Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

GOV. NEWSOM SENDS GUN CONTROL RUBBER STAMP TO U.S. SENATE

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is ensuring that his gun control agenda is in safe hands with the appointment of Laphonza Butler to serve in the U.S. Senate following the passing of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Sen. Butler was sworn in this week, a Democrat who until the announcement was residing in Silver Springs, Md., and has spoken little on gun control issues. However, her progressive track record and history of working for liberal causes assures that she will pick up the gun control mantle.

Sen. Feinstein was the longest-serving female senator at the time of her death on Sept. 29. She was also the matriarch of the Senate’s gun control agenda. She helped author the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. That law lasted 10 years and was not reauthorized in 2004. Since then, Sen. Feinstein introduced legislation in every Congress to revive the ban on America’s most-popular selling centerfire rifle. In fact, if she had it her way, gun control would have gone much further.

Sen. Feinstein told 60 Minutes in a 1995 interview, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in,” she said. “I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”

Sen. Bulter’s selection to fill the remainder of Sen. Feinstein’s term promises that not much will change. Sen. Butler is deeply tied to gun control politicians and causes that will surely seek to expand efforts to deprive law-abiding Americans of their Second Amendment rights.

Who is Laphonza Butler?

Gov. Newsom heaped praise on Sen. Butler for shattering glass ceilings in the Senate. He noted that she is the first openly LGBTQ person to represent California in the Senate, first Black lesbian to openly serve in Congress and third Black woman to represent California in the Senate following Vice President Kamala Harris.

He also noted that Butler will pick up where Sen. Feinstein left off with gun control.

“As we mourn the enormous loss of Senator Feinstein, the very freedoms she fought for — reproductive freedom, equal protection, and safety from gun violence — have never been under greater assault,” Gov. Newsom said in a statement. “Laphonza will carry the baton left by Senator Feinstein, continue to break glass ceilings, and fight for all Californians in Washington D.C.”

Sen. Butler grew up in Magnolia, Miss., and attended Jackson State University. Her father died when she was just 16. She worked in the labor movement for 20 years and at 30, was elected president of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 2015. She was also SEIU international vice president and president of SEIU California’s state council.

Sen. Butler also ran political campaigns and was part of Vice President Harris’ campaign for the vice presidency. She was previously a senior advisor to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. She has been president of Emily’s List, a national political action committee dedicated to electing abortion rights-supportive women candidates to office.

Political Pals

While little in her personal or professional career points to gun control, the list of supporters lining up to congratulate her is telling.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered her endorsement, saying, “A great choice for California and the Senate. Congratulations Laphonza Butler!”

That was echoed by twice-failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, as well as former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile, the Democratic National Committee, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), and California Democratic U.S. Reps. Ted Lieu, Jimmy Gomez, Ami Berra, Ro Khanna, Sara Jacobs, Mark Takano, Brad Sherman, Gloria Johnson, Nanette Barragán and California Attorney General Rob Bonta. All are ardent gun control supporters.

Even Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) offered congratulations, despite the fact that he’s thrown his hat into the ring for the seat she’s filling until 2024. He’s facing a crowded Democratic field including California Democratic Reps. Barbara Lee and Katie Porter – and Sen. Butler if she decides to compete for election.

Gleeful Gun Control

It’s not just gun control politicians that are gleeful at Gov. Newsom’s appointment of Sen. Butler to fill the Senate seat. It’s also gun control groups too.

President of Everytown for Gun Safety’s (and its mouthpiece The Trace) John Feinblatt, the gun control group bankrolled by antigun billionaire Michael Bloomberg, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, “Laphonza Butler is an advocate’s advocate and we’re thrilled with her history-making appointment to the Senate. We look forward to working alongside her to keep communities safe from gun violence.”

The Everytown-affiliated Moms Demand Action got in on the action too. Executive Director Angela Ferrell-Zabala wrote on X, “Laphonza Butler is an incredible leader and a fierce advocate for women and girls. I’m thrilled to watch her make history as the first Black lesbian senator to openly serve in Congress. Moms Demand can’t wait to work with her to continue California’s leadership on gun safety!”

Gov. Newsom’s appointment of Sen. Butler is a calculated move to ensure his gun control agenda – including his maligned 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – is preserved. This is his attempt to export California gun control to the rest of the country and potentially pave the way for his own White House bid.

Chief of Staff of Pentagon Counterterrorism Office Served [the] Iranian Government

In 2016, Ariane Tabatabai co-wrote an article arguing that the United States should ally with Iran against ISIS. The Iranian immigrant suggested the United States Air Force could “provide air cover for Iranian-backed militia” and “the US and Iran can share intelligence on targets”. Finally she warned that “excluding Iran, the region’s major Shia state, from the international coalition built to fight ISIS worsens the regional sectarian conflict, ultimately playing into ISIS’ hands.”

Tabatabai’s bio now describes her as the Chief of Staff to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict. Up from a Senior Advisor last year. The ASD(SO/LIC) office advises the Secretary of Defense on counterterrorism and it’s hard to think of a better place for a woman accused of being an Iran regime apologist to find herself in.

Almost as good as her former role representing the United States in the Iran negotiations.

In 2021, when the State Department had brought in Tabatabai as a senior adviser to the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, a congressional letter urged that her security clearance be pulled. The letter stated that Tabatabai “has echoed Iranian regime talking points and has made excuses for Iran’s oppressive government.

“Why would we hire someone… who has access and security clearance to some of the most sensitive and important issues there [and] who obviously has had a relationship with the administration in Iran?” Rep. Van Drew asked.

Biden’s State Department Spokesman Ned Price claimed that she “was thoroughly vetted and investigated before being granted the position. Any suggestion of security-related concerns about Dr. Tabatabai are baseless and illegitimate.” He fumed that, “we will not sit idly by as our employees—dedicated public servants—face personal smears and slander.”

Now a Semafor article by former Wall Street Journal chief correspondent Jay Solomon based on materials gathered by Iran International’s dissident media channel has revealed emails showing Tabatabai’s participation in a secret Iranian government to influence the United States.

Continue reading “”

From the First Sentence, You Knew This Was Going to Be a Funny WaPo Article About Guns

Let’s be fair for a second: this Washington Post piece on firearms in Texas could have been worse. It could have read like something from a Moms Demand Action pamphlet, but it’s probably as fair as possible for the publication. Maybe I’m being too nice, but the first sentence had me wondering whether this piece would go off the rails. Also, do these people live under a rock?

First, the headline: In Texas, guns are everywhere, whether concealed or in the open.

And the opening sentence: To live in Texas is to live surrounded by guns.

Yes, and yes, Washington Post. The piece is peppered with statistics about gun ownership, carry laws, and interviews with various individuals of all races in New Braunfels, Texas, which rests outside San Antonio. White, black, and Latino residents all offered quotes explaining the culture here, which may seem like an alien world but has been commonplace for generations.

The piece did at least acknowledge that, but a quick review of gun laws would point to some shocking revelations for anti-gun liberals, specifically since while the article frames Texas as gun land, Virginia is just as heavily armed. In fact, for years, Virginia’s carry laws and reciprocity agreements were just as good, if not better, than in the Lone Star State. It’s not just Texas, folks (via WaPo):

Each morning, men here strap guns inside suits, boots and swim trunks. Women slip them into bra and bellyband holsters that render them invisible. They stash firearms in purses, tool boxes, portable gun safes, back seats and glove compartments.

Neighbors tuck guns into bedside tables, cars and trucks. They take guns fishing, to church, the park, the pool, the gym, the movies — even to protests at the state Capitol. The convention center hosts gun shows where shoppers peruse AR-15s and high-capacity magazines outlawed in other states. Texas billboards offer an endless stream of advertisements for ammunition, silencers and other accessories.

It has been legal here to openly carry long guns like rifles for generations. But Texas’s gun-friendly attitude isn’t just a relic of the Old West and ranching: Many restrictions on handguns were loosened only recently. Two years ago, state lawmakers gave those 21 and older the right to carry handguns without a permit; in 2015, they gave those with concealed handgun permits the right to carry on public college campuses. […]

Unlike California and some other blue states, Texas has no state firearm sales registry, no required waiting period to buy a gun, no red flag law guarding against the mentally ill or violent having weapons, no restrictions on the size of ammunition magazines and no background checks for guns purchased in a private sale.[…]

New Braunfels includes one of the top urban Zip codes in Texas for new handgun licenses per capita last year: About 213 per 10,000 people, according to state records; overall, the surrounding county had 155 permits issued per 10,000 people.

By contrast, most San Francisco-area counties had issued fewer than six concealed handgun licenses per 10,000 residents since 2012, according to the most recent California Department of Justice data from last year, although applications surged late in the year following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling against local restrictions in New York, and California lawmakers responded earlier this month by passing a law that further restricts who can receive a permit.

The interviews with the residents, probably meant to cast them as paranoid or crazy, are rather mainstream. Their reasons behind owning guns are also not out of the ordinary. Some quoted in the piece owned AR-15 rifles, which means in the eyes of liberals, these people are paranoid. Again, these are law-abiding citizens who own firearms, which isn’t abnormal, no matter how hard the Left tries to make it so. San Francisco is a crime-ridden hell hole, with hordes of homeless people and drug addicts defecating all over the city. These aren’t areas to compare when it comes to public safety.

If you want to glean how law-abiding gun owners live in Texas, this piece has some good insights, but we all know that probably wasn’t the intent. We have a Second Amendment, liberal America. Tens of millions of Americans own a ton of firearms, and there’s nothing you can do about that.

Also, it’s funny how they tried to make this place seem like a lawless enclave of America with no red flag laws, waiting periods, or gun registries. Most states don’t have any of those laws on the books. Red flag laws have had mixed success. They sound like good policy, but constitutional guardrails are still lacking. Most states have no gun registry requirement, and waiting periods are also uncommon. If you pass a background check, you get the gun. It’s as simple as it should be for law-abiding Americans.

Amid Damning Wire Transfer Revelations, Let’s Review What the Bidens Said About Chinese Money

By now you’re likely aware that Hunter Biden listed his father’s Delaware home as the ‘beneficiary address’ in the process of receiving two wire transfers, totally more than $250,000, from Beijing in 2019.   Fox News Digital published the scoop on Wednesday, writing that “the first wire sent to Hunter Biden, dated July 26, 2019, was for $10,000 from an individual named Ms. Wang Xin. There is a Ms. Wang Xin listed on the website for BHR Partners. It is unclear if the wire came from that Wang Xin. The second wire transfer sent to Hunter Biden, dated August 2, 2019, was for $250,000 from Li Xiang Sheng—also known as Jonathan Li, the CEO of BHR Partners—and Ms. Tan Ling. The committee is trying to identify Ling’s role.”  We’ll return to the role of Mr. Li below.  There’s also this significant detail: “The beneficiary for the wires is listed as Robert Hunter Biden, with the address “1209 Barley Mill Rd.” In Wilmington, Delaware. That address is the main residence for Joe Biden.”

Would this be even more ‘no evidence‘ of Joe Biden being intertwined with his son’s various overseas business dealings?  The White House, having abandoned previous talking points Biden had dishonestly advanced about his knowledge and involvement in this family enrichment scheme, recently shifted to claiming that the elder and younger Bidens were not “in business” together.  I’ve argued that quite a lot of evidence suggests otherwise.  Much has been made about Joe Biden’s false, categorical denials on this front (eg “I have never discussed with my son, or brother, or anyone else, anything having to do with their business, period”) which have blown up in his face.  But there was also this lie, told to the American people from a 2020 presidential debate stage (Biden also used the 2020 debates to broadcast his false ‘Russian disinformation’ spin about his son’s authentic and damning laptop):

Biden flatly denied that Hunter had made money from China, saying that the ‘only’ person who had done so was Donald Trump. In fact, bank records show that Hunter and Jim (Joe’s brother) Biden had made money from China.  Millions of dollars worth, some of which was allegedly ‘held for the Big Guy,’ according to Biden family emails.  Hunter had even drummed up business in China after flying to that country with his father aboard Air Force Two, when Joe Biden was Vice President.  The Washington Post fact-checker eventually slapped a Four Pinocchios rating on Biden’s debate assertion, albeit nearly three years after he made it.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
Yes, they’re coming for our guns. No, they can’t have them without a fight.

Academic says quiet part out loud on gun control

Anyone who engages in discussions on gun control has undoubtedly been told that no one is coming for our guns; that all anyone wants to do is to keep firearms from falling into the wrong hands. All those regulations they’re proposing? Those are just for criminals.

Now, we all know this is BS. Things like assault weapon bans, for example, result in taking people’s guns sooner or later. Just because that’s not what they’re saying no doesn’t mean that’s not where we’re eventually going to head.

Enter a discussion about President Joe Biden’s new Office of Gun Violence Prevention over at China Daily.

Yes, it’s China talking about US gun policy–a subject I think I’ve been pretty clear about my feelings on–but in there, we find someone who may have just said the part gun control fans are supposed to keep quiet.

Jeffrey Fagan, an expert on policing, crime and gun control and Professor of Law at Columbia Law School in New York, said: “Every little bit helps, including research, to slow the epidemic of gun violence. However, unless there are strong measures to reduce the supply of firearms, and also the legality of firearms, this will have little effect on the unacceptably high rates of both lethal and nonlethal firearm violence.”

(Emphasis added)

Now, let’s take a look at that bolded section for a moment. We’re going to take that in order–don’t worry, we’ll get to the “legality” thing in a moment.

Reduce the supply of firearms

There are an estimated 400 million firearms in private hands in the United States. The Second Amendment also protects our right to keep and bear arms.

Yet Fagan here has argued that we need to reduce the supply of firearms. Not the supply of black market guns or guns in criminal hands, but guns in general. That despite ample evidence that it’s those guns in particular that represent a problem with regard to violent crime.

As such, that means reducing guns for law-abiding citizens to some degree or another.

The easy thought is to assume Fagan simply means restricting the purchase of firearms in general in some manner, such as gun rationing or some similar policy.

The problem there is that with 400 million firearms already in circulation and the fact that firearms are generally durable, meaning they don’t necessarily wear out or anything if properly maintained, that number isn’t going to decrease on its own. Every gun purchase adds to the availability of firearms.

That means that, at some point, you’re going to have to remove firearms from circulation as a whole. The only way that can happen is via gun confiscation.

You can’t just make guns vanish otherwise. You can’t reduce the availability of guns without that.

Reducing the legality of firearms

Fagan makes reference to the legality of firearms, suggesting he wants to make them less legal to own in some manner. This likely includes things like assault weapon bans and other restrictions, particularly those lacking some kind of grandfather clause that would allow those who already have such weapons to keep them.

Again, that whole gun confiscation thing.

But we need to remember that the legality of firearms is preserved via the Second Amendment. You can’t just wish that away no matter how much you want to. So long as the Second Amendment stands, you’re not going to be able to really do much of anything about the legality of guns no matter how much you favor gun control.

This is one problem gun control is always going to have.

What’s more, following the Bruen decision, it’s clear that one will be hard-pressed to find gun control regulations existing at the time of the Second Amendment that would be an analog for any restriction you could pass today that would restrict the legality of guns in general.

Now, one can imagine gun control advocates dismissing Fagan’s comments as just the words of a single academic, that they’re not reflected in the gun control community as a whole. I disagree, especially since we saw Gabby Giffords, founder of one of the biggest anti-gun groups out there, argue for “no more guns.”

I’m sorry, but I can’t buy that this is just a fringe opinion.

Yes, they’re coming for our guns.

No, they can’t have them without a fight.

Well, he’s bizarre, so……

Biden’s comments on gun violence truly bizarre

After nearly three years in office, there are a lot of things I’ve come to expect out of the Biden administration. Coherent comments by the president aren’t among them.

Yet in announcing his new Office of Gun Violence Prevention, Biden had to open up and discuss so-called gun violence more broadly. He couldn’t just announce the office and leave it there, he had to explain to the press–the same guys who wanted this for years, mind you–why it was supposedly needed.

In discussing “gun violence,” however, Biden was his typical self, saying things that raised more than a few eyebrows.

On Friday, while touting his strict gun control laws, Biden continued his trend of lying when he claimed he has been to “every mass shooting.”

Biden furthered his support for restricting the Second Amendment, saying, “If you need 80 shots in a magazine, you shouldn’t own a gun.”

Yeah, buddy. That happened.

First, no, Biden hasn’t been to every mass shooting. Especially if you consider the definition of mass shooting that his party tends to prefer, which is the Gun Violence Archive definition that is just based on the number of people shot, not killed.

This definition inflates the number of mass shootings into a huge number, one that would make it impossible for Biden to visit every mass shooting.

Further, Biden offered no real qualifiers on those mass shootings, so even if we use the more traditional definitions that are based on the number of people killed, it’s unlikely he visited every mass shooting that ever happened in the US, much less the planet as a whole.

Because while people like Biden tend to pretend that mass shootings are uniquely American, they happen everywhere.

Then we get to the whole “if you need 80 shots in a magazine, you shouldn’t have a gun.”

First, there aren’t any 80-round magazines out there, though I suspect a company like Palmetto State Armory might be cooking up one right about now.

Yet even if there were, so what?

There is nothing in our Second Amendment that seems to support such a supposition. If we need X number of rounds, we shouldn’t have a firearm? Why is that? Under what criteria would we be allowed to have a gun? Is the limit 79 rounds? Five rounds? What exactly?

Now, generally speaking, people haven’t needed that many rounds for any lawful situation they might find themselves in. Many defensive gun uses take place with zero rounds being fired.

But many others take a lot more than some might think.

The truth is that no one who has survived a gunfight has ever said, “Gee, I wish I’d had less ammo.”

See, the problem with Biden’s myopic comment–and this is me trying to be charitable here–is that it doesn’t account for individual circumstances. There’s a difference between some guy pulling a gun on a mugger and someone who has angered an organized mob that wants their head.

Further, let’s remember that the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting or even muggers, specifically. Yes, the Tyranny of the Thug is a thing, but the amendment was essentially penned as an insurance policy on the rest of our rights. It was meant as a bulwark against tyranny as a whole.

Our Founding Fathers had just fought a war that started when the tyrannical government marched on a town to seize arms from them. It’s really unlikely that they intended to make it easier for a tyrannical leader to do the same again.

So no, there are no exceptions to the Second Amendment, no matter how many rounds you need in a magazine.

But since Biden clearly has never read the Second Amendment and definitely dismissed the Bruen decision, we’ve clearly got a long fight on our hands.

Support
About
Terms
Privacy

Is This the Most Pathetic Defense of Joe Biden’s Impeachable Offenses?

The Democrats and the mainstream media have been tirelessly claiming that there is “no evidence” of wrongdoing by Joe Biden to justify an impeachment inquiry—a blatant denial of the fact that the House Oversight Committee has the receipts, including eyewitness testimony and financial records.

The White House is clearly concerned and instructed the already compliant mainstream media to attack the impeachment inquiry—as if they needed the marching orders in the first place. So far, every attempt by the media to claim the inquiry is based on “no evidence” has resulted in humiliation. Even a CNN fact check was unable to deny the key facts House Speaker McCarthy cited as justifying the inquiry.

Representative James Clyburn (D-S.C.), who is widely credited with saving Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign, didn’t even try to deny the existence of evidence during his appearance on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, and simply argued that—are you ready for this?— Republicans want to impeach Joe Biden  for “being a father to his son.”

“Let me ask you about the impeachment inquiry that is going to unfold this week on Capitol Hill. I know you and your Democrats have called this pure politics,” said host Kristen Welker. “But big picture, they’re trying to see if there’s any link between Hunter Biden and the president and his business dealings. Are you comfortable with a family member profiting off their last name in this town?”

“You know, we all, to some extent, live so that our children can be proud of the name that we’ve given them. I have three daughters, and I want them to feel very comfortable being a Clyburn,” he said, clearly avoiding answering the question. “I do know that that is very, very important for going forward, but that doesn’t mean they want them to do things that are unseemly to the name. I do want them to use the name to their benefit.”

“Yet, President Biden, according to one witness testimony, was on the phone 20 times with Hunter Biden’s business associates and described as pleasantries, but is that appropriate?” she asked.

“I think it’s appropriate to be a father to your son, and if your son is having a problem, and we all know the history of the problem that Hunter has with addiction, and he is being a father to his son,” Clyburn claimed. “You don’t impeach a man for being a father to his children.”

Ahh, so that’s it. Joe Biden wasn’t using his position to help Hunter sell influence, he was being a father to his crackhead son. I can’t help but notice that Clyburn didn’t even try to claim that there is no evidence to justify the impeachment inquiry; he merely sought to downplay Joe Biden’s role by claiming he was doing what a father does—and, at the same time, effectively admitting that Joe Biden was, in fact, knowingly helping Hunter with his business, because, what are fathers for, right?

But does being a father to his son mean using his position as vice [resident of the United States to get millions of dollars funneled to his family and laundering that money via twenty different shell companies? Does being a father to his son mean using a $1 billion loan to Ukraine as leverage to get a prosecutor investigating Burisma fired because Hunter was getting $1 million a year sitting on their board?

That’s not being a father to his son; it’s being a corrupt politician.

Multiple polls have shown Americans are already convinced there was Biden family corruption. An Economist/YouGov poll found that 72% of American adults believe Hunter Biden profited off his father’s position, including 53% of Democrats and 72% of Independents. Another poll from I&I/TIPP found that 56% of U.S. voters say that it is “likely” that Biden took bribes, while only 27% say it was “unlikely.”

 

BLUF
A “massive campaign . . . to de-develop the United States.”
“De-develop the United States.” Ponder that. Mr. Holdren lamented that the idea of de-development was subject to “considerable misunderstanding and resistance.” I for one am happy about the resistance. Indeed, I wish it were stiffer. But as for misunderstanding what “de-development” means, I have to take issue. We know exactly what it means. It is the same thing that Luddites and anti-capitalists have always meant: the impoverishment and immiseration of the mass of mankind just so long as the perquisites for the self-appointed nomenklatura persist un-disturbed.

We Know Exactly What ‘De-Development’ Means: ‘Climate change’ offers potent pretext for consolidation of governmental power.

“The climate crisis,” said Al Gore at the U.N. a couple of days ago, “is a fossil fuel crisis.”

“What climate crisis?” you might be asking, and you would be right to do so. Yes, it is impossible to turn anywhere in our enlightened, environmentally conscious world without being beset by lectures about one’s “carbon footprint” and horror tales about “global warming,” “rising seas” and imminent ecological catastrophe.

But deep down you know that it is all hooey. Mark Twain was right when he observed that it is not so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. Rather, the mischief is caused by things that we “do know that ain’t so.”

For example, we all “know” that carbon dioxide is “bad for the environment.” (In fact, it is a prerequisite for life). We “know” that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is reaching historically unprecedented and dangerous levels. (In fact, we have, these past centuries, been living through a CO2 famine). We “know” that “global warming”— or, since there has been no warming in more than two decades, that “climate change”— has caused a sudden rise in the seas. (In fact, the seas have been rising for the last 20,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age). We “know” that, when it comes to the subject of climate change, the “science is settled,” that “97 percent of scientists” agree that global warming is anthropogenic, which is Greek for “caused by greedy corporate interests and the combustion of fossil fuels.”

It’s really quite extraordinary how much we do know that ain’t so.

Continue reading “”

An Assault on Bill of Rights

The people of New Mexico — and, we fear, the people of the United States — owe Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina a real debt of gratitude.

Medina has stated unequivocally that his department will not enforce an unconstitutional “emergency order” by Michelle Lujan Grisham, the governor of New Mexico, to suspend the right of her constituents to lawfully carry firearms.

The governor’s order is in response to a spate of shootings in New Mexico’s largest city.

“A child is murdered, the perpetrator is still on the loose, and what does the governor do? She … targets law-abiding citizens with an unconstitutional gun order,” state Sen. Greg Baca, the ranking Republican in New Mexico’s state Senate, told the Associated Press.

“I don’t know what her thought process was that she suddenly thought she could trample the Second Amendment,” state Rep. Stefani Lord told KOAT Channel 7 of Albuquerque at a protest against the governor’s order.

The move by Grisham is excessive. It violates the Bill of Rights and it is exactly the sort of escalation that Americans who defend the Second Amendment fear and warn their friends, neighbors and family about when other measures to curtail gun owners’ rights are debated.

Even proponents of gun control, including activist David Hogg and U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., recognizes that Grisham’s order tramples Constitutional rights.

“I support gun safety laws,” Lieu said on social media, according to a Fox News report. “However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution. No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution.”

We appreciate the congressman speaking out against this violation of the Second Amendment just as we appreciate the police chief’s recognition that his department has no authority to join the governor in violating the Constitution. We hope the rebukes and reprimands are swift and severe enough that this infringement does not spread from the Land of Enchantment to our other 49 states.

Republicans push ahead with attempt to impeach governor over Albuquerque gun ban

A pair of Republican lawmakers are pushing ahead with an effort to impeach Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham over a gun ban that has been called unconstitutional and thrust New Mexico into the national debate on gun violence.

The effort, however, faces an uphill battle in the state Legislature, where Democrats control both chambers.

Reps. John Block of Alamogordo and Stefani Lord of Sandia Park this week launched a certificate form for lawmakers to sign calling for an extraordinary session to impeach Lujan Grisham over an executive order prohibiting carrying open or concealed firearms in public in Albuquerque and across Bernalillo County.

The governor ordered the 30-day gun ban, part of an effort to stem gun violence in New Mexico’s most populous city, after the shooting death of an 11-year-old boy — another casualty in a city beset by crime. The ban also triggered widespread criticism of the governor, who said no constitutional right, in her view, is intended to be absolute.

“The U.S. Constitution is absolute and designed to protect the rights of the people against tyrannical decisions like Governor Lujan [Grisham] attempted to do,” Lord, a staunch gun rights advocate, said in a statement.

013123XGR_LS_2.JPG
Rep. John Block, R-Alamogordo, at the Capitol in January during the legislative session.

Continue reading “”

Markey, Ocasio-Cortez ask Biden to create Civilian Climate Corps by executive order

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), two of Congress’ most vocal proponents for aggressive climate action, on Monday called for President Biden to establish a Civilian Climate Corps.

The CCC had been a key element in early versions of the Build Back Better Act, the sweeping environmental and infrastructure bill. It was not ultimately included in the slimmed down Inflation Reduction Act, which was nonetheless the largest climate bill in U.S. history.

Biden was a vocal backer of the Climate Corps early in his presidency, comparing it to the Civilian Conservation Corps introduced during the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The original legislation called for $10 billion to launch the new program.

In the letter, timed to the 30th anniversary of the bill that created Americorps, Ocasio-Cortez and Markey cited polling indicating the idea has more than 60 percent support. The two have also reintroduced a bill to establish a corps legislatively, although the measure will almost certainly not be given a vote in the Republican-majority House.

“A central coordinating body, overseen by the White House, will be essential to create a successful and cohesive Civilian Climate Corps,” they wrote. “Through interagency collaboration, as well as coordination with state climate corps, other state entities, and local non-profit organizations, your Administration can realize the vision of a Civilian Climate Corps that establishes a unified front in the face of climate change — one that looks like America, serves America, and puts good-paying union jobs within reach for more young adults.”

The letter is also signed by members of Democratic congressional leadership like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

Also on Monday, a coalition of more than 50 progressive and environmentalist groups sent a separate letter calling on Biden to establish the CCC, citing its popularity among younger voters in particular.

“While previous Executive Orders and legislation under your administration demonstrate tremendous progress toward meeting our Paris climate goals and your campaign promises, this summer has made clear that we must be as ambitious as possible in tackling the great crisis of our time,” they wrote.

“We encourage your administration to create a Civilian Climate Corps through existing authorities, with existing climate funding, that can coordinate across relevant federal agencies.”

Michelle Lujan Grisham tries to revive Democrats’ “Massive Resistance” to civil rights

Just off the main drag in Farmville, Virginia there’s an unassuming brick building next to a brightly painted tarpaper structure. The unobtrusive sign out front identifies the building at the Robert Russa Moton Museum; a largely unknown place that was the site of one of the most significant events in the civil rights movement. The museum was once R.R. Moton High School, the black public high school in Prince Edward County. In 1951, then 15-year-old Barbara Johns led her fellow students on a walkout in protest of the deplorable conditions of the building and the education they received.

After years of frustration with Prince Edward County school which she describes (later in a memoir) as having inadequacies such as poor facilities, shabby equipment and no science laboratories or separate gymnasium, Barbara took her concerns to a teacher who responded by asking, “Why don’t you do something about it?” Barbara describes feeling as though her teacher’s comments were dismissive, and as a result she was somewhat discouraged. However, after months of contemplation and imagination she began to formulate a plan. As Barbara describes it,

“the plan I felt was divinely inspired because I hadn’t been able to think of anything until then. The plan was to assemble together the student council members…. From this, we would formulate plans to go on strike. We would make signs and I would give a speech stating our dissatisfaction and we would march out [of] the school and people would hear us and see us and understand our difficulty and would sympathize with our plight and would grant us our new school building and our teachers would be proud and the students would learn more and it would be grand….”

Seizing the moment, on April 23, 1951, Barbara Johns, a 16 year-old high school girl in Prince Edward County, Virginia, led her classmates in a strike to protest the substandard conditions at Robert Russa Moton High School. Her idealism, planning, and persistence ultimately garnered the support of NAACP lawyers Spottswood Robinson and Oliver Hill to take up her cause and the cause of more equitable conditions for Moton High School.

After meeting with the students and the community, lawyers Spottswood Robinson and Oliver Hill filed suit at the federal courthouse in Richmond, Virginia. The case was called Davis v. Prince Edward. In 1954, the Farmville case became one of five cases that the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka when it declared segregation unconstitutional.

While Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954, public schools weren’t integrated in Prince Edward County for another decade. The school system dragged out any attempt to abide by the decision for years, and when that became untenable the county decided to shut down the public schools entirely rather than integrate. The “Massive Resistance” movement eventually resulted in several communities shuttering their schools, though none for as long as Prince Edward County. It took another Supreme Court decision in 1964 to re-open the schools, this time to both black and white students.

When I first moved to the Farmville area a decade ago I met a man who’d spent several years being taught in a church basement and in the living rooms of family and friends by parents and other adults who refused to let kids go unschooled. In fact, he was the one who told me about this shameful history in the first place.

Both Farmville and the nation at large have come a long way since 1951. Sadly, Massive Resistance to a Supreme Court decision is making a comeback among Democrats, and New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham seems intent on becoming the standard bearer for the movement.

Grisham made it clear when she first announced she was unilaterally suspending the right to carry in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County that she didn’t care what the Constitution says, much less the Supreme Court. Even after the police chief and sheriff said they wouldn’t enforce her order because of constitutional concerns she insisted that curbing violent crime required disarming lawful gun owners and rendering them defenseless in public.

During the court hearing that led to her original order being put on ice, the governor’s attorney repeatedly argued that there was no difference between a “good guy with a gun” and a bad guy, that every concealed carry holder was a murderer waiting to happen, and bemoaned the Bruen decision for it supposedly taking away the governor’s ability to “try” to effectively fight violent crime.

If Grisham truly thinks that the only way to do that is to prohibit the right to carry, then there’s no way she would have let her initial order expire after its 30-day period was up. She would have extended it for as long as she got away with it, just like Prince Edward County did with the public schools in the 1960s.

Unlike the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, the bigots engaged in Massive Resistance today aren’t doing so on the basis of race (though there’s a strong argument that racial minorities are still suffering a disproportionate amount of harm from gun control laws). Instead, it’s the mere exercise of a constitutional right that causes Grisham and others to view their friends, neighbors, and constituents as dangerous “others” who must be suppressed in the name of public safety. Black, white, gay, straight… it doesn’t matter. If you’re a gun owner, and certainly if you’re a gun owner who wants to carry your gun in public, you’re the problem. You must be “fixed”. You must be put in your proper place, and your right must be deemed a wrong.

I don’t know if Michelle Lujan Grisham is smart enough to have realized this, but the Massive Resistance movement failed. In Farmville the worst fears of the segregationists have been realized. Black and white kids are going to school, becoming friends, getting married, having kids, and living their lives in a community that is much changed for the better.

Like her fellow civil rights suppressors in the 1950s and 60s, Grisham is ultimately lashing out because she’s losing. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and there’s a portion of the gun control movement that believes it’s time to start lobbing Hail Marys through executive orders and tossing verbal hand grenades at the Supreme Court over Bruen, while the more institutional wing seems intent on taking a more traditional incrementalist approach.

If Grisham thought she was acting in a position of strength in proclaiming a constitutional right suspended because of a self-proclaimed public health emergency (at a time when homicides are actually trending down in Albuquerque, by the way), the backlash from many of her fellow Democrats and the refusal to enforce her order by local and state officials should have disabused her of her delusions. I think she was well aware of the weakness of her position before she made her announcement. She just decided if she was going to “do something”, she might as well do something big.

Grisham has backed down slightly from her original order, a decision I suspect that is almost entirely based on the unwillingness of police and prosecutors to go along. Massive Resistance implies mass, after all, and in Grisham’s case she (so far, anyway) hasn’t had the institutional backing she needs to pull off her unconstitutional scheme. That may have even factored into her decision to revise her original order instead of bringing lawmakers back to Santa Fe for a special session to address this “emergency”; she knows that she doesn’t have the political capital at the moment to control the outcome and ensure that her desired gun control bills get passed.

Lately, it seems like the governor’s been more interested in burning bridges with her fellow Democrats than building them, but that could easily change over the next few months. The self-proclaimed “emergency” in Albuquerque was her first attempt at massive resistance to the Bruen decision but I doubt it will be the last, and if she (or her handlers) have an ounce of political acumen they’ll be looking for buy-in and political cover from the Democratic majority before she unveils her next terrible and tyrannical idea.

Anti-gunners really don’t understand concept of freedom