Sometimes reasonable people must do unreasonable things.

The title is a paraphrase of something Marv Heemeyer said. If you’re unfamiliar with that name, it’s the guy who built and used the “Killdozer” to go after people who kept screwing him over in Granby, Colorado. The Lore Lodge on YouTube did a great video on some of what’s been missing from the popular narrative you should check out.

In the heart of things, though, you’ve got a guy who wanted to be part of the community; to contribute and be treated fairly as any person has a right to expect. The problem was, he wasn’t. The “good old boy” system there took issue with him because he bought property that someone else, someone connected, wanted and things went downhill from there until Heemeyer engaged in his rampage.

Which hurt no one, by the way. The only fatality was himself.

But the truth is that you can only push people so far before they start pushing back, and if you push them long enough, their pushback won’t be for just one thing, but a long history of abuses. I’ve touched on how the attacks on Christians could go, but it doesn’t stop there.

See, I came across this bit from Hot Air today, and I found something interesting, but not surprising. See, an auto repair shop called Popular Mechanix has a problem. An arsonist who has been arrested numerous times but keeps coming back to cause problems with the shop. And, frankly, enough is enough.

It’s not that the city is doing nothing. They do arrest and charge Perez Perez every few months, it’s just that the city isn’t stopping him or even discouraging him. He’s committing many more crimes than he’s being punished for and the city can’t deal with it. So dealing with Perez Perez has fallen on shop manager DJ Meisner:

“It feels like the Wild West,” said Meisner about the city. “I try not to give into the doom spiral narrative. But they are doing nothing to dissuade me of that notion.”…

In 2022, Meisner said he was putting out blazes weekly and even installed a ladder he bought from a hunting website to get a better vantage point from the fence line. He placed extinguisher devices on the fence, but they have proven useless and have been swallowed up in the fires.

In October, an early morning fire broke out in Popular Mechanix’s backyard, growing into a large blaze that destroyed two of the shop’s cars and scarred surrounding trees. One of the cars exploded because it was full of gasoline.

In January the police recommended charges against Perez Perez for the November arson (the one caught on video). Supposedly the DA reached out to the company this week, but does anyone think it will matter? Perez Perez might go to prison for another six months. Then he’ll be back on the street and Popular Mechanix will be left to do its best to protect itself from him. And of course, he’s not the only agent of chaos in the city.

The shop’s owner, Andrew Gescheidt, says it feels like he’s being pushed toward becoming a vigilante. “I feel like I don’t want to become a vigilante, but the universe is saying you have to do it yourself,” he said. He vowed he wouldn’t go out and hit Perez Perez with a wrench but added, “Bureaucracy is not helping us.”

Again, the police show up, arrest him, he goes to court, gets a sentence, then comes out and does it all over again. There’s a restraining order against him, but that’s just a piece of paper when all else is considered.

What Gescheidt is articulating here is that he, a reasonable man, is starting to feel like he needs to do unreasonable things.

Let’s understand that you cannot use lethal force in a situation that isn’t reasonably perceived as a life-or-death situation. Bottles of urine and rocks should qualify—both can kill people, after all—but California’s prosecutors would likely disagree. That means Gescheidt attacking Perez Perez in any way, even when you and I might believe there was a threat of grievous bodily harm or even death, he’s likely to be the one to go to prison.

But unless something is done, you’re going to see some kind of vigilantism in San Francisco. Writer John Sexton teases that you have to become Batman to live in San Fran, and he’s not entirely wrong to do so.

The thing is, though, anyone can be pushed far enough. There’s a point where anyone stops being docile and law-abiding. Sure, you can push them pretty far if you’re gentle about it to start with, but even then, sooner or later, you risk crossing the Rubicon and that person unleashing hell.

In a civilized nation, we expect criminals to be punished. We expect at least some response that looks like justice. Since the system is run by people, we can accept that mistakes are made so long as they’re rectified as quickly as possible, but we still expect meaningful action.

Someone revolving through the jails to return and continue to unleash havoc isn’t justice. It’s not remotely like justice, and if it keeps up, someone will decide justice has to come from somewhere else.

Clearly, the police can’t do it.

But it’s not limited here, either.

Right now, the left is, once again, losing their freaking minds. They’re firebombing Tesla dealerships because they don’t like Elon Musk. They’re acting as if they’ve been pushed too far when no one has pushed them anywhere. They’re the ones doing the pushing.

At some point, someone is going to say enough is enough and take action.

Should that happen, it’s entirely possible it will inspire others to act. Reasonable men and women must do unreasonable things, and it’s usually unreasonable men and women who push them to do them.

Stop being unreasonable and things will settle. Fail to do that, and, well…consider yourself warned.

Well, I did too, so…….

The Left Knew They Were Lying to Us All Along

Victor Davis Hanson

For years, the left has advanced utter untruths for cheap partisan purposes that it knew at the time were all false. And now when caught, they just shrug and say they were lying all along.

They damned as incompetent, racist, and conspiratorial any who dared follow logic and evidence to point out that the Chinese government and its military were both culpable for the virus and lying.

A million Americans died of COVID. Millions more suffered long-term injuries. Still, the left-wing media and Biden administration demonized any who dared speak about a lab origin of the deadly virus.

The lies were designed to protect the guilty who had helped fund the virus’s origins, such as Doctors Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins.

The Biden government also tried to use the lab theory to ridicule a supposedly pro-Trump “conspiracy.”

Western corporate interests deeply invested in China did not want their partner held responsible for veritably killing and maiming hundreds of millions worldwide.

Almost as soon as Joe Biden was inaugurated, the left knew that he was physically and mentally unable to serve as president.

Indeed, that was the point.

Biden’s role was designed as a waxen figurine for hard-left agendas that, without the “old Joe Biden from Scranton” pseudo-moderate veneer, could never have been advanced.

His handlers operated a nightmare administration: the destruction of deterrence abroad, two theater wars, 12 million illegal aliens, a weaponized justice system, hyperinflation, and $7 trillion more in debt.

Continue reading “”

So it’s now obvious, SCOTUS woman judges, even supposedly ‘conservative ones’ are problematic when it comes to goobermint power.
Roberts is just his squishy self.


Supreme Court Rules Against Trump’s Bid to Stop $2 Billion in USAID Funding.

On Wednesday morning, in a 5-4 emergency decision, the Supreme Court upheld a decision from U.S. District Judge Amir Ali that essentially says that Donald Trump can’t withhold $2 billion in USAID money from existing contractors. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the three liberal members of the court. From the ruling:

On February 13, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the Government from enforcing directives pausing disbursements of foreign development assistance funds. The present application does not challenge the Government’s obligation to follow that order.

On February 25, the District Court ordered the Government to issue payments for a portion of the paused disbursements—those owed for work already completed before the issuance of the District Court’s temporary restraining order—by 11:59 p.m. on February 26.

Several hours before that deadline, the Government filed this application to vacate the District Court’s February 25 order and requested an immediate administrative stay. THE CHIEF JUSTICE entered an administrative stay shortly before the 11:59 p.m. deadline and subsequently referred the application to the Court. The application is denied.

Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines. The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh voted in favor of Trump, with Justice Alito writing the lengthy dissent that begins with:

Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.

So, what exactly does this mean? Judge Ali, who was appointed by the Biden administration, ruled that the Trump administration must maintain USAID agreements that were in place before Trump officially took office on January 20. According to The Hill, Ali “found the Trump administration wasn’t complying with his order to resume the unpaid USAID contracts and grants. Last week, Ali demanded the funds be released by the end of the following day.”

Red State’s Susie Moore writes, “SCOTUS temporarily paused that order, but now, since the deadline is past (and moot), rather than vacate it altogether, they’re lifting the pause and sending things back to the district court to sort out further.”

According to NBC, “Specific projects affected by the payment freeze include the installation of new irrigation and water pumping stations in Ukraine; waterworks upgrades in Lagos, Nigeria; the supply of medical equipment in Vietnam and Nepal; and measures to combat malaria in Kenya, Uganda, Ghana and Ethiopia.”

While it’s not great news for Trump, as Moore says, “This isn’t the end of the story on this case — not by a long shot.”

Well, they can demand all they want, but I think they’ll get nothing


Dems demand details from AG Bondi on Trump’s directive to review gun regulations
The White House last month ordered the Justice Department to conduct a broad review of federal firearms regulations, a move which appeared aimed at walking back Biden-era gun control measures.

WASHINGTON (CN) — House Democrats on Sunday demanded that the Justice Department explain how it plans to implement President Donald Trump’s recent executive order for a whole-of-government review of federal firearms regulations.

And, writing in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, the lawmakers sought to reaffirm Congress’ role in writing — and changing — the country’s gun control laws.

The Trump administration last month directed the Justice Department to undertake a sweeping review of existing regulations, which it said was designed to determine whether there were any “ongoing infringements” of Second Amendment rights. The president instructed the agency in the executive order to sift through federal rules, guidance and international agreements, as well as other actions taken by the White House and executive agencies.

But in their letter to Bondi, obtained by Courthouse News, Democrats told the attorney general they were “confident” that the Justice Department’s survey would confirm that existing firearms regulations are constitutionally sound, so long as the review was conducted “objectively and in good faith.”

“There is plainly no need for any new plan of action to, in the words of the executive order, ‘protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,’” read the letter, penned by Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Georgia Representative Lucy McBath, who serves as the No. 1 Democrat on the panel’s crime and government surveillance subcommittee.

In the order, the Trump administration specifically directed the Justice Department to examine firearms regulations promulgated by the president and federal agencies between January 2021 and January 2025, a provision which put the Biden administration’s gun control efforts squarely in the crosshairs.

Continue reading “”

So, That’s Why We Know So Little About Trump’s Assassin

The observation was well-warranted: We know more about Luigi Mangione, the alleged UnitedHealthcare CEO killer, than we do about Thomas Matthew Crooks, who tried to assassinate President Donald J. Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, last July. Crooks was shot and killed during the attempt, but not after a slew of security breaches and all-around ineptitude from the Secret Service was exposed.

It was one of the few times where Democrats and Republicans found the Secret Service’s initial reasoning and demeanor after the attempt to be wholly unacceptable. Well, there seems to be a reason why Crooks has evaporated into the ether: the FBI is allegedly suppressing all information about the Trump assassin, which reportedly contains a possible lead on an accomplice.

Continue reading “”

More Woke Craziness Uncovered by DOGE.

The Trump Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) continues to uncover shameless misuse of our taxpayer dollars for insider payoffs and woke activism.

It really is stunning what our elected officials and unelected bureaucrats believe they have the right to spend our money on. Besides the Taliban condoms, European DEI musicals, and Iraqi muppets already exposed by DOGE, the new department led by Elon Musk has found yet more leftist nonsense and grift to cancel.

DOGE on Thursday revealed the following initiatives on which our money was set to be spent, but which fortunately have been shut down:

Continue reading “”

Aging Members of Congress Refuse to Disclose Details of Their Top Secret Hospital
The Office of the Attending Physician gives politicians nearly unlimited medical care for about $54 a month.

After a presidential election that saw an 82-year-old commander in chief unable to complete sentences in a debate or instill confidence in the public that he could carry out his duties, elected leaders in Congress are faring no better.

In the past two months alone,
82-year-old Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX) was discovered to be living in an assisted-living facility with a dementia ward in her final months in office;
74-year-old Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) won a high-profile leadership position on the House Oversight Committee after revealing he is battling highly terminal esophageal cancer;
82-year-old Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) fell twice on Capitol Hill just months after blacking out during a press conference;
84-year-old former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) fell and broke her hip in Luxembourg;
and 76-year-old Rep. John Larson (D-CT) appeared to suffer a stroke on the House floor. (Larson’s staff has said it was a bad reaction to a new medication.)

What has eluded attention is the highly secretive hospital, housed on Capitol Hill and funded by taxpayers, that provides both emergency and primary care to an aging political class, which some have come to describe as a gerontocracy. It also runs classified programs known only to some members of Congress.

In 2023, Congress designated $4.2 million to the Office of the Attending Physician (OAP), a Navy-staffed hospital with multiple branches spread across Capitol Hill. The current attending physician, Dr. Brian Monahan, who serves as a rear admiral in the Navy, oversees a staff of dozens of Navy doctors, nurses, and technicians whose primary responsibility is providing care to members of Congress and the Supreme Court.

Continue reading “”

Almost like the lab manufactured pathogen ‘getting loose’ wasn’t a bug, but a feature


Social Security Gets Major $205-Billion Boost After COVID Deaths

So many Americans died of COVID-19 during the pandemic that the Social Security program received a boost of $205 billion, according to a new report by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

Why It Matters

The new report from NBER sheds light on the way the pandemic affected the Social Security program, which is currently facing a looming insolvency crisis.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which President Donald Trump has put in charge of shrinking the size of the federal government, has promised to pursue a trillion dollars in cuts across many programs and departments of the federal government, with a specific focus on uncovering fraud and wasteful spending.

This operation, Trump said, will include the Social Security program, which sends benefit payments to more than 70 million Americans.

What To Know

Using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), NBER—a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization—found that excess deaths among individuals aged 25 and older between 2020 and 2023 led to a reduction in Social Security future retirement payments of $294 billion.

Excess deaths refers to those in a given time frame over the number that might have been expected considering historic data in a so-called average year. According to the CDC, the U.S. reported over 1.7 million excess deaths between 2020 and 2023.

The reduction in future Social Security benefits caused by these excess deaths was then recalculated by NBER to $205 billion considering the consequent decrease in future payroll tax flows and higher payments to surviving spouses and children.

“Our analysis suggests a slight improvement in Social Security’s financial health due to excess deaths, driven primarily by the premature death of people who would have received retirement benefits,” reads the NBER report.

Continue reading “”

Massachusetts vs. the Second Amendment

In Massachusetts, a legal battle is unfolding that should resonate with every conservative who values the sanctity of the Second Amendment. Escher v. Mason isn’t just about firearms; it’s a litmus test for how we view adulthood, responsibility, and constitutional rights in contemporary America.

The Massachusetts law in question, House Bill 4885, strips legal adults aged 18 to 20 of their right to purchase, possess, or carry semiautomatic firearms and handguns. This isn’t merely overreach; it’s a direct assault on the clear text of the Second Amendment, which does not discriminate by age among “the people.” If we are to take our Constitution seriously, we must defend the rights of all citizens, not just those deemed “mature enough” by the state’s paternalistic gaze.

At the heart of this legal challenge lies a fundamental conservative principle: the inviolability of individual rights. The Founders did not carve exceptions into the Second Amendment for age. They understood that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand, which is why 18-year-olds have been historically recognized as adults — capable of voting, joining the military, and, yes, bearing arms. The Militia Act of 1792, enacted shortly after the ratification of the Second Amendment, explicitly included 18-year-olds in the national defense, expecting them to be armed like their elders.

This historical precedent is not just a footnote but the bedrock upon which the plaintiffs in Escher v. Mason stand. They argue that there is no traditional basis for denying these rights to young adults. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and Bruen have made it abundantly clear that firearms “in common use” are constitutionally protected. Semiautomatic firearms and handguns are the dominant tools of self-defense in modern America. To deny these to a segment of the adult population is not only anachronistic but egregiously unconstitutional.

Continue reading “”

Let’s Understand What Maryland, Baltimore’s Lawsuit Against Glock is Really About

Glocks are among the most popular handguns in the country. They’re priced decently, run reliably, and just plain work. Police trust them as do numerous armed citizens. They’re everywhere.

And that bothers a lot of people. Now, though, Glock is being sued by the city of Baltimore and the State of Maryland, with the help of Everytown for Gun Safety, and let’s talk a bit about what’s really going on here.

First, let’s get into the official word.

In an attempt to keep fully automatic guns off the streets, Baltimore and Maryland authorities Wednesday sued Glock, the maker of some of the best-selling handguns in America. The lawsuit demands Glock take steps to prevent its guns from being modified into machine-gun-like weapons capable of firing 120 rounds in one minute.

Small, easily installed devices known as “auto sears” or “switches” that are growing more common have terrified law enforcement because they enable high-powered violence not seen since 1934, when Congress banned machine guns after their prominent use by mobsters.

But police statistics show the number of “modified Glock” shootings is on the rise, including an incident near a Baltimore YMCA in March in which a woman’s car was hit 18 times, and police found 41 shell casings nearby. In Philadelphia last year, eight high school students were shot in one spray, including a 16-year-old who was hit nine times. In Memphis in April, a police officer was killed and two other officers wounded in a firefight with two teenagers, one armed with a modified gun.

The lawsuit, filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court, is the first to test Maryland’s new Gun Industry Accountability Act, passed by the General Assembly last year to create liability for gun manufacturers and possibly circumvent an earlier related law. The Maryland lawsuit mirrors others filed in Chicago, Minnesota and New Jersey in recent months.

But here’s the problem: Glock doesn’t make the switches. They didn’t design them. They didn’t have anything to do with them.

Further, they’re illegal to make or possess–at least if you’re not one of the handful that has a transferable switch that was made before 1986 and is registered with the ATF. People are getting them left and right, but they’re not doing it lawfully.

What at least some are claiming is that Glock hasn’t redesigned its reliable handgun so it can’t accept a switch.

Yet they don’t punish Toyota because someone might modify one of their cars and circumvent emissions controls or something. Why would they?

But this isn’t really about full-auto switches or even Glock.

No, this is about making it as expensive as possible to be in the firearm industry and to offer products to the civilian market. Right now, this is the angle of attack they’re taking, but it will not end there.

The federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was created specifically to stop these kinds of nuisance lawsuits aimed at the gun industry, particularly when they’re being attacked for the actions of a third party. That’s what’s happening here. They’re trying to pretend it’s Glock’s fault and to get them to stop selling their guns in Maryland, but does anyone really think that would do any good?

It’s not like the people putting switches on their guns are going to suddenly decide they don’t want Glocks because they’re not sold there.

They’ll just get them from somewhere else.

But if enough states do it and enough companies get sued, they’ll either go out of business or just stop selling to private citizens.

You don’t need to control guns if there are no guns for anyone to buy, after all. That’s what this is really about. That’s the long game at work with anti-gunners, and they’re using anti-gun states to try and do it.

Make no mistake. Glock has done nothing wrong.

These two governments just don’t like the right to keep and bear arms.

When Money From Anti-Gun Billionaires Wasn’t Enough, Gun Control Orgs Went After Taxpayer Dollars.

Gun owners are getting exactly what they voted for with President Donald Trump. There’s now an accounting for government malfeasance in process and he’s turned up the receipts.

President Trump is delivering on his promise to break open the secretive spending habits of government officials. It’s exactly what voters wanted and, frankly, expected. The results, however, have been jaw-dropping. Gun control proponents have been smashing open the government piggy bank to swipe dollars for their pet gun control projects.

That’s right. Gun control advocates were using taxpayer dollars to fund their campaigns to rob Americans of their Constitutionally-protected rights to keep and bear arms. That’s adding insult to injury after the Biden-Harris administration installed a taxpayer-funded office dedicated to pushing gun control. It was staffed by a former lobbyist for Everytown for Gun Safety, the gun control group funded by antigun billionaire Michael Bloomberg. That office effectively closed up in the days leading up to President Trump taking office as its staff all resigned.

It turns out, though, that billions of Bloomberg bucks and even more money from George and Alexander Soros weren’t enough for gun control advocates. They wanted to fund the effort to cut off Second Amendment rights straight from Americans’ wallets – including tax dollars paid by gun owners themselves.

Lee Williams uncovered, in a post to Shooting News Weekly, what many have suspected for years. Except it had been covered up in layers of bureaucracy and farmed out as “grants” through the U.S. Agency for International Development. That’s the federal agency that’s drawn the first and damning examination by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

Continue reading “”

And With That Receipt, We Learn That USAID Paid for a Terrorist’s College Tuition

You cannot make this stuff up? USAID, which blessedly is no more, paid for a radical Islamic terrorist’s college tuition. Past receipts show that the former agency footed the bill for Anwar Awlaki’s higher education. Awlaki lied about the country of his birth to obtain funds for college through the State Department. Awlaki later became the point of the lance for al-Qaeda’s digital jihad arm. Investigative Catherine Herridge has more:

Looks like USAID supported college tuition for Anwar Aulaqi (Awlaki) who later became a high level al Qaeda terrorist. Aulaqi falsely claimed he was born in Yemen to secure the financial help via the State Dept. when he was actually a US citizen, born in Las Cruces New Mexico.

Aulaqi would later develop close ties with several 9/11 hijackers and attain leadership status in AQ’s Yemen affiliate. Aulaqi was the godfather of the digital jihad that leveraged his writings and the web to radicalize Americans to AQ’s cause. Aulaqi became the first American targeted for death by the CIA.

In 2011, he was killed in a US drone strike.

 

And yet, some media figures claim they cannot find any waste or abuse at USAID.

Yeah, again, the legacy media is a joke.