Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

These people somehow believe a foreign entity has some kind of say.

International Tribunal Lawsuit an Unconstitutional Attempt to Subvert Second Amendment

“If the US can’t fix its gun policy, maybe an international lawsuit can,” attorney and Global Action on Gun Violence (GAGV) President Jonathan Lowy declares in an opinion piece in The Boston Globe. “Lax US gun policy has caused an international public health and safety crisis, and blatantly violates human rights laws.”

Lowy, former Chief Counsel and VP Legal for Brady, “filed papers … under the Foreign Agents Registration Act to provide legal and consulting services to the government of Mexico and plans to work with other nations on similar efforts,” Time reported in 2022. “Lowy has already worked with the government of Mexico and lawyers in Canada to file three lawsuits against U.S. gunmakers in the last four years.” (The Mexican government argued that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) does not extend to damages caused in Mexican territory and tiled an appeal after its $10B complaint was dismissed in a Boston federal court last year).

“Joaquin Oliver v USA was filed in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an independent legal body of the Organization of American States,” New York advertising agency Zulu Alpha Kilo announced in September. “The lawsuit argues that Inter-American human rights law requires the United States to prevent firearms manufacturers, distributors, and dealers from recklessly making and selling guns in ways that cause deaths and injuries.

“The US, like other nations, is obligated to protect the exercise of these human rights; a State cannot simply tolerate its people to be systematically and repeatedly deprived of their lives,” the publicity release elaborated. “The suit explains that US gun policies and the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions are inconsistent with the human right to live that the US is required to respect, and enable the gun industry to profit from crime throughout the region.”

The ones truly profiting, of course, are corrupt Mexican officials and their cartel patrons, who aren’t getting actual military equipment and grenades from U.S. gun shops and onesie-twosie “straw purchasers.”

That Lowy’s shakedown effort is being managed by professional ad agency spin doctors says much in terms of Astroturf vs. grassroots. Gun owners have seen before the misinformation that results from high production value “PSAs” representing themselves as reliable documentation instead of what they really are – scripted commercials engineered to get the viewers to “buy” something. So where’s the money coming from?

Continue reading “”

Analysis: ‘One Weird Trick’ to Uphold Gun Restrictions Returns to Federal Court

particularly flimsy legal theory has reappeared in federal Second Amendment litigation.

On Monday, US District Judge John L. Kane upheld Colorado’s three-day waiting period for gun purchases. He ruled the sales restriction didn’t violate the Second Amendment. His reasoning? The Second Amendment doesn’t actually protect gun sales at all.

“After examining the language of the Second Amendment using the Supreme Court’s analysis in Heller, I find, for the purposes of Plaintiffs’ Motion, that the plain text does not cover the waiting period required by the Act,” he wrote in Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis. “This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the Act is a regulation on the commercial sale of firearms and thus is presumptively permissible.”

Judge Kane, a Jimmy Carter appointee, said the state’s restriction passes the Second Amendment test established in the Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision by effectively short-circuiting it. Instead of examining the historical record for analogs to the modern waiting period, he argued that was unnecessary because the “right to keep and bear arms” doesn’t directly mention a right to buy, make, or sell them.

“From this reading of the plain text, it is clear the relevant conduct impacted by the waiting period—the receipt of a paid-for firearm without delay—is not covered,” he wrote. “Still, Plaintiffs attempt to equate the words ‘obtain’ and ‘possess.’ But these terms are not equivalent. To ‘keep,’ under the definitions provided in Heller, meant to retain an object one already possessed. It did not mean to receive a newly paid-for item, and it certainly did not mean to receive that item without delay. Likewise, ‘hav[ing] weapons’ indicates the weapons are already in one’s possession, not that one is receiving them.”

As I said when a judge in the Ninth Circuit employed the same logic to uphold a homemade gun ban last year, this is like a “one weird trick that plaintiffs hate” theory of Bruen. There’s no need to perform the analysis the Supreme Court requires if you cut the case off before it even really begins.

“Though it leads with a recognition of the primacy of Bruen’s ‘plain text’ point, [the plaintiff] seeks in its opening brief to jump ahead in the analysis to a historical/tradition assessment (and to jump ahead in Bruen to that decision’s discussion of how to conduct such an assessment),” Judge George H. Wu wrote in his ruling rejecting a request for a preliminary injunction against California’s ban on unserialized homemade guns. “But it has effectively attempted to avoid the necessary threshold consideration – does the ‘Second Amendment’s plain text’ cover the issue here? No, it plainly does not. AB 1621 has nothing to do with ‘keep[ing]’ or ‘bear[ing]’ arms.”

There has been a lot of disagreement among the lower court as to how best to implement the Bruen test. Judges have come down on different sides of whether the same restrictions have relevantly similar historical analogues. That disagreement will likely continue until the Supreme Court steps in and further clarifies how lower courts should carry out its test–a process it’s expected to start in its current case United States v. Rahimi.

But the idea that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms but not the right to make or acquire arms isn’t likely to be part of that clarification. It’s simply too cute by half. The argument makes you wonder what exactly Judge Kane and Wu think the point of protecting keeping and bearing arms is if the government can simply ban their manufacture or sale.

Judge Kane seemed to realize this because he did go through an attempt to do the actual Bruen analysis. He ruled that the law would still stand even if the Second Amendment protects sales. He argued colonial-era laws that disarmed intoxicated people were relevantly similar to the waiting period because both aimed at “preventing impulsive acts of firearm violence.”

“These measures are sufficient to show that our Nation had a historical tradition of regulating the carrying and use of firearms by intoxicated individuals,” Judge Kane wrote. “Plaintiffs do not seem to dispute this determination, but instead focus on whether those regulations are ‘relevantly similar’ to the Waiting-Period Act. For the purposes of this proceeding, I hold that they are.”

That line of argument doesn’t seem much more likely to persuade the Supreme Court–if it ever makes it that far up the ladder. But it at least engages with the test the Court handed down. The idea that the Second Amendment provides no protection at all to the act of acquiring arms is little more than an attempt to hand wave away Bruen.

There’s a subset of people in the U.S. who hate the idea of RKBA and the Supreme Court’s rulings and will do anything possible to sabotage them

Federal Judge Declares No Right to Acquire a Gun

If we possess a right to keep and bear firearms, it stands to reason that we must also have the right to acquire one, but according to a federal judge in Colorado no such right exists.

U.S. District Judge John L. Kane, an 86-year-old appointee of Jimmy Carter back in 1977, made the eyebrow-raising decision in a case known as Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis, which challenges Colorado’s newly-enacted three-day waiting period on all gun sales. Kane denied the group’s request for an injunction that would have halted enforcement of the waiting period while the litigation continues, ruling the plain text of the Second Amendment only covers the right to keep and bear a firearm, not to purchase or acquire one for lawful purposes.

Plaintiffs contend that the words “keep” and “bear” in the Second Amendment are implicated by the waiting period required by the Act. In Heller, the Supreme Court examined the “normal meaning” of those words at the time of the Nation’s founding, reviewing definitions from contemporaneous dictionaries. As the Court explained, the 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language “defined ‘keep’ as, most relevantly, ‘[t]o retain; not to lose,’ and ‘[t]o have in custody.’”.

 The Court then turned to the word “bear” and determined that it means to “carry.” The Court clarified that, when “bear” is “used with ‘arms,’ however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation.” So, putting all the pieces together, the Court found that the text of the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

From this reading of the plain text, it is clear the relevant conduct impacted by the waiting period—the receipt of a paid-for firearm without delay—is not covered. Still, Plaintiffs attempt to equate the words “obtain” and “possess.” But these terms are not equivalent. To “keep,” under the definitions provided in Heller, meant to retain an object one already possessed. It did not mean to receive a newly paid-for item, and it certainly did not mean to receive that item without delay. Likewise, “hav[ing] weapons” indicates the weapons are already in one’s possession, not that one is receiving them.

So you have the right to possess a firearm but not the right to obtain one? Kane’s reasoning would leave the door open for all kinds of restrictions on the acquisition of arms. Why not a six-month waiting period? How about a $500 administrative fee for every firearm purchase, or mandating purchasers come up with a half dozen character references before a gun can be sold. Taken to its extreme, Kane’s position would leave open the possibility of a complete and total ban on gun sales. It’s ridiculous to separate the right to obtain a firearm with the right to keep and bear it, but that’s exactly what the judge did here.

Kane went on to say that even if commercial sales of firearms are protected by the Second Amendment’s language, Colorado’s waiting period is likely to withstand court scrutiny because there were no “Guns-R-Us” outlets at the time the Second Amendment was ratified. It could take days, weeks, or even months for a would-be gun owner to acquire a firearm while they waited for a shipment of muskets to be delivered to their nearest city or town. Of course, there was no law requiring people to wait before purchasing a firearm if one was readily available, nor were there any prohibitions on private transfers of arms. If your neighbor had a fowling piece that you wanted to purchase, you could walk or ride to his farm and make a trade or a cash transaction without the possibility of punishment from the state.

Further, says Kane, though there aren’t any statutes in the historical record that mirror Colorado’s modern waiting period, there are some old laws that he believes are a close enough analogue to allow the state’s three-day waiting period to pass muster; laws forbidding the carrying of firearms while intoxicated.

Perhaps the state could impose a more narrowly tailored requirement, but that is not the inquiry here. The intoxication laws prevented all individuals from becoming intoxicated and engaging in the prohibited conduct. They did not apply only to those people who would have certainly used a firearm irresponsibly while intoxicated. Despite Plaintiffs’ arguments, the “how” and the “why” of the intoxication laws and the Waiting-Period Act are sufficiently similar to demonstrate that the Act is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The purpose of the waiting period, according to Colorado’s legislature, is to “help prevent impulsive acts of firearm violence, including homicides and suicides.” According to Kane, because the ostensible reason for the waiting period is similar to the rationale on historical prohibitions against carrying while under the influence, that’s enough to make the two laws analogous. Of course, under that theory, virtually any gun control measure could be deemed a part of the historical tradition, so long as lawmakers contend that its purpose is to prevent “impulsive” acts of gun violence.

If the majority in Bruen believed that opinion would put a stop to the Second Amendment shenanigans in the lower courts, it should be clear to them by now that is most certainly not the case. We’ve seen judges declare that commonly owned arms like semi-automatic rifles are not protected by the Second Amendment, wide swathes of public spaces can be deemed “sensitive” and off-limits to lawful carry, and the right to keep and bear arms does not encompass the right to obtain one.

Each of these decisions is a gross misreading of Bruen as well as a green light for fundamental infringement on our Second Amendment rights, but until SCOTUS intervenes these abuses will continue.

FBI accused of targeting Trump types; agents who served in military deemed ‘disloyal’

More whistleblowers have stepped forward to tell Congress that high-ranking FBI officials are targeting agents, specifically former military members, for their political beliefs and trying to force them out of the bureau.

A Marine and other military veterans at the FBI have been accused of disloyalty to the U.S. because they fit the profile of a supporter of former President Donald Trump, according to two disclosures sent to lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee.

The Washington Times obtained copies of the disclosures.

The whistleblowers said Jeffrey Veltri, deputy assistant director of the bureau’s security division, and Dena Perkins, assistant section chief, specifically pursued employees who served in the Marine Corps or other military branches.

They stripped the agents of security clearances, which sidelined them on the job and pushed them toward the exit, according to the disclosures.

The whistleblower disclosures say Mr. Veltri and Ms. Perkins either declared or attempted to declare the Marine and other veterans as “disloyal to the United States of America.”

“In these cases there was no indication that any of the individuals had any affiliation to a foreign power or held any belief against the United States,” it said.

Other signs that an employee was a “right-wing radical and disloyal to the United States,” according to Ms. Perkins and Mr. Veltri, were failure to wear a face mask, refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccination and participating in religious activities.

Continue reading “”

Fire them.

400 Government Officials Sign a Letter Objecting to Biden’s Israel Stance.

Many years ago, after a hard day of radio journalism and program directing, I stopped at my favorite brewpub for an IPA and some chicken wings. I noticed a few friends who worked for a government agency and struck up a conversation. I mentioned having seen a story on TV at the gym about the federal government offering free health care to illegal immigrants. I opined that there were plenty of Americans who should receive that consideration before it was extended to people who entered the country unlawfully. One of the women looked at me, blinked, and said, “Well **** you!”

Alright, then. Good talk. It wasn’t the response I expected but considering the fact that people in the federal ecosystem function in an echo chamber, I guess I should not have been surprised. Mike Lee once told me that the people inside the Beltway are essentially unaware of the America or the world outside the Beltway. And with the advent of curated media, it should not be an eye-opener that the same mentality extends to many federal employees. That may go some ways to explaining the letter sent Tuesday to President Joe Biden that was signed by over 400 government officials.

The New York Times obtained a copy of the letter, signed by appointees and staffers across 40 agencies. It began by denouncing the Hamas attack on Israel but also stated:

We call on President Biden to urgently demand a cease-fire; and to call for de-escalation of the current conflict by securing the immediate release of the Israeli hostages and arbitrarily detained Palestinians; the restoration of water, fuel, electricity, and other basic services; and the passage of adequate humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.

The signers cited an October poll by the group Data for Progress, which claims that 66% of Americans agree that “The U.S. should call for a ceasefire and a de-escalation of violence in Gaza. The U.S. should leverage its close diplomatic relationship with Israel to prevent further violence and civilian deaths.” That percentage includes 80% of the Democrats who were surveyed, 57% of Independents, and 56% of Republicans. The complete set of questions and responses can be found here.

Some signatories mentioned they felt that signing the letter could put their jobs at risk. The Times article noted that some officials have said they welcome disagreement but added that employees need to come to terms with the fact that they will not always see eye-to-eye with some policies.

Also worth mentioning is the fact that the majority of those who signed the letter are in their 20s and 30s. This means not only are they living in the federal and left-wing echo chambers, but they are closer in age to college students. So, their “academic” experiences are still relatively fresh in their minds. In addition to whatever matriculation indoctrination they may have received, they tend to take that information and use it to view the world as they wish it to be, not as it truly is. Hence, the misguided notion that if Israel were to stop the offensive, doves of peace would descend from the sky, and we could buy the world a Coke and keep it company. (Kids, ask your grandparents about that.) And they are frustrated that their version of events is not the one that is unfolding.

One can ignore reality all one wants, but it has no plans to go away. And while letters and protests may have served these people well in college, real life and real war are very different than campus demonstrations.

Comment O’ The Day:
It’s a good way to start something they can’t win.

‘Nationwide gun emergency’ discussed by U.S. House Democrats at roundtable meeting

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Democrats held a Monday roundtable forum on changing U.S. gun laws following a recent mass shooting in Maine, where 18 people were killed. 

The top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, invited witnesses to discuss gun violence solutions, and said that the gun industry lobby, the National Rifle Association and Republicans push back against gun reform.

“We’re going to examine the nationwide gun emergency that’s taking place, the endless rounds of gun violence and massacres that are plaguing our society,” Raskin said.

Some of those witnesses included gun safety advocates, educators, survivors of gun violence and people who seek to intervene in community violence.

“There is a light at the end of the tunnel with this issue,” Democratic Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost of Florida said. “The gun lobby is more afraid, now more than ever, as they see a multiracial, multigenerational army of Americans who are not willing to relent from the demand for common sense gun reform.”

Democrats on the committee who participated in the forum included Reps. Greg Casar of Texas, Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia and Dan Goldman of New York.

Democrats said they opted to organize the roundtable after being turned down in their request for a formal hearing to Republicans who control the chamber. “We could not convince the majority to have a hearing about the state of the nation with respect to gun violence,” Raskin said.

Continue reading “”

Rolling Stone Blames Gun Industry For Mass Shootings – Reveals Greater Fear Of Patriot Rebellion

It’s the old leftist anti-gun standby:  Pretend as if the 2nd Amendment was drafted only to protect hunting and self defense against criminals.  Ignore the fact that the Founding Fathers explicitly created gun rights for the purpose of repelling and overthrowing a corrupt government.  Pretend as if Americans are not supposed to have access to military grade weapons when that is exactly what the 2nd Amendment was enshrined to protect.

Under the Constitution, the American militia was intended to act as the defense force for the nation.  And, the militia was made up of every able bodied male citizen.  The militia was the military (in a sense), and the militia had access to all the weapons needed to fulfill their role.  This included repeating rifles (automatic rifles), cannons, explosives and even naval ships in private hands.  The Founders never intended for a standing military to exist, nor did they ever intend for a standing military to act as a proxy in place of an armed citizenry.

As James Madison noted:

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”    
– James Madison, January 29, 1788, Federalist No. 46     

And, as George Mason asserted:

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
– George Mason, June 4, 1788, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention

It should be treated as a revealing condition that the establishment and corporate media consistently attack the civilian ownership of guns which they argue are “made for war.”  These guns which they refer to as “assault rifles” (because it sounds scary) are used in less than 3% of all gun crimes in the US.  They are also a small percentage of overall mass shootings in the US, yet they garner almost 100% of the anti-gun lobby’s attention.

Continue reading “”

Media in Panic Mode Over Questions About Whether They Knew in Advance About Hamas Attack on Israel

On October 7, four photojournalists who provide reporting and photos for the likes of the Associated Press (AP), CNN, the New York Times, Reuters, and other outlets were allegedly at the Israeli border with Hamas terrorists who committed acts of atrocities against innocent Israeli civilians that shocked the world. Since an Israel-supporting news watchdog website reported the claim, everyone wants to know if these Gaza-based reporters knew in advance about the attack and, more importantly, if they could have saved lives by alerting the world about it. The question arises: Did the AP, CNN, the New York Times, and Reuters know about the Hamas terror attack in advance? 

The allegations have sent major media into panic mode and generated even more mistrust in the corporate press.

The website HonestReporting, which chronicles coverage of Israel by an increasingly one-sided press to contrast the “Pallywood” and crisis actor coverage by Hamas and its agents, asks: “Is it conceivable to assume that ‘journalists’ just happened to appear early in the morning at the border without prior coordination with the terrorists? Or were they part of the plan?” 

Hamas terrorists paraglided and drove into the civilian populations that day and committed acts of horrific brutality. They wanted their murders and acts of terror chronicled for the world, which is why they wore GoPro cameras and apparently arranged for these traditional media photographers to go in with them.

HonestReporting reported that “four names appear on AP’s photo credits from the Israel-Gaza border area on October 7: Hassan Eslaiah, Yousef Masoud, Ali Mahmud, and Hatem Ali.” The news watchdog took a close look at Elsaiah, a “freelancer who also works for CNN, crossed into Israel, took photos of a burning Israeli tank, and then captured infiltrators entering Kibbutz Kfar Azza.”

Elsaiah “did not wear a press vest or a helmet,” the website reported. He posted a video of himself on Twitter/X saying that “everyone who were inside this tank were kidnapped, everyone who were inside the tank were kidnapped a short while ago by al-Qassam Brigades [Hamas’ armed wing], as we have seen with our own eyes.”

The website later featured an older photo of Elsaiah with the Hamas leader who planned the attack.

In war reporting, journalists are often given a heads-up and allowed to chronicle American troops heading into battle, for example. But this wasn’t an act of war — it was terror. It was murder for murder’s sake. There hadn’t been an Israeli offensive to which the Gaza terror organization was responding. Indeed, if Hamas had been wearing uniforms and acting as an “army” they would be accused of war crimes. As it is, they’re accused of crimes against humanity.

Continue reading “”

If Biden is against antisemitism, why does he continue to fund it?

Late last month, President Joe Biden declared that he was “very” concerned about the rise of antisemitism . If he were sincere, he would direct his administration to stop funding it.

Consider his longtime staffer, Antony Blinken. The secretary of state often speaks about his stepfather Samuel Pisar, who lost his entire family in the Holocaust. Blinken related Pisar’s escape from the Nazis at his confirmation hearing, and he has spoken about Pisar more than a dozen times since, often to establish his bona fides in the fight against antisemitism.

“We live in a time where antisemitism is again on the rise, in America and around the world,” Blinken told the U.S. Holocaust Museum. “When hateful ideology rises, violence is never far behind.” As secretary, he has promised to call out antisemitism and declared the United States would be “resolute in the fight against antisemitism.”

How sad, then, that Blinken pursues policies that reward antisemitism. Consider Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas: Blinken restored funding to Abbas, a man who denies the Holocaust, promotes antisemitic blood libel, and pensions terrorists who kill Jewish children. Blinken’s silence during his visits to Ramallah suggests his rhetoric about Pisar is cynical, meant only for gullible Americans.

Abbas, after all, wrote a doctoral dissertation arguing that Zionists supported the Holocaust. Over subsequent years, he downplayed and denied the Holocaust. In September, he speculated that Hitler targeted the Jews not from antisemitism, but because they were moneylenders. With a 40-year track record of Holocaust denial and diminishment, is there any question that Abbas promotes antisemitism? If so, how does funding him send a message about being “resolute in the fight against anti-Semitism”?

Or consider Yemen : One of the first actions Blinken undertook as secretary was to lift sanctions on the Houthis, a group that goes even beyond Iran’s “death to America, death to Israel” chants to add “damn the Jews” in its motto. Five years ago, a Washington think tank delegation queried Houthi representatives about their slogan. The Houthi spokesman was blunt: “That’s our program.” That Houthis now launch ballistic missiles at the Jewish state should surprise no one. That the United States allowed them a windfall should.

National security adviser Jake Sullivan bases his Iran approach on the idea that money and diplomatic outreach can put Iran’s reformers in the driver’s seat. But it was Mohammed Khatami, Iran’s reformist president famous for his “Dialogue of Civilizations” call, who gave asylum to Wolfgang Frohlick and Jurgen Graf, two of the world’s most vociferous Holocaust deniers.

The same holds true with Lebanon and Turkey . Amos Hochstein, the Biden administration’s unconfirmed energy envoy, has pushed to empower both Turkey and Hezbollah through energy deals and endorsement. By supporting the trans-Turkey energy route over that of democratic Cyprus and Greece, Hochstein has primed Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the world’s most antisemitic head of state after Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, to receive tens of billions of dollars, some of which Erdogan now promises to Hamas. Hochstein likewise justified Lebanese maritime claims in a scheme that risks pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into Hezbollah coffers, never mind that Hezbollah’s secretary general once quipped he would be happy if all the Jews returned to Israel, as it would save the trouble of hunting them down in other countries.

Then there is Somalia , a country seldom in the headlines but the recipient of billions of dollars under Biden and Blinken’s watch. Less than six weeks after Blinken met Somali Prime Minister Hamza Abdi Barre on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, Barre declared Hamas was not a terrorist group and suggested Jews were the “children of pigs and dogs.” The Biden administration’s response? Crickets. The money still flows to Somalia.

Antisemitism is at its highest level worldwide since World War II. Biden is right to be very concerned, and Blinken is right to condemn it. If only the leader of the free world and his top diplomat had some control over whether antisemites overseas would have access to billions of extra dollars.

Observation O’ The Day:
I remember when “serious” figures on the right mocked some of us for our alleged obsession with media bias. – Glenn Reynolds

Propaganda Works

Have you noticed that Republicans have been losing a lot lately?

This, in an environment where most Americans think that Democrats are screwing up the country. Why do you think that is?

Sure, hatred of Trump has something to do with it. Abortion politics has something to do with it. A lot, actually. Each of you can name an issue where Republicans are in bad odor with ordinary people, but add them all together and one thing becomes clear: propaganda works.

Why is Trump so unpopular? Was it because things got worse under his presidency? Uh, yeah, no. Things got immeasurably better, and even a lot of people who hate him will say that.

Is abortion such a drag on Republican prospects because people don’t agree that late term abortions are immoral, except in extreme circumstances? That’s not what the polls say.

Why do people think Republicans are all-in on banning books? Has anybody suggested making the publishing of any books illegal? Of course not. Democrats actively campaign to prevent the publication or sale of books they don’t like, but Republicans don’t.

So what is it?

It is the steady drumbeat of propaganda portraying Republicans as Nazi White Supremacists who want to force 11 year-olds to birth babies, schoolmarms who hate gays, and White Supremacists who hunt minorities in the dead of night. We wanted to kill grandma and deserved to be put in camps:

You can’t escape the propaganda. It is everywhere. In the schools, in the classrooms, on every university campus, and in the MSM.

Continue reading “”

Out: “Firey But Mostly Peaceful Protests”
IN: “Passionate Protests”
An ABC “News’s” chief White House hack offers her unbiased on the pro-terrorism/pro-Jew-slaughter mayhem that invaded DC this weekend:

passionateprotests.jpg

Passionate attempts to pound open the White House gates.

Passionate scaling of the White House fence. Remember, grandmothers are in federal prison for 5 years for simply “parading” in Congress.

As Paul observed, it’s a moslem speaking.

Sorry, Obama: ‘We’ Aren’t Complicit. It’s You Who Has Blood on Your Hands.

In 1953, the Swiss novelist Max Frisch published a play called The Arsonists. It’s a pitch dark comedy about a small town ravaged by a group of maniacs disguised as traveling salesmen, who sweet-talk their way into people’s homes and then set them on fire. Its protagonist is a dolt called Biedermann—bieder being German for honest, respectable, and upright. He’s aware of the danger, and yet, when the arsonists knock, he lets them in. The tragedy, Frisch argues, is that he almost has no other choice: The arsonists are such smooth talkers that it’s easy, when listening to them, to ignore the large drums of kerosene and the matches they’re holding in their hands.

I thought of The Arsonists this week when I heard snippets of a podcast interview featuring former president Barack Obama on the Middle East. “Nobody’s hands are clean,” Obama said. “All of us are complicit.”

Nah, man. Not all of us are complicit. It’s just you.

It’s you, because you’re the one who gave that stentorian speech about red lines in Syria and then sat by and did nothing as those red lines were crossed and Assad continued to slaughter his own people, allowing the Iranians and the Russians to creep in and fill the vacuum left by your devastating lack of leadership.

It’s you, because you’re the one who came up with the idea of empowering Iran, the world’s premiere exporter of terrorism, Holocaust denial, and chaos, all the while telling the American people you were merely trying to stop Teheran from getting a nuclear bomb. Billions of dollars and thousands of dead later, we can all see how well this idea—which you, with the eloquence only a professor could muster, called “regional integration”—is working.

It’s you, because you’re the one who delivered a parting gift to the region, ending your final term as president by reversing four decades of American bipartisan support of Israel and abstaining from a U.N. vote condemning Israeli settlements, while funneling $400 million in annual payments to the despotic Palestinian Authority, which then promptly used this money to fund its pay-for-slay program, doling out large cash payments to any Palestinian who murdered Jews.

So, please, Mr. President: Spare us your opinions.

The West Bank can be ‘disputed’ as much as anyone wants. The region just happens to be the ancient Israelite provinces of Judea and Samaria taken back from Jordan (after that country occupied it in 1948 during that war),  after during the 1967 ‘6-Day’ war.

Scoop: Biden Demands Gun Control for Israelis

The Biden administration refused to sell American weapons to Israel unless it provided guarantees the guns would not be given to civilians living in the West Bank, the Washington Free Beacon is exclusively reporting.

The Jewish state urgently requested the United States sell it thousands of M-16 rifles following the Hamas terror group’s Oct. 7 slaughter of more than 1,400 unarmed Israeli citizens. But the Biden administration would not approve the sale until Israel guaranteed the critical weapons would not reach civilian outposts in the West Bank, which the Biden administration and its Democratic allies view as occupied territory.

The stipulation was characterized by officials as unusual and indicates the Biden administration is succumbing to pressure from its far-left flank, which is pressing Israel to enact a ceasefire and accusing the Jewish state of carrying out a genocide as it defends itself from Hamas terrorists operating in the Gaza Strip.

The guns are critical to Israel’s defense as it faces down the most significant threat in decades. With the military engaged in an assault on the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, Jewish civilians in dangerous areas like the West Bank are being trained and equipped to defend themselves against potential attacks.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) is said to be one of the lawmakers who pressured the Biden administration to restrict Israel’s access to the weapons.

The Biden administration has become increasingly open about its desire for Israel to halt its war effort so that humanitarian aid can be delivered into the Gaza Strip, a call the Jewish state has rejected, citing Hamas’s reliance on this aid for its terrorist activities. President Joe Biden, after initially offering full throated support for Israel’s defensive operations, accused Israelis living in disputed West Bank areas of conducting unwarranted attacks on Palestinians in remarks late last month, claiming they are “pouring gasoline on the fire.”