Category: Politics

Gun Owners Made a Difference in the 2024 Election Results.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is today congratulating the nation’s gun owners—especially those in critical “battleground” states—for obviously making a difference in the outcome of Tuesday’s presidential election.

“America’s gun owners saw the threat of a Kamala Harris presidency and took action,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Millions of ‘gun voters’ turned out to reverse the nation’s course on firearms rights, and keep Kamala out of the Oval Office. It was gun owners who also made the difference in Montana, re-electing pro-gun Gov. Greg Gianforte and replacing Democrat Sen. Jon Tester with Republican Tim Sheehy, thus shifting the Senate majority to GOP control.

“In this election,” Gottlieb observed, “the Democrats shot blanks and the voters buried their gun ban agenda. 

“But,” he cautioned, “I bet they will double down on gun prohibition because they know that it was gun owners that removed them from power and they are gunning to get even. The fight to defend gun rights is not over and every gun owner who helped win this battle must remember that the war on gun rights is ongoing.”

Gottlieb said Trump’s triumphant return to public office “will become the stuff of legend.” He added that the importance of gun owner participation in this historic achievement cannot be overstated. 

“Here is a man who endured four years of turmoil while he was in office,” Gottlieb noted, “and he suffered from Democrat-engineered ‘lawfare,’ and survived two assassination attempts including one which nearly cost him his life. Yet, despite his wound, he refused to call for more gun control, and encouraged his supporters to fight. And that is exactly what we intend to do, because the right to keep and bear arms is what protects this nation from tyranny, and frustrates the enemies of liberty.”

Trump won in Pennsylvania, which made it impossible for Harris to win the election.
Why did he win?
The Amish vote that the Republicans went out for.
Overzealous state bureaucraps, mostly demoncraps, went and did it to themselves.

Amish turn out for Pennsylvania vote in ‘unprecedented numbers’

Republicans could see a boost in Pennsylvania from a demographic rarely seen at the polls: the Amish.

The state’s famed “Pennsylvania Dutch” registered to vote in “unprecedented numbers” in response to a January federal raid on a local raw milk farm in Bird in Hand, Pa., a source familiar with the situation told The Post.

The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture stormed Amos Miller’s farm Jan. 4 after reports of illnesses in children linked to raw dairy products purchased there, according to the local media outlet Lancaster Farming.

The Amish community saw the move as an overzealous reach by the government and was planning to vote for GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, whose party favors less government intervention.

“That was the impetus for them to say, ‘We need to participate,’ ” the source said of local Amish voters. “This is about neighbors helping neighbors.”

The Amish community rallied around Miller, who cited his religious beliefs as a reason for not adhering to Food and Drug Administration guidelines.

“If you think about Amish people and their connection to nature, I mean, some of these people work in the fields barefoot to be closer to the earth,” the source told The Post.

Actual numbers of Amish voters were unclear as of Tuesday night, though horse-and-buggy rigs were seen at polling locations in photographs from the region.

Poll Shows a Quarter of Americans Believe Civil War May Erupt After the Election

America hasn’t been this divided since the Civil War. But does that mean that if the election doesn’t go the way that either party wants, another civil war will break out?

According to a poll taken by The Times, about a quarter of the U.S. population fears that civil war may break out after the election.

Barbara Walter, a noted Civil War historian, wrote a 2022 bestseller, “How Civil Wars Start and How to Stop Them.” She said that measured against a checklist of the factors that could lead to civil war, “the United States … has entered very dangerous territory.” She added that “we are closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe because of “political extremism, cultural tribalism, the embrace of conspiracy theories, proliferation of guns and militias and the erosion of faith in government and democracy.”

Only the final item on her checklist matters. Neither the right nor the left has faith in our institutions to govern us. The right doesn’t trust the vote-counting process while the left thinks Trump will “destroy democracy” if he wins. It’s an incendiary mix that doesn’t bode well for the post-election period.

Fears that an eruption of violence is very or somewhat likely are shared across the political divide by 27 per cent of American adults, including 30 per cent of women and 24 per cent of men, YouGov found in a survey of 1,266 registered voters on October 18-21.

Twelve per cent of respondents said they knew someone who might take up arms if they thought Donald Trump was cheated out of victory in under two weeks’ time. Five per cent said they knew someone who might do the same if they thought Kamala Harris was cheated.

Does this really point to a “civil war” where there are two identifiable sides fighting for control of the government? If there is going to be violence after the election, it will be in the form of riots more than a military campaign.

Rebellions take planning and organization. The glorified brawl that took place on Jan. 6, 2021, was not a rebellion, no matter how the left wants to describe it. No court has ever said it was a rebellion. No insurrection charges were ever filed against any of the 1,200 defendants.

Whatever happens after the election, any violence will serve only to divide America further.

Concern over Trump’s response to losing again on November 5 was shown elsewhere in The Times-YouGov poll, with 66 per cent of voters saying the former president would not accept a narrow loss, compared with 27 per cent who said the same about Harris.

Among Harris supporters, 5 per cent said she would not accept a narrow loss and 90 per cent said the same about Trump; among Trump supporters, 50 per cent said Harris would not accept a narrow loss and 39 per cent said the same about Trump.

Trump is just as likely to accept the results of the election if he loses as not. Trump has a habit of doing exactly the opposite of what his enemies say he’s going to do, so anything is possible.

What’s not possible is Trump openly calling for armed resistance to the results. And without that, a large-scale revolt is not possible.

Not many respondents believed that Kamala Harris would offer armed resistance if she lost. Far more likely is an avalanche of legal filings challenging the results in several states.

But don’t ever refer to her as an “election denier.”

Dead Terrorists Are Good, Actually

Wow. Remind me never to start a war with Israel, huh? The bad guys got a jump on them a year ago, but ever since, the Jews have been kicking ass.

I thought Operation Beep-Beep-Boom would be the highlight, but they saved the best for last. Witness the glorious farewell of October 7 mastermind Yahya Sinwar:

 

It’s good to see that before they put him out of his misery, he was literally disarmed.

Sinwar has now ceased firing.

“What has one thumb and just got pwned by the Jews? This guy!”

That scumbag’s last great act of defiance was lobbing a stick at a camera drone. Yet according to his fans (mostly American college students and Congressional Democrats), Sinwar “fought to the end.”

LOL!

Gotta say, putting a hole in this guy’s head only improved his looks. As the great Andrew Stiles puts it: “World’s ugliest terrorist killed in war he started.”

Continue reading “”

Remember John Kerry going on about deer hunting back in ’04? Just as ignorantly stupid here. One would think they would have learned not to try this after Dukakis’ idiot stunt in a tank back in ’88.

“I talk to anybody. I always call it my

“I speak to the construction workers and the cabdrivers, and those are the people I get along with best anyway in many respects. I speak to everybody…. You’ve got to know your audience, and by the way, for some people, be a killer, for some people, be all candy. For some people, different. For some people, both.”

Said Donald Trump in 1989, talking to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, in “A lost Trump interview comes back to life/The yet-to-be-president holds forth on strength, friendship, dealmaking, public service and building violations” (WaPo)(free-access link, so you can read it all and click on the recordings).

Woodward — who’s pushing his new book from which this is an excerpt — exclaims “What a remarkable time capsule, a full psychological study of a man, then a 42-year-old Manhattan real estate king.”
I think Trump comes across very positively, so thanks to The Washington Post for making this available.
Here’s one more Trump quote, short and sweet: “I believe in having great friends and great enemies.”
Great enemies. That’s so funny — makes me think of Batman, James Bond — and Trump does have great enemies. Putin. Pelosi. Who else? The big categories: establishment Republicans and establishment Democrats. But who are the individuals? Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris really aren’t that great, as enemies… or even opponents. He needs someone he can really go big with.
Putin is big, and yet he can’t go big with Putin. He has to be trickier, tricky enough that people would say Putin is his great friend, not his great enemy. But there’s the idea: “for some people, be a killer, for some people, be all candy…. For some people, both.”
Here’s the commission-earned link for Woodward’s book: “War.”

I said that Joe would quit campaigning for reelection over Jill’s dead body.
I think she, as much or more than Joe, is behind this back stabbing

Are we witnessing President Biden’s revenge tour?
A Kamala loss would mark the ultimate “I told you so” moment.

Hell hath no fury like a corrupt politician scorned.

You can’t help but notice that “Dark Brandon” isn’t exactly falling in line these days.

President Joe Biden finds himself a victim of the Democrat establishment mutineers, stripped of an opportunity at two-term greatness, and with quite a few interesting incentives coming into the November election.

More and more polling points to the possibility that Kamala Harris may lose by a significant margin in November. Donald Trump’s momentum keeps building, with nothing but tailwinds at his back. The Biden family is keenly aware of all of this, and they seem to be positioning the president for the ultimate “I told you so” moment for his legacy. Should Kamala Harris fall in defeat, President Biden becomes a man both wronged by a political establishment and righteous for being the one man who could defeat the GOP nominee.

We need not rehash the bizarre events of July 21, but it’s worth recalling that Biden was seemingly forced out of the running for his second term, and Democratic Party power brokers (Obama, Soros, Pelosi, Schumer, etc) hastily selected VP Kamala Harris as the nominee. Furthermore, they filled the lame-duck months on Biden’s schedule with instructions to stay quiet and soak up the sun in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.

Since that fateful week in Delaware, Biden’s tone has changed dramatically.

In his rare public appearances, the president is attempting to transition into political retirement as an elder statesman, and he’s almost always doing so far removed from the instructions of his teleprompter. His newfound rhetoric is far removed from his infamous verbal dumpster diving of the Biden-Trump debate (and the vast majority of his presidency). He’s now linking arms with supporters of the one-time “threat to democracy,” reframing his legacy as Scranton Joe, the bipartisan blue-collar president. He never once engaged in such deliberate bipartisan appeals, on or off script, for his entire presidency.

Continue reading “”

Oops: MSNBC said the quiet part out loud.

 Kamala Must Lie about Being a Liberal and Pretend to Be a Moderate, Just Like Tim Walz Did.

Hayes Brown, an MSNBC writer and editor, wrote a new column today, entitled “What to make of Kamala Harris’ move to the center.” It’s an eye-opening observation and/or admission from the Democratic Party’s base. As you likely suspect, the Radical Left views the 2024 presidential election differently than Team MAGA: It’s not about making America great again, but tricking Americans into voting for a candidate who’s out of step with the voters’ ethos, goals, fears, and priorities.

And the role model for Kamala Harris’s trickery? None other than Tim Walz.

“[Kamala’s] attention is now fully on barnstorming the purple areas of swing states,” Brown wrote, “focused less on appeasing the progressive base of the party than on winning over whichever voters are still making up their minds about how to vote in November — or if at all. The result has been a campaign that’s burning through the fuel the base provided when she became the nominee.”

Alas, the only way to attract the middle, it seems, is to forego the wackier, more controversial positions of the Radical Left. In Brown’s mind, it’s a risky tradeoff.

“The goal is to convert that [progressive] energy into enough moderate votes to eke out a win against former President Donald Trump,” Brown noted. “In the process, she has steadily shed the stances she took when vying against 19 other candidates to court the progressive left in 2019.”

In a kind, nonjudgmental way, Brown pointed out that Harris has switched positions more often than an OnlyFans model.

If it were a Republican who abandoned key policy positions overnight, then to MSNBC, this would surely be emblematic of a dishonest, Machiavellian, racist politician who’ll say and do anything to get elected, of course. But since it’s a Democrat, well, it’s just par for the course. Just another day at the office!

When in Rome, ya know.

Continue reading “”

Here’s How We Really Know Kamala’s CNN Interview Wasn’t Good for Her

There are plenty of reasons why Kamala Harris’s first interview since she took Joe Biden’s place at the top of the ticket was underwhelming at best — or a train wreck at worst — for her. I thought it was really bad. Kamala got a lot of softball questions that she couldn’t answer, and Tim Walz didn’t help much either.

But how do we know that the interview was a bust for Kamala? Let me explain.

As you know, Kamala has been under significant pressure to stop hiding behind scripted campaign events and speak to the media in interviews and press conferences. When her interview with CNN was announced, there was little reason to believe that it would satisfy her critics — between choosing a friendly network with an anchor who was gonna give her the softest of softball questions, the deck was going to be stacked in Kamala’s favor to come out looking pretty good after the interview.

She didn’t, and that’s not because I said so. Kamala’s performance Thursday evening didn’t exactly floor CNN pundits.

Former Obama advisor David Axelrod said he thought Kamala did well, but “It wasn’t a huge — I don’t think she moved the ball that much forward.”

Ashley Allison, a former Obama White House staffer, similarly tried to paint the interview in a positive light, by falsely claiming that Kamala “answered every question” but added, “Now, you might not like the way she answered them. But she answered them as a capable, qualified leader. And I do think she — I think she moved the ball forward a little bit. Maybe she didn’t score a touchdown, tonight. But she definitely moved down the field.”

One goal that Kamala wants to achieve in the campaign is putting distance between her and the Biden-Harris administration. CNN political analyst Astead Herndon clearly doesn’t think she succeeded.

“I don’t think there’s a policy separation that they’ve created with Biden. Obviously, she gave a kind of personal defense of him. But they’re also very clearly trying to position her as a change candidate,” he said.

Another devastating blow for Kamala is that even CNN’s fact-checker Daniel Dale admitted that she was being dishonest about her flip-flopping on fracking.

Remember, this is CNN. This network wants Harris to win, yet its attempts to put lipstick on the pig that was this so-called “interview” let enough truth come through to make it clear that nobody really thought she did that great of a job.

The Left’s Swift Shift After RFK Jr.’s Trump Endorsement

Kennedy’s indictment of his former party, along with his endorsement of Donald Trump, has sent shock waves through the chambers of the self-appointed elite who would rule us.

The thing I admire about contemporary deep-state Democrats is their nimbleness.

This nimbleness was on ostentatious view in the regime response to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s announcement Friday that he was 1) suspending his campaign (at least in battleground states) and 2) throwing his support behind Donald Trump.

The acrid scent of panic might have been expected among the limp-wristed, totalitarian faithful. And, in fact,  beneath the amusing cologne of anti-Trump bluster, the panic was indeed discernible.

But there was also that trademark smooth-as-a-suppository (as Saul Bellow put it) suaveness, exemplified, for instance, by former Obama strategist David Axelrod.

“Robert F. Kennedy Sr.,” Axelrod posted shortly after the deed was done, “would have been appalled to see his son cut a deal to drop out for [t]he race and endorse Trump.”

Imagine: someone agrees to drop out of a race at the last minute and support a rival candidate!  As the commentator Ned Ryan put it in response to Axelrod’s snippy post: “You suddenly seem offended by someone cutting a deal to drop out of the race and endorse someone else.”

Cast your mind back, David, to July 21 of this year.  That’s when Joe Biden, having been made an offer he couldn’t refuse by the secret committee running the country, suddenly announced that he was dropping out of the race. This was, remember, after Biden repeatedly insisted that he was staying in the race and was looking forward to the next debate against Trump. Yes, the first was a disaster, but he would show ’em!

Biden’s missive, posted to his personal—not his official POTUS—account, bore all the earmarks of haste not to say coercion.  Had someone actually dictated the text to him? We don’t know. But it was widely remarked that he neglected to endorse Kamala Harris. That came a few moments later in a separate post.

Continue reading “”

Kamala Harris And Tim Walz Really Don’t Like The Second Amendment

The first ten amendments to our Constitution are known as the “Bill of Rights” for a reason — within it are denoted numerous “rights” that belong to individuals and which are guaranteed as such against government limitation. Any American elected official who fails to grasp this foundational principle, or who understands it but refuses to accept it, is undeserving of holding public office. Take, for example, Kamala Harris.

Our current vice president, the Democrat Party nominee for president, is on record positing that one of those fundamental individual liberties expressly guaranteed against government intrusion, does not actually protect an individual right after all. So much for the clear language and history underpinning the Bill of Rights.

Not surprising, the context in which Harris has taken such a posture openly antithetical to the very principle on which the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 is the Second Amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms. She proudly lent her name as the then-district attorney for San Francisco, to a legal brief opposing what turned out to be the seminal 2008 Heller decision that declared expressly that the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual right to possess a firearm.

Harris’ stance set forth in that legal brief tells us all we need to know about her disdain for the Second Amendment.

In the years since Heller, Harris has continued to support all manner of government restrictions on possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens, including among other measures, confiscatory bans on the country’s most popular rifle the AR-15, lauding Australia’s draconian gun confiscation program and most recently, criticizing the Supreme Court’s Cargill decision in June that stopped the ATF from arbitrarily declaring “bump stocks” to be “machine guns” under federal law.

The choice of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate is further hard evidence of where the current vice president stands with regard to the rights supposed to be guaranteed under the Second Amendment.

As governor of the North Star State, Walz has supported and signed legislation expanding so-called “red flag” laws and background checks for gun purchases that go beyond those already mandated under federal law. It was a quite different story during Walz’s tenure in the U. S. House of Representatives from 2007 to 2019, however, when he needed and avidly sought the support of the NRA.

In the language du jure for what previously was known quite accurately as “flip-flopping,” Walz now declares his views have “evolved” such that he criticizes the NRA by name, and declares he is proud to be the recipient of an “F” rating from the Association that supported him previously. He has made a show of donating to charity a sum of money equal to that which he happily received from the NRA while a congressman.

And oh, how his positions have “evolved.” For example, that most popular rifle in the country among law-abiding citizens – the AR-15 — now is considered by Walz a “weapon of war” that must be banned.

As with many latecomers to the gun control movement, Walz considers his anti-Second Amendment views appropriately constitutional because, well, they help “keep our kids safe.” Lost in his probably cursory study of the historical underpinnings of the Second Amendment, and even as reflected in recent Supreme Court decisions (most notably the 2022 Bruen decision), is the fact that “keeping kids safe” is nowhere to be found even impliedly in any writings by our Founders justifying the Second Amendment (or elsewhere in the Bill of Rights for that matter).

To Walz, as to his gun control colleagues in Washington, including Kamala Harris, “common sense” equates seamlessly to “constitutional.”

It will be interesting to see how Harris’ and Walz’s extreme anti-Second Amendment views will resonate nationally with voters who do not live in the states they have represented in public office (California and Minnesota), particularly considering that private ownership of handguns for self-defense continues to rise across the country, especially among women and Black Americans. Hopefully a majority of votes tallied after the polls close Nov. 5th will reject the views of the Democrat Party’s national ticket that the Bill of Rights can be casually discarded based on their vague notion of “common sense.”

Bob Barr currently is President of the NRA.

Note to NRA: This Isn’t How You Get That ‘Homecoming’ You Want

A couple of weeks ago, the NRA’s Doug Hamlin called for a “homecoming.” He wanted gun rights advocates to return to the new and improved NRA. Wayne LaPierre is out and things are returning to normal there.

I get where he’s coming from and while I believe that if the NRA disappeared tomorrow, someone would step in to fill the void, the truth of the matter is that it’ll take longer for that to happen than I’d like and during that time, our right to keep and bear arms could be severely damaged. So we need something that void now and rebuilding the NRA is probably much faster than hoping someone else steps in quickly.

I want Hamlin to get that homecoming.

However, if that’s the goal, this isn’t exactly a winning strategy.

We love our guns here in the Great Land. Alaska is in the top five states with the highest per-capita gun ownership; as I’m fond of pointing out, up here in the valley, even the hippies have guns, and know how to use them. Most of us aren’t overly concerned about human predators, although that can happen; most Alaskans keep guns to put food on the table and to occasionally fend off a big hairy beast.

But we also know that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or fending off big toothy critters. Therefore it comes as something of a surprise to see the National Rifle Association endorsing Alaska’s Democrat at-large Representative Mary Peltola for reelection. (Full disclosure: My wife and I are both Life Members of the NRA and have been since the mid-90s.)

Peltola is Alaska’s sole representative and an advocate for the Second Amendment. On her campaign website, she said she owns 176 long guns and dares “someone to tread on Alaskan freedoms.”

In a statement to The Hill, she said she campaigned in 2022 on a “pro-freedom platform” and continues that to this day.

“Guns are an integral part of Alaska’s culture and our subsistence lifestyles,” Peltola said. “Alaskan gun [owners] are the strongest proponents for responsible gun ownership. We pass down our knowledge and skills to our children.”

Peltola argued that the endorsement may help the country understand Alaskan culture and see “the importance of the Second Amendment in communities.”

Except, that’s not what Mary said only a couple of years ago. From the Great Land, Must Read Alaska’s Suzanne Downing had this to say:

Just two years ago, the NRA rated Peltola with a “D.” Now, an endorsement? What has changed? Even the Gun Owners of America has rated Peltola with an “F.”
Peltola wants gun control measures, such as universal background checks, waiting periods, and gun storage laws.

According to The Washington Post in 2022, “During her campaign, Peltola said she wants a national law protecting abortion rights and favors some gun-control measures, such as universal background checks.” (Azi Paybarah, “Who Is Mary Peltola, The First Alaska Native In Congress?”)

On a questionnaire for the Anchorage Daily News, Peltola supported universal background checks and waiting periods for gun purchases.

Well, this is awkward.

Had the NRA not graded her a “D” just a couple of years earlier, it would be easy to say they were unaware of her anti-gun tendencies. Instead, they clearly knew she wasn’t exactly a champion of the right to keep and bear arms. Someone at the organization did, and one would assume that if nothing else, records were kept.

And yet, here we are.

Continue reading “”