Instead of Asking How to Stop Mass Shootings, Left Targets Social Conservatives

This week, another evil mass shooter unleashed horror at a gay club in Colorado Springs, killing five and wounding another 25. The shooter—whose name I refuse to mention in order to disincentivize future shooters, who seek notoriety—was clearly mentally ill: Just last year, he reportedly threatened his mother with a bomb, resulting in his arrest.

Yet Colorado’s red flag law, which could have deprived the shooter of legal access to weaponry, was not invoked by either police or relatives. The Colorado Springs massacre, then, is yet another example of a perpetrator with more red flags than a bullfighting convention, and no one in authority willing to take action to do anything about him.

Yet the national conversation, as it so often does, now has been directed away from the question at hand—how to prevent mass shootings—and toward broader politics. Instead of seeking methodologies that might be effective in finding and stopping deranged individuals seeking murder without curbing rights and liberties for hundreds of millions of people, our political and media leaders have decided to blame Americans who oppose same-sex marriage, drag queen story hour, and “family friendly” drag shows. Disagreement with the radical leftist social agenda amounts to incitement to violence, they argue.

Thus, NBC News senior reporter Brandy Zadrozny said, “There is a pipeline. It starts from some smaller accounts online like Libs of Tiktok, it moves to the right-wing blogosphere, and then it ends up on Tucker Carlson or ends up out of a right-wing politician’s mouth, and it is a really dangerous cycle that does have real-world consequences.”

Michelle Goldberg of The New York Times wrote that “it seems hard to separate [these murders] from a nationwide campaign of anti-LGBTQ incitement. … They’ve been screaming that drag events … are part of a monstrous plot to prey on children. They don’t get to duck responsibility if a sick man with a gun took them seriously.”

Brian Broome wrote in The Washington Post that the shooting could not be “blamed on mental illness.” No, he stated, “It’s right-wing rhetoric that sparks these nightmares. … The bottomless list of homophobes and transphobes on the right don’t need to throw the rock and then hide their hands. Instead, they use someone else’s hands entirely.”

The Left’s attempt to lay responsibility for violence at the feet of anyone who opposes the transgressive social agenda doesn’t stop with blame—it extends to calls for full-scale censorship.

“We’re living in an environment that’s driven by two things,” averred Sarah Kate Ellis, CEO of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. “Politicians who are using us to bolster their careers by creating division and hate, and number two is social media platforms that are monetizing hate, and especially against marginalized communities. They’re—they’re choosing profits over hate, and it’s killing, literally killing our community.”

Social media, the logic goes, ought to shut down or demonetize any video disagreeing with the GLAAD agenda.

This is cynical politics at its worst. It’s also nothing new. The Left routinely cites violent incidents as reason to crack down on free speech with which they disagree.

As the inimitably imbecilic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-Instagram, tweeted: “After Trump elevated anti-immigrant & anti-Latino rhetoric, we had the deadliest anti-Latino shooting in modern history. After anti-Asian hate w/ COVID, Atlanta. Tree of Life. Emanuel AME. Buffalo. And now after an anti-LGBT+ campaign, Colorado Springs. Connect the dots, @GOP.”

Yes, according to AOC, virtually every major mass shooting of the past seven years is the result of her political opponents—none of whom has called for violence. But in the world of the Left, disagreement is violence merely waiting to be unleashed. Which is why censorship, they believe, is the only way to achieve a more peaceful world.

An in depth and surprisingly ‘even handed’ look at the new Oregon gun control law.

Can the lawsuit trying to block Oregon’s new gun laws actually succeed?

PORTLAND, Ore. (KGW) — While votes were still being counted after Election Day this month — and well beyond — the fact that gun control initiative Measure 114 was projected to narrowly pass proved enough for some of Oregon’s arcane administrative mechanics to begin churning.

According to the Secretary of State’s office, laws passed via initiative petition like this one go into effect precisely one month after the election: midnight on Thursday, Dec. 8. Even the authors of Measure 114 said that they thought it would become effective a month after the vote was certified.

When and if Measure 114 becomes law in its current form, it would require a permit in order to buy a gun. Buyers would have to get a permit that’s expected to cost around $65 and complete an approved firearms safety course, which would also likely come at a cost. The permits also require submission of a photo ID, fingerprinting and a criminal background check.

Permit applications would be handled by the local police department or county sheriff’s office, and Oregon State Police would handle background checks — which they already do for firearms purchases. All of that information would then go into a database.

Measure 114 also bans the sale of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Immediately after the measure passed, a few Oregon sheriffs released statements about their feelings on the matter. Most were critical of the measure, but a few took that a step further and said that they refused to enforce certain aspects of it — also expressing hopes that a lawsuit would block the law before it could go into effect.

The short timeline between Election Day and the Dec. 8 effective date meant that an inevitable legal challenge to Measure 114 would need to coalesce quickly. And it did, less than two weeks after the election.

On Friday, a Marion County gun store owner, the Sherman County Sheriff and a group called the Oregon Firearms Federation filed a lawsuit. It argues that the new law violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, taking special aim at the magazine capacity portion of the law.

Continue reading “”

Oklahoma representative files guns rights bills

guns
(The Center Square) – Rep. Jim Olsen is the first lawmaker to file a bill for the upcoming 2023 Oklahoma legislative session.

House Bill 1001 would lower the legal age limit to carry a firearm from 21 years old to 18 years old.

“You can go in the military and use very lethal weapons (at 18 years old),” Olsen, R-Roland, told The Center Square. “Additionally you can get married and you may want to protect your spouse or children.”

Olsen also filed House Bill 1002 , called the Second Amendment Sanctuary State Act.

“If the federal government were to exceed their authority and start confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens, then we would want to step in and say ‘You are under arrest and you’re going to stop,'” he said.

The bill gives the county sheriffs the authority to arrest anyone acting on the authority of the federal government to seize firearms.

Olsen co-authored a law that makes abortion a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and with fines up to $100,000. He said one matter that has not been settled is the use of abortion pills sent to Oklahoma residents from other states.

“I don’t know if anybody has figured out anything on that,” Olsen said. “I haven’t figured out anything as far as the best way to deal with that. Arguably, it violates the intent of our law that there be no abortions in the state of Oklahoma.”

Olsen and Sen. Nathan Dahm, R-Broken Arrow, who co-authored the bill making abortion a felony in the state, said in a news release last week they will continue to fight for against abortion.

‘New allowances for abortion might come veiled as compassion and care for difficult and tragic circumstances,” they said in the news release. “In fact, this is not the case at all. This would be nothing less than the taking away of innocent human life.”

Oklahoma lawmakers begin the 2023 session on Feb. 6.

With bureaucraps as the apparatchiks

Far From a Democracy, the U.S. Is a Functional Oligarchy.

Americans are led to feel free through the exercise of meaningless choices. There are only two political parties. There is a reduction of the number of media companies. Banking has been reduced to only a handful of banks. Oil companies. These are important, and you’re given very little choice. … You know what your freedom of choice in America is? Paper or plastic. — George Carlin

“Democracy™ is on the ballot,” went the incessant, mindless talking point, over and over, pushed by glassy-eyed Democrat Party surrogates this election cycle. And they’re going to recycle that talking point for as long as possible, because that’s all they’ve got.

The benefit of promoting Democracy™ as the central selling point to elect Democrats is that the term is amorphous. The vast majority of targeted voters who hear about the importance of Democracy™ won’t ever really think critically about what it entails or, more importantly, whether it actually exists.

Sad to say, it doesn’t. Democracy™ in America in 2022 is a childish fantasy. A pipe dream. A mirage.

That the United States is a thriving democracy, through persistent propaganda in public schools and corporate media, has become an unquestionable article of faith. But back in 2014, before Orange Hitler rained on the Democracy™ parade, when the neoliberal star-child Obama reigned supreme at the pinnacle of Democracy™, two political science researchers quietly destroyed the narrative.

Instead of mindlessly adhering to the Democracy™ mythology, the researchers quantitatively analyzed how the gears of government actually turn. They isolated thousands of policy decisions and stacked them up against public opinion divided by economic status and interest groups.

Here’s what they found, as published in “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens” (emphasis added):

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. 

The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism… When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose.

Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it… average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence [over US policy].

What that means, in a nutshell, is that, unless you are a privileged member of the D.C.-centric governing class, your preferences about what should happen in your own country matter not at all, full stop. Elite interests are not your interests.

When exactly America lost its true democracy or whether it ever truly manifested in the first place is obviously up for debate. What is not debatable is that Americans’ birthright of self-governance as enumerated in the founding documents of this Great Experiment has been stolen — specifically, and ironically, by the same band of ravenous vultures who preach nonstop about the Democracy™ they stifle.

Trump was 100% over the target when he promised to #draintheswamp. Unfortunately, the swamp is murkier than it’s ever been, with no real hope of remedy in the immediate future.

Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster … for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.  — Friedrich Nietzsche

If I was he author I wouldn’t have made a joke out of it. Likely some demoncrap transvestite sodomite could take it as a serious suggestion. Yes, that’s how warped they are.

If Democrats want to win back rural voters, there’s only one way to do it

Agricultural-themed drag shows.

Okay, just kidding. Yes, if Democrats want to claw back any semblance of competitiveness and representation in rural America, they’re going to have to kiss the sweet, sweet cash of the gun control lobby goodbye and end their hostility to the Second Amendment that has become increasingly central to the party’s identity over the past three decades.

Even as recently as 2010, a full quarter of the Democrats in the U.S. House were rated “A” by the National Rifle Association, but those days are long gone. Less than 1% of the Democratic caucus voted against the ban on so-called assault weapons that cleared the House earlier this year, and rural voters know that the candidate with the “D” behind their name is going to be a reliable vote against their rights, even if they don’t make gun control a priority on the campaign trail.

I saw this in my own congressional district this year, where Democrat Josh Throneburg ended up getting a little more than  42% of the vote in VA-05, which sprawls from the suburbs of Richmond up past Charlottesville and all the way down to Danville on the Virginia/North Carolina border. It’s a safe Republican district, but Rep. Bob Good won by 18-points on a better-than-expected night for Democrats overall. I saw no mention of gun control in any news story quoting Throneburg, and he didn’t seem to make it a huge issue, but quietly tucked away on his campaign website you could discover that on board with creating a number of new criminal offenses out of our right to keep and bear arms, including banning permitless carry and passing a federal “red flag” law.

On Election Day, Throneburg won the progressive enclave of Charlottesville with an incredible 87% of the vote. It didn’t matter. He was crushed in rural county after rural county; Good had six counties where his margin of victory was 50-points, and seven more where he won by at least 30-points. The only other part of VA-05 that went for Throneburg was the portion of the city of Danville inside the district’s borders, and that was a much closer six-point win for the Democrat.

The rural numbers are just gruesome for lefties who know the party needs to compete in rural America:

  • Pittsylvania County – 75% Bob Good
  • Campbell County – 77% Bob Good
  • Powhatan County – 75% Bob Good
  • Hanover County – 70% Bob Good
  • Charlotte County – 69% Bob Good

These are the same counties that turned out in historic fashion and helped send Republicans to victory in all statewide elections last year, and a big reason for that enormous turnout was to deliver political payback to the Democrats who used their newfound majority in 2020 to ram through a host of gun control measures (though they failed in their attempt to impose a semi-auto ban on Virginians). These voters are simply not going to side with a candidate who believes that cracking down on law-abiding gun owners and criminalizing a fundamental right is the answer to addressing violent crime or has anything to do with “common sense gun safety.”

But are Democrats willing to give up the significant financial support of the gun control lobby and focus on things like community gun violence intervention programs and other ways to reduce crime that don’t involve turning the Second Amendment into a second-degree felony? No way.

Over at The Nation, the founders of the Democratic group Rural Urban Bridge Initiative offer  some suggestions to Democrats for making inroads with rural America, but nowhere do they come close to telling candidates to ixnay the ungay ontrolcay alktay. In their larger report on Democratic messaging with the folks in the hinterlands, however, they do offer up a  nugget of advice

Among the bigger national issues, guns and abortion generally cannot be avoided on the campaign trail but must be discussed with respect for different points of view. As with most everything else, this begins with listening. In some instances, “agreeing to disagree’” is the best outcome achievable. This generally earns the candidate more respect than either a dogmatic insistence on their position, or avoidance of the issue by pivoting to more comfortable issues.

Hey look, I respected Josh Throneburg for running. He seemed like someone completely out of touch with the Fifth District, which is to be expected since he moved to Charlottesville just three years ago, but I saw him as a nice enough guy with bad ideas. It’s the bad ideas that prevented me from voting for him, not his personality or willingness to listen.

If Democrats want to bridge the urban/rural divide, they have to accept that it’s not a messaging problem. It’s a policy problem, and the biggest issue of all is the Democratic insistence that peaceable gun owners are the real problem when it comes to “gun violence.”

Honestly, I’d love to have a difficult choice when I walk into the voting booth on Election Day, especially since the Fifth District Republic Committee has not held an open primary for our congressional seat since 2018, choosing instead to go with a closed convention that denies the vast majority of voters in our district the opportunity to vote in what would be the most competitive race of the election cycle given the district’s conservative bent. Bob Good won the general election by 18 points, but I don’t know that would be the case in an open GOP primary.

Regardless, whoever the Republicans did pick would be a strong Second Amendment supporter, unlike the Democrats who keep trying to convince themselves that, if only they use the right messaging techniques, they can trick the rubes into voting for something they’re firmly against.

It doesn’t really matter if you accuse us of 
or patronizingly express support for the Second Amendment and banning some of the most commonly-sold firearms in the same breath, we know what the Democratic Party stands for when it comes to our right to armed self-defense; they don’t believe it’s a right at all. And as long as that’s the case, the rural vote will never swing back in their favor.

Four Developments That Waited Until After the Midterms.

Did you notice that there have been many stories breaking recently that are inconvenient to the left-wing narrative? I did. And I noticed that they came out after the midterm elections were over — when they’d have no impact on the vote. Wasn’t that nice and convenient? Here are four of those stories.

Newsom’s budget deficit

After back-to-back years of running surpluses, this week we learned that California is back in the red. Back in May, the Golden State had a nearly $98 billion surplus, but new projections show that California will have a $25 billion deficit in the 2023-2024 fiscal year. Luckily for Gov. Gavin Newsom, voters reelected him last week before the news broke. The story may not have doomed Newsom’s reelection bid, but it could have helped some GOP candidates running for Congress.

Rudy Giuliani cleared

The Biden administration and the Democrats have gone after anyone remotely tied to Donald Trump. One man they targeted for destruction was Rudy Giuliani. A two-year investigation into possible violations of foreign lobbying ended this week without charges — effectively clearing him of wrongdoing. Boy, what stellar timing.

New York City crime

The crime issue was so influential this year that it threatened to oust Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.) from office. So the liberal media did everything possible to pretend that crime wasn’t an issue. But now that the midterms are over and the red wave didn’t materialize, the New York Times decided it was finally safe to report on crime again.

Biden’s student loan forgiveness killed

In a blatantly transparent move to bribe young voters to get to the polls, Joe Biden announced a student loan relief plan over the summer. So it should come as no surprise that young voters came out in droves in the midterm elections, effectively saving the Democrats from a red wave. And conveniently, a few days after the election, a federal judge struck down Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan. Whew, that was close!

The Midterm Election and Second Amendment Freedom

Just after the midterm election, an AP reporter asked President Joe Biden (D) what he’ll do differently in the last two years of his term. Biden said, “nothing.”

“Nothing, because they’re just finding out what we’re doing,” the president said.

Just finding out?

We know Biden wants to ban popular semi-automatic firearms—he even again promised to do this right before the midterm election.

We know Biden wants to ban so-called “high-capacity” magazines—according to him, these could be any magazine that holes 10 rounds, or perhaps eight.

We know Biden nonsensically wants to ban the 9 mm handgun, even though it is easily the most-popular centerfire pistol caliber sold today—Biden said, “A 9 mm bullet blows the lung out of the body. So the idea that these high-caliber weapons is of—there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of thinking about self-protection, hunting. I mean, I just—and remember, the Constitution, the Second Amendment was never absolute … .”

We know Biden wants to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) so that activists can again use frivolous lawsuits to sue firearms manufactures into bankruptcy. We know a lot more about Biden’s thoughts on our rights, but let’s stop there; instead let’s take a look at what the midterm elections wrought and, therefore, what Biden might be able to do in the last two years of his term.

Continue reading “”

Joe Biden Just Proved He Fears Donald Trump’s 2024 Candidacy

On Tuesday evening, Donald Trump announced he is running for president. While Democrats publicly suggest they want Trump to run because they think they can beat him, Joe Biden already proved that he’s terrified of Trump’s candidacy.

How?

Before Trump’s announcement was even over, Joe Biden tweeted an attack ad against him, rehashing his usual anti-Trump talking points.

Joe Biden hasn’t officially announced his candidacy, so this video lacks the typical disclaimers we are used to seeing in a campaign ad. But make no mistake, this is a garden variety campaign attack ad, and Biden let the cat out of the bag that he’s afraid of Trump by releasing it even as Trump was speaking.

DeWine allies push for passage of STRONG Ohio gun bill in lame duck session

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine cruised to re-election last week, defeating Democrat Nan Whaley by an eye-popping 25 points. Now the governor, who signed Constitutional Carry into law back in March, is hoping to spend some of his newly-acquired political capital to put several new gun control measures on the books, and his allies in the state legislature are doing everything they can to help.

The bill in question is SB 357, and though it’s been bottled up in committee for most of the year, there’s now a push to move the bill forward during the legislature’s lame-duck session that started this week.

An attempt to revive some of the “Strong Ohio” proposals against gun violence, stalled in the General Assembly since 2019, faces a timeline that’s hard to meet.

State Sen. Matt Dolan, R-Chagrin Falls, is trying to resurrect some of the “Strong Ohio” proposals against gun violence that stalled in the legislature in 2019. His Senate Bill 357 will get a first hearing, but also faces a tight timeline. The bill includes a “red flag” provision, better background checks, some limitation on private sales, and using $175 million in federal funds to improve mental healthcare.

Gov. Mike DeWine has signaled approval of the bill, which includes some of the ideas he unsuccessfully floated following the August 2019 mass shooting in Dayton’s Oregon District.

On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee held its first hearing on SB 357, but didn’t hold a vote on the measure. Dolan, meanwhile, has made a few tweaks to the legislation, which would create a new category of prohibited persons, require adults under the age of 21 to have a co-signer for all gun purchases, and establish a “seller’s protection certificate” that is designed to encourage (but not require) background checks on private transfers of firearms.

“Everything in this sub bill is about before you buy a gun,” said Dolan, who chairs the finance committee.

During months of campaigning for the Nov. 8 election, legislators heard people statewide asking what they’d do to prevent gun violence, he said.

From speaking with healthcare personnel, law enforcement and others, it became clear the state’s current involuntary commitment program is not sufficient to identify all the at-risk people who shouldn’t be able to buy guns, Dolan said.

His substitute bill adds a sixth “disability” to state laws preventing people from buying guns. Existing ones prohibit fugitives from justice, felons, those who committed juvenile crimes that would be adult felonies, drug addicts and alcoholics, and those with established dangerous mental problems from buying guns, he said.

Dolan’s bill adds people who go before a behavioral risk assessment team and have been determined to be a “suicidal or homicidal risk.”

Ohio law already prohibits people under age 21 from buying handguns, he said. His bill would add that under-21 buyers of other guns would need a cosigner age 25 or older. There are exceptions for anyone under 21 in law enforcement or the military, Dolan said.

For some reason Dolan’s really focused on the fact that these provisions are all directed at individuals before they purchase a firearm, though that doesn’t mean that any or all of his proposals would be constitutional or effective.

Take his new category of prohibited persons, for example. The supposed reason to add those who’ve been determined by a behavioral risk assessment team to be a “suicidal or homicidal risk” is that the state’s current involuntary commitment law isn’t working as well as it should. Seems to me the proper legislative response would be to determine why that’s the case and work to fix the existing law, rather than avoiding improving the state’s mental health system by making it easier to deny some individuals the ability to purchase a firearm. If someone truly is a risk to themselves or others, simply denying them the ability to purchase a firearm at a gun store isn’t going to make them any less dangerous, but Dolan’s bill treats guns as the issue and not the supposedly dangerous individual.

There are also major issues with Dolan’s desire to force young adults to find someone who’ll sign off on their gun ownership. The co-signer assumes some legal liability if the under-21 gun buyer were to misuse the firearm; an extraordinary provision that is unlike any existing (or historical) gun regulation that I’m aware of. Not only would this have a chilling effect on the Second Amendment rights of young adults, it’s hard to see how this restriction even remotely fits with the text, history, and tradition of the right to keep and bear arms.

SB 357 has been floating around the Ohio legislature in one form or another since 2019, and so far it’s received a very cool reception from the Republican majority. Clearly DeWine is hoping to capitalize on his overwhelming victory last week, but whether or not his Republican colleagues in the statehouse have had a change of heart about his gun proposals is still very much up in the air. The first test will be a vote in the Senate Finance Committee, and Ohio gun owners should be reaching out to those committee members to share their concerns before the bill has a chance to reach the Senate floor.

Ill-Exit? Movement to Create a New State in Southern Illinois Gains Momentum

Agrowing list of Illinois counties disenfranchised with the goings-on in Cook County have voted in nonbinding resolutions to leave Illinois and form a new state.

Residents in three more counties – Brown, Hardin and a portion of Madison County – voted in favor of a nonbinding resolution allowing their county board to explore the possibility of leaving the state, bringing the total to 27. In all three counties, close to 75% of residents were in favor of the idea.

The driving force behind the referendums was to allow the county board of each area to coordinate with other county boards to explore the possibility of leaving Illinois because of the influence that Chicago and Cook County have on the state’s political decisions.

In Brown County, the ballot question read, “Shall the board of Brown County correspond with the boards of the other counties of Illinois outside of Cook County about the possibility of separating from Cook County to form a new state, and to seek admission to the union as such, subject to the approval of the people.”

“We don’t use the word secession because that’s not what this is, it’s legally something different,” said G.H. Merritt, chair of the nonpartisan organization New Illinois. “We are trying to form a new state, and we’re not trying to kick Chicago out of Illinois, we’re trying to kick ourselves out of Illinois.”

Only Congress has the power to create new states, but there has never been a formal agreement on how the process should take place.

Merritt said a driving force behind the expanding movement is that many southern Illinoisans want to be heard regarding issues that affect the state as a whole.

“You have this movement in Illinois, you have it in California, you have it in New York, you have it in Colorado, it’s because the people in the rural areas don’t have a meaningful voice in the government,” Merritt said.

She said a resolution is expected to be filed in January to begin the process.

This is not the first time frustrated downstate Illinoisans have lobbied to split from the state. In the 1970s, residents of western Illinois declared themselves “Forgottonia” as a protest against the government’s failure to improve the transportation infrastructure.

Why there’s no common ground on gun debate

As a gun rights advocate, I’m often accused of being stubborn. I refuse to give any ground or entertain any position that favors gun control. I, personally, might prefer to see laws enforced until they’re declared unconstitutional, but there’s literally no gun law I can remotely favor.

And this makes me a bad person.

However, in a story about the growing divide in Uvalde, TX, I came across this comment:

Speaking at a protest near the Texas Capitol on 27 August, Brett Cross, whose 10-year-old nephew and adopted son Uzaiyah was one of the 21 victims, left no room for equivocation. He was there with hundreds to demand that the Texas governor, Greg Abbott, call a special legislative session to raise the age to buy assault-style weapons from 18 – the age of the Robb elementary mass murderer – to 21.

“Fight with us,” he said. “Because you don’t want to be fighting from this side with a hole in your heart.”

There is no middle ground left in Uvalde. The shared cause of raising the age for buying assault rifles clarifies the two sides of the fight: those who demand change and those who oppose it. While Abbott himself had told Cross he didn’t see guns as the real culprit in Uvalde, to simply accept inaction wasn’t an option. Giving up was inconceivable to families who would have given anything to prevent their children from dying. The families saw no good excuse for those unwilling to join their cause.

“If you’re not trying,” Cross said, “you’re complicit.”

And that is why there will never be any middle ground in the gun debate.

This line of “argument” pisses me off and it always has. Why? Because I’ve been there. Not to the extent Cross has, but I’ve lost someone to a mass shooting, someone I cared about, and I’ve talked about how this line of argument infuriates me.

Then there’s our own Ryan Petty, who lost his daughter at Parkland. I haven’t talked to him about it, but I’m pretty sure it makes him furious as well.

See, this line of argument stems can only make sense if you believe that everyone agrees that gun control works, they only oppose you for some other reason. As a result, your opposition to gun control can only be motivated by factors in spite of this self-evident truth.

They cannot grasp that we simply know. It. Won’t. Work.

Then again, it’s not like they’re willing to sit down and listen when it comes to guns. They’re often too busy preaching.

For example, take Uvalde. For all the talk of some deep divide in the community, with anti-gun voices supposedly being on the side of the angels, Beto O’Rourke lost Uvalde County. It seems there’s a strong possibility that many in the community, perhaps even a majority, recognize that it wasn’t the tool used that resulted in that atrocity, but the tool using it.

Do not come at me or people like me and pretend we’re somehow responsible for the actions of others when you have made it clear you’ll accept nothing but capitulation from us. Do not pretend you’re looking for solutions when the only thing you’re wanting is something that doesn’t yield the results you think.

Frankly, don’t be surprised when we’re not willing to listen to you when all you do is screech and blame us for things we’re not responsible for.

Post-election landscape in Uvalde paints a picture of common sense

Emerging details from Uvalde are generally disturbing, heartbreaking, and angering all at once. First it was Matthew McConaughey’s vapid self-promotion using the massacre as clickbait, and now the very recent revelation that responding officers, equipped with body armor, whined about the possibility they might get “clapped” with one even saying, “I also don’t like standing right by the windows where we can get shot, bro.”

But in the midst of truly indescribable sadness, there is a rising phoenix. The people of Uvalde rebelled against the political class that births and fosters environments which only lead to tragedy and death, and overwhelmingly voted for Republicanism this past Tuesday. According to a report from Just the News, Uvalde constituents produced large margins for Republicans from the top-down:

According to official results, 60.18% of Uvalde County residents voted for Abbott compared to 32.18 who voted for O’Rourke.

They also voted for Republicans primarily across the board, also with similar margins of roughly 60% to 40%. They reelected Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick by 59.41%, Attorney General Ken Paxtom by 59.2%, Comptroller Glenn Hegar by 60.17%, Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller by 60.24%, and Railroad Commissioner Wayne Christian by 59.46%.

For context, last year’s census found that 72.5% of the county are Hispanic, a demographic which has historically voted with the Democrat party. (Establishment media is now recognizing the utter failure of the left to serve even their most loyal voters.)

Yet, what I find most telling is this:

They also overwhelmingly voted for Republican state Senate candidate Robert Garza, by a vote of 58.9%, 17 points more than incumbent Democrat Roland Gutierrez – even after Gutierrez introduced legislation for the state to give Robb Elementary victims’ family members $300 million in damages.

I find this highly encouraging for two reasons:

The first being that it appears as though the Machiavellian maneuver to abuse and exploit the American people in order to buy Democrat votes is no longer working, and that’s an advantage the left continuously uses against us and our best interests. The two most prominent and recent examples that come to mind are the student loan transfer scheme which seemingly bought a large portion of the Gen Z voters that “carried” the midterms, as well as the draining of our strategic oil reserves to keep pump prices affordable enough without widespread outrage.

Secondly, the people of Uvalde did the best thing they could do for themselves and their heritage — they involved themselves in the civic process and elected representatives that espouse principles of self-protection and personal responsibility. There are officers of the law that actually uphold their oaths to defend the Constitution and the people, but given the fact that some cops will actually stand down as school children take bullets, it’s a zero-sum game, and we do not have the luxury to assume the responding officers will fulfill their duty.

What was meant for evil can be used for good, and the Uvalde citizenry is a beacon of hope to an America drowning under leftist ploys and tyranny.

Subversion

Republicans, or people who vote for them, are still, in a bizarre act of idolatrous religious faith, counting on national-level voting to change things. Meanwhile, the communists are tearing at the foundations with increasing success. If you feel you should vote, even knowing your government is thoroughly corrupted, then do it; we believe there is a Biblical case for that, but let the idea go that anybody but Christ can save us now.

First, your District Attorneys continue to be replaced by communist party adherents, faithful only to Mao’s little red book.

Secondly, as we’ve warned, the defund police movement in some cities is moving to phase two of their operation. They only want control of the national security apparatus with which to destroy you. **Warning, not a family-friendly link** Hard-core violent communists are training the police to be party enforcers, which means you, dear religiously Republican voters, are being targeted for genocide.

Thirdly, these religious Republican voters scoff at the leftist State’s and City’s policies of allowing rampant crime and homelessness, never understanding that it’s being done on purpose. Crime, along with national tax policy and immigration, has been designed to drive leftist constituents into the Red States, turning formerly quiet, friendly, and quaint small cities and towns into communist enclaves, one Uhaul truckload at a time.

Why can they read this post, understand it’s true, yet live and remain in their fantasy? Shamefully, the next national-level election will be no different. Those going through the various iterations of the grieving process for America today will once more put on their denial dunce hats and start looking for a national savior by pushing the R button on the machines that are pre-programmed with the results.

Your enemy is at war, and your faith in a foundation you know has already been destroyed is silly. Seriously, it’s like watching a Benny Hill skit, and you’re the object of the caricature. Please stop; you look foolish. National politics is an open failure for all the world to laugh at in derision, and your religious adherence is making it worse. Unless you have the money and a plan to conduct a counter-communist revolution, then today should be the day you end your fantasy. Rend your clothes, stomp up and down, flop on the floor and beat your fists as much as you must, get angry and scream, cry and wail, eat a bowl of ice cream in your PJs sobbing, but end it today, no more whining and no more denial. Your country needs you, not Washington but your real country; the people who know you and love you are counting on you.

Sorry for calling you names, but seriously, stop being dodo birds.

No more politics. I love the direction that TCJ is taking;  you need a plan, practical knowledge, friends, tools, and the right spirit for what’s coming. Every moment you spend on politics is time wasted you could be spending on praying, training the young, teaching yourself craftwork, making practical application of pioneer, homestead, or survival skills, family team building, firearms and self-defense training, sharing the Gospel, deepening commitments among local trusted allies, etc., etc., etc.

Be a self-sufficient Christian. Nothing is more subversive than self-reliance, declaring Christ is King.

27 Counties in Illinois Have Passed Referendums to Explore Seceding From State. Here’s Where

On Election Day in Illinois, ballots contained statewide questions ranging from whether or not to amend the state’s constitution, to who should be the next Governor of Illinois, to who should sit on the Illinois State Supreme Court.

But some local ballots contained questions about whether to leave the state altogether.

Tuesday, two Illinois counties and a portion of another passed non-binding referendums that would encourage their elected officials to engage in discussions about potentially severing ties with the state government.

The votes were hardly a new phenomenon. Instead, they join a growing list of Illinois counties seeking to express their displeasure with lawmakers.

Previously, at least 24 counties had passed so-called “separation referendums,” according to reporting by Illinois Public Media. The three new additions to that list, Brown, Hardin, and the northeastern portion of Madison County, would bring that number to 27, representing more than 25% of the state’s 102 counties.

According to IPM, 23 counties had previously passed separation referendums after the 2020 elections, including Clark, Clay, Crawford, Cumberland, Edwards, Effingham, Fayette, Jasper, Hancock, Jefferson, Johnson, Lawrence, Marion, Massac, Moultrie, Pope, Richland, Shelby, Wabash, Wayne and Whiteside.

Edgar County also passed a similar referendum in 2021, according to the group Red State Secession.

Most of those counties passed the non-binding referendums with large majorities, including 72% of voters in Bond County and 60.7% of voters in Christian County.

In this year’s election, the ballot questions, all of which had similar wording, appeared in Brown and Hardin counties, as well as a portion of Madison County.

Continue reading “”

Comment O’ The Day
People know the system is total baloney. Yet the GOP does little or nothing to fix it, even to help itself! At some point, we have to assume this level of loserdom is deliberate.
Robert Shibley


“I’m Sick of Losing, I Hope You Are Too.”

While votes are still being counted, and there could be a few, rare bright spots left for Republicans, one thing is clear: The red wave didn’t materialize in 2022.

Ironically, some accused me of being too conservative when I predicted the GOP only getting to 235 seats in the House. Now, the Republican Party might end up with a majority far less than that. The Senate is pretty much a wasteland as well, with Mehmet Oz, despite a strong push down the stretch, not being able to overcome his unfavorables in Pennsylvania. Don Bolduc got trounced in New Hampshire, Georgia is headed to a runoff, and Masters is an underdog as counting continues in Arizona.

Far from the optimism of suggesting that 54 senate seats were on the table, my “low” prediction of winning 51 seats would actually be a minor miracle for Republicans now. I whiffed, not because I was too conservative, but because I was too bullish. That’s an outcome that seemed improbable just a day ago.

What happened on Tuesday can’t be left to lie. There has to be a reckoning, and it’s going to be uncomfortable and challenge some deeply-held priors. Republicans can’t keep running the same play over and over, hoping that the next time things will be different. No one should escape accountability.

On the congressional side, Kevin McCarthy did not earn the mandate necessary to be handed the role of Speaker of the House. There should be a real battle for the position. In the Senate, Mitch McConnell, even though he should be lauded for raising and spending a ton of money this cycle to help elect Republicans, is 80 years old and is deeply unpopular with most Americans. For Republicans to escape their current malaise, new leadership is needed.

The recriminations don’t stop with elected officials, though. Donald Trump is the de facto leader of the Republican Party. He is the face, he does the rallies, he makes himself the center of attention, and he is the kingmaker. He has now failed in that role for three straight elections. Frustratingly, he refuses to take any responsibility for his failures, pointing to no possibility of change on his part as the standard-bearer.


For example, after Don Bolduc lost in New Hampshire, Trump trashed him despite the fact that he was one of the former president’s endorsed candidates. He also bashed Mehmet Oz after that race was called. Worse, in the midst of Republican struggles becoming clear late on election night, Trump took to Truth Social to celebrate the loss of Joe O’Dea in Colorado’s senate race. Later, he bragged about his supposed endorsement record, calling the disappointing night a “great victory.” That’s not leadership. It’s self-serving buck-passing, and it’s especially off-putting given Trump was attempting to take credit for the red wave right up until the moment that it ceased to be.

This excerpt from Spencer Brown’s post-election write-up over at Townhall is correct.

It’s also impossible to separate the national GOP political apparatus from former President Donald Trump, who, before the election, circulated a memo hyping up the number of rallies, candidate endorsements, fundraising numbers, and primary wins for which he claimed responsibility.

For Trump, his biggest win on Election Day was arguably J.D. Vance’s victory in Ohio. But losses for his candidates, including Oz, Walker, Bolduc, and numerous others, call into question his role in picking candidates and getting them across the primary finish line — something he’s bragged about endlessly.

After all, the rest of the GOP machinery ended up pouring money and time into the races where Trump-endorsed primary candidates advanced to the general, but that’s all downstream from Trump (and in some cases, Democrats who backed the same candidates in a now proven theory that those candidates would be easier to beat).

Meanwhile, in Florida, Ron DeSantis turned a state he won by 30,000 votes four years ago into a 20-point blowout. It was the most shocking shift in a single state in decades, with Republicans actually winning Hispanic voters outright. In a sea of terrible, what happened in Florida showed a better way. It showed what issues voters care about. It showed that being likable and effective as a leader matters. I don’t know if DeSantis runs in 2024, but Republicans would be foolish to pass over him for a nearly 80-year-old man with extremely high unfavorable ratings.

I realize saying that definitively is going to ruffle some feathers, but I assure you that’s not my goal. None of what I’m saying means that 2016 wasn’t special. It doesn’t mean that the big rallies weren’t fun when they actually meant something and weren’t just irrelevant spectacles. It doesn’t mean Trump didn’t accomplish a lot in the White House.

What it does mean is that times change, appeals diminish, and not adapting going forward would only guarantee another gut-wrenching loss in the next election. Republicans need a course correction just as they needed one after the George W. Bush era (which ended with Mitt Romney). It’s not about establishment vs. Trump because, to be frank, both sides have shown themselves incapable of winning at this point.

It’s going to take a combination of inspirational fight and extreme competence that hasn’t been shown by the party’s national leadership, from McConnell to Trump, to turn this ship around. And while I may personally think that’s DeSantis, I’m not trying to browbeat anyone into that position. I encourage people to support whoever they feel convicted to support, and if we end up agreeing on 99 percent of everything else but disagreeing on that one issue, there should be no hard feelings. All I ask is that people step back, look at the whole picture, and think critically about how we got to where we are. Changes have to be made because I’m tired of losing, and I hope you are too.

Roll, Tumbrels, Roll.

Ten years ago, back in the halcyon days when we simpletons believed the Republicans were at least some of the time an opposition party, and that Willard Mitt Romney was a man of probity and character, I wrote the following in the pages of National Review Online about the election that was about to take place. The piece was entitled “Crush Them.”

Conservatives have a rare opportunity tomorrow to do something they signally failed to do in the landslide elections of 1972 and 1984: finish the job. Nixon’s victory was vitiated by Watergate and quickly revenged by Woodward and Bernstein, leading to his replacement in 1974 by Jerry Ford, a man who exactly nobody thought was qualified to be president of the United States, probably including Ford himself. Ford led to Jimmy Carter, whose ineptitude and weakness in turn lead to Ronald Reagan, who swept Carter away in 1980 and then smashed Walter Mondale and the Democrats to powder in 1984.

And then, having won a famous victory, conservatives went home and left it to the establishment GOP in the form of another man who never should have been president, George H. W. Bush, to fritter away the fruits of ideological victory and be supplanted by Bill Clinton.

In retrospect, of course, William Jefferson Blythe III was Pericles of Athens compared to Barack Obama Joe Biden, who far more than Clinton has revealed the true face of contemporary American left-liberalism in all its coercive ugliness: a blizzard of executive orders; the deployment of the regulatory agencies that have (in the words of the Declaration of Independence) “sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance”; and the naked Marxist appeals to race and class envy. The most anti-American of American presidents has run the most un-American of campaigns.

Change only a couple of words and it’s déjà vu all over again: shuffling, senile Joe Biden really is the zombified embodiment of Hussein’s third term, staggering, one hopes, toward utter electoral disaster later today as long-suffering Americans finally awake and rise up against the tyranny of les aristocrates who have been torturing us these past two years and more. A la lanterne!

As my regular readers know, I have long described the Democrat Party—not just its lawless and fascistic modern incarnation, but going all the way back to its inception when Aaron Burr, the sitting vice president, a member of the Democratic-Republican Party, notorious traitor, and the founder of Tammany Hall, shot and killed Alexander Hamilton in 1804—as “a criminal organization masquerading as a political party.” Indeed, I even wrote a small monograph concerning its violent, seditious history, still available on Kindle.

Now, after two years of Biden, everyone can see just how awful the Democrats really are. Not simply the party of slavery, segregation, secularism, and sedition, but (as they were during the Civil War, which they started) a movement actively hostile to the founding principles of the country that continues to give them shelter and legitimacy. Indeed, they have become the Anti-American Party, advocating unfettered abortion, public criminality, political violence, economic destruction, radical egalitarianism, an obsessive racialism that would make a Nazi blush, open and undefended borders, and the abrogation of the Constitution: a document they’ve long despised and which they are now actively trying to repeal.

Continue reading “”

Gun laws, abortion, taxes: Why Eastern Oregon is voting to join Idaho

Republican voters in Eastern and Central Oregon are so fed up with liberal lawmakers that they want to break rank — and state lines — and become part of Idaho.

On Tuesday, two Oregon counties, Morrow and Wheeler, are set to vote on a ballot measure about whether to explore leaving the state. Since 2020, nine counties in Eastern Oregon have already voted to join the Greater Idaho movement.

“People in Eastern Oregon are just different and have different views on crime, the Second Amendment, abortion, taxes and minimum wage [from the western portion of the state],” Matt McCaw, spokesman for Greater Idaho, told The Post. “The polarization with the western part of the state is real. When I meet with people and host meetings, there are a lot of complaints about the lack of representation. Eastern Oregon is just very conservative and has its own culture.”

The Greater Idaho movement is made up of residents in Eastern and Central Oregon who are so fed up with liberal lawmakers that they are pushing for the region to break state lines and become part of Idaho.
The Greater Idaho movement is made up of residents in Eastern and Central Oregon who are so fed up with liberal lawmakers that they are pushing for the region to break state lines and become part of Idaho.
Matt McCaw, spokesman for the Greater Idaho movement, told The Post: “Eastern Oregon is just very conservative and has its own culture” compared to the state’s more liberal western region.

So he and a group of fellow disgruntled Oregonians in the small city of La Pine began to hash out a plan to secede because they no longer felt represented by the liberal lawmakers in the state capital, Salem. The solution: Join Idaho, where the Republican Party is firmly in control.

“Eastern Oregon, where we all live, could get state-level government from Idaho that matches their values,” McCaw said.

It’s a radical proposition that would see nearly two-thirds of Oregon’s 63 million acres (98,000 square miles), but less than 10% of its population, blend into neighboring Idaho.

For the first time in 40 years, Oregonians might vote in a Republican governor, as Christine Drazan (above) has a slight lead going into Tuesday’s race.

McCaw, 46, said the movement’s leaders are hoping to attract 15 of the state’s 36 counties and two partial ones to join Idaho.

“We asked the simple question, ‘Would you like your elected leaders to change the border?’ and we’ve won our last six elections with more than 60% of the vote,” McCaw told The Post.

For McCaw, who owns a small math-curriculum company with his wife, and his supporters, the largely rural and conservative residents of Eastern Oregon have very little in common with their progressive urban neighbors in western cities like Portland, Eugene and Bend.

The plan to move to Idaho came about because some Eastern Oregonians no longer felt represented by the liberal lawmakers in the state capital, Salem.

In the 2020 election, former President Donald Trump dominated Eastern Oregon, receiving nearly 80% of the vote in some counties, but President Biden ultimately won 56.5% of Oregon votes thanks to liberal cities.

Oregon’s current governor, Democrat Kate Brown, has a 56% disapproval rating, the worst in the US. Brown, whose term expires next year, has been criticized for doing little to stem rising crime and homelessness in the state’s urban centers since she became governor in 2015.

Some Oregonians are so fed up with spiraling crime, easy access to drugs and homelessness that — for the first time in 40 years — Oregon may see a Republican become governor.

Christine Drazan, 50, a former Oregon House minority leader, has a slight lead over her closest opponent, former Oregon House Speaker Tina Kotek, a Democrat. Independent Betsy Johnson is also in the race, and some predict she might split the blue vote.

But even the prospect of a Republican governor would not help the situation for those in the eastern part of the state, said Sandie Gilson, who lives in Grant County, one of the first Oregon counties to vote in 2020 to explore joining Idaho.

“Even if we have a Republican governor, the Democrats still have a supermajority in the legislature,” said Gilson, 56, a fifth-generation Oregonian whose gold-miner great-great-grandfather arrived in the state in the 1800s. “It will change nothing.”

Mike McCarter, one of the group’s founders, described Greater Idaho as being about “people who value freedom, independence and self-sufficiency.”

Gilson and her husband are small-business owners who say they want to be self-sufficient in a rural region where making an emergency call to police could result in a two-hour wait for help. The couple, who own firearms, say they are not able to defend themselves if faced with an emergency, because of government mandates. Last year, the state enacted a safe storage law that requires the owners of firearms to keep them locked up.

“It would take us more than five minutes to unlock our guns, and in that time a lot could happen,” Gilson told The Post. “The legislature does things that just don’t make sense for us.”

Gilson also said she doesn’t feel safe after Oregon decriminalized personal portions of all drugs in 2020 and, earlier this year, instituted bail reform laws that allows defendants charged with misdemeanors and some felonies to be released without posting bail.

While Donald Trump won as much as 80% of votes in Eastern Oregon counties in the 2020 presidential race, more populous liberal cities like Portland helped Biden dominate the state.
Getty Images/iStockphoto

“How does that make me safe in my home?” Gilson said, adding that residents in Eastern Oregon, which has a fraction of the population of the western part of the state, generally get outvoted.

Like Gilson, Mike McCarter, 75, said residents in Eastern Oregon are almost always getting outvoted by the much more populous western region. McCarter, who lives in La Pine and is one of the founders of Greater Idaho, told The Post that eastern residents voted two to one against recreational drug use, but “Western Oregon wanted it, and they carried the vote.”

Still, McCarter insists that the movement for a Greater Idaho is not a political one. “We try to keep the movement away from politics,” he said. “Our movement is a traditional-values type movement of faith — of people who value freedom, independence and self-sufficiency.”

Current Gov. Kate Brown has the country’s highest disapproval rate, at 56%, in part because of a perceived lack of control on crime.

In 2020, Gov. Brad Little of Idaho said he welcomed the move, adding, “They’re looking at Idaho fondly because of our regulatory atmosphere, our values. What they’re interested [in] is they would like to have a little more autonomy, a little more control, a little more freedom and I can understand that.”

Although states have had their borders reconfigured in the past — Maine seceded from Massachusetts in 1820 — there is no historical precedent for large land masses to leave one state and join another.

Ryan Griffiths, a political science professor at Syracuse University who studies the secession of sovereign states, told The Post that “the bar is pretty high” for state secession in the US.

“This is not the kind of thing that is done unilaterally by people in counties,” Griffiths said. “They have to get the state of Oregon on board and the state of Idaho, and that’s a very high bar.”

Gun Control vs. Gun Rights: The State of Play

Two trends that are reflected in recent state and federal gun legislation. One trend stems from the New York State Rifle and Pistol Ass’n Inc. v Bruen ruling in June, the other from the New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act passed in response to Bruen.

Bruen’s Domino Effect

In Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court found that New York State’s concealed carry law was unconstitutional because it required “proper cause” for an individual to obtain a concealed carry permit. As a result, a new precedent was set for Second Amendment legislation, with many states’ gun control laws now challenged. The National Association for Gun Rights has sued several states and cities to end their assault weapons bans, including the Illinois cities of Highland Park and Naperville along with the states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Colorado, and Hawaii. The Connecticut Citizens Defense League, along with two former Connecticut corrections officers and a firearms instructor, have also filed a lawsuit against the Connecticut assault weapons ban. In Colorado, a judge recently blocked an assault weapons ban following a lawsuit filed by the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. Bruen was also cited by a judge in West Virginia who abolished a federal law requiring firearms to have serial numbers, and by a judge in Texas who ruled that citizens under criminal indictment retain the right to bear arms.

New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act’s Domino Effect

However, Bruen’s no-tolerance stance did not deter Governor Kathy Hochul in her push for more gun control legislation. In July, Hochul signed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). This legislation makes it illegal to carry a gun in public places such as churches, schools, subways, and Times Square. It also makes issuing concealed carry permits dependent on completion of hours of training, along with the review of every applicant’s social media activity from the past three years. Gun rights advocates immediately won a temporary restraining order against New York’s new law, but a federal appeals court lifted the restraining order a few weeks ago.

California bill similar to New York’s CCIA failed to pass the legislature by one vote. In early October, New Jersey unveiled its version, which includes stipulations such as disqualifying conceal carry applicants who have past restraining orders or other “character of temperament concerns,” (similar to the CCIA’s “good moral character” requirement which has been accused of having racist roots) and requirements for permit holders to carry insurance to protect against accidental discharge.

As we approach the 2022 midterm elections, Biden once again amped up calls to Congress to pass an assault weapons ban, Stacey Abrams vowed to roll back Georgia’s permitless firearms carry law, and candidates like Illinois senator Tammy Duckworth and Connecticut governor Ned Lamont support assault weapons bans. Politicians such as Governor Lamont have also recently referred to the overwhelming public support of gun control.

Continue reading “”