Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

I often wonder if the morons really know just what dangerous ground they’re treading on?

WaPo Columnist Says The Quiet Part Out Loud About Attacks On The Judiciary
“A sustained campaign of condemnation isn’t going to push these judges to write liberal opinions, but it could chasten them toward more moderate ones.”

For generations, the Supreme Court mostly hewed a progressive jurisprudence.  Even if there were conservative blips here and there, appointees of Democratic and Republic presidents alike ruled in ways that were conducive to the political left. Litigants routinely judge-shopped cases (Amarillo has nothing on Montgomery), certain that the Supreme Court had their backs. During those golden times, judicial supremacy was considered a necessary condition of our polity.

But those times are gone. Prominent scholars openly speak out against judicial supremacy. And that academic theme carries over to the political realm. Indeed, Senator Wyden called on President Biden to “ignore” a district court’s ruling. Not even Orval Faubus was so audacious. (My article on Cooper v. Aaron is more timely than ever.)

At least with the current administration, there is no realistic chance the President will “ignore” a ruling of a federal court. Indeed, Biden couldn’t even stick to the script, and criticize the Supreme Court justices at the State of the Union. But sooner or later, the academic and political stars will align, and a President will openly flout a federal court judgment. Who will send in the 101st Airborne?

Continue reading “”

Murphy Leads 47 Senators to Reintroduce Background Check Expansion Act

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) led 47 senators, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) on Thursday in reintroducing the Background Check Expansion Act to expand federal background checks to all gun sales. Although more than 90 percent of Americans support comprehensive background checks, under current federal law, unlicensed or private sellers are not required to conduct a background check prior to transferring a firearm. Research indicates that as many as a quarter of all gun sales in the United States may occur without a background check. U.S. Representatives Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) introduced the companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Background Check Expansion Act will require background checks for the sale or transfer of all firearms. This requirement extends to all unlicensed sellers, whether they do business online, at gun shows, or out of their home. Exceptions to the Background Check Expansion Act include transfers between law enforcement officers, temporarily loaning firearms for hunting and sporting events, providing firearms as gifts to immediate family members, transferring a firearm as part of an inheritance, or temporarily transferring a firearm for immediate self-defense.

Continue reading “”

World Government Summit Panelist Says ‘Shock’ Needed for ‘Transformation’ of ‘International Order’

According to a panelist at the World Government Summit in the United Arab Emirates this week, the “international order” needs some reorganizing — and not in a “gradual” way, but with a “shock.” His fellow panelist agreed that global institutions, which of course have little to no accountability to the citizens of specific countries, need more power to stop crises. The unanswered question is, just what sort of “shock” do these globalists have in mind?

Three experts spoke during the Feb. 13 panel, “Key Predictions for a Changing World Order.” The World Government Summit website describes the panel: “A world transformed by climate shocks? A multipolar economic future? A democratic renaissance? In the history of global events, pandemics and wars have both been proven turning points in history. So what lies ahead? During this session, we invite leading Professor Arturo Bris, Director to build on their strategic foresight and envision the state of the future world order.”

Bris, director of IMD World Competitiveness Center, certainly has opinions on the “future world order,” and he made a somewhat vague but “shock”ing comment during the panel.

Continue reading “”

Why all of a sudden this comes out now? The demoncrap PTB are stabbing SloJoe in the back to so he can be forced to not run for re-election. so Goobernor Newsome can.

Jim Biden admitted he was hired to negotiate with Saudis over a secret $140 million deal ‘because of his position and relationship’ to his VP brother Joe — who would be ‘instrumental to the deal,’ bombshell affidavit claims.

President Biden’s brother was hired to engage in secret negotiations with the Saudi government on behalf of a US construction company because of his relationship with the then vice president, legal documents claim.

Jim Biden was selected because Saudi Arabia ‘would not dare stiff the brother of the Vice-President who would be instrumental to the deal,’  bombshell affidavits obtained by DailyMail.com allege.

Joe’s younger brother Jim, 73, was at the center of a $140 million settlement negotiation between Hill International and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 2012.

According to the documents, Jim told a former senior US Treasury official working as a private investigator that he was hired to negotiate with the Saudis ‘because of his position and relationship’ to VP Joe Biden – who led delegations to Saudi Arabia at the time.

Continue reading “”

US shoots down another high-altitude object, Montana airspace temporarily closed

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he ordered the takedown of “an unidentified object that violated Canadian airspace.”

“Canadian and U.S. aircraft were scrambled, and a U.S. F-22 successfully fired at the object,” he tweeted.

Canadian Forces will now recover and analyze the wreckage, Trudeau said.

The object was shot down approximately 100 miles from the Canada-U.S. border in central Yukon, Canadian Defense Minister Anita Anand told reporters during a press briefing Saturday night. It appears to have been a “small, cylindrical object” that was flying at about 40,000 feet, she said.

The North American Aerospace Defense Command detected the high-altitude object over Alaska late Friday evening, according to Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder. Two U.S. F-22 aircraft monitored the object over Alaska, then Canadian aircraft joined as it crossed into Canadian airspace, he said.

Following a call from Trudeau to President Joe Biden on Saturday, Biden authorized that U.S. aircraft take down the new high-altitude object and a U.S. F-22 shot it down with a sidewinder missile, Ryder said.

The leaders authorized that the “unidentified, unmanned object” be taken down “out of an abundance of caution and at the recommendation of their militaries,” according to a White House readout of the call. They also stressed the importance of recovering the object to determine its purpose or origin, the readout stated.

“As Canadian authorities conduct recovery operations to help our countries learn more about the object, the Federal Bureau of Investigation will be working closely with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,” Ryder said in a statement.

The development comes a day after the White House said an unknown “high-altitude object” was shot down over the waters off Alaska.

That object was about the size of a small car and flying at around 40,000 feet, White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said Friday. U.S. Northern Command said Saturday it had no further details on the object’s “capabilities, purpose or origin.”

Trudeau said he supported the “decision to take action.”

“Our military and intelligence services will always work together, including through @NORADCommand, to keep people safe,” he tweeted Friday.

NORAD confirmed on Saturday that there was a temporary space restriction over Montana.

The airspace was closed due to an object “to ensure the safety of air traffic in the area during NORAD operations. The restriction has been lifted,” the statement read.

“NORAD detected a radar anomaly and sent fighter aircraft to investigate. Those aircraft did not identify any object to correlate to the radar hits. NORAD will continue to monitor the situation,” the statement continued.

Montana Sen. Steve Daines said he was in contact with the Pentagon regarding the object in the airspace and receiving frequent updates.

“Montanans still have questions about the Chinese spy balloon that flew over our state last week. I’ll continue to demand answers on these invasions of US airspace,” he tweeted.

The U.S. also shot down a suspected Chinese surveillance balloon off the coast of South Carolina on Feb. 4, after tracking it across the continental U.S. for several days.

U.S. officials said Friday that the undercarriage of the Chinese balloon — where the surveillance equipment and other technology was housed — had been located.

In the wake of the incident, the U.S. Commerce Department said Friday it added six Chinese entities to their Entity List for “supporting the PRC’s military modernization efforts, specifically those related to aerospace programs, including airships and balloons and related materials and components, that are used by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) for intelligence and reconnaissance,” according to a press release.

By adding these companies to the list, the U.S. can block them from “obtaining U.S. items and technologies without U.S. government authorization.”

The move is aimed at sending a “clear message to companies, governments, and other stakeholders globally that the entities on the list present a threat to national security,” the release said.

When they write articles like this, they merely indicate the title of their site is incorrect. They are not ‘good men’. And it begs the question: Which right will be the next one they decide the people should not have?

Uttering the Unutterable: Repeal the Second Amendment Now I uttered the unutterable, the ultimate taboo in U.S. political discourse.

I love life, and I love the people of my country far far far more than I value the “freedom” to bear arms. I don’t know if any “reforms” will really solve the problems of gun violence in the United States. In all actuality, I believe, therefore, that we must repeal the Second Amendment now!

There! I uttered the unutterable, the ultimate taboo in U.S. political discourse. But I am not running for public office or reelection. I am not expecting large payouts from the National Rifle Association or from the firearms manufacturers through their lobbyists.

As the horse once served as a primary means of transportation in earlier times, it now grazes and prances peacefully on rich pastures. Possibly during former moments in our history, we may have had reason to enact and enforce the Second Amendment of our great Constitution, but those bygone days have long since passed. Now we must put the Second Amendment out to pasture.

Continue reading “”

Anti-gun groups press Biden to issue executive action on “assault weapons”

We already know that Joe Biden is going to repeat his call for Congress to ban modern sporting rifles during next week’s State of the Union address. The real question is whether he’ll trot out his stale talking points about deer in Kevlar vests and the falsehood that you couldn’t own cannons when the Second Amendment was ratified.

We also know that a divided Congress is unlikely to implement a legislative gun ban, which is why a coalition of anti-gun groups is demanding that Biden direct the ATF to pursue a gun ban via regulation instead.

In a new letter to Biden, the groups say its time for the ATF to take a look at imported firearms to see if they pass the “sporting purposes” test created by the Gun Control Act of 1998; a move they hope will lead to the ban on the importation of many modern sporting rifles produced overseas.

And though the president doesn’t appear to have the votes for an assault weapons ban in Congress, the groups argue that Biden has tools at his disposal to further limit the proliferation of these guns in the U.S., including by fully enforcing the importation ban of foreign-made assault weapons that do not have a “sporting purpose.”

As Giffords notes in its memo, the ATF, which oversees the importation of guns in the U.S., “has not conducted a comprehensive review of semi-automatic assault rifles and handguns under the sporting purposes test” since the Clinton administration.

Giffords and the other gun control groups don’t want the ATF to merely conduct a review of currently imported firearms, but to “issue new criteria” to enforce the sporting purposes test. In doing so, however, they could be opening up a Pandora’s Box that leads to the demise of the “sporting purposes” test altogether.

In Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the fundamental purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is self-defense, not sport. Our ability to hunt, compete, or even recreate with a firearm is ancillary to our ability to use a gun to protect human life. Does the GCA’s “sporting purposes” test infringe on that right to keep and bear arms by prohibiting the importation of arms that are identical in nature to some of the most commonly-sold firearms in the United States, or does it merely impose a regulation on gun companies without directly impacting would-be gun owners?

Most of the litigation taking on the ATF’s rules banning bump stocks, re-labeling pistols with stabilizing braces “short-barreled rifles”, and declaring unfinished frames and receives to be “firearms” have avoided a direct challenge to the constitutionality of the Gun Control Act, primarily arguing instead that ATF’s rules violate the Administrative Procedures Act and create new law instead of merely interpreting existing regulations. However, if the Biden administration follows the demands of the gun control lobby and orders the ATF to review existing imports and establish new criteria for the “sporting purposes” test, that would provide a golden opportunity to challenge the legality of the test itself.

There are risks to that strategy for both sides, of course, and I’m not convinced that Biden will acquiesce to these demands. The gun control lobby has also been quietly advocating for the administration to re-classify large numbers of semi-automatic firearms (including many common handguns) as machine guns; an even broader proposal than what they’re publicly calling for in their demand letter to the White House. As I’ve said before, that would be the nuclear option for Biden, and could not only lead to the Supreme Court weighing in on bans on modern sporting rifles, but the underlying statutes being used to implement the unconstitutional actions.

For gun owners, the concern is that the Court might not be ready or willing to nuke the GCA, either in whole or in part, and could even end up upholding the gun grab on the flimsiest of legal theories.

It’s not up to Second Amendment advocates to chart Joe Biden’s course on gun control over the next two years, and frankly, given that the gun control lobby itself hasn’t had much luck convincing him on things like establishing a White House czar on “gun violence”, I don’t know that it’s up to groups like Everytown or Giffords either.

What I do know is that Biden’s anti-gun ideology isn’t just for show or a position he trots out for the press when circumstances dictate. He’s a true believer in banning our way to safety at the expense of fundamental civil rights, and as he sinks further into lame-duck status an administrative gun grab might start to look more attractive. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said last week that the administration will “continue to pursue executive actions” in the future, and though she declined to offer any specifics I think we know that there are several options on the table… including the nuclear one

The nomenklatura is real. It sprang to life with the first law Congress passed that restricted the people and exempted goobermint.

American Nomenklatura.

A few weeks after Elon Musk formally acquired Twitter in October 2022, a senior official at the company who quit in the wake of Musk’s arrival took to the New York Times to pour cold water on Musk’s vision for the social-media platform. Yoel Roth, whose title had been Head of Trust and Safety, sought to assure his fellow progressives. Roth wrote that even if Musk wanted to remove the web of content-moderation rules and procedures Roth had helped create and enforce, the tech billionaire would be unable to achieve his aim. “The moderating influences of advertisers, regulators and, most critically of all, app stores may be welcome for those of us hoping to avoid an escalation in the volume of dangerous speech online,” he wrote.

What Roth meant was this: No Internet platform is an island, and Musk simply didn’t have the power to do what he wanted despite his 100 percent ownership of the social-media platform. It wasn’t merely that Musk would have to contend with Twitter’s progressive workforce, which believes that some political speech is so awful that it should be throttled or banned. He would also come into conflict with European regulators, the Federal Trade Commission, and Congress, all of whom also seek to limit what can be said online. And what about the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a trade organization of some of the world’s biggest consumer brands that advocates for “online safety”—a euphemism for protecting social-media users from accounts that may offend, harass, or trigger them?

He would also be dogged by advocacy groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, which have found a new and lucrative mission monitoring social-media platforms for hate speech. They work hand in hand with elite journalists and think tankers, who have taken to tracking the spread of misinformation and disinformation online. In Washington, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security have personnel whose job it is to alert social-media companies to foreign propaganda and terrorism. In Atlanta, the Centers for Disease Control seeks to quarantine dangerous information that might lead Americans to forgo masks or vaccine boosters. And perhaps most important, there are other Silicon Valley giants—Apple and Google—that provide the digital storefronts or app stores that Twitter needs to update their software and continue to run its service.

Call it the “content-moderation industrial complex.” In just a few short years, this nomenklatura has come to constitute an implicit ruling class on the Internet, one that collectively determines what information and news sources the rest of us should see on major platforms. Talk about “free speech” and “the First Amendment” may actually be beside the point here. The Twitter that Musk bought was part of a larger machine—one that attempts to shape conversations online by amplifying, muzzling, and occasionally banning participants who run afoul of its dogma.

The existence of this nomenklatura has been known for a few years. But thanks to Musk and his decision to make Twitter’s internal communications and policies available to journalists Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, and others, more detail is now known on why and how this elite endeavors to protect us from all manner of wrongthink.

Continue reading “”

Der apfel fält nicht weit vom baum (The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree)

Klaus Schwab’s Father Ran ‘National Socialist Model Company,’ Exploited Nazi Slave Labor.

Davos frontman Klaus Schwab’s daddy, Eugen Schwab, while the Third Reich was ravaging Europe in the 1930s and 40s, served as managing director of Escher Wyss Ravensburg, an engineering firm that constructed turbines and fighter plane parts for the regime.

While the elder Schwab worked in this capacity, the Nazis awarded Escher Wyss Ravensburg the prestigious title of “National Socialist Model Company” for all of its hard work in the service of the Führer.

To achieve this recognition, Escher-Wyss Ravensburg, under Eugen Schwab’s leadership, utilized Nazi slave labor and prisoners of war in its facilities.

Ravensburg itself, aside from the slave factory, was the site of numerous Nazi crimes against humanity, such as forced sterilization for the purpose of “racial improvement.” But to Eugen Schwab, that was just the cost of doing business with the Third Reich.

You want to make an omelet, you gotta break some eggs, right?

Klaus Schwab’s sanitized Wikipedia page contains none of the gruesome details of his daddy’s wartime activities, other than to say “his parents had moved from Switzerland to Germany during the Third Reich in order for his father to assume the role of director at Escher Wyss.”

Newsweek ran a corporate “fact check” in which they cherry-picked a falsely attributed image of Eugen in a Nazi uniform as a way to seem to disprove his connection to the Third Reich entirely. But deep into the article, Newsweek subtly admits that it’s all true — which almost no one will get to, thanks to short attention spans:

The posts shared online in May, 2022, claim Klaus Schwab’s father, Eugen Schwab, was a close ally of Hitler, and include a photo of the World Economic Forum leader alongside a man in Nazi uniform… the photo shared online is not of Eugen Schwab, but of Nazi general Walter Dybilasz… Klaus Schwab’s father, on the other hand, was the managing director of a subsidiary of Zurich-based engineering firm Escher Wyss. 

The history of Eugen’s relationship with Nazism in general is complex… Eugen Schwab was a member of some National Socialist organizations, but that alone does not prove any relationship to German high command or a belief in Nazi ideology. While the Escher Wyss branch in Ravensburg, Germany, (which Eugen managed) used prisoners of war and forced laborers, it is not clear whether the company was forced to do so by the Nazis or because of a lack of workers.

So, Eugen Schwab was an avowed National Socialist, and yes, okay, his firm did use Nazi slave labor. But, you see, that doesn’t mean he was a Nazi. And maybe Escher Wyss had to use slave labor to make their products for the Nazis because of a worker shortage.

This is a common tactic in corporate media: Take a false claim that circulates on the web (in this case, an image incorrectly identified as Eugen Schwab) and use that single post to discredit the entire factual connection between Schwab and the Nazis.

Cori Bush reveals that when Democrats talk about race, they simply mean party

Democratic Rep. Cori Bush (MO) wants you to know that Republican Rep. Byron Donalds (FL) does not count as black.

That’s the only interpretation of her comment. Donalds has been nominated to be speaker of the House. Regardless of the circumstances, and regardless of what you think of Donalds’s politics, that’s historic.

At least, this was the rule when Democrats were nominating their first black man or first woman to be president.

“Everybody ought to celebrate it, Republican or Democrat alike,” Democrat John Kerry proclaimed after Clinton won the nomination. “It’s a breakthrough.”

This was always a lie, I wrote after Giorgia Meloni and Rishi Sunak got no grand congratulations on their elections in Italy and the United Kingdom, respectively.

“When they said we should celebrate racial diversity and historic firsts, what they really meant was: ‘We should celebrate the Left’s wins and come up with excuses to call the Right racist or sexist.’”

We know for a fact that Democrats and liberals use the charge of racism dishonestly as a cudgel — as a way to shut up political enemies and increase the cost of opposing them.

Recall how liberals wrote in private emails they expected only their allies to see: “Take one of them … who cares — and call them racists.”

“What is necessary,” liberal journalist Spencer Ackerman explained, “is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [face] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear.”

Continue reading “”

More of Sun-Tzu’s advice to know your enemy

This is what passes for ‘liberal’ these days.
A wanna-be tyrant with a minimal IQ who somehow believes he’s  discovered an as yet never postulated way to achieve his goal.

The Second amendment is not, and never had been, a permission to allow the People to do anything. It ‘gives’ nothing. It is in no way a ‘the people may’. It declares rights and restricts goobermint power over those rights.
The People already have the right not just to keep and bear arms, but to also make them, right along with the accoutrements and ammunition necessary for their use.
Even this latest ‘ghost gun’ regulation by the bureaucraps at BATFE does nothing to stop a person from making their own guns.

The Second amendment is, as clearly stated by the Bill Of Rights own preamble – quoted below – is a restriction on goobermint power, not on the rights of the people

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The author’s mindless idea is that of the ignoramus who was never taught, or slept through their course in, U.S. Civics. That also goes for many of the people commenting there. Either that, or they have an ulterior motive, a disarmament agenda for their political enemies, because unless they disarm them, they can’t deal with them the way all tyrants want to.

Read Second Amendment Literally: Ban Making and Selling Guns

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A fully contextual reading of the Second Amendment tells us that the Founding Fathers protected the right to bear arms for the sole purpose of supporting a well-regulated militia to keep America free and secure. But various gun cranks and judges have dismissed that prefatory clause and read all sorts of non-original intent into the right to bear arms—self-defense, shooting government officials we don’t like, yadda yadda.

So let’s ignore the preface and focus strictly and literally on the operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. (I’m also going to ignore that erroneous comma—a comma should never separate a subject and a predicate unless there is some intervening descriptive phrase or dependent clause.)

The Second Amendment says we may have guns. It says we may carry guns.

The Second Amendment does not say we may make guns.

It does not say we may sell guns.

It does not say that we may box up a gun and mail it across state lines.

We could shut down every gun factory and store and dealer in America today and not violate the Second Amendment. We already have 393 million firearms, more than enough to allow every living American to carry a gun. If you have a gun, you can keep it. You just can’t buy any more or sell the ones you have.

Ah, but what if your gun breaks and you want another one? Or what if you grow up in a household that chooses not to bear arms but then decide when you grow up, you want to be a hero like Kyle Rittenhouse? You can’t exercise your Second Amendment right if you can’t get your hands on a gun? To keep and bear an arm, don’t you have to be able to buy a gun or build your own from bamboo, charcoal, sulfur, and diamonds?

Well, if governments are instituted among men to secure our rights, then the government can secure our Second Amendment right by producing arms—just contract Sig Sauer to crank out a few million more M17s and M18s—and distributing them at local police stations or Army recruiting offices to every citizen willing and able to carry one.  No right is absolute, of course: the government can and should decline to hand free guns to people who are drunk, crazy, angry, or elsewise identifiably dangerous. But if the government ensures that every able-bodied and responsible American who desires to keep and bear an arm can get an arm, then there is no need for private, extra-constitutional gun-running.

The Second Amendment has been perverted by profit-seekers. The Second Amendment does not protect gun commerce. End gun commerce, and we’ll defuse the fear– and machismo-stoking marketing that drives our destructive gun culture.

Use These Five Easy Tricks to Identify the Marxist in the Room.

People are waking up to the Marxist onslaught facing our nation. If you still don’t see the pile of bolshie we are up against, I suggest you read this brilliant four-part series by Larry Alex Taunton on Klaus Schwab, his not-at-all secret commie plans for global power, and, more importantly, just how close he is to succeeding.

Communism comes disguised as virtue. Rarely does a despot announce, “I’m here to control every aspect of every life I chose not to murder,” though Schwab is pretty upfront about his planned fascism. Actually, Hitler was too.

Look for communism masquerading as morality in the forms of:

  • Black Lives Matter
  • Critical race theory
  • “Trans rights”
  • Climate change
  • ESG–Environmental, Social and Governance

All of these pretend to help the helpless, but in America, no one is defenseless.

Continue reading “”

2022 Closes with A Nation On the Precipice of Ruination

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- As one more year draws rapidly to a close in these first three decades of the 21st Century, the United States stands precariously at the edge of an abyss.

After a century of sidestepping the issue, the U.S. Supreme Court established, in three precedential case law decisions, what had been visibly plain in the language of the Second Amendment itself all along if one would only look.

All three cases were handed down in the first three decades of the 21st Century. They include:

District of Columbia vs. Heller in 2008, McDonald vs. City of Chicago in 2010, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen in 2022.

These three cases, together, stand for the following propositions, now black letter law:

  • The right of armed self-defense is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia
  • The right of armed self-defense is a universal right, applicable to both the States and the Federal Government.
  • The right of armed self-defense applies wherever a person is, inside the home or outside it.

These three legal axioms are, together, the singular Law of the Land.

But for this Law, the Republic would have fallen into ruin, this Century.

There would be nothing to rein in a rogue Congress, a rogue Biden Administration, or rogue jurisdictions like those around the Country: New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California, Washington State, Washington D.C., Oregon, Hawaii, and several others.

The rot from those State jurisdictions and from the Federal Government would eventually infect many other states.

Forces inside the Government and outside it, both here and abroad—wealthy and powerful, malevolent and malignant—constantly machinate to destroy the right to armed self-defense. These forces will not tolerate an armed citizenry. The existence of an armed citizenry contradicts their end goal of a neo-feudalistic world government. The armed citizenry precept deviates from their plan of world conquest.

Their goal for the 21st Century is a return to the political, social, and economic feudalistic construct operating in the world of the 5th through 15th Centuries—the Middle Ages.

These ruthless elements have declared——

  • The United States can no longer continue as a free Constitutional Republic;
  • The American people must be subjugated; and
  • Any thought of an armed citizenry must be erased from the collective memory of the American people.

The ashes of a once powerful, respected, sovereign, independent United States are to be commingled with the ashes of other western nations.

The EU and the British Commonwealth Nations are a step in the direction of that world empire.

The neoliberal democratic world order is conceived as——

  • One devoid of defined geographical borders,
  • One absent national government; and
  • One bereft of any defining history, heritage, culture, ethos, or Judeo-Christian ethic by which the people of one nation may easily distinguish themselves from any other.

Continue reading “”

They hate us

They hate us. Oh boy, do they ever.
Remember Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, ripping up President Trump’s State of the Union address?
That’s a constitutionally mandated document, by the way, but more importantly, why?
What was in there that was so vile as to justify such an act? Nothing. So, why?

They hate us.

We say things they don’t like. The truth of our assertions is often admitted by them later. But at the time we say it, we are shouted down. Our speech is censored, which is colossally bad enough. But we lose our jobs. We lose our income. We are called the nastiest of things.
And when it’s proven they have censored us, do they apologize? Are they mortified as they should be? Do they swear to amend their ways?
No. They want to keep on doing it. Why?

Because they hate us, and hating us is not only O.K., it is good. Indeed it is the height of morality. It is good to hate us.

Our problem is that we do not fully realize this. We have only recently even begun to contemplate the truth of this, and we are in shock.
We should be. They are like demons possessed.
What they don’t realize is that in hating us, they are hating themselves, too. They are cutting the branch we all sit on. But they insist on it.

An example is the withdrawal from Afghanistan. To withdraw is one thing. To withdraw so as to weaken us (giving up that strategic airfield near China, giving up so many weapons, deserting our own citizens, not informing our Western allies that also had troops there) is another thing.
And none of this was even marginally necessary. None of it. Did it weaken and endanger us? Yes, and they do hate us, so we should learn to expect this. But it weakened America for all for them, too, but they don’t care.

Indeed, they don’t care at all.

So to think some last-minute consideration of self-preservation shall stay their hand is folly. Remember, they do not only hate your kids, they hate their own, too. Indeed, they hate America.
This is completely different from the way things used to be. For instance, in the Civil War there was an Issue. It was fought over and decided. And, to the great and profound credit of both sides, once it was over, it was over. The sides could then get along, since they were united in so much else.

That was yesterday. Today, they even hate the word, “American.”

Consider the beautiful American federal system, with fifty states being able to have fifty variants concerning most political policies. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision, each state could adopt the policy choice it wanted concerning abortion. Several were very liberal. Each state could do as it wanted to, and the laws were easy to modify.
But the Left could not abide this, and forced Roe v. Wade, a decision that had no constitutional basis, down everyone’s throat.

There is no live and let live. No where to run, nowhere to hide.

You must say what they wish to be said, and only that. We know now that they used the government and social media to enforce this. It is ghastly, but it means nothing to them, since censorship is good.
They will not leave you alone. They demand compliance, not only in word, but deed. You will wear a mask and like it, you will not go to church, you will not visit the sick, you will not travel, your business will be shut down, you will not require election integrity. You will have no fun and you will not complain.

This is not a cultural war. It is a fanatical religious frenzy bent on extermination of the heretofore unsuspecting, that is, of us, who are considered heretics. Even though it is not we who have changed our beliefs.
What will happen? Are we doomed?

The future is not written in stone. It may go bad, very bad; even apocalyptic.

It may not. So many incredible things have happened recently, and much depends upon unpredictable changes of heart and attitude. Much of human life is built up on things we barely understand, and we know a lot less than we think we do. That is why principles are important, to guide us through the mess. That is why the American system of governance was so wonderful, because it was built on such principles applied to government.

Yet while indeed incredible things have happened, like with the billionaire buying that social media company and revealing what we had said all along must be the case as being so, or with Ukraine unexpectedly fending off the attacker and destroying the heart of its army, nevertheless one often thinks a ‘short sharp shock’ is necessary to be brought to bear upon the Left in order to start a rollback.
Or perhaps in order for things to turn around, our own ranks have to grow to some certain number, of those who understand, among other things, that they hate us.

One thing is certain. This is not a friendly tug of war. It has been to date a raiding party on their part, descending upon a barn dance.
As we await the future, we must at the very least keep this firmly in mind, even though it is far more comfortable to imagine otherwise.