denies the federal government the ability to infringe upon them. The Canadian Charter gives citizens certain rights, explicitly. If a government can grant rights, there is no justification for them not being able to take them away, temporarily or permanently.

When Trudeau invoked emergency powers, US conservatives recoiled in horror. Canadians did not.

Continue reading “”

Seven Great Truths [to emerge from the truckers’ protest]

Robert Gore:

The truckers’ rallying cry—Freedom!—inspires the many and thrusts greatness on a few.

Justin Trudeau and his globalist ilk are an unimpressive lot. Trudeau’s interminable Wikipedia profile is over 8000 words and has 324 references. Never has so much been said about so little except, perhaps, in other globalist profiles. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, was, like Trudeau, one of Klaus Schwab’s Young Global Leaders, a finishing school for the Davos set.

Trudeau’s resumé lists bachelors’ degrees in literature and education, and studies but no degrees in engineering and environmental geography. He was a substitute and then a permanent teacher in secondary schools. Wikipedia says he gave his father, Pierre, prime minister from 1980 to 1984, a nice eulogy. He started a winter sports safety fund after his brother was killed in an avalanche, portrayed a distant relative in a CBC miniseries, started the Trudeau Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Toronto, fought a zinc mine in the Northwest Territories, and was master of ceremonies at an award show and a political rally. (That comprehensive summation took three sentences and 105 words.)

His featherweight resumé screams politics and government as an ultimate career. He’s a Canadian Barack Obama. See the fawning Wikipedia entry for thousands of words on his ascent up the political ladder. In 2015 he was elected Prime Minister, a position he holds to this day, but perhaps not much longer.

Ottawa, Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, and Brussels are filled with globalist politicians, functionaries, and toadies who differ from Trudeau only superficially. Power, their “right” to tell and force others how to live, is really a self-bestowed entitlement. They are the insiders, and outsiders are ignored or deplored. Whatever differences they have among themselves, they close ranks when fellow insiders are under attack. The Wikipedia profile mentions several Trudeau scandals, including blackface photos, that might have ended the career of an outsider politician, but from which he survived.

Once in a while something cuts through the muck of modern life with diamond-cutter precision and finality, yielding a moment of clarity. The juxtaposition of two images creates just such a moment. The one: thousands of Canadians braving the the bitter cold to cheer and succor 18-wheelers and their drivers rolling towards Ottawa. The other: the empty chair of an empty-suit prime minister who absented himself rather than face what his arrogant totalitarianism had wrought.

Revolutions dawn when an appreciable number of the ruled realize their rulers are intellectual and moral inferiors.

“Much More Than Trump,” Robert Gore, March 3, 2016

Justin Trudeau has done more to usher in that dawn than any other globalist. His invective and cowardice have rendered him contemptible in the eyes of millions of Canadians and others around the world despite the best efforts of the kept media to protect him. That he and his ilk are intellectual and moral inferiors is the first great truth to emerge from the truckers’ protest.

Continue reading “”

There is one confirmed quote of Yamamoto;
“….it is not enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. We would have to march into Washington and sign the treaty in the White House.”
And anyone could figure that would result in a catastrophic failure because there would be those multitude of rifles.

Ukraine considers private gun ownership to fend off invasion

I’m rather glad the United States isn’t in the same position as Ukraine.

The prospect of invasion from a larger, more powerful neighbor is never a pleasant one. As we’ve noted, steps are being taken to deal with that potential outcome.

While there have been some indications that tensions are lessening, that potential still exists. As such, it seems some are considering private gun ownership as a solution.

Allowing people in Ukraine to legally own handguns would greatly improve national security against outside “aggressors,” Ukraine’s Defense Minister Aleksey Reznikov told news agency RBK Ukraine on Thursday. The move would “increase citizens’ personal security, help law enforcement and certainly reduce crime rates,” the minister claims.

Reznikov said on Thursday he has been a “longtime gun-rights supporter”, adding that “as a lawyer” he believes a gun law is long overdue in Ukraine. In late 2021, the local UNIAN news agency published a piece calling Ukraine “virtually the only nation in Europe lacking a gun law.”

The defense minister has advocated the idea of people “getting a right to … carry handguns” and pointed to the experience of “many other nations.” Reznikov also argued that it would help Ukraine prevent a potential aggression.

Sounds good, right?

Well, it’s definitely a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t really go far enough. Resnikov wants the kinds of weapons that would actually be useful kept away from the public, issued only to reservists should the need arise.

So that’s less than ideal.

However, I still find it interesting that at a time when Ukraine is legitimately concerned about an invasion, they turn to private gun ownership as a potential solution.

Our Founding Fathers did the same when they wrote the Second Amendment. They’d just come out of the other end of a war with a foreign power and knew that there would potentially be another. They were mistrustful of standing armies and wanted the citizenry to be able to defend themselves.

It seems the Ukrainian defense minister is following a similar line of thinking with his statement.

And, to be fair, a population armed with handguns could be useful in the event of an invasion. Oh, they might not be able to do much during the initial push into the country, but for guerilla operations, I can see how the handgun can be used to take out enemy troops and secure their weapons for more offensive punch.

Regardless, though, this is a good move and I’m glad to see someone in Ukraine make the suggestion. I only wish he’d recognize that an armed populace is better when it can be fully armed rather than only partially. Still, when you’re worried about Putin sending troops across the border because he has nothing better to do, it’s better than nothing.

It’s only too bad no one had this revelation a year ago so people could have taken still more steps to defend their homes from Russian aggression.

And it’s a firm reminder of why protecting and defending our Second Amendment is so important, so that we’re never in this position.

While it’s unlikely he ever said it, the quote attributed to Japanese Admiral Yamamoto is certainly accurate. If you ever try to invade the United States, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Cold War-era East Berlin had armed checkpoints — now Ottawa does too.

It has already been nicknamed Checkpoint Trudeau.

Actually, like Cold War East Berlin, there may be need for many checkpoint names.

“The secured area includes almost 100 checkpoints that will have police presence to ensure that those seeking entry to that secure area for a unlawful reason, such as joining a protest, cannot enter the downtown core,” acting Ottawa Police Chief Steve Bell said Thursday.

Canada’s capital, operating under the Emergencies Act, now has ‘no go zones” similar to a police state. Authorities set up checkpoints with armed police officers in downtown Ottawa on Thursday — from Highway 417 (Queensway) to Parliament Hill, where dozens of trucks have been parked for three weeks.

To get through the Berlin Wall under communism, people had to go through entry points known as Checkpoint Alpha, Checkpoint Bravo and, of course, Checkpoint Charlie. Now to get into through Ottawa’s police manned border points, people must produce papers to prove they live in the area or have a reason to be there.

Continue reading “”

Australia’s BIGGEST convoy descends on the capital: A huge anti-mandate protest is underway in Australia today.

“A huge crowd is building in Canberra as the anti-mandate Convoy To Canberra protest gains momentum in the nation’s capital. Last night traffic was brought to a standstill as cars, caravans, trucks and buses flooded into the city from all states. The crowd today met at Commonwealth Park before starting the march to Parliament House where a range of speakers will address the crowd.”

Protecting Second Amendment rights from Washington

SOUTH DAKOTA GOVERNOR KRISTI NOEM:

The Constitution is specific when it comes to our right to defend ourselves. The words boldly declare, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The fact that I will defend that right is an important distinction between myself and politicians like President Joe Biden , who said from the White House in April of last year that, with regard to the Second Amendment, “no amendment, no amendment to the Constitution is absolute.” These are the words of a politician with plans to chip away at the Bill of Rights.

The Biden gun-grabbing agenda includes bans on certain firearms, gun buyback programs, lawsuits targeting gun manufacturers, and restrictions on private firearm transfers that fundamentally end gun shows. I am 100% against federal politicians restricting gun rights because I stand with our founders who wrote this country’s founding documents.

The Constitution recognizes an existing natural right of all people to be free from government oppression. It also allows personal protection through the right to keep and bear arms. I have stood strong to protect the rights of my people here in South Dakota. Those on the extreme Left have opposed my thoughtful approach to COVID-19 and condemned my refusal to infringe on the freedoms of our citizens. I kept our state open and did not impose unconstitutional mandates. This battle for our right to bear arms will require the same fortitude and determination.

Our outdoor heritage and hunting culture are popular in my state of South Dakota, yet they’re not so popular with politicians from states such as New York, California, and Delaware. Unlike so many other politicians, I am an actual hunter. My Grandma Dorris taught me how to hunt birds when I was a young girl, and my father was the one who took me big-game hunting. Our family has made so many memories enjoying and exercising our Second Amendment rights. I have never lost that love for the outdoors and hunting, and I have passed it on to my children. Hopefully soon, I will also enjoy this pastime with my brand new granddaughter, Miss Addie. Hunting is an important part of gun rights, yet we must never forget that these rights were protected in our Constitution for another reason, too. Our founders wisely included this language to also guard against tyranny, like we experienced from Great Britain at the founding of this great nation.

Politicians should be judged by their actions. The first bill I signed into law here in South Dakota was constitutional carry. A previous governor had vetoed it, but I wanted the people of South Dakota to know I would protect their Second Amendment rights. Earlier this month, I announced at my State of the State address that I am eliminating all fees associated with permits and federal background checks for gun sales. It won’t cost a penny to exercise your Second Amendment rights in South Dakota.

I recently received the “Courage Under Fire” award from the Safari Club International . I was honored when CEO Laird Hamberlin spoke on my behalf at the event and said, “No governor has fought more to protect our hunting traditions, and we cannot wait to recognize Gov. Noem as we celebrate SCI’s 50 Years of Freedom.” He cited my record for respecting “the rights of her people by trusting them to use personal responsibility to make the best decisions for themselves, their loved ones, and, in turn, their communities.” He thanked me by saying I have been “a leader in promoting hunting, public access, and conservation across her state.” I cite this because it is an award that should be shared with the people of South Dakota who are standing strong against oppressive ideas coming from Washington, D.C.

Conservatives in this country need only look to the states for leaders who have fiercely fought to protect their rights in the past. We will continue to protect Second Amendment rights, even if Democrats have total control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. As governor of South Dakota, I have proven I will stand strong against any attempt by Biden or a woke Congress to take away fundamental rights from South Dakotans. And I am ready to defend our constitutional right to bear arms once again and always.

Kristi Noem is the governor of South Dakota.