We are ‘led’ by the literally mentally defective

Biden’s Remarks at ‘Equal Pay’ Event Were a Gaffe-Filled Dumpster Fire

The White House hosted a Women’s History Month event on Tuesday evening to highlight the left’s ‘Equal Pay Day’ but President Biden apparently decided to make an attempt at breaking the record for how many gaffes he could spit out during his 14 minute remarks.

Right out of the gate, President Biden sought to explain who wasn’t appearing at the event with him saying “there’s been a little change in the arrangement of who’s on the stage because of the First Lady’s husband contracted COVID, but look at this room and what you see,” Biden stated before someone off-stage in the White House pointed out that the “First Lady’s husband” is…Joe Biden. Uncomfortable laughter from the crowd followed as Biden said “that’s right, she’s fine, that’s me that’s not together.” No kidding.

Biden continued by referring to Doug Emhoff as “the Second Lady” before correcting himself with (also wrong) “First Gentleman,” listing two additional incorrect monikers for Kamala Harris’ husband who is in fact the Second Gentleman and not the husband of the president nor the vice president’s wife, nor a lady.

But Biden’s nomenclature challenges didn’t end there. In a line about his U.N. ambassador, the president incorrectly called her “Linda Thomas-Greenhouse,” before correcting himself and using her actual name Linda Thomas-Greenfield. Biden was reading from his teleprompter at this point and, assuming the White House knows the name of the ambassador to the United Nations, Biden should have trusted the words scrolling in front of his eyes. It also wasn’t the first time Biden incorrectly called her “Greenhouse.”

Then, when telling one of his classic freewheeling anecdotes, Biden tripped himself up talking about his Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. “I often kid her, and I wasn’t kidding, early on when I was seeking the nomination had she been born in America she’d be standing here and I’d be sitting there,” Biden said.

“She was a former governor of the state of, uh, Michigan. Michigan, wrong,” Biden said incorrectly fact-checking himself in real-time. “She was a former state of, she was a governor. I’m teasing.” Biden was, of course, right the first time. But he incorrectly corrected himself, called Granholm a former state, and then decided to write the situation off as “teasing.” Hoo-boy.

Continue reading “”

Biden Blames the Jews for His Ukraine Policy
The president and his people try to seal a new Iran deal by hanging their appeasement of Putin on Israel

Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was precipitated by assurances from China, Germany, and the United States that each of Russia’s major trading partners either backed his position or had zero interest in getting in his way. President Joe Biden’s invitations to Putin to bite off more chunks of Ukraine made it clear that America was not interested in a fight with the Russian dictator in his own backyard. Surely, the mighty Putin would make quick work of the Ukrainians. After all, he helped put down the Syrian rebellion to preserve Iran’s stake in Syria, and thereby sealed Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with the clerical regime in Tehran. So why make a big fuss, especially since at the same time Putin is intent on breaking Ukraine, he is also brokering the new Iran Deal with U.S. negotiators in Vienna?

The problem for Biden is that Putin is not winning his war in anything like the quick and easy fashion that the White House and other world powers apparently expected. Moreover, the prospect of a dictator murdering thousands of Ukrainians in Europe in a prolonged war may be a tougher pill to swallow for so-called Western elites than the same dictator helping to murder half a million Syrians.

Continue reading “”

You have his word as a Biden.


Biden pledges: We won’t fight a war against Russia in Ukraine.

A leftover from Friday. Hawks are complaining about this statement on grounds that it implicitly invites Putin to grab any non-NATO country he likes and to pummel Ukraine into submission using whatever conventional means he can muster.

 

BLUF:
The problem, in an age of political polarization, is that about 40% of the population will automatically believe anything a Democrat tells them, even if it contradicts the most basic principles of economics, and there is a vast media establishment which won’t even question Biden’s bizarre counterfactual claims about inflation, energy policy, etc. All that matters to them is the cynical question, “Cui bono?” Who benefits from a particular belief — Democrats or Republicans?……..

Thus does “truth” become a partisan prize, over which one party claims a monopoly. By selling their souls to advance this belief system, the media destroy their own credibility. Then they wonder why we don’t trust them.

‘Simply Not True.

Joe Biden believes he is honest, and that anyone who disagrees with him is lying, or is ignorant, or has been deceived by liars.

So deeply convinced is Joe Biden of his own honesty that he thinks his very name is synonymous with truth-telling:

“I give you my word as a Biden: I will never stoop to President Trump’s level.”
— Nov. 20, 2019

“I give you my word as a Biden: If I am elected president I will do everything in my power to protect our children from gun violence.”
— March 10, 2020

“I give you my word as a Biden: When I’m president, I will lead with science, listen to the experts and heed their advice, and always tell you the truth.”
— March 18, 2020

When I first noticed him using this “my word as a Biden” phrase during the 2020 campaign, I was puzzled. Has the Biden family been so prominently associated with honesty that when Joe says this, most Americans say, “Well, that settles it”? Of course not. In fact, Biden’s first presidential campaign, in 1988, collapsed in disgrace specifically because of Joe’s dishonesty, when he was caught plagiarizing others — most notably British Labour leader Ne0l Kinnock — in his speeches:

Democratic presidential candidate Joseph R. Biden Jr., a U.S. senator from Delaware, was driven from the nomination battle after delivering, without attribution, passages from a speech by British Labor party leader Neil Kinnock. A barrage of subsidiary revelations by the press also contributed to Biden’s withdrawal: a serious plagiarism incident involving Biden during his law school years; the senator’s boastful exaggerations of his academic record at a New Hampshire campaign event; and the discovery of other quotations in Biden’s speeches pilfered from past Democratic politicians.

Joe Biden lies about a lot of things, including his own biography. It is fair to say he is notoriously dishonest, and yet he seems to believe that nobody knows this, and that he enjoys a reputation as a truth-teller.


[Well, that ‘he seems to believe’ goes along with the delusions of senile dementia and SloJoe believing his own propaganda. Sucks for us to have a Commander In Chief who for the time, is no more than a meat puppet, It makes you wonder what might happen if one day Joe decides that his handlers are wrong and he’s going to do something other than what they want him to, and Jill – and the secret service – decide to back him up.]


Continue reading “”

Oregon and Washington lift mask requirements today

PORTLAND — After spending a majority of the pandemic under statewide indoor face covering requirements, Washington and Oregon will be lifting their mask mandates Saturday — marking a significant step in restoring normalcy.

The milestone, which comes two years after the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, is on trend with the rest of the country as public health orders were dropped in droves. Oregon and Washington are among the last states to lift mask requirements.

“We’re turning a page in our fight against the COVID virus,” Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said during a recent news conference.

Last month — as COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations drastically declined, following a surge caused by the omicron variant — Oregon and Washington’s Democratic governors announced that they would be lifting rules requiring masks in indoor public places and schools on March 12.

Continue reading “”

It’s like the goobermint’s policies depend on which way the politics might affect the next election (which is really all that most politicians worry about anyway…keeping that cushy seat on the .gov gravy train)


From “After 2 Years of Pandemic Life, Turn Toward Normalcy Is a Shake-Up/As the Omicron variant recedes, cities and states with the longest mask and vaccine mandates are rapidly lifting them. The abrupt shift has unsettled the most vigilant Americans” (New York Times):


“Several people said they felt whipsawed as Democratic mayors and governors who once championed safety measures as a public good and emblem of civic virtue now seemed ready to turn the page…”

“… on a pandemic that, while easing, is still killing more than 1,000 people every day across the United States…. ‘It feels like we’ve truly been left to die,’ said Elizabeth Kestrel Rogers, a writer in Mountain View, Calif., with cystic fibrosis. ‘It seems too much too soon, like people are giving up because they can’t be bothered anymore.’… ‘We just haven’t learned,’ Dr. David Goldberg, 32, an internal medicine physician, said as he and his wife took their 1-year-old daughter, Isabel, for a walk through their neighborhood in Richmond, Va. Parents of children younger than 5, who are not eligible to be vaccinated…. He said he was standing in line at a grocery store recently when a man next to him complained that he did not feel well. ‘I was like, Dude, what are you doing?’ Dr. Goldberg said. ‘I feel for parents who are just waiting. They feel left behind. Kids can get sick and they can die.'”

 

“The best of hands………..”


UPDATE…….

As per Standard Operating Procedure, the White House transcript ‘clarifies’  the foot-in-mouth.


Remarks by Vice President Harris at the DNC Winter Meeting

“So I will say what I know we all say, and I will say over and over again: The United States stands firmly with the Ukrainian people >>[and]<< in defense of the NATO Alliance.”


The “and” was added after the fact, as indicated by brackets.

Rolling Stone: “there are better, cheaper ways of powering our world with oil, gas, and coal”

According to Rolling Stone, the best way to defeat Putin is renewable energy, which despite being cheaper than coal seems to be taking a long time to manifest.

Putin Is a Fossil-Fuel Gangster. Clean Energy Could Cut Him Off at the Knees

Putin’s war on Ukraine is financed by Russia’s vast oil-and-gas wealth, but the conflict may signal the endgame for the carbon mafia

For decades, world leaders and Big Oil CEOs were happy to turn a blind eye to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s autocratic impulses and fantasies of empire building. They were all fossil-fuel junkies, hooked on the easy money of oil and gas, and Putin had plenty of it.

They helped finance pipelines and drilling rigs, and then bought as much oil and gas as he would sell them. For Putin, the cash from fossil fuels fired up his darkest ambitions.

It not only helped him build the military force that he sent into Ukraine, it also gave him the means to stash billions in offshore banks that he believed would allow him to weather any economic fallout from the war.…

Among other things, Putin miscalculated how fast the world is changing. Industrial nations are in the midst of what energy geeks like to call “a great transition” away from fossil fuels and toward clean-energy sources. It is driven by the simple and brutal understanding that if the rich, Western world continues to burn fossil fuels in the future the way it has in the past, we will literally cook the planet, making it uninhabitable for life as we know it today.

If there is any good news to come out of the horrific carnage inflicted by this war, it’s this: Instead of slowing the transition to clean energy, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine may well have supercharged it. And however the war ends, Putin will pay the price. Russian oil and gas is now forever linked to autocracy, war crimes, and human carnage. “The war marks the end of Russia as an energy superpower,” says Tsafos.…

Predictably, Republicans and their corrupt band of climate crooks and deniers immediately used the invasion of Ukraine as an excuse to deepen our dependence on fossil fuels, not free ourselves from it. They willfully ignored the simple truth that there are better, cheaper ways of powering our world with oil, gas, and coal. To them fossil fuels are the energy equivalent of testosterone. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio tweeted that Biden’s “war on American oil and gas” made Putin stronger. South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem told Fox News that “from the very day [Biden] got into the White House, he gave Putin all the power.”…

Read more: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/putin-russia-ukraine-fossil-fuels-climate-change-1319417/

If renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuel, where is it? How many trillions have been wasted on useless renewables in Europe? Yet that Russian gas still keeps flowing.

Putin gets the joke. So long as European rulers and their cheerleaders cling to the delusion that renewable energy has anything to offer in terms of independence from the Russian gas teat, Putin will have a stranglehold on Europe.

 

It really doesn’t have to be this way. If Europe ditched their delusional belief in renewables, and embraced energy solutions which actually work, like scaling up coal mining and fracking in the short term, and a French style nuclear programme for the medium to long term, they would not be in the pathetic position begging Putin to maintain the flow of gas, even as Russia’s armies destroy one of their fellow European nations.

Why is this happening? Why are European nations finding it so difficult to behave rationally about energy policy, and take obvious countermeasures in the face of Russia’s energy blackmail, and the very real chance the Ukraine is just the beginning of Putin’s territorial ambitions?

I don’t have a good answer to those questions. But history contains plenty of examples of nations which responded irrationally to problems, and didn’t take obvious measures to counter external threats. Such nations are described in painstaking detail, in books whose titles start with “The fall of…”.

It wasn’t for the benefit of the children, but the state


Why Government Schooling Came to America.

In the first two essays in this series on the relationship between government and the education of children (“How the Redneck Intellectual Discovered Educational Freedom—and How You Can, Too” and “The New Abolitionism: A Manifesto for a Movement”), I established, first, how and why the principle of “Separation of School and State” is both a logical and moral necessity grounded in the rights of nature, and then I demonstrated how and why America’s government schools should be abolished as logical and moral necessities.

In this essay, I’d like to drill down more deeply into the nature and purposes of government schooling in order to further demonstrate how and why a system of government-run education is anathema to the tradition of American freedom and therefore immoral. Let me be clear (if I haven’t been so already): I regard the government school system to be the single worst and most destructive institution in America. It cannot be “reformed,” and it cannot be tolerated. Period. It must, therefore, be abolished.

To that end, it is important to understand how and why government schooling came to the United States in the first place. Most Americans today assume that the “public” school system is as American as apple pie, that it has been around since the first foundings of Britain’s North American colonies in the seventeenth century or at least since the founding of the United States of American in 1788. But this is not true.

In the longue durée of American history from the early seventeenth century to the present, the government school system is actually a relatively recent phenomenon. A system of nation-wide government schools was not fully implemented in this country until about 100 years ago.

Let’s begin with a brief journey through the early history of American education to see when, why, and how the American people gave up their unalienable right to educate their children and turned it over to government officials.

Early America’s System of Education

For almost 250 years, the education of children, first in England’s North American colonies and then in the United States of America up until the Civil War, was almost an entirely private affair. Parents had the freedom to choose the education, ideas, and values that they wanted for their children. The government was not involved in educating children. This is the great forgotten story of American history.

During this quarter millennium, children were typically educated in one of four ways. They were either homeschooled or they attended one of three different kinds of schools: 1) tuition-charging private schools; 2) charitable or “free” private schools established by philanthropists and religious societies; or 3) semi-public “district” schools (later known in the nineteenth century as “common schools”).

The so-called “district” schools of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries are held up today by proponents of government schooling to suggest that government-run education has existed in America since the seventeenth century. But this is not true.

Existing mostly in New England, these “district” schools were what we might call “neighborhood” schools that were built and monitored by the parents of the children who attended them, and they were financed by a combination of tuition charges, local taxes, and mutual-aid societies. These neighborhood schools were controlled entirely by parents, who chose and supplied the textbooks and who hired and fired teachers. Though partially funded by local taxes, these neighborhood schools were not government schools in any meaningful way. The government did not determine who was hired, nor did it determine what was taught.

In all instances, schooling in America until the twentieth century was highly decentralized. Many if not most of the tuition-charging or “free” schools, particularly those in more populous areas, were run by individual men or women who simply hung out a shingle, advertised for students, and ran a school out of their home. Some of these schools taught only the Three R’s, while others offered classical curricula where students were taught classical Greek and Latin. It was in one of these “home” schools that John Adams first learned the ancient languages.

This decentralized, parent-driven form of schooling was how the generation of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison was educated. Not a single one of America’s founding fathers attended a government school. The very idea is and was anathema to a free society.

It is therefore imperative that we understand why government schools were ever established in the United States.

One thing is certain: America’s system of government schooling was not established because the extant system of private schooling was failing to educate America’s children. Quite the opposite.

American schooling in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was highly democratic, in the sense that virtually all children received some kind or degree of education. They did so because that’s what their parents wanted for them, thereby dispelling the calumny that parents won’t do whatever it takes to make sure their children are educated in a free-market system of education or schooling. In economic terms, the supply met the demand.

Not surprisingly, Americans educated their children to a very high degree—indeed, to such a high degree that America had the highest literacy rates of any country in the world!  European visitors to the United States were astonished by the levels of education achieved in the United States. In his National Education in the United States (1812) published forty years before the introduction of government schooling, Pierre Samuel Du Pont de Nemours expressed his astonishment at the extraordinary literacy rate he saw amongst ordinary Americans.

Likewise, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America that the Americans were “the most enlightened people on earth.” Even on the frontier where schools and libraries were in short supply, Tocqueville noted that one-room cabins hidden deep in the woods typically contained a copy of the Bible and multiple newspapers.

All of this was achieved without government schools.

And then, everything changed.

Government Schooling Comes to America

America’s experiment with universal compulsory education (i.e., government schooling), which began in earnest in the years immediately before the Civil War and picked up steam in the postbellum period, was created with different purposes in mind than just teaching children the Three R’s and a body of historical, moral, and literary knowledge to help them live productive, self-governing lives.

The early proponents of government schooling in nineteenth-century America imagined new and different goals for educating children. The advocates for forced schooling took the highly authoritarian, nineteenth-century Prussian model as their beau idéal.

The leading proponent of government schooling in Prussia and the man from whom the Americans learned the most was the philosopher Johann Fichte (1762-1814), who, in his Addresses to the German Nation (1807), called for “a total change of the existing system of education” in order to preserve “the existence of the German nation.” The goal of this new education system was to “mould the Germans into a corporate body, which shall be stimulated and animated in all its individual members by the same interest.” This new national system of education, Fichte argued, must apply “to every German without exception” and every child must be taken from parents and “separated altogether from the community.” Fichte recommended that the German schools “must fashion [the student], and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than you wish him to will,” so that the pupil might go “forth at the proper time as a fixed and unchangeable machine.” Children should therefore be taught “a love of order” and the “system of government must be arranged in such a way that the individual must . . . work and act, for the sake of the community.”

The highest purpose of Prussian education was summed up by one of its later proponents, Franz de Hovre:

The prime fundamental of German education is that it is based on a national principle. Kulture is the great capital of the German nation. . . . A fundamental feature of German education; Education to the State, Education for the State, Education by the State. The Volkschule is a direct result of a national principle aimed at the national unity. The State is the supreme end in view.

This kind of education was virtually unknown to Americans until the nineteenth century, and it was anathema to everything that the founders’ liberalism stood for.

We know America’s earliest proponents of government schooling were enamored with the Prussian model because they were explicit in saying so. Some of them went to Germany to see exactly what the Germans were doing, and they became advocates of Prussian schooling when they returned to America.

Continue reading “”

What Did She Say? Here’s the Braindead Remarks DC Offered About the Latest Fatal Carjacking in the City

What did DC Mayor Muriel Bowser just say? I had to do a double-take. The recent carjacking in Washington DC that left a man dead was…not intentional. The killing wasn’t on purpose. That’s the line here? It doesn’t matter, Bowser. It really doesn’t. You can still be charged and sent to jail for accidentally killing people. What reality are Democrats living in here? Soft on crime has rotten the Left’s brains where they think if a crime was committed by accident, then it’s not a crime. Nope. It’s a crime. In the real world with real people and real laws, committing a crime is bad and people get sent to jail for it. At times, probation and penalties are involved. In severe cases, the state puts the perpetrator to death. This is not deep stuff, mayor.

Here’s the backstory that prompted this heinous remark from the mayor (via Fox5DC): MedStar doctor is dead after police say he was struck and killed by his own vehicle that had just been stolen from him in Northwest D.C. That MedStar Doctor has been identified as 33-year-old Rakesh Patel, of Silver Spring. His parents drove from Ohio to identify his body.

The incident began a little after 8 p.m. Tuesday in the 1800 block of Vernon Street NW. Officers say Patel’s vehicle was left running in that area. A close friend of the victim’s girlfriend, Kristine Froeba, told FOX 5 Patel went to drop off something to his girlfriend that night. The two were hugging goodbye when Froeba said the couple saw Patel’s vehicle start to move.

Police say an unknown suspect entered the Mercedes and drove off east on Vernon St. Patel apparently pursued his stolen car.

He “probably didn’t intend to kill anybody,” Bowser said regarding the incident.

How have we come to this? Mayor, this may be hard for a liberal Democrat like yourself to understand, but criminals are bad people. This car thief is a murderer. He should be sent away for a long time if caught. How is this hard? He didn’t mean to kill anyone. That is beyond irrelevant in this case. He stole a car and killed someone. This person is criminal trash. End of story.

There’s this addiction among liberals that seeks to refrain from calling criminals out for who they are in society.

This red tape right here:

Biden’s U.S. Oil Embargo
His assault on domestic energy works against his ban on Russian imports.

President Biden made the right decision Tuesday in banning Russian oil and natural gas imports. Yet at the same time he declared full-steam ahead on his green energy “transition” that includes an assault on U.S. fossil fuels. The contradiction is maddening.
Banning Russian energy imports is fine as far as it goes, which isn’t very. The U.S. imports only 3% of its petroleum supply and less than 1% of coal from Russia. About 70% of Russian oil currently can’t find buyers because of sanctions risk. That’s the main reason crude prices have shot up to $130 per barrel.
Once uncertainty about the scope of sanctions clears up, Russia will probably find global buyers for its energy at a discount. Imposing so-called secondary U.S. sanctions on institutions that finance Russia’s energy trade would be more effective. But the White House won’t do that because it fears it could drive gasoline prices even higher.
If that’s the worry, then here’s a better idea: Stand at the White House and declare that his Administration will support the development of U.S. oil and gas. Rescind all regulations designed to curb production, development and consumption. Announce a moratorium on new ones. Expedite permits, and encourage investment. Our guess is the price of Brent crude would fall $20 a barrel in anticipation of higher production.
Yet Mr. Biden is doing precisely the opposite. On Tuesday he even blamed U.S. companies—not his policies—for not producing more. There are 9,000 available unused drilling permits, he claimed, and only 10% of onshore oil production takes place on federal land. Talk about a misdirection play.
First, companies have to obtain additional permits for rights of way to access leases and build pipelines to transport fuel. This has become harder under the Biden Administration. Second, companies must build up a sufficient inventory of permits before they can contract rigs because of the regulatory difficulties of operating on federal land.

Continue reading “”

I don’t agree with her original premise, primarily because the Senate, with its 60 vote cloture barrier to stop ‘debate’ quite often kills legislation proposed from both sides of the aisle, and the Senate and the House also have to have a super majority to override a veto from an adversarial President.
And anything passed by a convention would still need to be ratified by 3/4 (that’s 38) of the states.

However this is still an important question about the proposal for a constitutional convention.

If Conservatives Can’t Get Good Laws, How Can They Run An Article V Convention?

A conservative movement that cannot elect good lawmakers is unlikely to control an Article V Convention of the States.

Recently in The Federalist, I asked, “Why is the Right Betting the Constitution on an Article V Convention?” Mark Meckler, who heads the Convention of States (CoS) Project, wrote a countering essay, arguing that an Article V Convention of the States must be a good idea because left-wing groups oppose it.

Meckler’s Exhibit A is an amusing video of Hillary Clinton, America’s mistress of deceit, and a list of leftist groups said to oppose the CoS project. Of course, leftists object to anything conservatives propose. Witness Kamala Harris saying she would not take a Covid-19 vaccine if President Trump said to take it. They also don’t tell the truth, so it’s unclear if their real goals differ from their stated desires.

Meckler quibbles about whether he is promoting an Article V “Convention of the States” or a “Constitutional Convention”—usually called “Con-Con.” That no-difference distinction does not change language in your pocket Constitution: “The Congress . . . on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments . . .” Article V specifies that three-fourths of the states must ratify amendments, but it says nothing about operating procedures for the convention.

For the sake of discussion, I’ll concede that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi won’t take control of the convention, even though she violated congressional rules when setting up her January 6 commission. I’ll also concede that Republicans control 31 legislatures at this time.

Whether political dynamics like these will remain static until 34 states file convention applications with Congress is a matter of speculation. Meckler should concede that the 50 states are independent sovereign political entities, both red and blue, and not monolithic. All would act in their politicians’ interests.

Even in red states, Republicans may not have the will, power, or votes to appoint or elect only conservatives. That is already the case with many elected Republican officials. Most delegates also likely would be politicians appointed by the same politicians who keep accepting budget-busting federal grants and, in 2020, allowed state officials to change or override election procedures.

Meckler claims there are historical precedents for convention procedures, citing previous state or regional conventions. None of these was an Article V event. A search of the WestLaw legal database reveals no federal court decisions addressing procedures for an Article V Convention of the States.

Delegates to an unprecedented convention of both red and blue states would horse-trade and compete for power to decide credentials, rules, agenda, and possible amendments. This is what conventions do.

Conservatives should be wary. Regardless of how an Article V convention of the states is called or who promises what, optimistic expectations cannot be guaranteed. Progressive delegates could easily dominate the proceedings from beginning to end, including ratifications.

Given the pre-election shenanigans seen in 2020, why wouldn’t they? The concern here is not about a “runaway” convention, but an event that does exactly what progressive state delegates want.

Meckler promises that a Convention of the States would only consider amendments within the broad scope of issues mentioned in the application language. Once the gavel drops, however, convention delegates could propose “amendments” with radical, unexpected consequences.

For example, it is not difficult to imagine the language of a proposed Human Life Amendment being gutted to codify Roe v. Wade. Law Professor Emeritus William A. Woodruff explains how with a thought-provoking point:

Amendments can be used to accomplish something way beyond the original proposal. Consider how we got the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). In 2009 the House passed a military housing bill (HR 3590) and sent it to the Senate. Democrats needed to quickly pass Obamacare while they still held a Senate super majority. They amended HR 3590 by erasing everything except the bill number and substituting the Affordable Care Act legislation.

The ‘amended’ bill, which looked nothing like the House-approved HR 3590, passed the Senate 60-39 and was sent back to the House for a 219-212 favorable vote. Only majority votes would prevent similar unpleasant surprises at a Convention of the States.

Someone could propose limitation of the Supreme Court to nine justices, but the convention could substitute an amendment specifying 18-year, staggered terms for Supreme Court justices. One of three Progressive, Libertarian, and Conservative Draft Constitutions set forth by the Constitution Drafting Project already proposed this. The same Draft Constitution recommended reducing the number of senators to one per state, chosen by each state legislature and limited to nine years, and a single six-year term for presidents.

The revised Second Amendment would ban infringement on the right to keep and bear arms of the sort ordinarily used for self-defense or recreational purposes . . .” and the States may “. . . enact and enforce reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms, and the keeping of arms by persons determined, with due process, to be dangerous to themselves or others.”

The excerpt is from the Conservative Draft Constitution, not the Progressive one. Some concepts make sense and others are unacceptable, but sober debate and guaranteed outcomes in a convention of both red and blue states would not be possible.

Meckler promises conservatives that the ratification process would prevent harmful consequences, but the argument concedes that a convention could produce bad amendments. Show me a conservative movement that cannot elect good lawmakers to pass good laws, and I’ll show you a conservative movement unlikely to control the delegates, rules, or outcome of an Article V Convention of the States.

Three-fourths of the states could block progressive amendments, but huge costs will have been wasted on a multi-stage constitutional crisis that produces nothing worthwhile. Time, money, and energy would be better spent electing good people and working for sound policies that might restore confidence in government.

We are talking about the U.S. Constitution, the splendid document that underlies our republic if—as Benjamin Franklin said—we can keep it. My initial question remains unanswered: what justifies a high-stakes gamble with the Constitution? If this risky wager is lost, conservatives will ask the saddest question of all: Where do we go to get our Constitution back?

“People who don’t even buy guns are coming in and buying magazines just because they might buy a gun someday.”


Sales of high-capacity magazines brisk as bill banning them heads to Governor’s desk

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Business is brisk at this local gun shop, three days after a historic vote banning the sale of high-capacity magazines in our state.

The legislation cleared the Washington State Senate last Friday and is now headed to Governor Jay Inslee’s desk.

The bill bans all gun magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, making Washington State the 10th state to do so.

There is now a big demand for these magazines. A lot of people appear to be stocking up on them.

That has people here saying law-abiding gun owners are once again being penalized for the actions of criminals.

“These are all going to be banned,” said Tiffany Teasdale. “It’s a lot of our inventory.”

These are the waning days for Lynnwood Gun and Ammunition.

Teasdale and her business partner are closing shop after eight years. She says it is a coincidence that the Washington state legislature has voted to ban the sale of high-capacity magazines, just as she’s shutting down her business.

The vote is already impacting her store.

“People who don’t even buy guns are coming in and buying magazines just because they might buy a gun someday,” said Teasdale.

“Yeah, I think there’ll be a short-term impact where people go out and buy the ones that you can legally access,” said Sen. Marko Liias, the 21st District Democrat who sponsored the legislation.

He says his goal is to prevent mass shootings like what happened in his district in Mukilteo in 2016.

A 2015 Kamiak High School graduate killed three fellow graduates, including an ex-girlfriend, seemingly on impulse.

“And so, taking these products off the shelf means that folks who are disturbed like he was won’t be able to access that when they get into that, into that dark place,” said Liias.

Senate Bill 5078 will prevent anyone in this state from manufacturing, distributing, possessing, buying or selling high-capacity magazines — anything that holds more than 10 rounds.

Senator Liias says he believes the bill will save innocent lives.

“We know in states where they have passed a law like this, they see lower levels of mass shooting violence,” he said. “And that’s my goal.”

“They’re saying that this magazine is going to promote public safety,” said Tiffany Teasdale, holding a high-capacity magazine.

She says the bill will mostly penalize law-abiding gun owners.

“Just because they are banned for law-abiding citizens,” says Teasdale, “doesn’t mean criminals aren’t going to have them.”

She says a better deterrent is to adequately fund the police and prosecute the criminals they catch.

Senator Liias says if the governor signs the bill, it could become law in mid-June.

‘The Trace’ (Yes, ‘The Trace’) Reveals the Lie Behind San Jose’s New Gun Owner Liability Insurance Law

[Sam] Liccardo, the mayor, has said that safe gun behavior will determine insurance rates and lead to discounts. He told Slate last month: “When you notify the insurance company, the insurance company can start to ask questions like, ‘Do you have a gun safe? Do you have a trigger lock? Have you taken gun safety classes?’ And those kinds of actions can help to reduce the premium.”

But experts we spoke with said insurance companies won’t be asking these questions, and gun owner behavior probably won’t influence rates, because the ordinance only requires policies that cover accidental shootings, which are rare in San Jose. “It’s totally oversold,” said George Mocsary, a law professor at the University of Wyoming. “I think it’s an idea that makes sense on the surface. But when you dig into it a little bit, it essentially falls apart.”

A spokesperson for the Mayor’s Office, Rachel Davis, told us that staffers reached out to “over a dozen” insurance companies and that all of them asked about risk factors. These included whether children lived in the home, whether someone was on medication for depression, whether there is a gun safe, how many guns were in the house, and if the gun owner had safety training. But Davis didn’t say how these factors would affect premiums.

“While there’s a clause in most policies that covers negligent gun harm, it’s up to the gun owner to disclose more information that could affect their rates,” Davis said in an emailed response to our questions. “It’s also up to each of the insurance companies to define their policy requirements and up to residents to find the insurance policy that will work for them.” Davis insists that when gun owners file a claim, they will be asked about risk factors like gun storage, and the answers to those questions will determine whether a shooting is covered.

We reached out to several major insurance providers for more details about how the policies will work, but only three got back to us. Farmers and State Farm, referred us to [Janet] Ruiz of the Insurance Information Institute, while AAA said in a statement: “AAA supports the safety and security of our communities, which is why we offer insurance covering a broad scope of losses. We are reviewing the newly passed ordinance to determine whether it affects our products.”

According to the Pacific Institute study, San Jose has an average of two unintentional shooting deaths per year. The nonprofit Gun Violence Archive, meanwhile, has recorded just three unintentional shootings in San Jose since 2015, resulting in two deaths and two injuries. Those figures may be an undercount — GVA bases its tallies on news and police reports, which can be incomplete — but even so, none of those shootings would have been covered by San Jose’s gun owners insurance because they all resulted in criminal charges.

According to Mocsary, the rarity of unintentional shootings make the odds of ever paying out on a claim so low that “the insurance companies just don’t care.” “They’ve already had the opportunity to do the actuarial math on this, and they found that it makes no difference,” he added. If risky gun behaviors affected their bottom line, insurers would already be asking about them. “And they don’t,” he said.

That contradicts a major selling point of the ordinance: the claim that risk-adjusted premiums will encourage gun owners to take safety courses and invest in gun safes, trigger locks, or chamber-load indicators.

— Jennifer Mascia in Will Requiring Gun Owners to Buy Insurance Improve Firearm Safety?

WA Gun Owner Fury Erupts as Lawmakers Pass Magazine Ban

By a 55-42 dead-of-night vote, the Washington State House of Representatives has passed a ban on rifle and pistol magazines holding more than 10 cartridges (including magazines for rimfire rifles), causing outrage among Evergreen State grassroots activists who will be looking unseat as many Democrats as possible in the November 2022 election.

Senate Bill 5078 goes to the desk of anti-gun Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee, who has already vowed to sign it. Two Democrat House members—Reps. Kirsten Harris-Talley from Seattle and Steve Kirby from Tacoma—voted against the measure, breaking ranks from their majority Democrat colleagues.

The vote came about two weeks after Liberty Park Press published a revealing report about the ineffectiveness of magazine capacity limit that many readers sent to their state lawmakers.

The late-night Friday vote was hailed by anti-gun Democrat Attorney General Bob Ferguson in a tweet now posted at the Facebook page of the Washington 2022 Legislative Action Group. The legislation was introduced at Ferguson’s request by Democrat Sen. Marko Liias of Lynnwood.

“Today is the fulfillment of years of hard work from so many,” Ferguson wrote. “More than five years ago, I stood with the parents of shooting victims, legislators, mayors, police chiefs and representatives from faith communities to say enough is enough, and proposed banning the sale of high-capacity magazines in Washington state. Today, our Legislature chose public safety over the gun lobby, and I am deeply appreciative of their service. This policy will save lives and make our communities safer from gun violence.”

 

But Wade Gaughran, owner of a Bellevue gun range and firearms retail business, reacted bluntly, telling KING News, “There’s no way that an intelligent person is going to look at this law and see that it would stop or limit or change the of any kind of mass shooting.”

He predicted a surge in magazine purchasing, a notion reinforced by an announcement from at least one firm—Palmetto State Armory—announced it will prioritize orders from Washington State residents: “All magazine orders placed from Washington State with Palmetto State Armory with ship out immediately and receive priority over all other orders.”

Dan Mitchell, owner of Vancouver’s Sporting Systems, posted a “Fact Sheet” about the magazine ban, which included a depiction of the state flag with dictatorial overtones.

Continue reading “”

“The deep commitment to an Iran nuclear deal that makes no sense has me convinced that a lot of people are either being bribed or blackmailed.”
–Prof. Reynolds

Joe Biden Spits on US Allies to Secure a Deal That Makes No Sense.

While the Biden administration has done its best to hide the ongoing negotiations, you’ve probably been made aware by now that a new JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran is in the works.

Guess who’s at the forefront of helping secure that deal? That would be none other than Vladimir Putin, who the United States is ostensibly at economic war with over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. About now, you are probably asking how that makes any sense at all. But stick around, because I promise you that it gets even worse.

Recently, I wrote two articles noting the seeming subservience of the Biden administration to Russia (see here and here), even as Biden himself has trotted out the tough-guy talk for a gullible public. Yet, behind the scenes, it appears that a deal with Iran has taken priority, even as Putin continues to bomb cities in Ukraine.

But hang on, I told you things would get worse. According to Kenneth Vogul, the Biden administration is now looking to normalize relations with the communist Maduro regime in Venezuela. How does that connect with the Iran deal? We’ll get to that in a moment.

 

Ostensibly, this action is being taken to help separate Venezuela from Russia. But anyone who is able to critically think and possesses a modicum of knowledge regarding international relations will quickly realize how dumb that contention is. Venezuela and Russia are allies, to the point where the latter held nuclear exercises there back in 2018. Russia has also been a supplier of commodities and materials to Venezuela as the South American nation has suffered under Western sanctions.

Now, does anyone think a quick visit from the Biden administration is going to “drive a wedge” between Venezuela and Russia given the relationship that exists between the two nations? In short, the Times’ spin on the matter, no doubt meant to protect the White House, doesn’t add up.

There is something that does add up though, and it connects to the Iran deal.

 

That makes much more sense. Russia has reportedly been making demands as part of its role in negotiating the new Iran deal. Putin having one of its chief allies legitimized on the world stage, setting up the framework to have sanctions removed while expanding Russia’s sphere of influence, sounds like a pretty good win for the Russian leader, doesn’t it?

In short, Biden’s pursuit of a boondoggle Iran deal boils down to empowering Russia and spitting on our allies, whether we are talking about Ukraine, Israel, or Venezuela’s democratically elected government. And for what? What is the United States getting out of a deal with Iran? There is no strategic interest there, especially given Israel, which does actually have a direct strategic interest, is against the JCPOA.

Again, nothing about this makes sense, and when nothing makes sense, it’s probably time to start asking tougher questions about what lies beneath the surface. Why have the last two Democrat-led presidencies been so obsessed with making a deal with Iran? Who is gaining what here? Are there payoffs involved? Why is Russia even a part of the negotiations given its behavior in Ukraine?

It seems the Biden administration is willing to do just about anything to hand the Iranian Mullahs another big win. That shouldn’t just be extremely concerning, it should be a scandal.

What with the earlier stories of the power behind the throne looking for ways to get rid of Kamalalalamadingdong, I wasn’t the first person to have ‘Ron Brown?’ pop into mind.


God Help Us: White House May Send Kamala to Europe for Diplomatic Mission.

Joe Biden was unable to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine, but now the White House is considering a new strategy. According to The Hill, there are active discussions about “sending Vice President Harris to Warsaw, Poland, and Bucharest, Romania, in the coming days to show solidarity with Ukraine as it faces an escalating Russian invasion.”

“The discussions involve sending Harris to visit troops stationed in Romania and potentially to the border with Ukraine, where a refugee crisis has seen more than 1 million people flee that country since the Russian attack,” the report continues. “The trip could happen in the coming weeks, one source said, adding that there is no active dialogue about sending President Biden to the region.”

“A presidential visit is a heavier logistical lift,” the source told The Hill. “The vice president has a smaller footprint and is historically more nimble.” The White House declined to comment, but one official was sure to make it known that Harris has been “deeply involved in the administration’s engagement with allies and partners.”

Harris spoke separately with the leaders of various European allies earlier this week to discuss Russia’s invasion.

“You can expect the vice president will continue to engage with allies and partners on these issues,” the official added.

And how well have her diplomatic skills worked so far? Last month, before Russia invaded Ukraine, Harris was at the  Munich Security Conference, during which she threatened Russia with “severe consequences” if they invaded Ukraine. That obviously worked out well.

Republicans brutally mocked her visit.

“Biden is deploying Kamala Harris to Europe to help ease Russia-Ukraine tensions,” Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) tweeted at the time. “Right, because she’s doing so well with our southern border…”

“I doubt [Putin’s] sitting back at the Kremlin right now shaking because Kamala Harris is over there,” Rep Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told Newsmax at the time. “She can’t even find our southern border, much less the Ukrainian border. This is a joke, this is a travesty.”

After the failed trip, Harris continued to inspire zero confidence that she is capable of effective diplomacy or even understands world affairs. Earlier this week, in an attempt to explain the Russian invasion in layman’s terms, Harris said in a radio interview that “Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine, so basically, that’s wrong.”

Clearly, Harris doesn’t know what she’s doing, and for the White House to be even considering sending her back to Europe is a horrible joke.

Not surprisingly, crimes like this aren’t happening all that much in places where demoncraps aren’t in charge of the goobermint


Carjackings in cities like NYC, Philadelphia jump over 200% – often with kids behind the wheel, officials say.

Carjackings have skyrocketed 200% — or more — in multiple big cities across the county in past years, as law enforcement officials and crime experts pleaded with lawmakers on Tuesday for help addressing the rampant issue, with one official warning: “Anyone in a car is a potential victim.”

“The primary goal is to do our best to ensure that no one has a gun in their face demanding their car in the first place.”

— Dallas Police Chief Edgardo “Eddie” Garcia, to Fox News Digital

Law enforcement executives and officials from crime monitoring agencies from across the country convened on Capitol Hill on Tuesday morning to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a hearing to address the startling trends related to carjackings. During his time at the microphone, National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) president and CEO David Glawe revealed some cities saw carjacking upticks as high as more than 280% between 2019 and 2021.

Carjackings have soared by 286% in New York City from 2019 to 2021, while Philadelphia saw the second-highest increase, with 238, the NICB found. Chicago followed with the third-highest increase, 207%, from 2019 to 2021, then Washington, D.C. with a 200% increase and New Orleans with 159%, Glawe told lawmakers.

“A disturbing subplot to these bleak numbers is that many carjackings are often committed in furtherance of other serious violent crimes, and many carjackings are committed by juveniles are committed by juveniles — some as young as 11 years old,” Glawe explained.

Glawe was joined by Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart, Metropolitan Family Services executive director Vaughn Bryant, Alliance for Automotive Innovation president and CEO John Bozzella, former U.S. Attorney Justin Herdman and Dallas Police Department Chief Edgardo “Eddie” Garcia.

Garcia, who also spoke on behalf of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, testified that the increase in carjackings is being driven by certain factors, such as financial gain and to further other violent criminal activity.

“Many of these carjackings are also committed by juveniles seeking to gain notoriety on social media or as part of gang initiations,” he said.

He pointed to reluctant prosecutors and judges who “continue to release violent and repeat offenders pretrial,” and noted that the challenges also apply to juvenile offenders.

Continue reading “”