Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

Comment O’ The Day
Taibbi has a point. Politicians can falsely claim to be a climate, crime, or economics expert and the average voter isn’t going to offer stiff resistance to that claim. But if a politician claims high school graduation shouldn’t depend upon proficiency in reading, writing, and arithmetic you are going to get their attention. It’s something everyone capable of reading is going to have a fair amount of expertise in. And the ruination of our education system has reached the point where it’s impossible to ignore.
The remarkable thing is that when called out on this the politicians don’t admit they were wrong. They double down.

The Democrats’ Education Lunacies Will Bring Back Trump
Terry McAuliffe lost the Virginia governor’s race by saying, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what to teach.” If that was no gaffe, Democrats have a lot more significant losing ahead.

(it was no gaffe. It was a ‘freudian slip’ where you inadvertently tell a truth about yourself you wanted kept concealed)

On Meet the Press Daily last week, Chuck Todd featured a small item about the 23 Democrats not planning on running for re-reelection to congress next year. Todd guessed such a high number expressed a lack of confidence in next year’s midterms, and his guest, University of Virginia Center for Politics Director Larry Sabato, agreed. “This is just another indicator that Democrats will probably have a bad year in 2022,” said Sabato, adding, “They only have a majority of five. It’s pretty tough to see how they hold on.”

On the full Meet the Press Sunday, Todd in an ostensibly unrelated segment interviewed 1619 Project author and New York Times writer Nikole Hannah-Jones about Republican efforts in some states to ban teaching of her work. He detoured to ask about the Virginia governor’s race, which seemingly was decided on the question, “How influential should parents be about curriculum?” Given that Democrats lost Virginia after candidate Terry McAuliffe said, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what to teach,” Todd asked her, “How do we do this?”

Hannah-Jones’s first answer was to chide Todd for not remembering that Virginia was lost not because of whatever unimportant thing he’d just said, but because of a “right-wing propaganda campaign that told white parents to fight against their children being indoctrinated.”
This was standard pundit fare that for the millionth time showed a national media figure ignoring, say, the objections of Asian immigrant parents to Virginia policies, but whatever: her next response was more notable. “I don’t really understand this idea that parents should decide what’s being taught,” Hannah-Jones said. “I’m not a professional educator. I don’t have a degree in social studies or science.”

I’m against bills like the proposed Oklahoma measure that would ban the teaching of Jones’s work at all state-sponsored educational institutions. I think bans are counter-productive and politically a terrible move by Republicans, who undercut their own arguments against authoritarianism and in favor of “local control” with such sweeping statewide measures. Still, it was pretty rich hearing the author of The 1619 Project say she lacked the expertise to teach, given that a) many historians agree with her there, yet b) she’s been advocating for schools to teach her dubious work to students all over the country.

Even odder were her next comments, regarding McAuliffe’s infamous line about parents. About this, Hannah-Jones said:

We send our kids to school because we want our kids to be taught by people with expertise in the subject area… When the governor, or the candidate, said he didn’t think parents should be deciding what’s being taught in school, he was panned for that, but that’s just a fact.

In the wake of McAuliffe’s loss, the “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what to teach” line was universally tabbed a “gaffe” by media. I described it in the recent “Loudoun County: A Culture War in Four Acts” series in TK as the political equivalent of using a toe to shoot your face off with a shotgun, but this was actually behind the news cycle. Yahoo! said the “gaffe precipitated the Democrat’s slide in the polls,” while the Daily Beast’s blunter headline was, “Terry McAuliffe’s White-Guy Confidence Just Fucked the Dems.”

However, much like the Hillary Clinton quote about “deplorables,” conventional wisdom after the “gaffe” soon hardened around the idea that what McAuliffe said wasn’t wrong at all. In fact, people like Hannah-Jones are now doubling down and applying to education the same formula that Democrats brought with disastrous results to a whole range of other issues in the Trump years, telling voters that they should get over themselves and learn to defer to “experts” and “expertise.”

Continue reading “”

The Establishment Wants to Crush You Uppity Peasants

Some guy named Jared Schmeck recently mocked the senile old pervert who is masquerading as our president by getting His Crustiness to affirm “Let’s go, Brandon!” This humiliation of the regime figurehead, piled upon the myriad other humiliations he has brought upon himself – failing to pass infrastructure, Afghanistan, putting the “can” in “Vatican” – is intolerable to the establishment. This uppitiness must be stopped.

And it’s even less tolerable because “Let’s Go, Brandon” is a manifestation of the class warfare that increasingly characterizes American society. It’s the cry of the working class, bold and joyous, utterly uncontrollable. It has energy and cheer, while the pathetic moaning of the ruling caste’s spokescreatures is rote, boring, and bereft of any power. The regime-approved memes our elite’s minions repeat on cable and in social media are the chant of serfs.

So, the garbage regime and it’s ridiculous legacy media minions must try to stifle this rebellion. They especially hate that this in no Astroturf meme passed around on some media server list after being decreed from on high. LGB is infinitely more dangerous. It’s an organic response that is not pushed or guided, but that evolved totally outside the approved channels. They hate it because it is not theirs, and because they cannot direct it or tame it. So they try to squelch it. But it will come back even stronger. And worse, we’ll be laughing at them as we repeat it.

The most hilarious part is when the ruling caste’s Renfields leverage “rules” and “norms” against disrespecting the dementite-in-chief, expressing shock and horror that Jared the Pleb did not abase himself before Hunter’s daddy sufficiently. You might wonder when the respect the president rule came into effect, but that glaring hypocrisy is intentional. They want you to know that you must play by rules that they are free to ignore. It solidifies your status as second-class citizens.

You must know your place, and they intend to teach it to you. First, they reported that Jared says his crack was “a joke,” as if to paint him as backtracking and trying to excuse what he should be proud of. They want to paint him as broken and repentant, as if participating in some Red Guard self-criticism session or a modern university race/gender seminar. But it’s an obvious lie. Yeah, smart media people, he literally meant Biden was to perform a challenging act of love upon himself. The thing we need to understand is that our enemies are just not very good at their jobs. And you can make it even more difficult for them. Here’s a rule, people – the media will bend whatever you say to serve their narrative so, if you choose to speak to the legacy media at all, it should be a nonstop string of profanity that is utterly exploitable.

Second, we get the blue checks announcing that “free speech does not mean freedom from consequences.” That’s precisely what it means, though. They are against free speech, and you must squash their fascism into their faces at every opportunity. They will still try to get this guy fired or arrested or whatever. Remember, they are communists. They would murder him if they could – luckily, their lack of guns and upper body strength prevents that.

“Kurt, that is crazy talk! You are crazy.”

Those who doubt the drooling, fussy fury of our enemies and their desire to see us enslaved or dead should spend a little time on social media. Besides their hatred for Jared, look at their COVID death wishes for those refusing to wear a face thong or take the medicine that does not work as advertised. If they find out this Jared guy is unvaccinated, they may literally explode and splash those around them with pus and bile.

Remember, this is all part of their plan for soft tyranny. At the moment, they do not have the power to make you do anything. They must instead convince you to make yourself comply. By showing Jared Schmeck being harassed and harangued by the sex pest enablers at CNN and elsewhere, they hope to scare you into silence. They hope to make you choose to conform and obey.

Here’s the other tiresome part – the Conservative, Inc., crew decrying Jared Schmeck’s disrespect to a buffoon who deserves none. This is all class solidarity, folks. LGB did not spring up among the supine sissies who make up the GOP establishment. It came from the base, and they hate the base. Like the Tea Party, like Trump, they did not create it and they cannot control it, so they hate it. LGB demonstrates a contempt for the institutions, institutions that these people hope to run themselves. They like the system, people. “Brandon” is about burning the whole sorry system down; the pseudo-conservative timeservers are just about changing the management to put themselves in charge.

So, we get lots of pearl clutching about how those uncouth rubes shockingly refuse to observe the rules and norms that apply only to those uncouth rubes. They need to know their place, which is holding trays in the background wearing masks as their betters dine and sip ungagged.

Let’s go, Brandon!

Recall, Remove & Replace Every Last Soros Prosecutor

Last year, our nation experienced the largest increase in murder in American history and the largest number of drug overdose deaths ever recorded. This carnage continues today and is not distributed equally. Instead, it is concentrated in cities and localities where radical, left-wing, George Soros progressives have captured state and district attorney offices. These legal arsonists condemn our rule of law as “systemically racist” and have not simply abused prosecutorial discretion, they have embraced prosecutorial nullification. As a result, a contagion of crime has infected virtually every neighborhood under their charge.

Soros prosecutors refuse to enforce laws against shoplifting, drug trafficking, and entire categories of felonies and misdemeanors. In Chicago, Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx allows theft under $1,000 to go unpunished. In Manhattan, District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. refuses to enforce laws against prostitution. In Baltimore, State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby has unilaterally declared the war on drugs “over” and is refusing to criminally charge drug users in the middle of the worst drug crisis in American history. For a time, Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon even stopped enforcing laws against disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, and making criminal threats.

All of these cities have paid a terrible price for these insane policies. Last year, the number of homicides in Chicago rose by 56%, and more than 1,000 Cook County residents have been murdered in 2021. In New York City, murder increased 47% and shootings soared 97%. In 2020, the murder rate in Baltimore was higher than El Salvador’s or Guatemala’s — nations from which citizens often attempt to claim asylum purely based on gang violence and murder—and this year murder in Baltimore is on track to be even higher. Murder in Los Angeles rose 36% last year and is on track to rise another 17% this year.

Continue reading “”

Hillary Clinton Emails Surface.

Emails have from 2009 have surfaced that reveal Hillary Clinton knew about — and possibly covered up — the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party’s Wuhan Institute of Virology while she was in office as President Obama’s secretary of state.

In a leaked State Department cable obtained from Wikileaks, Clinton warned that the Wuhan Institute of Virology could lead to “biological weapons proliferation concern.”

The email was sent in June of 2009 from the State Department to all embassies in member nations.

It is dated just before the Australia Group plenary session in Paris, which took place from September 21st to September 25th, 2009.

According to Human Events, “The Australia Group is an international export control forum organized to prevent the spread of technologies and research that could be used in chemical and biological weapons.

“All Five Eyes nations are members of the group, including the EU, India, Japan, and South Korea.

“China is not a member of the group.”

Clinton’s cable states: “We believe it is important to focus on emerging chemical and biological technologies, trends in the trade of CBW-related goods and threats.”

In reference to France, Clinton writes: “The U.S. believes participants would benefit from hearing about your experiences assisting China in setting up a Biosafety Level-4 (BSL-4) laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology from the export control and intangible technology transfer perspectives.

“We are particularly interested to know how China plans to vet incoming foreign researchers from countries of biological weapons proliferation concern.”

Broadly discussing China’s biological weapons program, Clinton’s cable noted:

“The U.S. believes AG members would be interested in any information you can share related to China and North Korea, specifically information related to:

  • China’s Institutes of Biological Products (locations in Beijing and Wuhan), to include overhead imagery analysis, if possible. 
  • Your perceptions of the CBW proliferation activities by Chinese entities. 
  • Your perceptions of Chinese government efforts to enforce its export control rules.” 

Of course, Clinton kept these concerns to herself once the coronavirus pandemic hit, even referring to allegations that it leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology — the very lab she expressed concerns about — as racist.

She even went so far as to blame the allegations for attacks on Asian-Americans, without any evidence supporting her claim.

Whether it was because she didn’t want to let Trump be correct, or because she wanted to hide the fact that she was concerned — but did nothing — about the lab leak, it is clear Clinton was lying.

The question is, will she ever be held accountable for her actions?

BLUF:
The intentionally muddy writing shouldn’t obscure that this is a plan for a military coup. The Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S. Code § 1385, prevents the military from acting as a police force within the U.S. under all but the most limited of circumstances. If the Defense Department is unilaterally planning to take over “any agency that works hand in hand with the military” to ensure progressives remain in power if the next election is contested, then our modern military will have recast itself in the mold of a Third World military junta.

Three Retired Generals Loudly Demand A Military Coup In 2024

Democrats claim that democracy is under attack in America and Democrats must act decisively to protect it. They’ve been trying to end the filibuster, nationalize voting, and pack the Supreme Court. The most ominous “fix,” which hinges on the myth of a “January 6 Insurrection,” sees retired generals argue that the military must purge the ranks of Trump supporters and prepare for a military coup to block a future contested election. This is unconstitutional, illegal, and spells the end of American democracy.

Victor Davis Hanson notes that leftists are loudly worrying about democracy’s end while ignoring all they’ve done to end democracy, such as bringing in millions of illegal aliens, many of whom are being given the vote; destroying centuries-old governing traditions such as the filibuster; packing the court; ending the Electoral College; and more.

If Democrats can kill the Senate filibuster (and Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema is the only thing stopping them, not the craven Senator Mitch McConnell), they have the unfettered ability to enshrine vote fraud and pack the Supreme Court. The latter move spells the final—and deeply unconstitutional—progressive rewrite of our Constitution, and ends our constitutional republic.

The wild card in all of this, though, is what would the military do if, in fact, the progressives were able to achieve these goals (or even if they weren’t). Three retired officers have signaled that they want to purge the military of Trump supporters, and then plan a takeover of the military and related federal agencies that coordinate with the military to effect a coup in 2024. Considering the current state of the Pentagon, this may be more than a progressive fantasy.

Thirty years ago, when I was a U.S. Army Infantry Officer, our military was unquestionably a politically neutral, colorblind institution. It was the single most well-integrated institution in our nation and, indeed, was the primary engine integrating our nation.  But progressives have done everything they can to turn the military into a dysfunctional machine warped by racial, sexual, and gender identity divisions. This began with Obama, who injected the toxic myth of white supremacy and the tenets of critical race theory.

In 2019, Kyle Smith explained:

A curious thing happened in the second half of the Obama era: The commander-in-chief began viewing the military less as an entity designed to destroy enemies but [sic] a tool with which to achieve progressive goals. Warriors were turned into social-justice warriors. Men and women with risible-to-nonexistent military records were made heads of the services. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus (who had logged all of two years’ service as a junior officer) named ships after Cesar Chavez and Harvey Milk.

Obama also purged the military of any flag rank officer not reliably progressive, a process Andrea Widburg document at her blog and at American Thinker (here and here). Those who remain today are nothing but progressive race hustlers, such as the odious Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, or traitorous politicians in uniform, such as General Mark “white rage” Milley.

Enter now three retired U.S. Army Generals: Major Generals Paul D. Eaton and Antonio M. Taguba and Brigadier General Steven M. Anderson (“the Three”). In a Washington Post opinion piece, “3 retired generals: The military must prepare now for a 2024 insurrection,” they contend that events in 2020 revealed an incipient military coup and that, to save our nation, the U.S. military must act preemptively—radically and unilaterally. What they write should frighten every American.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
The Chronicle of Higher Education today is out with an article bemoaning J.D. Vance for saying “professors are the enemy.”
I wonder where he could possibly have gotten such an outlandish idea?

THE LEFT VS. THE CONSTITUTION

One reason the left hates the American Constitution, and wishes to replace it, is that its embedded principles along with much of its explicit text is foursquare against the two main purposes of the left: class struggle and race struggle. Never mind the drive to abolish the electoral college, or the Senate, or admit new states to increase the odds of Democratic election victories. Just take in how the left wants to rewrite—which means abolish—the Bill of Rights.

The Boston Globe is currently running a feature series about how to “edit” the Constitution, which of course means replacing it in practice with an egalitarian Constitution that would place much more power to control people and resources in elites like the kind of people you find in the editorial suites of the Boston Globe. How convenient.

Continue reading “”

This is the kind of academic we should always be on guard to watch for.
This is a real, actual ‘enemy domestic’ of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
And, they infest the schools and universities, filling our children’s mind with this collectivist, authoritarian statist, mush.

Read – carefully- what she wants. Her revisions are what’s called ‘positive rights‘. What she wants the government to do, in effect granting rights from goobermint power.

Her definition of how the 1st and 2nd amendment were written are defined by her and her ilk as ‘negative rights‘. Rights already possessed by the people, that the goobermint is restricted from abridging or infringing.

Remember, when more than one politician down through history has said: ‘Any government that’s large enough to give you everything is powerful enough to take it all away.‘ One should believe them.

REDO THE FIRST TWO AMENDMENTS

BY MARY ANNE FRANKS
Speech and guns: two of the most contentious issues in America today, with controversies fueled not only by personal passions and identity politics but by competing interpretations of the Constitution. Perhaps more than any other parts of the Constitution, the First and Second Amendments inspire religious-like fervor in many Americans, with accordingly irrational results.

As legal texts go, neither of the two amendments is a model of clarity or precision. More important, both are deeply flawed in their respective conceptualizations of some of the most important rights of a democratic society: the freedom of expression and religion and the right of self-defense. These two amendments are highly susceptible to being read in isolation from the Constitution as a whole and from its commitments to equality and the collective good.

The First and Second Amendments tend to be interpreted in aggressively individualistic ways that ignore the reality of conflict among competing rights. This in turn allows the most powerful members of society to reap the benefits of these constitutional rights at the expense of vulnerable groups. Both amendments would be improved by explicitly situating individual rights within the framework of “domestic tranquility” and the “general welfare” set out in the Constitution’s Preamble.

Making such an edit to the First Amendment would provide stronger and fairer protections for the right of expression, including by acknowledging, as many state constitutions do, that every person remains responsible for abuses of that right. (Such a modification would, for example, help undo the damage caused by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United and remove constitutional barriers to reasonable campaign-finance laws that promote democratic legitimacy.) In addition, the implicit principle of the separation of church and state should be made explicit:

Every person has the right to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and petition of the government for redress of grievances, consistent with the rights of others to the same and subject to responsibility for abuses. All conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all persons.

Both the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion shall be respected by the government. The government may not single out any religion for interference or endorsement, nor may it force any person to accept or adhere to any religious belief or practice.

Both amendments would be improved by explicitly situating individual rights within the framework of “domestic tranquility” and the “general welfare” set out in the Constitution’s Preamble.

The Second Amendment’s idiosyncratic and anachronistic focus on militias and “arms” degrades the concept of self-defense. The right to safeguard one’s life should not be conflated with or reduced to the right to use a weapon, especially a weapon that is so much more likely to inflict injury and death than to avoid it. Far better would be an amendment that guarantees a meaningful right to bodily autonomy and obligates the government to implement reasonable measures to protect public health and safety:

All people have the right to bodily autonomy consistent with the right of other people to the same, including the right to defend themselves against unlawful force and the right of self-determination in reproductive matters. The government shall take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public as a whole.

Mary Anne Franks is the Michael R. Klein Distinguished Scholar Chair at the University of Miami School of Law and the author of “The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech.”

OOPS

Liz Cheney, Daily Beast Tout ‘Bombshell’ Texts That Actually Prove There Was No Insurrection.

The Leftist political and media establishment now takes for granted that on Jan. 6, Donald Trump attempted a coup, with his slavish minions storming the Capitol and threatening the very survival of our free institutions. The only thing they haven’t been able to do is to prove it, even with a vindictive round of impeachment proceedings conducted after Trump left office and an endless round of somnambulant Jan. 6 insurrection hearings in a House committee.

So it was understandable that the far-Left propaganda organ the Daily Beast was thrilled Monday when Rep. Liz Cheney (R-NeverTrump) revealed numerous texts sent to Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on Jan. 6, begging Trump to tell the people who had entered the Capitol to desist. They got him now, right? After years of the Russian collusion hoax and Stalinist show trial impeachment proceedings, they finally got him! Well, no. In fact, the texts Cheney revealed prove definitively that there was no Jan. 6 insurrection at all.

The Daily Beast gives Cheney’s revelations the biggest possible buildup: “A bombshell dropped in Monday night’s Jan. 6 committee hearing when it was revealed that Donald Trump Jr.—along with Fox News stars including Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham—begged White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to get the president to make a national address and halt the Capitol riot.” The unspoken corollary is that Trump paid no heed to these appeals from some of his most fervent supporters because he secretly or not-so-secretly supported the “insurrection.”

At first glance, it does look damning. Donald Trump Jr. texted Meadows: “He’s got to condemn this s**t ASAP. The Capitol Police tweet is not enough.” And then: “We need an Oval Office address. He has to lead now. It has gone too far and gotten out of hand.” Hannity texted in the same vein: “Can he make a statement. Ask people to leave the Capitol.” Ingraham wrote: “Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy.” Fox & Friends’ Brian Kilmeade chimed in: “Please, get him on TV. Destroying everything you have accomplished.”

The Daily Beast does not bother to inform its unfortunate readers that Trump, far from orchestrating an insurrection, actually heeded these calls and issued a video statement just after 4 p.m.:

 

I know your pain. I know you’re hurt. I know you’re hurt, I know your pain. I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time.

There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election. But we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home, we love you. You’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home and go home at peace.

This statement only enraged the Left, because in it Trump continued to charge that the election was stolen, which the establishment media insists is a false claim. But Trump’s statement is also unequivocal in telling the people at the Capitol on Jan. 6 to disperse peacefully; that’s hardly what one would expect from the leader of an insurrection. What’s more, it strains credulity that Trump would have been planning an “insurrection” on Jan. 6 but that his son, one of his closest confidantes, would not have known about it, and that it would have caught his top supporters in the media completely by surprise.

The bottom line is that Donald Trump Jr. and others texted Mark Meadows asking him to get Trump to make a statement pacifying the situation on Jan. 6, and Trump did so. This very simply and clearly proves that there was no insurrection at all and that the House’s Jan. 6 committee should make a statement to that effect and end its proceedings. But of course, its real purpose is to prevent Trump from being able to run again in 2024, and in pursuit of that goal, it will be with us for a long time to come.

Nancy Pelosi’s January 6th Select Committee Hoax
Once again, the regime persecutes enemies to cover for its own evils.

hat is Nancy Pelosi and her hand-selected secret Select Committee on January 6th up to? Short answer: presiding over a politically motivated conspiracy fever dream to neutralize political opposition to the Democrats. Shorter answer: nothing good. Mao would be proud.

Jeff Lord has chronicled the persecution of the Trump administration for The American Spectator. He recently wrote about Steve Bannon. He’s written about the sham of the January 6 committee here, He wrote about how the real cause of January 6th was Nancy Pelosi and the real insurrectionists were Pelosi and Mark Milley. He calls out Adam Kitzinger’s backwards thinking and conspiracy theorizing. He notes the corruption of Liz Cheney’s collusion with Nancy Pelosi. In September, Jeff pointed out that Nancy Pelosi should be investigated for what happened on January 6th.

And for all of this, Jeff Lord does not go far enough. Yes. You read that correctly. Jeff has chronicled the malfeasance, but even with his heroic efforts, the scope of the gravity of what is happening almost cannot be adequately captured.

Continue reading “”

NY State Lawmaker Thinks Constitutionality Is Irrelevant

When a law is challenged in court, what’s really being challenged is whether that law is constitutional or not. The constitutionality of any given law is something we should always be questioning. Just because we think it may yield some benefit or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether that law should exist within the framework the Founding Fathers provided.

However, it seems that some people don’t really believe that.

One such person got to write their opinion at Newsweek:

Kyle Rittenhouse’s recent acquittal portends a dire future: one in which anyone can bring a loaded weapon anywhere, and where daily encounters can turn into deadly shootouts within seconds. Luckily, states are free to regulate the concealed carry of weapons, while balancing the rights granted by the Second Amendment. But right now, the Supreme Court is considering a case that could have sweeping implications for the safety of my constituents and many other Americans. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the Court must grapple with the very real tensions between public safety and constitutional rights.

…

Many gun regulations, like so much else in our legal system, do have a racist and anti-immigrant origin story and are frequently applied unequally to people of color. But my state’s concealed-carry permit law comports with a long, if imperfect, history and tradition of regulating guns in public spaces. Conservative justices have long held these traditions sacrosanct when interpreting the Second Amendment. It remains to be seen whether this fealty to history comes from a genuinely held belief, or is simply a convenient means to an end. Regardless of how the Court rules, my colleagues and I stand ready to continue legislating in the best interest of the communities we represent. As one of the people closest to this problem, I believe elected officials like me should be closest to crafting the solution.

In other words, this New York state lawmaker believes that he and his colleagues should be free to pass whatever laws they want and the courts should give deference to their decisions rather than consider the constitutionality of those laws.

Continue reading “”

The Great Reset Crowd’s Overreach Will Come Back to Bite Them

So-called “democracies” around the world have proven during these last two years of COVID-1984 just how authoritarian their leaders really are.  They censor, compel, threaten, intimidate, and dole out physical and emotional punishments in as arbitrary and terrifying a manner as any mad king.  Then the thuggish little tyrants playing Mussolini while raging against fascism run to the video cameras and boast of the joys of “democracy” and the threats of authoritarianism emanating from Russia and China.

No matter how absurd the State’s “politically correct” declarations, disagreement is now routinely labeled fascist.  If you disagree with the lie that boys can be girls, you’re a fascist!  If you think killing the economy to change the weather is insane, you’re a fascist!  Paradoxically, the only way not to be a fascist is to abide by everything the State decrees.  Only by believing and repeating everything our Western “elites” say are you then rewarded with their permission to be “free.”  All they do is lie, call it truth, and wait for applause.  It’s sickening stuff and the kind of shameless rhetorical tripe that only politicians can stomach.

However, this “Great Reset” planned takeover of the world through the subterfuge of a “health emergency” is beginning to sever the globalists’ hypnotic control over the people, and those in power seem blind to what’s surely coming next.

Continue reading “”

Well, you could give him credit for trying his hardest to act like the former Prime Minister of England, Neville Chamberlain.

Mr. President, This Does Not Constitute ‘Standing Up to Putin’

If reports are accurate that the Biden administration “will press Ukraine to formally cede a measure of autonomy to eastern Ukrainian lands now controlled by Russia-backed separatists who rose up against Kyiv in 2014” and declare that Ukraine is not going to join NATO for the next decade, in order to avoid a war with Russia, it will be another terrific example of how I should never give the Biden administration any credit for anything.

In yesterday’s Morning Jolt, I wrote, “let us pause and credit the administration for spending a good portion of yesterday attempting to send a clear message to Vladimir Putin and galvanize U.S. allies in order to deter further Russian aggression against Ukraine.” After a long stretch of the Biden administration seeming to ignore Russia, Biden and his national-security adviser Jake Sullivan publicly said they had communicated to Putin, “things we did not do in 2014 [when Russia invaded Crimea] we are prepared to do now.”

Apparently… nevermind. If the recent report from the AP is accurate, Biden is willing to reward Putin with Ukrainian territory in order to avoid a conflict, ignoring the fact that he’s just set up an incentive system for further aggression.

In yesterday’s Morning Jolt, I also wrote, “for most of Biden’s presidency so far, he and his top officials have talked a good game about standing up to Vladimir Putin and then inched away from any actual conflict.” It looks like old habits die hard.

Joe Biden Discusses His Meeting With Putin — and He Really Shouldn’t Have

Yesterday, Joe Biden held a meeting with Vladamir Putin in which the former tried to convince the latter not to invade Ukraine. For months, the Russians have been building up forces on the border, threatening to move into the Eastern European country as they did with Crimea back in 2014.

Today, we got a little more detail from the President of the United States as he spoke to the press for about two minutes. Biden began his comments by laughing for some reason, after which he launched into his typical tough guy act that absolutely no one buys.

For the love of all that is holy, keep this man in the basement. I mean that seriously and not at all as a compliment to Putin. Biden is uniquely unequipped for this moment. A president needs to be sharp and project strength. Biden projects senility, and when he attempts to sound tough, it just comes off as cringey and forced. The Russians have to be laughing at this performance.

In that sense, letting Biden rant about “serious consequences,” while at the same time giving up the leverage of possibly using force, is dangerous. It would be better to have some mystery afoot about what the US president is going to do. Instead, Biden rushes to rattle his saber about…economic sanctions?

I can assure you if there’s one thing Putin doesn’t care about, it’s economic sanctions. Not only have those been tried in the past to little or no effect, but Putin’s financial hand has only gotten stronger now that the Nordstream 2 pipeline has been greenlit by the Biden administration. If we wanted to put the brakes on Russia’s ambitions, the time to do that was almost a year ago. Now, there is no real chance Germany will go along with holding up the pipeline since they have placed so much of their future energy prospects in its completion.

In summary, there’s a difference between sounding tough and having the credibility to be tough. Biden is a legend in his own mind, but that’s where the tale ends. No one on the world stage actually sees him as an authoritative figure not to be messed with. And when he goes in front of cameras and fumbles around as he did today, it only emboldens our enemies to keep lashing out. Biden actually projects more strength when he’s in hiding than when he speaks. That’s not great, Bob.

‘Ve Haff Vays Of Making You Get Vaxxed.’

As you know, I am vaccinated against Covid, and recently got the booster. I am a middle-aged man with immune system problems, so I judged it important to get vaxxed. I think most people should get vaxxed, but I oppose vaccine mandates. My God, what is being done to the unvaxxed in Europe is terrifying. Take a look:

 

Later in the thread, some respondents say that this does not look like Germany. This is obviously happening somewhere, though. For example:

Continue reading “”

‘Common Good’ is an canard of the left as they try to make tyranny palatable.

BLUF:
Gun control isn’t for the public good. The outcome of gun control policies does nothing to benefit the public. The only people it benefits are those who would use their strength against the rest of us, be they criminals or would-be tyrants.

Don’t bring that “public good” argument here, because what you’re hoping for is the exact opposite of being good for the public.

“The Public Good” And Gun Rights

Opinion writers always seem to think they know better than everyone else on every subject imaginable. As an opinion writer myself, I’m aware I’m talking about myself as well, but there is a difference. I’ve had to make myself knowledgeable about the Second Amendment simply because I cover it so much.

But many opinion writers talk on a wide variety of topics, most of which they only know their side’s talking points on.

However, I recently came across an opinion piece where the author thinks he’s found a “gotcha,” the reason why everything from forgiveness for college loans to gun control can and should be passed. (I’m obviously only going to focus on the gun stuff, but much of this will apply across the board.)

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
As this author has previously pointed out in The Federalist, there is no greater long-term danger to the country than the politicization of the military. For that reason, the military has a culture of not publicly wading into partisan disagreements.

The regrettable direction of the NDU article by the Cyber Center authors creates an unfortunate appearance that this nonpartisan culture may be at risk. These authors have shown little hesitation about wading into partisan thickets. Let us hope that this is an outlier, not a trend.

Military Officers: To Combat ‘Disinformation,’ The Government And Its Big Tech Buddies Should Tell You What To Think

Four military officers who describe themselves as “researchers” at the Army’s highly respected Cyber Institute have published an article that adds to the growing concern about the ongoing politicization of the military. Published by the military’s National Defense University (NDU), their article purports to analyze the dangers of misinformation and disinformation and to advise the Biden administration about how to counter it.

The article’s authors all are military officers and at least two are professors at West Point. They say their article “is written in response to the Capitol insurrection.”

Ironically, the article is itself misinformation. That this misinformation is published by military officers associated with two highly prestigious institutions, the NDU and the Cyber Institute, makes it all the more inappropriate and dangerous.

Continue reading “”

Anthony Fauci and the Creation of the Bio-Security State.

A new populist spirit, represented by Donald Trump, among others, has led to a reshuffling of seemingly settled ideological alliances.

The reshuffling is ongoing.

I know this because I find myself approving of at least parts of “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health,” the new bestseller book by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

It is odd indeed that I find myself in nodding agreement with an anti-vax, climate warrior named Kennedy, but there you are—or, rather, here we are.

Towards the end of a long and riveting interview with Tucker Carlson about his book, Kennedy reflects on the extraordinary—indeed, “totalitarian” is not too strong a word—government impositions upon individual liberty in the name of battling the COVID pandemic and issues a critical admonition that we forget at our peril.

“We have to love our freedom,” he said, “more than we fear a germ.”

Can we pause for a round of applause?

The risks of COVID to the general population were and are wildly exaggerated.

Everyone knows that now, though not everyone is yet ready to admit it.

‘Safetyism’

But even if the disease was as dangerous as some alarmists at first predicted, Kennedy’s point still stands.

“Even if this was the deadly disease that they say it is,” he told Carlson, “there are worse things than death.”

Indeed, he continued, “We’re lucky that there was a whole generation of Americans in 1776 that said ‘it would be better to die than not have these rights written down.’”

Noting the extraordinary assault on our Constitutional liberties—a phenomenon that has echoes in other democracies around the world—Kennedy asks us to remember the smallpox epidemic that ravaged Washington’s army during the Revolution and the “malaria contagion that culled the Army of Virginia.”

The Founders were well acquainted with “the deadly and disruptive potential of infectious disease epidemics.”

Nevertheless, they included no references to pandemics in the Constitution.

Over the last couple of years, however, “public health” is wheeled out to rationalize “a string of new exceptions to our Constitution. We are given just one rationale to explain everything that is happening: COVID.”

In other words, Kennedy opposes the spirit of “safetyism” that pervades our culture and gives license to the many corporate and government actors who are only too happy to exploit our abhorrence of risk in order to control us.

Kennedy’s book is full of alarming things.

Continue reading “”

Third Worldizing America
Our elites, like the Third World rich, have mastered ignoring—and navigating around—the misery of others in their midst.

In a recent online exchange, the YouTuber Casey Neistat posted his fury after his car was broken into and the contents stolen. Los Angeles, he railed, was turning into a “3rd-world s—hole of a city.”

The multimillionaire actor Seth Rogen chastised Neistat for his anger.

Rogen claimed that a car’s contents were minor things to lose. He added that while living in West Hollywood he had his own car broken into 15 times—but thought little of it.

Online bloggers ridiculed Rogen. No wonder—the actor lives in multimillion-dollar homes in the Los Angeles area, guarded by sophisticated security systems and fencing.

Yet both Neistat and Rogen accurately defined Third Worldization: the utter breakdown of the law and the ability of the rich within such a feudal society to find ways to avoid the violent chaos.

After traveling the last 45 years in the Middle East, southern Europe, Mexico, and Asia Minor, I observed some common characteristics of a so-called Third-World society. And all of them might feel increasingly familiar to contemporary Americans.

Whether in Cairo or Naples, theft was commonplace. Yet property crimes were almost never seriously prosecuted.

In a medieval-type society of two rather than three classes, the rich in walled estates rarely worry that much about thievery. Crime is written off as an intramural problem of the poor, especially when the middle class is in decline or nonexistent.

Violent crime is now soaring in America. But two things are different about America’s new criminality.

One is the virtual impunity of it. Thieves now brazenly swarm a store, ransack, steal, and flee with the content without worry of arrest.

Second, the Left often justifies crime as a sort of righteous payback against a supposedly exploitative system.

So, the architect of the so-called 1619 Project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, preened of the summer 2020 riotous destruction of property: “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.”

Third Worldization reflects the asymmetry of law enforcement. Ideology and money, not the law, adjudicate who gets arrested and tried, and who does not.

There were 120 days of continuous looting, arson, and lethal violence in summer 2020. The riots were variously characterized by the burning of courthouses, police precincts, and an iconic church.

And there was also a frightening riot on January 6, where a mob entered the Capitol and damaged federal property.

Among those arrested in the latter Washington, D.C. violence many are often held in solitary confinement or under harsh jail conditions. That one-day riot is currently the subject of a congressional investigation.

Some of those arrested are still, 10 months later, awaiting trial. The convicted are facing long prison sentences.

In contrast, some 14,000 were arrested in the longer and more violent rioting of 2020. Most were released without bail. The majority had their charges dropped. Very few are still being held awaiting capital charges.

A common denominator to recent controversies at the Justice Department, CIA, FBI, and Pentagon is that all these agencies under dubious pretexts have investigated American citizens with little or no justification—after demonizing their targets as “treasonous,” “domestic terrorists,” “white supremacists,” or “racists.”

In the Third World, basic services—power, fuel, transportation, water—are characteristically unreliable: In other words, much like a frequent California brownout.

I’ve been on five flights in my life where it was announced there was not enough fuel to continue to the scheduled destination—requiring either turning around or landing somewhere on the way. One such aborted flight took off from Cairo, another from southern Mexico. The other three were this spring and summer inside the United States.

One of the most memorable scenes that I remember of Ankara, Old Cairo, or Algiers of the early 1970s were legions of beggars and the impoverished sleeping on sidewalks.

But such impoverishment pales in comparison to the encampments of present-day Fresno, Los Angeles, Sacramento, or San Francisco. Tens of thousands live on sidewalks and in open view use them to defecate, urinate, inject drugs, and dispose of refuse.

In the old Third World, extreme wealth and poverty existed in close proximity. It was common to see peasants on horse-drawn wagons a few miles from coastal villas.

But there is now far more contiguous wealth and poverty in Silicon Valley. In Redwood City and East Palo Alto, multiple families cram into tiny bungalows and garages—often a few blocks from tony Atherton.

On the main streets outside of Stanford University and the Google campus, the helot classes sleep in decrepit trailers and buses parked on the streets.

Neistat was right in identifying a pandemic of crime in Los Angeles as Third Worldization.

But so was Rogen, though unknowingly so. The actor played the predictable role of the smug, indifferent Third World rich who master ignoring—and navigating around—the misery of others in their midst.

Comment O’ The Day
I’m not actually sure that a nation of people who own nothing will be as easy to control as the powers that be seem to believe.

Own Nothing and Love It
An unholy alliance of planners, financiers, and leftists wants everyone to live in mass social housing developments.

From the ancient world to modern times, the class of small property owners have constituted the sine qua non of democratic self-government. But today this class is under attack by what Aristotle described as an oligarchia, an unelected power elite that controls the political economy for its own purposes. In contrast, the rise of small holders were critical to the re-emergence and growth of democracy first in the Netherlands, followed by North America, Australia, and much of Europe.

Today the current class of small holders face a threat from two powerful hegemonies, tech and financial interests, and increasingly intrusive bureaucracies. Both favor policies that would force higher population densities, which would likely raise housing costs and lead to lifetime renting for middle income households who would otherwise own their own homes. These forces—one long associated with the right, and the other the left—share a common agenda, though for different reasons.

Financial interests would reap a steady profit stream by creating a “rentership society,” where potential owners are transformed into tenants, guaranteeing the benefits of increasing land values. Today pension funds and Wall Street firms are buying up single family homes, often at prices too high for the average buyer. For their part, the planning clerisy believes that dense urbanism is socially, economically, and environmentally superior; some even favor a return to public housing, which not long ago lost was rejected as a massively failed experiment.

Continue reading “”