Category: Enemies Domestic

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”— Sun Tzu

So, here’s to knowing the enemy. And as you can see from his first words, you can figure out what sacred cow of his is actually being gored.

The author tapdances around the large body of work surrounding not just the 2nd amendment, but the entire bill of rights. Not just the intent, but the actual framing of the bill of rights is entirely about constraining the federal government from doing certain things. It would be odd if the 2nd amendment was the only one that had specific constraints on people; let alone the fact that you have to torture the text to arrive at that meaning.

His logic is extremely clouded by his bias. The operative clause ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ” is not contingent upon the descriptor.

A well regulated (kept in proper working order) militia (both the organized and unorganized variants) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people (not the militia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The second amendment describes the purpose of arms, why they are to be kept, so that an unorganized militia of the people can be mustered to provide for the common defense, which includes self-defense.

An unregulated militia will be of poor form and will lack training and suitable armaments necessary to provide for the common defense, or ideally self-defense.

The part – ‘the right of the people’ – would specifically state ‘militia’ and not ‘people’ if it had specified that militia were to keep and bear arms, and not the people. The framers specifically said the right of the people for a reason, it’s not up for debate.

To keep (possess) in their own arms in their homes or elsewhere, to bear on their persons.

Amy Coney Barrett and the Second Amendment: Why her “expansive view” is utter BS

“Pro-life” Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who will almost certainly be seated on the Supreme Court this week, seems to have no problem putting guns in the hands of individual Americans who want to buy them — every Tom, Dick and Kyle. She reportedly takes “an expansive view” of the Second Amendment, writing in her only ruling on gun regulation that it should not be considered “a second-class amendment.”

A number of groups advocating gun control and gun safety, including Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, and the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, expressed their deep concerns with Barrett’s nomination in a recent letter sent to leading members of Congress.

The 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller expanded the meaning of the Second Amendment far beyond militias — regulated or not. And that 5-4 majority opinion was written by Barrett’s mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia.

It might be useful to look back on that ruling to take another look at the “textualist” approach to reading statutes and the “originalist” approach to reading constitutional questions, and to learn what one might then expect of a Justice Barrett.

There are a number of things one might find admirable about Barrett. She was a seriously engaged student at all levels of her education, taking an English degree at Rhodes College and graduating at the top of her law school class at Notre Dame. She’s a mother (of seven) who manages to work in a demanding career. At her gym, she’s apparently known for her commitment to doing pull-ups, for gosh sakes.

Barrett is also a self-proclaimed “textualist” or “originalist” when she looks at statutes or the Constitution. In rendering decisions as a judge, she says she believes in adhering to precedent but also in closely reading the text of an enacted statute or the Constitution, seeking the reasonable meaning of that text, in the context of what most people at the time it was written would consider it to be. Continue reading “”

The Biden-Harris Antipathy toward Guns Portends Trouble for Law Enforcement
Thankfully, under our system of federalism, state legislatures can ward off such executive overreach.

It comes as no surprise former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris are campaigning on promises “to end our gun-violence epidemic.” The leftward drift of the Democratic Party on most policy questions, including lawful firearm ownership, has been made explicit in its 2020 party platform. The presidential nominee’s campaign “issues page” takes it several steps further, promising to pass or incentivize all manner of gun restrictions.

In addition to the lack of evidence supporting these initiatives and their dubious constitutionality they all share one principal problem: The federal government — the helm of which Joe Biden seeks to occupy — has very little authority in this domain. In order to accomplish these policy aims, state and local law-enforcement agencies would need to be pressed into service.

Biden has already had his wrist slapped in this regard. His website touts his “shepherding” of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Among other provisions, the bill required that local chief law enforcement officers (CLEOs) perform background checks on prospective firearm purchasers.

Jay Printz, sheriff of Ravalli County, Mont., brought suit against the United States, stating that the federal government had no authority to compel state and local officials to execute federal law. In Printz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, holding that despite the increasingly expansive interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause, Congress cannot enjoin state officials to do its bidding. As a result, the mandate was subsequently ejected from the Brady Bill.

Harris’s understanding of the Second Amendment within our system of federalism is even more stunted. As the attorney general of California, she signed on to an amicus brief claiming that governments have complete authority to wholly ban handguns — an assertion that has been repeatedly rejected by courts and historians alike. During her presidential run in 2019, she promised to enact her preferred elements of gun control via executive orders, none of which were within the realm of executive control. Paradoxically, she is seeking to leave the one body that could enact substantive reform without so much as ceremonially filing legislation to do what she is promising. Continue reading “”

Reich is no ‘lightweight’ troll. If you’ll remember, he is a Berkeley professor  who served in the administrations of Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. He is a former Secretary of Labor and was a member of President Obama’s economic transition advisory board. This is not the first time he’s posted such tyrannical, authoritarian BS. And it should be a warning of just how close we are to the edge of a national nightmare if people like regain power.

⇐- Yeah, look over that-a-way again

China and Iran Want You to Vote for Biden.

It’s no secret the totalitarian governments of China and Iran favor Joe Biden in the presidential election.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) would like nothing more than to go back to the status quo ante, the pre-Trump world when American politicians convinced themselves (or pretended to) China would turn democratic if we gave them favorable trade terms and shut up about their monstrous repressive policies, including the hundreds of thousands—or is it millions—languishing in “reeducation” camps while the rest of their population becomes subject to the pervasive Orwellian surveillance of the “social credit“ system.

Then there’s the little matter of the as yet still mysterious provenance of the novel coronavirus, appropriately called the CCP virus hereabouts, that has wreaked such havoc across the globe. When we will know the truth about what really happened in the Wuhan virology lab?  Would a Biden administration even want to know?

And, yes, as most of us realize, there’s considerably more, but it was all okay in the view of Democrats like Biden and Sen. Dianne Feinstein—she of the Chinese chauffeur who, mirabile dictu, was suddenly exposed as a spy after twenty years of service to her—as long as there was money to be made.

And there was, a lot, as Hunter Biden, not to mention Feinstein’s husband and Michael Bloomberg, can attest.

Hunter’s father had to revise his initial praise of China, pooh-poohing the idea they might be an enemy, when things started to get a little obvious and handlers whispered in his ear this was not exactly the road to the White House.

So it’s hard to feel reassured about how Joe would behave toward the communist regime once in office. There’s a great deal more reason, actual evidence of deals, to believe the Chinese have “special leverage” with Biden than there ever was that the Russians had something on Trump. Continue reading “”

It’s actually nice when they take off the mask and show everyone exactly what they are.
⇐-*directs reader’s view to the category header on the left*

Democrat Steve Bullock: Pack SCOTUS, Ban ‘Assault Weapons’

Montana Governor-turned-Democrat Senate candidate Steve Bullock has voiced support for packing the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) with leftist judges and for banning private ownership of “assault weapons.”

Breitbart News reported that Bullock voiced his support for packing the court during an October 10, 2020, debate against Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT).

The Hour quoted Bullock as saying, “We need to figure out the ways to actually get the politics out of the court. That’s anything from a judicial standards commission, or we’ll look at any other thing that might be suggested, including adding justices.”

Daines responded by noting that Bullock’s full-throated admission in support of court packing should put Montanans on alert that their rights — especially their gun rights — are in jeopardy should Bullock win in November.

He said, “[It] should be a chilling, profound moment, that has not happened for generations; it’s never been packed. As Montanans, that’s a threat to our Second Amendment.”

On June 23, 2019, Breitbart News reported Bullock’s contention that guns should be viewed as a “public health issue.” And months earlier, on August 20, 2018, he assured CNN’s Jake Tapper that he would bar Montanans from owning common semiautomatic firearms like AR-15s if he could.

The Billings Gazette reported on the interview by Tapper, noting that Bullock spokesperson Ronja Abel indicated Bullock “sees a ban on assault rifles as protecting safety while preserving the rights of gun owners.”

Abel said, “Gov. Bullock is doing what most Americans are right now — reflecting on how we got to the point where mass shootings are a common event — and trying to find a way to stop it. Like many Montanans, Bullock is a gun owner and a hunter and he personally doesn’t see the need for these kinds of firearms for hunting or personal safety.”

If SCOTUS is packed by the left, perhaps in a scenario where the number of justices increases from nine to 12 (or even 15 or more), the strict constitutionalist views held by the majority would be obliterated. In its place a majority favoring judicial activism and sharing Bullock’s views on AR-15s and other commonly owned semiautomatic rifles would be seated, and the right to keep and bear arms would be in peril.

BLUF:
That’s the thing about “insurrectionary anarchists.” They make fickle allies. If they help you get into power, they will try to oust you the following day, since power is what they are against. Many of them don’t even vote. They are experts at unraveling an old order but considerably less skilled at building a new one. That’s why, even after more than 100 days of protest in Portland, activists do not agree on a set of common policy goals.

Even some anarchists admit as much.

“We are not sure if the socialist, communist, democratic or even anarchist utopia is possible,” a voice on “The Ex-Worker” podcast intones. “Rather, some insurrectionary anarchists believe that the meaning of being an anarchist lies in the struggle itself and what that struggle reveals.”

In other words, it’s not really about George Floyd or Black lives, but insurrection for insurrection’s sake.

The Truth About Today’s Anarchists
“Insurrectionary anarchists” have been protesting for racial justice all summer. Some Black leaders wish they would go home.

On the last Sunday in May, Jeremy Lee Quinn, a furloughed photographer in Santa Monica, Calif., was snapping photos of suburban moms kneeling at a Black Lives Matter protest when a friend alerted him to a more dramatic subject: looting at a shoe store about a mile away.

He arrived to find young people pouring out of the store, shoeboxes under their arms. But there was something odd about the scene. A group of men, dressed entirely in black, milled around nearby, like supervisors. One wore a creepy rubber Halloween mask.

The next day, Mr. Quinn took pictures of another store being looted. Again, he noticed something strange. A white man, clad in black, had broken the window with a crowbar, but walked away without taking a thing.

Mr. Quinn began studying footage of looting from around the country and saw the same black outfits and, in some cases, the same masks. He decided to go to a protest dressed like that himself, to figure out what was really going on. He expected to find white supremacists who wanted to help re-elect President Trump by stoking fear of Black people. What he discovered instead were true believers in “insurrectionary anarchism.” . . .

Mr. Quinn discovered a thorny truth about the mayhem that unfolded in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man in Minneapolis. It wasn’t mayhem at all.

While talking heads on television routinely described it as a spontaneous eruption of anger at racial injustice, it was strategically planned, facilitated and advertised on social media by anarchists who believed that their actions advanced the cause of racial justice. In some cities, they were a fringe element, quickly expelled by peaceful organizers. But in Washington, Portland and Seattle they have attracted a “cultlike energy,” Mr. Quinn told me.

Don’t take just Mr. Quinn’s word for it. Take the word of the anarchists themselves, who lay out the strategy in Crimethinc, an anarchist publication: Black-clad figures break windows, set fires, vandalize police cars, then melt back into the crowd of peaceful protesters. When the police respond by brutalizing innocent demonstrators with tear gas, rubber bullets and rough arrests, the public’s disdain for law enforcement grows. It’s Asymmetric Warfare 101. Continue reading “”

Opinion: The Steps Towards Revolution or Hostile Takeover From Within (Part I, Introduction)

There is an interesting graphic going around on Twitter. It appears to portray the levels and activities of civil uncoupling before open guerrilla warfare breaks out and we have a full-blown revolution happening. Here is the Tweet and the diagram.

Image

You can see the pyramid has multiple levels showing activities that take place before there is an open, armed revolt against the constituted government. The yellow arrow points towards where (with some justification) the author of the Tweet believes we are right now.

Opinion: The Steps Towards Revolution or Hostile Takeover From Within (Part I, Introduction)

There is no doubt that in more than a few metropolitan precincts, the morale of police forces is in sharp decline. Just look at the spiking request for retirement numbers.

If you’ll note, the diagram in the tweet differs from the one on the masthead of this article. That one I took directly from the January 2013 edition of a U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) publication entitled: Human Factors Considerations Of Undergrounds In Insurgencies. The 2013 version is actually more up to date. Except as specifically noted, I’ll be using the USASOC version.

The Twitter version has an arrow pointing at just one level. On the USASOC version, I’ve circled a range of levels. On both, the designated areas are just short of the open and armed revolt or general uprising levels. It’s important to understand that these things don’t necessarily occur in a rigid sequence and, at the end, most of them will be occurring simultaneously.

Back in the day, I used to teach this at the JFK Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg. One thing that has stuck with me since that brief time in my life is a very hard truth and its even harder analog. The hard truth is that before the first guerrilla picks up a gun and kills a police officer or Soldier, the revolution or precursors to it, have been going for at least 10 years prior. Of course, the analog to that says that once you’ve defeated the insurgency, killed, captured, or jailed the leaders, there is still a decade or more of work to do to get back to a condition of popularly supported stability.

Over the next few days, we’ll explore the USASOC graphic. Continue reading “”

The new anti-Semitism

Ocasio-Cortez withdraws from Rabin memorial event after backlash
Democratic congresswoman pulls participation from Americans For Peace Now commemoration for assassinated Israeli premier, after pro-Palestinian activists call move ‘disgusting’

Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Friday withdrew her participation from an event commemorating former prime minster Yitzhak Rabin on the 25th anniversary of his assassination.

The decision, which came after backlash from pro-Palestinian activists, was confirmed to The Times of Israel by a spokeswoman for the congresswoman, a rising star in the progressive wing of the Democratic party. Continue reading “”

Lefties at The Nation discover that (non-FBI) feds have been tracing the puppet masters behind Antifa and BLM

Is an unexpected October Surprise on the way?

They think it’s a bad thing, but I give The Nation credit for reportorial digging.  The hard-left magazine has discovered that federal law enforcement agencies (though not the FBI) have been tracing whom the mobs in Portland have been communicating with.  The apparent lead role in utilizing hi tech and classified electronic means is being played by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A), while the U.S. Marshals Service is dispatching street-level personnel.  This bypasses the FBI, whose director, Christopher Wray, is on the record in sworn testimony, dismissing any such superstructure:

“It’s not a group or an organization. It’s a movement or an ideology,” he said, explaining that “folks who subscribe or identify” with antifa do not operate at a national level, but instead organize “regionally into small groups or nodes.”

The Nation reports: Continue reading “”

Kamala Harris to Appear Alongside Hanoi Jane.
The event comes one week after Biden hosted a veterans outreach roundtable.

The Biden campaign, which has bombarded President Donald Trump with attacks about his respect for U.S. soldiers, will be campaigning this weekend with Jane Fonda, a celebrity best known for fraternizing with enemy troops during the Vietnam War.

Democratic vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris is set to join Fonda at a Saturday virtual event held by progressive advocacy group Supermajority. The event—titled “Supercharge: Women All In”—will “bring together thousands of women to laugh, sing, dance, and celebrate women’s political power,” according to the group’s website.

Fonda traveled to North Vietnam in 1972 as part of an anti-war protest that saw her pose for photos with enemy troops on an anti-aircraft gun. The photo sparked outrage among Vietnam veterans, earning her the nickname “Hanoi Jane.” Fonda’s public appearances remain subject to controversy—a group of Ohio veterans called on the actress to donate her $83,000 speaking fee to the families of fallen soldiers ahead of a May appearance at Kent State University. Continue reading “”

In breaking news, New York City real estate prices unexpectedly drop

AOC urges city, state tax hikes to fund NYC schools

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is calling for tax hikes to help fund New York City’s cash-strapped schools and child care programs.

“I’m calling on Mayor [Bill] de Blasio and Governor [Andrew] Cuomo to raise revenue to fund universal child-care programs, significantly increase staffing at schools, and fund the infrastructure improvements, including ventilation, that our school buildings need to be safe,” Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said in a statement Wednesday. Continue reading “”

It is an idea

The Morning Briefing: Let’s Give the Lefty Soy Boy Rioters the War in the Streets They Think They Want

A grand jury gave its decision in the Breonna Taylor shooting and — SHOCKER — the lefties weren’t satisfied and responded with mostly peaceful protests riots………

There is a lot of talk of civil war and revolution coming from these criminals.

Because they’ve been allowed to riot with very little pushback from police for several months, the rage mob has a greatly inflated sense of its badassery. It’s easy to be a tough guy when you’re protected by numbers and you’re beating up a Best Buy window………..

Social media and pro-riot Dems have spawned thousands of thugs who probably wouldn’t last long in an encounter with anyone who wasn’t outnumbered and who actually fought back. These are emo wusses who are driven by hurt feelings, after all. In reality, if you got any one of them isolated and said “BOO!” loudly they’d probably soil themselves and begin sobbing.

They think they want anarchy and revolution but they only want it in safe spaces that are little more than riot gated communities.

Step up, antifa, bring your masked soy boy brigades away from places where you know you’re operating largely consequence-free. Mike Tyson once said something to the effect of, “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.” Safe money says that your plans wouldn’t amount to much after the first punch in the face.

If Joe Biden wins the election we may see the riots move more and more away from city centers. These rabid animals aren’t going to stop even if President Trump is out of office. Should that happen, they won’t fare as well unless the Harris-Biden administration decides to aid and abet them. Don’t rule that possibility out.

 

 

Transition Integrity Project Founder Calls For EXECUTION Of Former Trump Official

NILS GILMAN, THE FOUNDER OF THE SO-CALLED “BIPARTISAN” TRANSITION INTEGRITY PROJECT, CALLED FOR THE EXECUTION OF FORMER TRUMP ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIAL MICHAEL ANTON IN LIGHT OF ANTON WRITING CRITICALLY ABOUT THE GROUP’S EFFORTS TO STEAL THE 2020 ELECTION AND SECURE A VICTORY FOR DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE JOE BIDEN.

Gilman, who serves as Vice President of Programs at the Chinese Communist Party-linked Berggruen Institute, took to Twitter to express his desire that Anton be executed in the same fashion as Robert Brasillach.

Specifically, he insisted “Michael Anton is the Robert Brasillach of our times and deserves the same fate.”

Brasillach was a French author and journalist who was executed in 1944 by firing squad for using his various platforms to advance Nazi collaborationism and anti-Semitism during World War II. The execution, rather than lifetime imprisonment, was highly controversial related to intellectual crimes as opposed to military or political actions.

With his comments, not only is Gilman falsely insinuating that Anton is a Nazi, but also that he deserves to be executed for his opinions.

 

The tweet also included a link to a Forward article: “A former Trump official dreamed up a George Soros-funded ‘coup’ conspiracy that is spreading online,” which chronicles how Anton helped expose the nefarious and democracy-undermining activities of the Transition Integrity Project. Continue reading “”

Department Of Justice Identifies New York City, Portland And Seattle As Jurisdictions Permitting Violence And Destruction Of Property
Identification is Response to Presidential Memorandum Reviewing Federal Funding to State and Local Governments that are Permitting Anarchy, Violence, and Destruction in American Cities

The U.S. Department of Justice today identified the following three jurisdictions that have permitted violence and destruction of property to persist and have refused to undertake reasonable measures to counteract criminal activities: New York City; Portland, Oregon; and Seattle, Washington. The Department of Justice is continuing to work to identify jurisdictions that meet the criteria set out in the President’s Memorandum and will periodically update the list of selected jurisdictions as required therein.

The list was published on DOJ’s website today in response to President Trump’s memorandum of September 2, 2020, entitled “Memorandum on Reviewing Funding to State and Local Government Recipients That Are Permitting Anarchy, Violence, and Destruction in American Cities.”

“When state and local leaders impede their own law enforcement officers and agencies from doing their jobs, it endangers innocent citizens who deserve to be protected, including those who are trying to peacefully assemble and protest,” said Attorney General William P. Barr.  “We cannot allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance. It is my hope that the cities identified by the Department of Justice today will reverse course and become serious about performing the basic function of government and start protecting their own citizens.”

Criteria for evaluating each city is below:

  • Whether a jurisdiction forbids the police force from intervening to restore order amid widespread or sustained violence or destruction.
  • Whether a jurisdiction has withdrawn law enforcement protection from a geographical area or structure that law enforcement officers are lawfully entitled to access but have been officially prevented from accessing or permitted to access only in exceptional circumstances, except when law enforcement officers are briefly withheld as a tactical decision intended to resolve safely and expeditiously a specific and ongoing unlawful incident posing an imminent threat to the safety of individuals or law enforcement officers.
  • Whether a jurisdiction disempowers or defunds police departments.
  • Whether a jurisdiction unreasonably refuses to accept offers of law enforcement assistance from the Federal Government.
  • Any other related factors the Attorney General deems appropriate.

New York City

  • Shootings in New York City have been on the rise since looting and protests began on or about May 28, 2020.  For July 2020, shootings increased from 88 to 244, an increase of 177% over July 2019.  In August 2020, shootings increased from 91 to 242, a 166% increase over August 2019.
  • While the city faced increased unrest, gun violence, and property damage, the New York City Council cut $1 billion from NYPD’s FY21 budget.
  • The budget resulted in the cancellation of the new police recruiting class, cuts to overtime spending, and the transfer of certain police functions, including school safety, out of the NYPD.
  • Meanwhile, the Manhattan and Brooklyn District Attorneys have declined to prosecute charges of disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly arising from the protests, and the District Attorneys in Queens and the Bronx have declined to prosecute other protest-related charges.
  • Both Mayor de Blasio and Governor Cuomo have forcefully rejected federal law enforcement support.

Portland, Oregon

  • This month, Portland marked 100 consecutive nights of protests marred by vandalism, chaos, and even killing.
  • Those bent on violence regularly started fires, threw projectiles at law enforcement officers, and destroyed property. Numerous law enforcement officers, among others, suffered injury.
  • Shootings increased by more than 140% in June and July 2020 compared to the same period last year.
  • In the midst of this violence, the Portland City Council cut $15 million from the police bureau, eliminating 84 positions. Crucially, the cuts included the Gun Violence Reduction Team, which investigates shootings, and several positions from the police team that responds to emergency incidents.
  • In August, Portland Mayor Wheeler sent a letter to President Trump expressly rejecting the Administration’s offer of federal law enforcement to stop the violent protests.

Seattle, Washington

  • For nearly a month, starting in June, the City of Seattle permitted anarchists and activists to seize six square blocks of the city’s Capitol Hill neighborhood, naming their new enclave the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” (CHAZ) and then the “Capitol Hill Occupied Protest” (CHOP).
  • Law enforcement and fire fighters were precluded from entering the territory.  The Seattle Police Department was ordered to abandon their precinct within the CHOP.
  • Person-related crime in the CHOP increased 525% from the same period of time in the same area the year before, including by Mayor Durkan’s own count “two additional homicides, 6 additional robberies, and 16 additional aggravated assaults (to include 2 additional non-fatal shootings).”
  • The CHOP was allowed to stand for nearly a month, during which time two teenagers were shot and killed in the zone.
  • The Seattle City Council, Mayor Durkan, and Washington Governor Jay Inslee publicly rejected federal involvement in law enforcement activities within the city of Seattle.

BLUF:
Even — let’s just pretend for a moment — if they were sincere and didn’t intend to come after all firearms, when has the federal government ever shown restraint in matters like this? Give the bureaucratic behemoth an inch and it will immediately seek ways to take every mile on Earth.

The obvious takeaway from all of this is that we were right all along about the Democrats’ intentions, which provides a perfect example for future debates when they’re pretending to be anything other than what they truly are:
Soviet-esque control-freak statists.

Democrats Finally Fly Their Gun-Control Fascist Freak Flag in the Open

In all of the decades that the modern version of the contentious debate in America over guns, freedom, and the Second Amendment has been going on, the gun-control advocates have repeatedly assured gun owners of one thing: they don’t want to take our guns away from us.

My, what a difference one presidential primary full of unabashed Democratic statists makes.

After years of being told that we are paranoid for saying that the anti-gun Left wants to confiscate our weapons, the anti-gun Left is letting us know in no uncertain terms that they want to confiscate our weapons.

Loudest among them is Robert Francis “Horse Mouth” O’Rourke who, seeing his relevance as a candidate dwindling by the hour, has decided to go all-in on making a pitch for being America’s gun-grabber-in-chief:

 

This Soviet turn marks a departure for Beto in a couple of ways.

Last year, when the only constituency he was trying to woo consisted of residents of the great state of Texas, O’Rourke was still paying lip service to being a supporter of legal gun owners.

So much for that. Continue reading “”

Holier than thou, supercilious, elitists they are.

Senator’s Reasons For Gun Control Are Why It’s A Non-Starter

We’ll always have to accept that, to some degree, there will always be those who seek to intrude on the freedom of ordinary Americans. Accepting that they exist, however, does not mean giving into their vile whims. Instead, that acceptance needs to come with a healthy dose of understanding that such people must be opposed at every opportunity.

One such person is Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut.

Over at Townhall, Larry Keane decided to take a look at Murphy’s new book, and the central premise of that book is something I found rather interesting.

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) encapsulated in 384 pages of his new book “The Violence Inside Us” one central theme: America can’t be trusted with freedom.

“You know, it’s called ‘The Violence Inside Us’ because the conclusion I come to is that America is a violent place. We have always been a violent place,” Senator Murphy explained to MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt.

The problem is Senator Murphy didn’t arrive at that conclusion, he started with it. He got there by cherry-picking historical facts, isolating them out of context, and wedging them to fit a narrative that American freedom is bad and must be restrained by a benevolent and all-knowing government made up of people like him.

However, there’s a problem with Murphy’s line of thinking on this.

Now, I don’t believe Americans are inherently violent. I believe some individuals are, but Americans as a whole? Not so much. Continue reading “”

They should be careful if they really want to ‘go there’. They just may walk into something that does more than bite back.

Democrats Promise to Be Sore (and Violent) Losers
They know that the media, corporations, schools, and even churches will cheer them on.

Writing in The Atlantic recently, the sober-minded commentator Shadi Hamid says, “I struggle to imagine how, beyond utter shock, millions of Democrats will process a Trump victory.” For Democrats, having failed to cope with the 2016 election, and believing the polls that show a solid Joe Biden lead, another shock Trump win would “provoke mass disillusion with electoral politics as a means of change — at a time when disillusion is already dangerously high.” And it would lead decent folks astray. They would seek remedies “outside the political process, including through nonpeaceful means,” though, “not necessarily out of hope but out of despair.”

Don’t notice the gleam in the arsonist’s eye, he’s really just heartbroken over the fate of the Biden-Harris ticket!

Given Hamid’s premises, why bother even having the election? Why not find a peaceful but extralegal procedure to make Joe Biden president right this second? We could relieve the whole nation of the suspense of what Democrats will do if once again they’ve nominated someone who can’t beat one of the most broadly unpopular political figures of modern times.

For what it’s worth, like Hamid, I’m worried about post-election violence. But my view of the causes is slightly different. Hamid says, “Losers of elections need to believe that they can win the next time around. Otherwise their incentives to play the spoiler increase.” Okay, true enough.

He also says that “the anxiety gripping the two parties is asymmetric.” Joe Biden is a moderate Democrat, he says, and therefore theoretically more acceptable to Republicans, whereas Donald Trump “represents the nativist wing of an already nativist Republican Party.” His conclusion: Biden should win for reasons of civic peace.

Now leave aside the claims of leftists, including Obama, that Joe Biden has become much more progressive in his current campaign. And let’s leave aside the question of whether Donald Trump is actually a moderate or liberal Republican on issues such as federal welfare spending. Hamid fails in his analysis because he is unwilling or unable to see things from the other side. Maybe it’s time to practice empathy.

What if the anxiety gripping the parties was asymmetric in the other direction? Conservatives don’t see politics as just a matter of elective office, but of power generally. And they notice that the major corporations, Hollywood and pop culture, academia, what’s left of mainstream media, most local institutions, the leadership class of their own movements through the years, and even their own churches are substantially to their left politically. They also notice that progressives notch major political and cultural wins even from conservative elites, and even following conservative victories.

Hamid might have noticed that conservative activism was born over “despair” of the sort he describes. It was born of the observation that even winning elections wasn’t enough to secure political victories. Instead of the Electoral College or the Senate, conservatives had to face the more inscrutable Supreme Court, which for years overturned conservative legislation and enacted progressive victories that had no chance of receiving a democratic mandate. Conservatives’ response was to double down on electoral strategies, making an explicit case that they needed to win elections to reform the judiciary. Why didn’t conservatives simply pout and threaten to abandon the democratic process altogether, as Hamid admits liberals are wont to do?

Perhaps because conservatives then, as now, knew on which side of the divide the institutional and oligarchic power landed. Progressives feel secure in making all but open threats of violence and revolution because they know that the heads of domestic security agencies are on their side, they know that the most powerful voices in media and academia are at the ready to craft apologies for their violence. And they know that their reputations will be restored or even burnished after committing violence on behalf of their causes.

The modern American conservative movement was a populist and democratic movement because it had to be. The modern Left knows where its power lies as well — with the already powerful.

So, How Do They Dump Biden?

As the Democrat presidential campaign degenerates into “Weekend at Gropey’s,” a question arises: Assuming the Dems and their media minions somehow drag that rickety, basement-dwelling weirdo across the finish line, how do they get rid of him post-inauguration? Clearly, he would be a figurehead as Dr. Demento – sorry, Dr. Jill – and Kamala Harris joust for control before a backdrop of scheming pinko puppetmasters. But sooner or later, probably sooner, the Dem elite is going to try to put him out to pasture. How could they pull it off? And can they? Let’s see…

A few caveats: I think Donald Trump is going to win, so this is all hypothetical. The only bright spot for the Dems is the garbage polls his lying mainstream media allies keep pushing, and the liars are even having to concede that those are tightening, especially in states that matter. We’re days away from them pulling Grandpa Badfinger out of the debate. My money is still on the “I won’t normalize Trump’s racist cisgender sexism by appearing on stage with him” excuse, but “I fear the flu” is a close second. His recent catastrophic appearances outside his dungeon lair demonstrate that this guy couldn’t hack a debate if he was snorting rails of Namenda like Hunter hoovering blow on New Year’s Eve in Medellin. Trump holds an indisputable edge in other important areas, too, like enthusiasm, ground game, and continence. Continue reading “”