Category: Politics

In Championing the Goodness of America, Trump Defines the Choice in This Election. 

Étienne de La Boétie, who graced this planet from 1520–1563, may have died young, but he made his mark, mostly because he was best friends with Michel de Montaigne.
It was Montaigne who helped assure the literary and political immortality of his friend’s most important work, an essay called “Discours de la servitude volontaire” (“Discourse on Voluntary Servitude”).
La Boétie’s curious work has been an arrow in the quiver of anarchists and libertarians as well as classical liberals for centuries. It is an impassioned attack on tyranny, longer, perhaps, on denunciation than prudence but nevertheless a tonic reveille.
Among other things, La Boétie points out that even those who are duly elected can be tyrants, a fact that was pressed home upon me from a recent visit to the state of Michigan, whose governor, Gretchen Whitmer, is the very model of the modern major mandarin.
Whitmer has issued hundreds and hundreds of executive orders that impinge on the quotidian freedoms of the people she was elected to serve (how ironic that sounds: they also serve who only play the scold).
Whitmer was recently upbraided by the Michigan Supreme Court for exceeding her authority.
Her response was to transfer that authority to the state public health establishment, which set about enforcing her edicts about mask-wearing, “social” distancing, communal gatherings, quivering in place, and kindred impositions on liberty.

‘Voluntary Servitude’

“Voluntary servitude”: isn’t that where we find ourselves now? This is no “social contract,” wherein we implicitly pledge allegiance to a regime in exchange for an escape from a sanguinary “state of nature” and entrance to a realm of law and order.
On the contrary, we find ourselves more and more subject to the extraordinary whims of those—and they are legion—who would be our masters, for our own good, we are told, but we can’t help noticing it is also very much for their good, or at least their profit.

Continue reading “”

When venues that claim to be ‘neutral’ (but aren’t) and take advantage of laws that shield neutral venues from legal jeopardy, that should be illegal.

BLUF:
THE GRAVE DANGERS posed by the censorship actions of yesterday should be self-evident. Just over two weeks before a presidential election, Silicon Valley giants — whose industry leaders and workforce overwhelmingly favor the Democratic candidate — took extraordinary steps to block millions, perhaps tens of millions, of American voters from being exposed to what purports to be a major exposé by one of the country’s oldest and largest newspapers.

As the New York Times put it in an article in March about the political preferences of tech leaders: “Silicon Valley has long leaned blue.” Large numbers of tech executives, including Facebook’s second-in-command Sheryl Sandberg, were also vocally supportive of Hillary Clinton in 2016. At the very least, the perception, if not the reality, has been created that these tech giants are using their unprecedented power over political and election-related information to prevent the dissemination of negative reporting about the presidential candidate they favor. Whatever that is, it is not democratic or something to cheer.

The rationale offered by both Twitter and Facebook to justify this censorship makes it more alarming, not less.

Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line Far More Dangerous Than What They Censor
Just weeks before the election, the tech giants unite to block access to incriminating reporting about their preferred candidate.

THE NEW YORK POST IS one of the country’s oldest and largest newspapers. Founded in 1801 by Alexander Hamilton, only three U.S. newspapers are more widely circulated. Ever since it was purchased in 1976 by media mogul Rupert Murdoch, it has been known — like most Murdoch-owned papers — for right-wing tabloid sensationalism, albeit one that has some real reporters and editors and is capable of reliable journalism.

On Wednesday morning, the paper published on its cover what it heralded as a “blockbuster” scoop: “smoking gun” evidence, in its words, in the form of emails purportedly showing that Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, traded on his father’s position by securing favors from the then-Vice President to benefit the Ukranian energy company Burisma, which paid the supremely unqualified Hunter $50,000 each month to sit on its Board. While the Biden campaign denies that any such meetings or favors ever occurred, neither the campaign nor Hunter, at least as of now, has denied the authenticity of the emails.

The Post’s hyping of the story as some cataclysmic bombshell was overblown. While these emails, if authenticated, provide some new details and corroboration, the broad outlines of this story have long been known: Hunter was paid a very large monthly sum by Burisma at the same time that his father was quite active in using the force of the U.S. Government to influence Ukraine’s internal affairs.

Along with emails relating to Burisma, the New York Post also gratuitously published several photographs of Hunter, who has spoken openly and commendably of his past struggles with substance abuse, in what appeared to various states of drug use. There was no conceivable public interest in publishing those, and every reason not to.

The Post’s explanation of how these documents were obtained is bizarre at best — they claim that Hunter Biden indefinitely left his laptop containing the emails at a repair store, and the store’s owner, alarmed by the corruption they revealed, gave the materials from the hard drive to the FBI and then to Rudy Giuliani.

While there is no proof that Biden followed through on any of Hunter’s promises to Burisma, there is no reason, at least thus far, to doubt that the emails are genuine. And if they are genuine, they at least add to what is undeniably a relevant and newsworthy story involving influence-peddling relating to Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine and his trading on the name and power of his father, now the front-runner in the 2020 presidential election.

BUT THE POST, for all its longevity, power and influence, ran smack into two entities far more powerful than it: Facebook and Twitter. Almost immediately upon publication, pro-Biden journalists created a climate of extreme hostility and suppression toward the Post story, making clear that any journalist even mentioning it would be roundly attacked. For the crime of simply noting the story on Twitter (while pointing out its flaws), New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman was instantly vilified to the point where her name, along with the phrase “MAGA Haberman,” were trending on Twitter.

(That Haberman is a crypto-Trump supporter is preposterous for so many reasons, including the fact that she is responsible for countless front-page Times stories that reflect negatively on the president; moreover, the 2016 Clinton campaign considered Haberman one of their most favorable reporters).

The two Silicon Valley giants saw that hostile climate and reacted. Just two hours after the story was online, Facebook intervened. The company dispatched a life-long Democratic Party operative who now works for Facebook — Andy Stone, previously a communications operative for Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, among other DC Democratic jobs — to announce that Facebook was “reducing [the article’s] distribution on our platform”: in other words, tinkering with its own algorithms to suppress the ability of users to discuss or share the news article. The long-time Democratic Party official did not try to hide his contempt for the article, beginning his censorship announcement by snidely noting: “I will intentionally not link to the New York Post.”

Twitter’s suppression efforts went far beyond Facebook’s. They banned entirely all users’ ability to share the Post article — not just on their public timeline but even using the platform’s private Direct Messaging feature.

Continue reading “”

80% Silencers, the Political Ramifications of Mass Ownership

In the first two parts of this on home made silencers series, I wrote of how we arrived at the current situation, historically, and what exists today, in terms of the technology and legal system, for individuals to make their own silencers utilizing the ATF Form 1.

Because of the tremendous bureaucratic and monetary infringements imposed by the National Firearms Act (NFA), very few form 1’s (required to legally make your own silencer, short-barreled rifle, or shotgun) were processed as late as 1990.

It took two more years, to 2016, to more than double again, to 49,985 Form 1s per year. That was the peak, so far. Record firearms sales in 2020 lead to the prediction over 50,000 Form 1’s will be processed this year. The figures for 2019 Form 1’s have not been released at this time, but should be out soon.

About 120 times as many Form 1s are being processed each year, as were being processed 30 years ago. Entire forums on the Internet trade information on what works and what doesn’t.

Forums such as silencertalk.com are potent places for political organizing.

Analysis of the ATF figures shows about 75% of the current Form 1s are for silencers. Most of the rest are for short-barrelled rifles (SBR). SBR Form 1s have probably dropped off as pistol arm braces gained popularity.

The vast increase in the number of legal silencers is altering the political and judicial landscapes.

Such visible numbers are a sign of political and judicial strength. Second Amendment supporters have every logical argument to repeal the National Firearms Act. They do not have the political support in Congress to do so…yet.

The inclusion of silencers in the NFA may be the worst public health blunder made by the Federal Government. Tens of millions of gun owners’ hearing has been adversely affected.

Two million legal silencers are merely the start. There are about 100 million firearms owners who could benefit from owning inexpensive and effective silencers in the United States. Market saturation of silencers in the United States might top out in the area of 200 million. Continue reading “”

Is Biden Coming For Your Guns? To Quote Beto, ‘Hell Yes’ — It’s Right There On His Website.

All the focus has been on Biden’s mask use, his ridiculous rhetoric, his personal attacks on Trump, and his various Bidenisms. What we should REALLY Be looking at is his platform.

He can duck and weave in debates and townhalls all he wants, but his platform is there for all to read.

Mark Levin calls it their Manifesto. We have referenced that previously.

He picked as his running mate the furthest left Senator of the bunch, whose record is literally further left than Bernie Sanders. But we’re all supposed to blindly accept that Joe is a ‘moderate’.

He was part of legislation pushing a gun ban before, and it should surprise nobody that the guy who pledged to put Beto ‘Hell Yes we’ll take your AR-15s” O’Rourke in charge of gun policy is pushing gun confiscation.

Of course, the kind of legislation he is pushing does nothing to target the places where gun crime is a real problem… places like the mean streets of Chicago for instance.

That doesn’t stop him from demagoguing the issue. From his website:

It’s within our grasp to end our gun violence epidemic and respect the Second Amendment, which is limited. As president, Biden will pursue constitutional, common-sense gun safety policies. Biden will:

Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection.

Get weapons of war off our streets. The bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that Biden, along with Senator Feinstein, secured in 1994 reduced the lethality of mass shootings. But, in order to secure the passage of the bans, they had to agree to a 10-year sunset provision and when the time came, the Bush Administration failed to extend them. As president, Biden will:

  • Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons. 
  • Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act.
  • Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.
  • Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one.

We notice it doesn’t say what will happen to someone who says that they do NOT want to participate in a government buyback. Continue reading “”

BLUF:
Democrats represent this Christianophobia in political form. Even though Biden is a practicing Roman Catholic, his candidacy represents an insidious threat to traditional Christianity, including orthodox Roman Catholic positions on sexuality and gender.

Those who support traditional marriage or the biological definition of sex as male or female will find their beliefs demonized and their religious freedom and free speech under fire in a Biden administration. It does not matter that supporters of traditional marriage or biological sex are a rather diverse group, including Roman Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, even atheists, and radical feminists. Biden’s presidency would represent a threat to all of them.

Biden Threatens Religious Freedom, Suggests Christians With Certain Traditional Views Are ‘Dregs of Society’

Liberals often mock conservative Christians for supporting a notorious sinner and philanderer in Donald Trump, but the left has grown increasingly hostile to biblical (small-o) orthodox Christianity. Even the ostensibly moderate Democratic nominee Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. represents an insidious threat to the religious freedom of conservative Christians. He also represents a threat to Roman Catholics, even though he is himself a practicing Catholic.

How could this be? Biden’s rhetoric and policies single out those who adhere to traditional religious beliefs and moral convictions, aiming to limit their ability to live by their consciences and ostracizing them from polite society. The Democrat may outwardly campaign on a platform of unity and diversity, but his candidacy truly represents a threat to traditional religious believers.

Disqualified from the Supreme Court?

The most recent evidence of this insidious threat came last week, when a Biden staffer suggested that traditional religious beliefs that homosexual acts are sinful and that marriage is between one man and one woman should be so “taboo” as to disqualify someone from serving on the Supreme Court.

Politico contributing editor Adam Wren noted that President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett “was a trustee at a South Bend private school that described ‘homosexual acts’ as ‘at odds with Scripture’ & said marriage was between ‘one man and one woman’ years after Obergefell v. Hodges.”

Shadi Hamid, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, responded, “Wait, why is this news? Isn’t this the standard position for any orthodox Catholic?”

Nikitha Rai, deputy data director for Pennsylvania at Biden’s campaign, responded to Hamid, saying, “Unfortunately, yes.”

Hamid responded, “to be fair, it’s the standard position for any orthodox Muslim or Jew as well…”

“True,” Rai acknowledged. Yet the staffer insisted that this perspective must be marginalized. “I’d heavily prefer views like that not be elevated to SCOTUS [the Supreme Court of the U.S.], but unfortunately our current culture is still relatively intolerant. It will be a while before those types of beliefs are so taboo that they’re disqualifiers.” Continue reading “”

Gun Control Absent From Presidential Debate

With last night’s debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, it seemed likely that gun control would be a topic of discussion. After all, it was a driving issue during the Democratic primary, one at least two candidates decided to make a focal point of their campaigns. It was a recurring theme during Democratic debates as well.

However, now, things are different. It seems that everyone is trying to pretend that gun control was never a topic to begin with, from the gun control groups and now, even the presidential campaigns.

Oh, guns weren’t absent. It seems that gun violence was a major topic of debate. Especially in places like Chicago.

With the surge in violence we’re seeing all over the nation, that’s hardly surprising. It’s an alarming development in a year of alarming developments, to say the least. Yet this one, at least, feels like something people can turn to politicians to solve, so they have.

But absent from any mention of the debates? Gun control.

This issue that seemed poised to shape at least part of the presidential election has largely fizzled out. Oh, Biden still wants gun control and we know that if he’s elected, we’ll likely see it, but no one wants to talk about it, apparently.

Why?

Following the shooting in Marjory Stoneman-Douglas Highschool in Parkland, gun control was all anyone could seemingly talk about. It made gun control fashionable.

What’s more, gun control didn’t fade into the background like it normally does following a mass shooting. The media made it a point to push people like David Hogg in our faces to keep gun control in the foreground. It couldn’t die if the media kept focusing on it.

Then COVID-19 hit.

At that point, the media had more important things to talk about. Further, millions upon millions of Americans went out and bought guns. After all, a deadly pandemic was here. People were going to die and it wasn’t out of the realm of possibility for there to be some real problems with our supply chain. In fact, there was, and no one had any reason to believe it couldn’t get worse. What happens when people can’t get food?

For times like that, you need a gun.
Continue reading “”

Newly Declassified Documents Show Hillary May Have Set Up the Russia Hoax

Newly declassified documents from Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe show former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have set up the 2016 Russia investigation into the Trump campaign. The information was released Tuesday afternoon in a letter written to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham.

“In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee. The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication,” the letter states.  “According to his handwritten notes, former Central Intelligence Agency Director Brennan subsequently briefed President Obama and other senior national security officials on the intelligence, including the ‘alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.’”

“On 07 September 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding ‘U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server,’” the letter continues.

The information was released to the Committee after a request from Graham, who published the letter.

“I appreciate DNI Ratcliffe responding to my request for any information concerning all things Russia in the 2016 campaign, not just alleged Trump-Russia involvement. Director Ratcliffe will make this information available in a classified setting. I will try to review the material as early as today,” Graham released in a statement. “This latest information provided by DNI Ratcliffe shows there may have been a double standard by the FBI regarding allegations against the Clinton campaign and Russia. Whether these allegations are accurate is not the question. The question is did the FBI investigate the allegations against Clinton like they did Trump?  If not, why not?  If so, what was the scope of the investigation?  If none, why was that?”

“I look forward to speaking with Director Comey about this latest information, and many other topics, at tomorrow’s hearing,” Graham continued. Continue reading “”

It’s almost like they know it’s a losing argument, so they have to obfuscate it? Strange.

Gun Control Group Opts for Healthcare Push in Swing States

Michael Bloomberg-founded Everytown for Gun Safety is opting to push healthcare instead of new gun laws in swing states as the November election approaches.

The Washington Free Beacon reports that Everytown launched an ad campaign in Pennsylvania, Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona, and Minnesota, and there is zero mention of gun control. Instead, the ads make allegations that Republicans want to take away healthcare.

The NRA’s Amy Hunter responded to Everytown’s decision to forego a gun control push, saying, “This Bloomberg-funded organization knows Americans don’t want gun control and are less likely to vote for candidates who promise to impose it. That is why they have to engage in tactics like this — and also bribe felons to vote — to get their gun-control candidates elected. They hope these tactics will fool swing state voters but we hope voters will see right through their deception.”

On September 21, 2020, Breitbart News reported there was a 139 percent increase in ammunition sales nationwide during the first six months of 2020, when compared to the same time period in 2019. Those ammo sales were coupled with a 95 percent increase in gun sales, as compared to the same time frame in 2019.

Moreover, there was an 80 percent surge in gun sales in seven swing states. Those seven states include the five in which Bloomberg’s Everytown is forgoing a gun control push.

The new anti-Semitism

Ocasio-Cortez withdraws from Rabin memorial event after backlash
Democratic congresswoman pulls participation from Americans For Peace Now commemoration for assassinated Israeli premier, after pro-Palestinian activists call move ‘disgusting’

Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Friday withdrew her participation from an event commemorating former prime minster Yitzhak Rabin on the 25th anniversary of his assassination.

The decision, which came after backlash from pro-Palestinian activists, was confirmed to The Times of Israel by a spokeswoman for the congresswoman, a rising star in the progressive wing of the Democratic party. Continue reading “”

Ohio lawmakers pass bill making gun stores an ‘essential business’ even amid a pandemic

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WSYX/WTTE) — The Ohio Senate recently passed a bill that would ban the closure of licensed firearms dealers, even during a pandemic. Gun store owners are now behind the legislation and hope it reaches the governor’s desk. However, other groups against the bill now worry about the bill saying it could do more harm than good.

Eric Delbert, the owner of LEPD Firearms, says in the eight years he’s been running the store gun sales have never been higher.

“At the height of COVID and at the beginning of the civil unrest, we went from selling 10 firearms in a day just in a day just some days selling over 100,” said Delbert.

Governors of several states excluded licensed firearms dealers from the list of “essential” businesses. Recently, passed Senate Bill 360, backed by Republican Senate President Larry Obhof, would ban any public official from closing down gun stores, even during a pandemic……..

BLUF:
This is a strategic blunder, but it’s also a moral blunder. The American people need to know they have a justice system that treats all people fairly, regardless of political persuasion. Right now, that trust has been shattered, and for very good reason. The DOJ had a chance to pick up the pieces and make this right. Instead, they’ve delayed and stonewalled just like the FBI has. Is this a move being made to protect people because they think Trump will lose? I don’t know what the motivation is, but it’s unacceptable.

Of course, again, maybe this isn’t true? But it would be par for the course. We’ll see where this leads, but I’m not hopeful at this point.

Huge: No Durham Report, Indictments Coming per Sources

This is not the kind of big news you want to get on an otherwise slow Sunday morning, but here it is. Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo is reporting this morning that there will be no Durham interim report or indictments coming before the election. By the wording, she may actually be saying there’s no report coming at all.

If true, this is a travesty of justice of the highest order given what has transpired the last five years.

This isn’t someone leaking to the Times to cover their backside. Bartiromo is typically solid and is not anti-Trump in the least.

Whether or not you believe this news will probably depend on the level of cynicism you normally operate with in regards to this topic . I’ve been far more skeptical of the Durham investigation than even I’d like to admit at times. While I want people to be brought to justice, it’s the kind of thing that never seems to happen when the targets are of a Democrat nature (yeah, I know Comey is a “Republican”). Continue reading “”

Black Pentecostal leaders: Amy Coney Barrett ‘persecuted’ for charismatic faith.

A letter released Friday by Black Pentecostal and charismatic Christian leaders has decried criticisms of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s charismatic Catholicism, ahead of her possible appointment to the Supreme Court.

“Today we stand with, and speak in defense of, Judge Amy Coney Barrett,” the Sept. 25 letter said.

“As black Christians we will not stand by in silence as our sister in the faith is persecuted for the ‘political crime’ of her beliefs,” said the letter, which was signed by numerous clergy members, scholars, and religious leaders. Continue reading “”

I wish

Some Senate Democrats Consider Boycotting SCOTUS Confirmation Hearing

At least two Democrats on the powerful Senate panel that will soon oversee the confirmation hearing for President Donald Trump’s forthcoming Supreme Court nominee remain on the fence about whether they’ll attend the televised meetings.

Senate Judiciary Committee members Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) told Newsweek they’re uncertain if they’ll participate in the several days of public hearings expected for mid-October, signaling they may boycott the confirmation process in an apparent snub to Republicans moving at breakneck pace to fill the vacancy on the nation’s highest court before Election Day.

“We’ll see,” Coons said. “My gut inclination is this is the shortest time in American history, the closest to an election—ever—that there’s been a nominee, and we’re given just two weeks to do what should take a month

Naked Power Plays
The McConnell hate is palpable right now. If you don’t think the Dems would have done the same thing if the situation were reversed, I have a bridge to sell you. They would be fools not to.

Most of politics is slinging bs. You weave a narrative for the rubes to rally around.

“Let the next President fill the seat!” “Do your job!”
“It was her dying wish!” “Mitch is a hypocrite!”

It’s all nonsense that will be repeated mindlessly by partisan cheerleaders. If the Dems had been in charge of the Senate, Merrick Garland or someone more liberal would be on the court right now, and to me that’s a consequence of losing elections. If Hillary had won and the Dems won back the Senate in 2018, no one vilifying Cocaine Mitch right now would be complaining about Schumer allowing a vote on RBG’s replacement. What surprises me is how many educated people fall for “The Narrative.”

This is raw, naked, political power, as our system is designed to allow. Anyone who thinks higher principles are involved here is a fool. Mitch McConnell is doing exactly what Chuck Schumer would be doing if the party was reversed. When the party in the White House, controls the Senate, they can put whoever they want on the federal courts without compromise. That’s how the system is designed to work. If you want a check, the party that doesn’t hold the White House needs to take the Senate. If you fail to do that, these are the consequences. Continue reading “”

BLUF:
The Supreme Court has already let several awful laws stand because of its refusal to hear challenges to California’s microstamping law, gun and magazine bans, and may-issue carry laws requiring applicants to show a “justifiable need” in order to exercise their Second Amendment rights. A Court that’s downright hostile to the Second Amendment could do far more damage, and regardless of what happens with Trump’s nominee before the election, if Joe Biden wins in November that’s almost certainly what we should expect from his Supreme Court makeover.

A Supreme Court Showdown & The Future Of The 2A

President Donald Trump says he’ll announce his pick to fill the newly-vacant seat on the Supreme Court by the end of the week, and says he’s narrowed down the list of possibilities to five individuals. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Amy Swearer of the Heritage Foundation joins me to talk about the importance of the upcoming confirmation fight in terms of our right to keep and bear arms, as well as delving a little bit into the Second Amendment records of one of the potential nominees.

During an interview on Fox & Friends, the president said that he’ll wait until after services are held for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away on Friday after battling pancreatic cancer, but that he believes a confirmation vote should be held before the election in November.

“I think it will be on Friday or Saturday and we want to pay respect, it looks like we will have services on Thursday or Friday, as I understand it, and I think we should, with all due respect for Justice Ginsburg, wait for services to be over,” the president said.

The president’s shortlist is said to include Judge Amy Coney Barrett from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Barbara Logoa of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, and Judge Allison Jones Rushing of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, among others.
The president touted the list of potential picks, calling them “excellent,” and “all very smart.” Continue reading “”

WHAT IT ALL COMES DOWN TO

In the coming weeks, as the struggle to confirm a Supreme Court nominee fires up, we will be inundated with facts about past confirmation timetables and other “precedents.” Advocates will try to elevate past practices to matters of principle, and maybe even to matters of morality.

I think all of these arguments should be ignored. The only rule that applies, and it’s a reasonable one, is that Supreme Court nominees get confirmed when the president’s party has secured enough support from the electorate to muster the 50 Senate votes needed to confirm.

Voters didn’t give Democrats enough Senate votes to confirm Merrick Garland (or to get him the waste of time a hearing would have amounted to). That’s all there was to that story.

It’s not clear whether voters have given President Trump enough votes to confirm a nominee this close to a presidential election or, if Trump loses, in the months afterwards. If voters haven’t, that’s all there will be to that story, with this caveat.

Voters in Utah and Alaska must have thought, when they elected Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski, that they were giving Trump a vote to confirm a qualified Supreme Court nominee at any point in the calendar or election cycle. Thus, if Trump can’t get a nominee confirmed because of Romney and/or Murkowski (to take two important examples), it will be a tough pill to swallow.

But we may have to swallow it, and distribute the blame among the two Senators and the voters they duped.

They should be careful if they really want to ‘go there’. They just may walk into something that does more than bite back.

Democrats Promise to Be Sore (and Violent) Losers
They know that the media, corporations, schools, and even churches will cheer them on.

Writing in The Atlantic recently, the sober-minded commentator Shadi Hamid says, “I struggle to imagine how, beyond utter shock, millions of Democrats will process a Trump victory.” For Democrats, having failed to cope with the 2016 election, and believing the polls that show a solid Joe Biden lead, another shock Trump win would “provoke mass disillusion with electoral politics as a means of change — at a time when disillusion is already dangerously high.” And it would lead decent folks astray. They would seek remedies “outside the political process, including through nonpeaceful means,” though, “not necessarily out of hope but out of despair.”

Don’t notice the gleam in the arsonist’s eye, he’s really just heartbroken over the fate of the Biden-Harris ticket!

Given Hamid’s premises, why bother even having the election? Why not find a peaceful but extralegal procedure to make Joe Biden president right this second? We could relieve the whole nation of the suspense of what Democrats will do if once again they’ve nominated someone who can’t beat one of the most broadly unpopular political figures of modern times.

For what it’s worth, like Hamid, I’m worried about post-election violence. But my view of the causes is slightly different. Hamid says, “Losers of elections need to believe that they can win the next time around. Otherwise their incentives to play the spoiler increase.” Okay, true enough.

He also says that “the anxiety gripping the two parties is asymmetric.” Joe Biden is a moderate Democrat, he says, and therefore theoretically more acceptable to Republicans, whereas Donald Trump “represents the nativist wing of an already nativist Republican Party.” His conclusion: Biden should win for reasons of civic peace.

Now leave aside the claims of leftists, including Obama, that Joe Biden has become much more progressive in his current campaign. And let’s leave aside the question of whether Donald Trump is actually a moderate or liberal Republican on issues such as federal welfare spending. Hamid fails in his analysis because he is unwilling or unable to see things from the other side. Maybe it’s time to practice empathy.

What if the anxiety gripping the parties was asymmetric in the other direction? Conservatives don’t see politics as just a matter of elective office, but of power generally. And they notice that the major corporations, Hollywood and pop culture, academia, what’s left of mainstream media, most local institutions, the leadership class of their own movements through the years, and even their own churches are substantially to their left politically. They also notice that progressives notch major political and cultural wins even from conservative elites, and even following conservative victories.

Hamid might have noticed that conservative activism was born over “despair” of the sort he describes. It was born of the observation that even winning elections wasn’t enough to secure political victories. Instead of the Electoral College or the Senate, conservatives had to face the more inscrutable Supreme Court, which for years overturned conservative legislation and enacted progressive victories that had no chance of receiving a democratic mandate. Conservatives’ response was to double down on electoral strategies, making an explicit case that they needed to win elections to reform the judiciary. Why didn’t conservatives simply pout and threaten to abandon the democratic process altogether, as Hamid admits liberals are wont to do?

Perhaps because conservatives then, as now, knew on which side of the divide the institutional and oligarchic power landed. Progressives feel secure in making all but open threats of violence and revolution because they know that the heads of domestic security agencies are on their side, they know that the most powerful voices in media and academia are at the ready to craft apologies for their violence. And they know that their reputations will be restored or even burnished after committing violence on behalf of their causes.

The modern American conservative movement was a populist and democratic movement because it had to be. The modern Left knows where its power lies as well — with the already powerful.

BLUF:
The unexpected election of President Trump, who promised to clean the swamp, serves as a threat to their continued corruption and reign.
Their demonization and hate expressed for this president is purely personal.
They know his reelection spells the end of their sweetheart deals, bribery, and money laundering schemes while sitting in our halls of Congress. With the aid of our adversaries, Red China and Iran, they have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at him. From the Russia hoax, impeachment, the Wuhan virus, and the current civil unrest in our streets, he has escaped and survived their evil deeds.
The Democrats are now desperate and going for broke. They have exposed themselves as a corrupt criminal enterprise bent on regaining control of their corrupt money machinations while the country be damned!

A Criminal Enterprise, a.k.a. The Democratic demoncrap Party

Somewhere within the last few decades, the United States was taken over by a clandestine criminal enterprise working under the radar to infiltrate and gain control of our media, schools, universities, unions, Hollywood, military and our halls of governance at the local, state, and federal level. They did so in conjunction with a new American oligarchy composed of billionaires seeking a One World Order and all too willing to fund their operations, along with the aid of foreign financiers such as Red China and parts of the oil rich Islamist world.

Within time, and with much of its funding coming from a billionaire oligarchy, they were able to hijack the entire Democrat Party who were only too willing to sell out the United States to the highest bidders while lining their own pockets with sweetheart deals made with Red China, Iran, and Ukraine. The admittance of Red China in 2001 into the World Trade Organization, backed and supported by Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, was the beginning of China’s advance and the decline of the United States on the world stage. As American companies moved overseas along with the millions of lost jobs in cities throughout the United States, Democrats and some Republicans, sold us a bill of goods. They advanced the notion that we were moving towards a service economy and that cheap labor overseas meant cheaper products here at home. They failed to mention that the loss of our manufacturing industry to China, and in particular our pharmaceutical industry, posed a national security threat since China could threaten to stop selling essential goods to us. Nor did they mention that certain minerals, now mined in China, were critical to our military defense. These decisions were made against our national interests; yet, no one in Washington protested. Continue reading “”

He knows if he tells the truth, it’s over and he probably knows he’s not a good enough liar to get away with it if he lies, and it’s over. That’s when you wind up getting this ‘non-answer answer’ from a – one might suppose – incompetent hack, which then tells everyone the accusation is true.
On the other hand——–
A really cynical person might think that was the plan, as we’ve seen so many unforced errors in the Biden campaign to make one conclude some of his team are purposefully trying to sink SloJoe with something like ‘death of a thousand cuts’.
But that’s just me.

Ted Cruz, I can easily see on SCOTUS.
Hawley? Well, he’d be a good pick for a position on a district court.

PRESIDENT TRUMP ADDS PRO-2A NAMES TO SCOTUS LIST

President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced a list of additions to the White House’s shortlist of U.S. Supreme Court nominees, many of which have been outspoken on the right to keep and bear arms.

The new list of 20 could come in handy should Mr. Trump win reelection in November as the court’s current nine jurists only include two who are under age 60 while another two, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, are well into their 80s.

“Over the next four years America’s president will choose hundreds of federal judges and in all likelihood one, two, three, and even four Supreme Court Justices,” said Trump in a press conference. “The outcome of these decisions will determine whether we hold fast to our nation’s founding principles or whether they are lost forever.”

As to be expected, the new additions to the list are filled largely with the names of sitting federal district and appeals court judges including Judges Kyle Duncan and James Ho– both of which wrote in strong support of fewer gun restrictions in a denial of an en banc hearing on the 2018 Mance v. Sessions ruling against interstate handgun sales.

“The Government’s proposed prophylaxis—to protect against the violations of the few, we must burden the constitutional rights of the many—turns the Second Amendment on its head,” said the dissent in that case. “Our Founders crafted a Constitution to promote the liberty of the individual, not the convenience of the Government.” Continue reading “”