Category: Rights

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The article is out of date on current events, but the point is these anti-self defense politards shot themselves in the foot when trying make a saint out of a thug backfired on them.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.

Eric is nothing if not determined….. and patient.

Measure derided as the ‘Make Murder Legal Act’ killed in Missouri Senate committee

JEFFERSON CITY — A Missouri Senate panel on Thursday terminated a proposal one county prosecutor called the “Make Murder Legal Act.”

The official name of the measure is Senate Bill 666, which the sponsor, Sen. Eric Burlison, R-Battlefield, said he didn’t choose.

Members of the GOP-controlled Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee failed to advance the bill out of committee on Thursday.

Burlison, however, told the Post-Dispatch that he could bring the measure back as an amendment to other firearms legislation he’s sponsoring.

“There are multiple ways to pass language,” Burlison said.

The legislation would’ve established a presumption that a defendant acted reasonably in self-defense when they use force against another person.

“I refer to it as the ‘Make Murder Legal Act,’” Stoddard County Prosecuting Attorney Russ Oliver, a Republican representing the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said in a Senate committee hearing last week.

“What we are doing with this bill is … basically saying the 6,500 assaults that are committed every single year in Missouri — that every single one of those are automatically presumed to be self-defense,” Oliver said.

Burlison said the claims are overblown.

Continue reading “”

PRESIDENT BIDEN CALLS LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS ‘THE RESISTANCE’

President Joe Biden traveled to New York City for a media event to try and show America he’s doing something about rampant crime. Instead, he blamed the Second Amendment and lawful gun owners, said nothing about holding criminals to account and repeated the same tired lies about the firearm industry he keeps at the ready – lies “fact-checked” as being false each time he’s previously recited them.

It makes no difference to the president. He’s not even trying anymore. To President Biden and national gun control groups the problem is always the gun and the law-abiding members of the industry. It’s never the criminal.

Continue reading “”

Alaska Freedom Convoy Rolls on in Support of Canadian Truckers

Truckers traveled from Anchorage to Eagle River, Alaska, over the weekend in support of a massive truck convoy in Ottawa, Canada, to protest coronavirus vaccine mandates in order to conduct cross-border business.

More than 100 truck drivers took part in the Alaskan convoy, the Anchorage Daily News reported.

“Truck drivers and other service providers since Jan. 15 can only enter Canada if they are fully vaccinated,” the Associated Press reported. “A week later, the U.S. required vaccinations from essential non-resident travelers.”

“We have to have the shot stamps on our medical cards in order to go out of state, and we don’t want them,” Jeremy Speldrich, a truck driver with GMG General, Inc. of Anchorage,” said in the AP report. “Mandates should be our choice, whether you want the shots or not.”

AP reported that a second convoy of truckers drove from Eagle River north to the Wasilla area in a show of support of their northern brothers. And similar events were reported in Fairbanks and late last month in Juneau.

Fox News also reported on the “Alaska Freedom Convoy” in support of the Canadian “Freedom Convoy,” which is entering its second week.

Continue reading “”

Helpless Laughter

Larry Correia has already warned the Left about getting what they seem to wish for;  and now some creature named Michael Anton done an article, only to be brutally Fiskicated by Ian Gruene.  (Insty already linked to it, but I can’t resist piling on.)  A sample, talking about the great “right wing militant” trope:

But this question also depends on what you consider “right wing insurrection”. If you are talking about a half-dozen fruitcakes with an underpants-gnomes plan then no there won’t be many. Mostly because troublesome fruitcakes are a very small problem no matter what the subject is.

On the other hand if you are talking about people who think most or all of the U.S. government need to be killed, I have bad news for you. A large swath of the country considers that question settled and are now concerned with the doctrinal issues of whether it is best to follow the teachings of St. Augusto of the Whirling Blades, or St. Tepes of the Artificial Forest.

For those to whom the latter references are unfamiliar (and bless your innocent little hearts), allow me to represent them in pics:

BLUF:
It’s become axiomatic that inside every leftist is a totalitarian screaming to get out. So if there’s one positive thing Covid has done is identify those people for all to see: the slave-muzzle wearers, proudly exhibiting their servile natures..

No matter which office they hold, high or low or none at all, these people are your enemies and should be treated accordingly.

Sic Semper Tyrannis.

And so we near the end of the Great Pandemic Hoax of 2019-22, an unprecedented and breathtaking power grab by governments around the world to seize powers far beyond their constitutional allotments and to transform a relatively minor flu virus — however originated and for what ill purposes — into a weapon of mass economic and emotional destruction whose effects will be felt for years and decades to come. It has been a textbook example of tyranny.

Consider it a warning shot, though, because while Covid may finally have been exposed for the non-apocalyptic event it always was, such tyranny is only the beginning until we put a stop to it. Put a stop to extra-legal “emergency” measures that are transparently and insultingly fraudulent, and which are invoked in the name of the “greater good.” Put a stop to the notion of judicially sanctioned “protected classes” in a formerly classless society. Put to stop the notion of a “New Normal” of privation, deviancy, and spiritual and material penury imposed by Leftists as they continue their centuries-old task of undermining every tenet of Western Civilization in the name of “equity” — in a world in which equality is aspirational at best and equity is impossible.

And, once and for all, put paid to the notion that “when you’ve got your health you’ve got everything,”  the motto of a nation of neurotic hypochondriacs that is fundamentally at odds with every principle of the moral and socially productive life. For under this seemingly anodyne contention lies a wealth of mischief, chief among them the idea that your fellow citizens pose an existential threat to you by their refusal to conform, and thus can and should be restricted, incarcerated, or even killed as the need arises. And all in the name of Socialism, whether National or international.

Continue reading “”

Ron Perlman is right about one thing. I really don’t want to live with leftists who smear insults like this, whether they actually believe it, or are simply trying to be inflammatory for political purposes.

MSNBC guest: ‘Make America Great Again’ supporters want to ‘lynch or murder’ Black people

An MSNBC guest claimed Thursday on “The ReidOut” that supporters of the political slogan “Make America Great Again,” a phrase coined by former President Donald Trump, want to “lynch or murder” Black People in the United States.

Brittany Packnett Cunningham, a Missouri-based progressive political activist and host of the “Undistracted” podcast, joined Joy Reid’s show to discuss a new bill, SB666, which would revamp the state’s self-defense laws. Critics of the bill have dubbed it the “Make Murder Legal Act” and have argued that it will make criminal or civil prosecution of individuals who use deadly force difficult.

An excerpt from the bill reads in part as follows: “[Law enforcement agencies] may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force, but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless the agency determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.”

When discussing the bill, Joy Reid began the conversation by mentioning the case of Mark and Patricia McCloskey, a married couple that brandished firearms at Black Lives Matter protesters in front of their home in 2020.

“The ReidOut” host asserted that Mark McCloskey, who is running for an open Missouri Senate seat, recently praised bill SB666 because it means that he and his wife “could have been in their slippers” and shot “every single Black Lives Matter” protestor that walked by “legally” and without subsequent detainment.

Reid then asked Cunningham what the bill would mean for her and other Black activists. Cunningham said that for people like the McCloskeys that “Black skin is weapon enough,” and claimed the bill was “designed” to “legitimize seeing Blackness as a weapon” and “justify” the murder of Black Americans.

“I also want to set the proper historical context, because back in the day, by 1950, Missouri had the second-highest number of lynchings outside of the Deep South,” added Cunningham. “So when folks talk about ‘making America great again,’ that’s the kind of Missouri grand ol’ tradition that they want to return to. They want to return to days when you could lynch or murder Black folks and there would be absolutely no retribution for it. That’s not hyperbole. I’m telling you as a Black Missourian and as a protestor, that is reality.”

Joy Reid nodded her head and concurred that the bill was “Fugitive Slave Act-territory” and essentially “legalizing lynching.”