Category: Goobermint

Biden Is the Semi-Fascist He Is Looking For

JOE BIDEN IS THE FASCIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Biden and his administration are framing out an ideological war which puts Democrats in possession of the “soul of the nation,” and paints conservatives as fascists, bigots and any other insult they can come up with. The goal is to try to seize the moral high ground, only they are doing it on behalf of butchers disguised as doctors, groomers disguised as academics, and racists disguised as equity professionals.

When Biden spoke to Democrats last week and proclaimed that conservatives and Trump supporters are semi-fascist, his handlers knew exactly what they were doing. When Biden was asked what he meant with the comment, he said “you know exactly what I mean,” leaving explanations to flow from the podium in the White House briefing room.

“We have seen MAGA republicans take away our rights, make threats of violence, including this weekend,” Karine Jean-Pierre said when asked about Louisiana Senator Lindsey Graham’s caution against prosecuting former President Donald Trump, “and that is what the president was referring to when you all asked me last week about the ‘semi-fascism’ comment.”

Congress is held by Democrats, the White House has a Democrat in the Oval Office. The approval rating for the president and his administration is trash. Yet somehow, they continuously blame the opposition party for their own failures. Democrats could not, in 50 years, pass a bill federally legalizing abortion. In recent years, their efforts to obstruct states from enacting their own voting laws were met with realizations that Delaware, Biden’s home state, as well as bastion of liberal thought New York, each have voting laws more “restrictive” than Georgia and Texas.

Using the term “fascist” is a language game designed to paint the opposition as something they are not, and obfuscate the fact that it has been Democrats in power that have repeatedly and consistently limited the rights of Americans. Charlie Kirk rightfully noted that Joe Biden is a fascist.

Continue reading “”

‘Prevent‘? No one seems to how a device that – supposedly –  tells you where shots were fired, can ‘prevent’ such from occurring. Does the idiot believe it’s something like ‘Pre-Crime™’?

Detroit officials say ShotSpotter could have helped prevent Sunday mass shooting

Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan said Monday that if a controversial gunshot detection system called ShotSpotter had been implemented in the police precinct where four people were shot Sunday, there’s a good chance officers would have stopped the shooter sooner.

Detroit officials alleged that a 19-year-old man with no criminal history shot four people in the 12th precinct unprovoked, killing three of them.

ShotSpotter is active in two Detroit precincts, but some officials have urged using $7 million in federal pandemic relief funding to spread the technology across the city.

“I know from the time I spent with the officers yesterday, they’re going to be haunted for a long time,” Duggan said. “They very likely could have prevented two and probably three tragedies had they had an immediate notice.”

Critics have argued the technology puts more surveillance on communities of color and that it often doesn’t work.

“It is disingenuous for Mayor Duggan to claim that ShotSpotter would aid in helping the police catch the perpetrators of violence when in reality, this technology has and will continue to lead to more police terror on Black, Brown and indigenous community members,” said Branden Snyder, co-executive of the nonprofit Detroit Action.

“Giving the police more incentive to monitor historically impacted communities is inherently violent to the people of Detroit,” Snyder said in an emailed statement.

Duggan said that’s not true.

“There are are an element of defund-the-police groups that intentionally put out false information. ShotSpotter has no surveillance. ShotSpotter has no cameras. All ShotSpotter does is say this is the location of a gunfire with precision so the police can respond immediately,” said Duggan.

During a Monday press conference, Detroit Police Chief James White explained how the city tried to inform people about the shootings.

He said the police focused on notifying residents through social media like Facebook, Twitter, and Next Door, as well as news reports. White also said registered users received a text through the city’s Detroit 365 alerts app. Residents need to register to get the alerts.

City communications officials could not confirm Monday how many residents have signed up for Detroit Alert 365 or how many residents received alerts the day of the shooting.

Police officials said by the time the department began notifying the public, it was mainly to help find the suspect, and there were no longer active shootings.

Bishop Daryl Harris with Ceasefire Detroit said this kind of violence disrupts the entire community. During his Sunday worship service, he said, he informed his congregation of the still-wanted shooter.

“Many of our members were distraught as they ran out of the sanctuary to try to call their loved ones and their families in that area to kind of warn them what was going on. And you could just feel the panic,” he said.

Several hours later, after broadcasting the image of the suspect, a tip came in with the identity of the suspect, police said.

Officers got a search warrant and arrested the man without incident, authorities said. A firearm was found at the scene that matched the bullets found at the scene.

One of the women who was shot has not yet been identified. Police asked people to come forward if they think they might know her.

Well, SloJoe has always been known as a liar, so…

Fact Check: Biden Claims Mass Shootings ‘Tripled’ After ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Ended

CLAIM: During his speech in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, President Joe Biden said mass shootings “tripled” after the 1994-2004 “assault weapons” ban expired.

VERDICT: Mostly False.

Biden said, “Back in 1994, I took on the NRA and passed the ‘assault weapons’ ban. For ten years, mass shootings were down.”

He added, “But in 2004, Republicans let that ban expire, and what happened? Mass shootings tripled.”

There are two things to unpack here: First, his claim that the ban itself was successful while in effect and, second, his claim that mass shootings “tripled” once the ban expired.

On February 19, 2018, Breitbart News looked at a report by the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ), which found that the “assault weapons” ban could not be credited with any reduction in crime.

The NIJ report was written in 2004 as the ban was about to expire.

The Washington Times quoted University of Pennsylvania professor Christopher Koper, author of the NIJ report, saying, “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

The NIJ report observed, “The ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

So much for the claims of all the great things the ban accomplished. Now consider the claim that mass shootings tripled after the ban expired.

Breitbart News noted that the Washington Post fact-checked the claim about mass shootings tripling when Biden first made it in early June 2022.

The Post reported:

Biden claimed that mass shooting deaths tripled after the law expired. He appears to be relying on a study of mass shooting data from 1981 to 2017, published in 2019 in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery by a team led by Charles DiMaggio, a professor of surgery at New York University’s Langone Medical Center. That group found that an assault weapons ban would have prevented 314 out of 448, or 70 percent, of the mass shooting deaths during the years when the ban was not in effect. But the data used in that study has come under attack by some analysts.

The Post added, “The new mass-shooting database shows that there were 31 mass shootings in the decade before the 1994 law, 31 in the 10 years the law was in force (Sept. 13, 1994 to Sept. 12, 2004) and 47 in the 10 years after it expired. As noted, some of that increase stems from population growth.”

The claim that mass shootings “tripled” after the “assault weapons” ban expired is mostly false. There was a modest increase in such shootings, but the expiration of the ban does not seem to be causal in that rise.

A New Kind of Threat to 2nd Amendment & Free Speech Rights

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- In the wake of another Supreme Court ruling that strengthens and more clearly defines Second Amendment protections, anti-gun politicians have developed another way to threaten those rights, and rights protected by the First Amendment all in an effort to silence gun owners and penalize them for fighting back.

In California, where such strategies are typically developed and then spread across the map, this plan of attack is already in progress.

A federal court case known as Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. et.al. v. Bonta cuts to the heart of the problem. Several plaintiffs, including gun rights organizations, are challenging changes in state law created by the passage of Assembly Bill 2571, which makes it unlawful for any firearm industry members to advertise, market, or arrange for placement of an advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors. The plaintiffs are asking for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law.

The second prong of this anti-gun strategy is legislation enacted to thwart such challenges by financially penalizing anyone, including an attorney or an entire law firm if they seek declaratory or injunctive relief from any firearms-related California state statute or local ordinance or even a rule or regulation by making them liable to pay attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party. Simply put, anybody seeking to enjoin a California gun restriction faces the prospect of liability for the state’s attorneys’ fees if the plaintiff does not win on all aspects of the case, even if their case prevails on the merits, settles a claim without a waiver or voluntarily dismisses any portion of the case for any reason.

In essence, California politicians are effectively silencing debate on issues directly affecting rights secured by the Second Amendment by legislating against those who would challenge their laws.

What began as an attack on one constitutional right has now become an attack on another right, yet civil libertarians are silent.

Democrats led by Gov. Gavin Newsom are saying, “You have freedom of speech only if you agree with us.” That is not how the Founders perceived this country, and it is why they included the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights.

If this were about any issue other than guns, the media would be going crazy. Where are the editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post? Why aren’t there reports about this in every newspaper? Are stories being spiked, or is the situation simply being ignored?

One might expect this sort of censorship in Putin’s Russia, but it is here, now in Joe Biden’s America. When anti-rights fanatics take their fight to this level, it’s really an attack on all Americans, not just 100 million gun owners.

Today, they’re coming after gun rights. Tomorrow, perhaps they’ll be coming after a right you cherish or your right to protest, publish or provide an alternate viewpoint.

That’s not the country where our parents and grandparents grew up, and it shouldn’t be the country our children and grandchildren are forced to accept.

It’s the ongoing conflict between centrally planned and free markets. Or the zero-sum versus non zero-sum mindset. There exist people who crave and even insist on control. These people believe there MUST be someone, organization, or something in control. They are certain they and the world are a better place if control is exerted over a wide set of peoples action.

Some people believe the world would be a better place if most property and (possibly “or” instead of “and”, but this would be rare when you get down to the details) economic decisions are controlled by some supposedly superior being. This superior being is typically a government controlled by a committee and/or a dictator. These people fall in a spectrum that can generally be considered socialist to communist.

Some people believe the world would be a better place if social position and activity decisions (particularly sexual behaviors) are controlled by some supposedly superior being. This superior being is typically a government controlled or at least guided by a set of religious leaders. These people fall in a spectrum that can generally be considered democratic theists, many monarchists, to theocrats.

In the more general case people can be classified as being on a scale from anarchist to authoritarian. Here I am referring to the somewhat less common definition of anarchist as the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government rather than a state of disorder and chaos.

All social organizations have tradeoff. And under various situations some organizational types are vastly superior to others. For example an anarchist society does not do well against a communist society in search of hosts to satisfy their parasitic requirements. Yet, not too far up the spectrum from anarchist a society with government formed for the protection can economically and technologically, hence militarily defeat a similarly sized society near the authoritarian end of the spectrum.

I find our current political climate annoying because, as Robb indirectly points out above, a frightening number of people are demanding “progress” toward authoritarian government. There is actually a “sweet spot”, by many measures of societal “health”, which lies far closer to the anarchist end of the scale. This is an old, and mostly ignored, observation. History appears to be nearing another catastrophic rhyme.— Joe Huffman

The new White House press secretary was selected by her checking off more minority boxes than the rest. Black, Female (apparently someone in goobermint does know how to define ‘woman’) and Homosexual. She’s an utter moron as well, but I bet a low IQ wasn’t on the list….then again.
When she finally gets fed up enough with the BS she has to dish out, the next press secretary will likely have to be a transvestite man as well.

Jean-Pierre insists ‘MAGA Republicans’ are the ‘definition of fascism,’ doesn’t know the definition of fascism

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre defended President Joe Biden’s use of the word “fascism” to describe “MAGA Republicans,” insisting that the president’s opponents are the very definition of the word.

“I was very clear when laying out and defining what MAGA Republicans have done,” Jean-Pierre told reporters. “You look at the definition of fascism, and you think about what they’re doing in attacking our democracy, what they’re doing in taking away our freedoms, wanting to take away our rights, our voting rights, I mean, that is what that is. It is very clear and that’s why [Biden] made that powerful speech.”

On “The News & Why It Matters” Monday, BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales and guests took a look at the actual definition of fascism and concluded that the press secretary has clearly not been doing her homework.

“I just want to just to set the record straight here, give some perspective,” said Sara. “The definition of fascism is: a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, an economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.”

“I can’t think of anything that describes the left any better,” she added.

“Look at what they’re doing just in the simple fact of labeling people who are, quote, Trump supporters or anybody with a conservative value system or political philosophy. The labeling thing, that’s step one,” said BlazeTV’s Chad Prather.

“Identifying, labeling, then they categorize you. They put you in the box. They shove you away until they need to deal with you,” he continued. “You know, we all do that to some degree, but most of us, we just ignore that person. That’s not what their plan is. … They have nefarious purposes for what they’re doing with these labels … and ‘MAGA,’ ‘Trump,’ ‘conservative,’ ‘small government,’ all the buzzwords are all going to mean ‘fascism’ very soon.”

Massive Oops by the Civilian Marksmanship Program

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- For a few hours Friday, the leadership of the Civilian Marksmanship Program, or CMP, appeared to have lost their minds. It’s either that or the storied nonprofit – which can trace its lineage back to 1903 when Teddy Roosevelt created the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice – had been taken over by anti-gun Californians.

At around 11 a.m., the CMP sent the following email to its thousands of subscribers and customers:

“Due to a new Bill in California, CMP cannot send out email communications to our subscribers without having your full address and birthday in our email database. Please click on the ‘Update Profile’ link in the footer of this email to update your contact details. CMP will continue to send out emails to only those subscribers that have completed their profile. We will also post updates on our Facebook page and our website,” the email said.

As you can imagine, the mere suggestion that their names, dates of birth, addresses and other personal information could end up in the inboxes of anti-gun bureaucrats in California did not sit well with CMP’s customer base.

The reaction was swift, especially on CMP’s Facebook page.

One subscriber speculated that someone at CMP may have been confused by a bill making its way through the California legislature, AB2273, which would require websites to verify the age of every user before allowing them access. However, the bill has not yet been signed into law.

CMP’s subscribers had a legitimate reason to be concerned about the security of their personal information since just two months earlier, California’s Attorney General accidentally and on purpose leaked the data of thousands of CCW permittees living in the Golden State.

Who’s to say if he got similar information from folks in other states he wouldn’t accidentally and on purpose leak that too?

Never mind

A few hours after the first email was sent, Mark Johnson, CMP’s Director of Civilian Marksmanship, sent another message, which retracts the first:

“CMP made a mistake. We do not need our customer phone numbers, addresses or dates of birth. My sincere apologies, Mark Johnson, DCM,” the email states.

Johnson offered no explanation or statement about the incident, other than acknowledging that CMP had made a mistake.

Johnson did not immediately return calls or emails seeking his comments for this story.

Takeaways

The CMP is a good organization. Through its stores, scholarships, clinics and matches, it accomplishes its mission of teaching riflery – especially to our youth – while promoting safety and target practice.

However, what separates a good organization from a great one is how its leadership comport themselves during a crisis, and for a few hours Friday, the CMP was hip-deep in a crisis of its own making.

Johnson and/or the CMP board need to let us know exactly what happened and what steps they’re taking to make sure it never, ever happens again.

They also need to tell their customers what they plan to do with any personal information they received after the first email was sent.

This is a time for the CMP to become fully transparent. It’s the right thing to do. It’s what Teddy would expect.

Electric cars only? Howzabout

New York Senator Pushes Bill Mandating Speed Limiters for All Cars.

Per capita roadway fatalities have seen dramatic increases over the last two years and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) has suggested that 2022 might actually end up being the deadliest year it has ever recorded in regard to the total body count. So there are a lot of people in politics that have concerned themselves with getting those numbers down. Unfortunately, the solutions are often to leverage more of the technology that data is starting to show might have gotten us into this predicament in the first place.

Manhattan State Senator Brad Hoylman (D-NY) introduced just such a bill on August 12th, one that would effectively require all new vehicles to incorporate some form of speed-limiting technology by 2024 and direct the Department of Motor Vehicles to establish new rules for all transportation over 3,000 pounds. Considering that even teensy hatchbacks like the Mini Cooper already clock in dangerously close to that threshold, such a law would impact just about everything with four wheels that’s bigger than a Mazda MX-5 or Nissan Kicks.

The bill ( S9528) stipulates that modern vehicles provide “direct visibility of pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users from the drivers [sic] position.” This is being done in an effort to curb pedestrian fatalities that have been on the rise in most major cities. But there’s a lack of clarity in terms of how that would be implemented. Studies have shown that full-sized, flat-faced pickups and SUVs often have a blind spot just ahead of the front bumper – meaning they’d either have to be redesigned or implement some kind of camera system that would display the area to the driver. But the same could be said of the zones directly beside and behind almost every vehicle, presumably requiring an array of cameras and screens.

Vehicles sold in New York State would also need to have the latest advanced driving aids – things like lane keeping, automatic emergency braking, and blind spot monitoring – to pass muster after 2024. That’s in addition to the speed-limiting technologies that are at the forefront of the bill. New York City has actually been piloting an “Intelligent Speed Assistance” (ISA) program that uses a vehicle’s GPS and software capable of reading road signs to electronically limit its speed based on its present location. It sounds like a novel concept but it’s actually not. The European Union is actually requiring all new vehicles to have some form of ISA after July 2024.

However, Hoylman’s proposals have some strong headwinds to confront. Americans generally don’t like anything that curtails their freedoms and New York doesn’t actually have any formal jurisdiction over what everyone else drives. However, Hoylman has suggested that NY could become a trendsetter similar to how Californian legislation has fundamentally influenced national emission laws. Hell, it wasn’t more than a few years ago when select automakers were lining up to proclaim that they would be shunning federal standards set by the Trump administration in favor of whatever limits the California Air Resources Board (CARB) said would be permissible.

“We think that, if New York goes first, we could push the marketplace and have an effect across the country,” he told Streetsblog in an interview, adding that the present “patchwork” where only some cars have the latest technology was unacceptable.

But adding such systems could add thousands to the base price of many automobiles during a period where vehicles have already grown prohibitively expensive. Your author is also unconvinced this will move the needle on pedestrian fatalities when there’s mounting evidence that a lot of the technology that’s in modern cars actually encourages distracted driving. That, combined with the fact that cars have been getting heavier, certainly hasn’t given foot traffic the edge at intersections. Meanwhile, I have my own theory that accident rates frequently seem to track with economic strife in a manner that mimics crime rates. Substance abuse is also way up in the United States and has undoubtedly played a factor in the elevated fatalities witnessed since 2020.

Blindly regulating more tech in cars could end up being counterproductive if those systems rely on a distracting interface or consumers decide it’s just too invasive to live with – which it probably will be. A lot of these urban initiatives designed to fundamentally change how we travel have backfired already, frankly. Senator Hoylman even seemed conscious that NYC had failed with Vision Zero – an earlier safety program brimming with buzz terms like sustainability, equity, mobility, and stakeholders – that lowered the citywide speed limit while adding more bike lanes, traffic cameras, and automated tolls.

“The impetus of the bill is the failure of the promise of Vision Zero,” Hoylman said, adding that NYC endured 273 traffic deaths last year. That represents a noteworthy increase since Vision Zero was introduced in 2014, despite reduced fatalities being the program’s main goal.

Hoylman’s staff said that they are presently seeking an Assembly sponsor for the bill and would be holding hearings on it when the legislature comes back into session in January.

5 Things You Might Not Know About the Bill to Ban “Assault Weapons”

The arguably unconstitutional ban on so-called “assault weapons” recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives is a lot worse than most people are aware. That’s because the measure is nearly 14,000 words long, and most of it is based on sheer ignorance, so digging through the entire document to see what is hidden inside is actually disheartening.

Here’s a brief look at five things in H.R. 1808 that you might not have been aware were included in the legislation.

The criteria used for banning rifles are ignorant and nonsensical. The measure purports to ban “military-style” weapons, although all of the guns banned by the bill fire only one round with a single pull of the trigger like all semi-automatics. Our military, as well as most militaries of the rest of the world, equip their soldiers with rifles capable of fully-automatic fire. And the alleged “military” features that can cause your gun to be banned include the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, along with one of the following: a pistol grip (certainly not uniquely military), a forward grip (doesn’t make it any more “deadly”), an adjustable stock (why is it bad to be able to make your gun fit you correctly?), a grenade launcher (which is actually an NFA item, subject to strict controls, as are any explosive grenades one may want to use with the launcher), a barrel shroud or a threaded barrel (so much for hearing protection).

The measure also bans many firearms by name, not just criteria. It bans all AK-type rifles and lists 28 specific models by name. It also covers “AR types,” and went on to list dozens of different rifles by name or manufacturer that would be banned. When you consider several entries that include all of a company’s semi-automatic rifles, like “Smith & Wesson M&P 15 Rifles” and “Stag Arms AR Rifles,” the list grows to literally hundreds. Also banned by the measure are a long list of semi-automatic rifles that are not ARs, including the Beretta CX4 Storm, Ruger Mini-14 and more than 60 other models. Lastly, it bans all AK and AR pistols.

The legislation bans many pistols and shotguns, too. It bans “any semiautomatic pistol that has an ammunition feeding device that is not a fixed ammunition feeding device” and has one of the following: A threaded barrel, a second pistol grip, a barrel shroud, the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device at some location outside of the pistol grip, a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm, a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when unloaded, or a buffer tube, stabilizing brace or similar component that protrudes horizontally behind the pistol grip, and is designed or redesigned to allow or facilitate a firearm to be fired from the shoulder. It also bans any semi-automatic shotgun that “has the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device or a fixed ammunition feeding device that has the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds,” along with any one of the following: a folding, telescoping or detachable stock, a pistol grip or bird’s head grip, a forward grip or a grenade launcher. It even bans any shotgun with a revolving cylinder; a type of shotgun that is fairly rare, and even more rarely, if ever, used to commit violent crime.

The legislation also bans common, standard-capacity magazines. It specifically bans what it calls “large capacity ammunition feeding devices,” and defines the term as “a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept, more than 15 rounds of ammunition.” This important portion of the measure has been largely unreported by those in the so-called “mainstream” media.

The authors of the bill knew that much of it is unconstitutional—especially since more than 24 million AR-15-type rifles are owned by American citizens—but pushed the measure through anyway. Proof of that prior knowledge can be found in one section toward the end of the bill that features this clumsy disclaimer: “If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.”

Of course, the measure also contains a lot of other egregious provisions that would likely shock most law-abiding gun owners. You can read it for yourself here.

The Declaration of Independence is Unconstitutional

While there is plenty of talk and rhetoric proclaiming all that is “Constitutional” or “Unconstitutional”, when we examine and recognize that document which more than any other represents the soul of America, we find that document is: The Declaration of Independence.

With the simple preface, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, the novel idea of constructing government solely as best servant to the People and their God given privileges was born.

Because of the Declaration, and specifically this prefatory clause, the United States has developed a whole philosophy of thought called “American Exceptionalism”.

This philosophy is what makes us special, different from any other nation on earth, and dare I say… Better!

To the chagrin, of our current Commander in Chief, better is not better at all.  In fact, better, a.k.a. American Exceptionalism, in the mind of our exalted leader, is arrogance.

To think, that we individuals might strive for excellence, driven by nothing other than our own will and the Providential opportunity with which we are presented is obscene to those like Obama who embrace a Statist ideology.

At his core, the Statist is a parasite who requires a subjugated public to advance himself.  Unlike the rugged individualist who advances by grit and determination, the Statist assembles his power through propaganda that pits those rugged individualists in society who have achieved, against the sloth groups who have been convinced that achievement is an accidental occurrence falling upon those who have been “lucky”.

Out of this thinking is bred a whole line of thought that has undermined our Founders vision for America and has convinced our populace that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document which must be tempered by the populist mood of the age.

And of what character is this mood which is now arbiter and driver of public policy in America?

Schizophrenic, ignorant, sanctimonious, and dishonest are adjectives which come to mind.

It would seem, if we could apply contemporary American views and compare them to the theme of the foundational clause upon which our whole government has been built we ought to be able to find a congruence of understanding.

Let’s try:

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

These truths are unarguable, anyone from any walk of life, regardless of background, social or economic class, educated or uneducated would agree on undeniable fundamental truths.  What are fundamental truths?  Do all our inhabitants agree about them?

that all men are created equal,

declaring us all subject to the same unarguable truths, the same rule, and the same law.  No individual or group would be afforded any more or any less in the eyes of our law; ergo, it is not by accident that Lady Justice adorns a blindfold when ascertaining weights on a balance scale.

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

That separation of Church and State thing kind of falls apart right here.  Unalienable meaning that they cannot be taken away, and that we are endowed by our Creator—God, specifying exactly who endowed us with our Rights.  It is not a stretch to infer government’s only role here is to protect what God has provided.  Do all American’s believe this?  Is this the contemporary understanding of “Constitutional”?

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

While the Founders were content to allow us to use our imagination in interpreting what unalienable rights we were endowed with, they wrote down a couple to make sure we got onto the right track.  Our most important rights were listed, and it is not by accident that Life was put first.

The order of rights was listed in a prioritized manner exalting Life the supreme right, and should any Right conflict with another, the latter would yield to the former.

If a mother felt pregnancy was in some way threatening to her Liberty, her baby’s right to Life was, in the scheme of things, of such priority that mom’s Liberty could be impinged for the duration of the child’s term.  Using the word “was” instead of “is” might seem offensive, however, in today’s culture, do we respect this distinction?  Is abortion today viewed as greater right than is Life?

Has Roe vs. Wade established a women’s right to end her pregnancy at any point before a child’s birth, for any reason?  Have we not heard Senators and Representatives state that the “right to choose” is a Constitutional right?

Politicians love to invoke all that is “Constitutional” or “Unconstitutional” in support of their views or positions, but if we cannot even agree on the most fundamental right from our most fundamental document, how on earth can we intellectually interpret whether or not Arizona can or cannot ask someone who has broken a law if he/she is in this country legally or not?

Today the United States recognizes Constitutionality of the Constitution, based not at all upon the words of the document, but upon the urges and inclinations of those who have seized power by appealing to the largest voting bloc.

There is no such thing as a Constitutional right which cannot be readily overturned, and in the contemporary interpretation, our Declaration of Independence is…

Unconstitutional.

Joe Biden, How Dare You Compare Me To Hitler.

President Joe Biden lashed out at Republicans who have embraced the MAGA philosophy saying they’re semi-fascists.

I don’t think Biden understands what MAGA means. It’s all about putting America first and making the US the most powerful nation on Earth, both economically and militarily. Some examples include taking control of our southern border, making America energy independent, and building our military so we can take out ISIS or any other threat. It also means reducing business regulations so companies are free to run their enterprises without government interference. The result is American companies that are more competitive internationally and at home, generating more income (more tax dollars) and more jobs.

According to Webster, the definition of Fascists “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascists) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” 

MAGA pushes personal freedom and keeps the government out of the lives of Americans. That’s the opposite of Fascism.

One does not have to be a Trump supporter to call for making America great again. Other famous users of the phrase include Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. I wouldn’t call any of them a Fascist (semi or regular).

Biden’s misunderstanding of MAGA isn’t what angers me. It’s his inappropriate use of Fascist (semi-fascist). If you asked 100 Americans to name a Fascist, I suspect that 90-95 of them would answer either the Nazis or Adolf Hitler.

As someone who believes in the MAGA objectives no matter which candidate I support, my anger comes from the fact that I am a Jew with family who suffered through the Holocaust. Those and other references to Hitler and the Holocaust Biden made cheapen the memory of the actual horrors that millions of people suffered through.

It used to be a basic rule of American politics. Never use the Holocaust or any related terms, such as Fascist, Nazis, or Hitler, for political warfare. The Holocaust is a singular event in world history, not just because of its scale and inhuman horror. There have been, and sadly will be, other genocides of other groups. And there have even been other atrocities against the Jewish people. But generally, genocide is waged to suppress a group, keep them out of a country’s politics,  take their land, or some other economic reason. The Holocaust was different– the Jews were targeted by Hitler, and the Fascist  Nazis had no desire to take over the country’s land and held relatively little power–they were just hated. The Nazis took Jews from all over Europe and killed them.

Continue reading “”

Gov. Kathy Hochul seemingly admits denying permits for wrongthink

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul knew that Bruen would go against her state. As a result of that decision, a number of other measures were passed through, measures that looked to adhere to the decision. At least, they would if you squint.

One of those measures is that authorities can scour your social media to see if you have the proper “good moral character” New York seeks to demand from those seeking permits.

However, some recent comments are rather suggestive as to what this is really about.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) used a Wednesday press conference to highlight new state gun controls and emphasized that talking to a would-be gun buyer’s “neighbors online” is now part of a background check.

Hochul’s comments to reporters and others gathered for the conference were wide-ranging, focusing broadly on New York’s Interstate Task Force on Illegal Guns.…

She then discussed social media, saying, “I’ve called upon and am working closely with our Attorney General to identify what’s going on in social media. And those questions are now part of our background checks. Just like in the old days you could talk to someone’s neighbor, now you can talk to their neighbors online to find whether or not this person has been espousing philosophies that indicate they have been radicalized.”

In other words, she wants issuing officials to look at your social media history and determine if you have the wrong opinions on particular issues.

See, this isn’t about whether you’re a criminal or anything like that. This measure is a gauge as to whether you’re the “right sort” for New York to give a permit to. Moral character requirements were originally intended to keep from giving permits to people like alcoholics or such. While that’s not a good reason, it’s at least understandable.

But Hochul’s comment about whether some have been “radicalized” is a problem.

For one thing, just about everything that isn’t in line with progressive ideology has been labeled as extremist to some degree. At least some think the GOP as a whole is extremist. Hell, just not supporting gun control has been seen as radicalization.

So who defines being radicalized in this case? There’s a huge gulf between opinions shifting in a more conservative or libertarian direction and calling for the complete and total overthrow of the United States government or for a jihad against American infidels.

So where is that line?

Frankly, it doesn’t matter. What Hochul has essentially admitted is that this is about WrongThink. It’s about not having approved thoughts and if you have those, you risk losing your right to bear arms. That’s not what rights are about.

Imagine if we were considering denying the right to free speech to communists, for example. Now, communism has killed more people than all the mass shooters in American history combined–probably more than all gun homicides in this country combined, really–but we tolerate their right to speak freely and advocate their heinous ideology because that’s what a free society does. Rights exist for all or they exist for none.

And Hochul would likely be right there, defending their right to free speech, which is fine.

What’s not fine, though, is that she’s openly supporting the suppression of other rights simply because people may not think what she wants them to think.

Biden’s Student Loan ‘Cancelation’ Plan Could Cost Taxpayers Up to $60,000,000,000 Over Next 10 Years

On Wednesday, the White House released the details of its so-called student debt “cancelation” plan. President Joe Biden also gave remarks about the announcement later that day. While the president and White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre failed to give a satisfactory answer about the cost, the Committee for a Responsible Budget (CRFB) has estimated that it will cost between $440 billion and $600 billion over the next 10 years.

Wednesday’s release from CRFB, a non-partisan group, noted that it has come to a rough estimate of $500 billion.

The release also spells trouble for any perceived benefits from the “Inflation Reduction Act,” which the organization had positive things to say about. The CRFB’s reference to a law it had praised makes its concerns even more potent.

From this release, with added emphasis:

The changes announced today will likely cost more than double the amount saved through the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act, completely eliminating any disinflationary benefit from the bill. We will be releasing an inflation estimate of these student debt changes in a subsequent analysis, but the package is likely to increase inflation by more than a year-long extension of the pause, which we previously estimated would add up to 20 basis points to the Personal Consumption Expenditure inflation rate. The proposed loan changes also do nothing to reduce the amount of borrowing moving forward, setting up a future administration to be called on to cancel debt again.

It is extremely troubling to see the Administration reverse the legislative progress made on deficit reduction. It is long past time that student debt repayments resume, and now it is even more important for policymakers to enact changes that reduce deficits through spending reductions and revenue increases in order to put the national debt on a downward sustainable path.

The organization also released a statement from its president, Maya MacGuineas, which emphasized her disappointment with the move. Her statement began:

This announcement is gallingly reckless – with the national debt approaching record levels and inflation surging, it will make both worse. Policymakers have already spent $300 billion on student debt relief—none of it paid for, and this would add another $400 to $600 billion, again, none of it paid for. This action by the White House is completely at odds with their talk of deficit reduction. It could add twice as much to the deficit as was just saved from the Inflation Reduction Act, completely eliminating any deficit reduction and then some. With the stroke of a pen, the President undid a year’s worth of work on the fiscal front.

Many progressive politicians and organization have referenced student loan debt in the context of how it affects lower-income families as well as minorities. The president in his Wednesday remarks made mention of how “the burden is especially heavy on Black and Hispanic borrowers, who on average have less family wealth to pay for it.”

A Thursday post by CRFB also addressed previous student debt proposals, which actually turn out to benefit upper-class families. “The student debt cancellation proposals that have previously been analyzed are regressive because they provide a disproportionate benefit to higher income and wealthier households. The main reason for this is that people who go to college and beyond are much more likely to earn high incomes and have high lifetime wealth compared to people who don’t go to college,” the post read.

A Brookings report is also mentioned, which found that “the top 20 percent of white non-Hispanic households by lifetime wealth hold 25 percent of all student debt and hold more student debt than all Black/African American households combined. This shows that debt cancellation disproportionately benefits white, wealthier households because those are the people most likely to owe and be paying down their debt.”

The post did acknowledge that Biden’s recently announced proposal could be “less regressive” though and that “it’s not clear at this time how the announced Biden cancellation policy affects the racial wealth gaps.”

Biden Tries Again to Legalize Illegal Aliens Without Congressional Authorization

The Department of Homeland Security has finalized a rule that would grant legal status to 600,000 children of illegal aliens. The new directive would formalize the rule adapted in 2012 during the Obama administration and transform it into federal regulation. It would prevent deportations and grant work permits to those who came to the United States as children.

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) has been in legal limbo ever since a Texas judge ruled that the program was illegal in the early months of the Biden administration. The new rule going into effect October 31 would codify most of the eligibility rules: applicants must prove they arrived in the U.S. by age 16 and before June 2007, studied in a U.S. school or served in the military, and lack any serious criminal record.

The Texas case is likely to end up in the Supreme Court, where justices already ruled against Donald Trump’s bid to end the program, largely because of a technicality. But this case is based on far narrower Constitutional grounds; only Congress can declare large swaths of illegal aliens as legal. And that argument has a good chance of winning in the high court as it’s currently constituted.

CBS News:

Congress has long been unable to reach any kind of immigration deal that would garner enough bipartisan support to pass the Senate. Last year, the Senate parliamentarian rejected multiple efforts by Democrats to include immigration changes in their party-line social spending bill. And Republican leaders have expressed little interest in Democrats’ attempts at overhauling immigration policy.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who has long pushed for a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, was quick to applaud the Department of Homeland Security’s issuing the rule. He noted that it provides “some stability to DACA recipients and make[s] it more difficult for a future administration to rescind DACA, which is a lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”

The rule would only apply to DACA renewal requests as the government is blocked from approving any new applications. But the radical immigration advocates want Biden to go long and go big.

Politico:

But some immigrant advocates expressed frustration that the Biden administration did not go further in its final rule, opting to keep the same criteria from when the program was created in 2012.

“This final DACA rule fails to strengthen the program by not expanding it to include the majority of undocumented immigrant youth who are graduating from high school this year and not eligible for the program because of arbitrary cut-off dates,” said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, deputy director of federal advocacy for United We Dream.

“While Congress must pass permanent protections for all, President Biden cannot hide behind the courts or Congress. He can take bold action now,” she added.

The rule is still going to face challenges in court, so Biden isn’t hiding very well. He can’t. Congress has the authority to end this argument. But even those Republicans — like Donald Trump — who support DACA in one form or another realize what a loaded political issue it is and will never risk voting for it.

Most people agree that young children should not suffer from their parent’s immigration crimes. But a blanket amnesty would be uncalled for and would be hard to do anyway.

Yessireebob, these ‘red flag’ laws will be just the thing to stop people bent on murder.

Albany murder suspect had guns seized under Red Flag Law

DELAWARE COUNTY, Ind. — An Albany man faces a murder charge after police say he shot his neighbor over a dispute.

The charge comes after police responded to the 9100 block of North County Road 900 East Tuesday. When they arrived, they found Gary Coply had been shot multiple times and was lying up against his house.

A probable cause affidavit filed in the case against Cy Alley details the person who called 911 said they were taking a walk when they saw Cy Alley shoot Coply multiple times before driving away.

When police found Alley, the document said they found a 12-gauge shotgun shell similar to a spent one found at the crime scene in his pocket.

When detectives interviewed Alley, the document said he told them that he has been having trouble with electricity at his home. Alley assumed Coply had been “hacking into his network.”

Alley went to Coply’s home to confront him and the document said he told detectives he got out of his truck with a 12-gague pump shotgun and shot Coply four times, intending to kill him. He told detectives the shotgun was in the back of his truck.

The petition was granted and court records indicate the Muncie Police Department seized a rifle, a shot gun and a revolver from Alley. They are still in police custody.

Along with the murder charge, the court document says the office is seeking an enhanced penalty for use of a firearm in the commission of a crime.

Gun law grounded in bigotry reveals its roots

It’s telling when your best argument for a new law is to cite discredited laws of the past as part of your rationale.

But that’s just what New York State has resorted to in trying to convince a judge that its plethora of new restrictions making a permit to carry a handgun virtually useless should pass muster.

As the clock ticks down to the Sept. 1 implementation date, the misnamed Concealed Carry Improvement Act will do nothing more than create a new class of law-abiding criminals. And if that phrase sounds oxymoronic, you don’t know New York State – where the second half of that word is often the most operative.

Instead of targeting criminals, the new statute targets law-abiding pistol permit holders, many of whom will become felons simply by ignoring a law that will accomplish nothing except to put their lives at risk and put them in handcuffs.

The fact that in defending the law from a legal challenge, the state’s filing contains a footnote practically disavowing its own arguments tells you all you need to know. But that’s what happens when you try to defend the indefensible restrictions pushed through by Gov. Kathy Hochul and a compliant Democratic Legislature.

Continue reading “”