A Great Awakening to the Fight is Upon Us
No more compromise, no more calls for bipartisanship.

Last week in a dinner speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., Princeton professor Robert George had some advice for social and religious conservatives: “You must fight.”

It was an exhortation that does him no good in the academic world. A distinguished Ivy League scholar and teacher isn’t supposed to talk about the “culture war.” George has strong connections with the established conservative world, too, which balks at the confrontational style. In my year at the James Madison Program at Princeton, which George directs, visitors included George Will, Steve Forbes, and Andrew Napolitano. But the other night was a firm declaration of resistance.

It was fantastic.

One of the people cheering at the end was William Barr, who delivered his own call to arms last month in a speech at Notre Dame. “I think we all recognize that over the past 50 years religion has been under increasing attack,” he said. Traditional believers have felt the “force, fervor, and comprehensiveness of the assault” again and again. Barr called it “organized destruction,” a deliberate campaign to destroy the religious foundations of American society.

What progressives have rosily characterized as a noble movement for equality and freedom is no such thing, Barr argued. It is a coordinated effort of academia, popular culture, mass communication, and the entertainment industry to remove faith and the faithful from the public square, forever…….

In the last year I have seen Tucker Carlson deliver three speeches. In the first, in St. Louis, he described his transformation from young libertarian to middle-aged social conservative who believes in God, family, and country, but in a self-mocking mode.

“I was so stupid back then,” Carlson said, “because I actually believed liberals when they professed to favor free speech, individual rights, and religious conscience” (I’m paraphrasing from memory). ……

Carlson knows better now; he recognizes the actual character of the opposition. It has changed him. The boyish quibbler of the ’00s has become the moral force one sees every weeknight. In the third speech, which he gave at an American Greatness/New Criterion conference in Washington, D.C., last month, he admitted that there are very few places he can dine in the city and not fear an attack or something done to his food. An Antifa gang stormed his house in November 2018. But 10 seconds in Carlson’s presence tell you he isn’t going to waver.

I wonder if these figures realize how extraordinarily satisfying and innervating their statements are to people who have experienced progressivism in America as a steamroller leveling their workplaces, schools, and shopping zones for a good half-century. Did Lindsey Graham suspect that social conservative households would erupt in cheers when he finally had enough of the Kavanaugh hearings and thundered his objections? Did Donald Trump suspect in 2015 that a simple insistence on national borders would resound so loudly among Americans who regard the United States as their home, not their accidental place of residence?

How can other Republican leaders and conservative commentators remain unaware of how much social, religious, and national conservatives want them and need them to assume a fighting stance? Those of us who work in professional spaces—academia, big business, medicine, mainstream media, public schools—retreated into foxholes years ago, and we await backup.

Two years ago, after speaking to a small religious group in Atlanta, my host drove me home but not before asking how I got along with my colleagues.

“Just fine,” I answered, ”Emory is a good place, with mostly good people. Sure, they can’t understand how anyone could have supported Trump, but they never mistreat me.”

“Wait,” he interrupted, ”they don’t get it?”

“About Trump—no,” I said, “but that goes for just about any college campus you can name.”

He didn’t hesitate: “Then it’s war.”

He wasn’t excited, he wasn’t angry, just matter-of-fact. His logic was pat. If a political opponent won’t listen to you, if he considers your politics inexplicable, it isn’t so big a leap to judging you indecent, repugnant, deplorable. From there, yes, it’s war. …….

This summer at a conference at a well-known university, I sat down with the head of a new institute on campus who was just as blunt. For some reason, the 2012 ticket came up, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. He offered a summary remark: “At this point, if you can’t answer yes to a basic question, nothing else counts. Doesn’t matter where you stand on taxes, foreign policy, regulations . . .” He then shook his head.

“What’s the question?” I asked.

“Are you ready to fight?”

The Deep State Isn’t a Conspiracy, It’s a Revolution

Ever since President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the mask has been slipping from the “deep state.” But last week, The New York Times ripped it off completely.

“President Trump is right: the deep state is alive and well,” says a member of the newspaper’s editorial board. The deep state, she explains, is a small number of experts who sometimes openly, sometimes covertly, oppose and undermine the constitutionally elected president of the United States.

In 2018, former FBI Director James Comey insisted “there is no deep state.” At that time, they called themselves simply “the resistance,” but they have since grown more honest (or rather more shameless).

Now, they concede they resist Trump not because he threatens some constitutional status quo, but because he threatens their claim to rule and the persistent drift toward a political revolution they’ve been working toward for decades.

They aim to change our form of government from a constitutional republic that seeks “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity” to a bureaucratic technocracy that seeks to impose on the American people a Neo-Marxist understanding of justice in the name of aglobal struggle for human dignity and freedom.”

The fallacy?

THE PRESIDENT WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE ON TREATIES, AND THE CONGRESS TO DECLARE WAR, SETS FOREIGN POLICY, NOT THE ‘ADMINISTRATIVE STATE’ (BUREAUCRAPS) BECAUSE HE IS THE ONE ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE NOT THE BUREAUCRAPS!
THEIR DUTY AS PART OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS TO CARRY OUT THE ORDERS OF THE EXECUTIVE.
IF ANY MILITARY OFFICERS, AS PART OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE, HAVE ‘CONCERNS’ ABOUT POLICY, THEY CAN RESIGN IF THEY CAN’T ACCEPT IT, BUT OTHERWISE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO FOLLOW ANY AND ALL LEGAL ORDERS PASSED DOWN FROM THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDEMAN WAS THE ONE SUBVERTING FOREIGN POLICY, NOT THE PRESIDENT.

Armed man at Missouri Walmart pleads guilty to lesser charge

Young man is lucky he got off that easy. Probation and a  weekend in the Greene County jail.

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. — A man who caused panic at a Missouri Walmart when he walked inside wearing body armor and carrying loaded weapons in what he described as an effort to test his right to bear arms pleaded guilty to making a false report Friday after initially being charged with a more serious terrorist-related felony.

Dmitriy Andreychenko, 21, pleaded guilty to an amended misdemeanor charge after originally being charged with making a terrorist threat.

Police arrested Andreychenko on Aug. 8 after he filmed himself walking through the store with the weapons, prompting shoppers and employees to leave. The incident came just days after 22 people were killed during an attack at another Walmart in El Paso, Texas. An off-duty firefighter held Andreychenko at gunpoint until officers arrived…………

Under the terms of the plea, he was ordered to serve 48 hours of shock incarceration and two years of probation. He also must receive firearm training, Patterson said (in) the release. The making a terrorist threat (charge) carried a sentence of up to four years in prison.

Gun reportedly fired at State Route 380 home intruder

Clinton County (Ohio) deputies and a tracking dog did not immediately locate a suspect who was reported to be inside a State Route 380 residence Thursday before exiting via a window after a gun was fired at him.

It is not known whether the intruder was struck by a bullet, said Clinton County Chief Deputy Brian Prickett.

The area was searched and a law enforcement canine did a track, but as of 4:15 p.m. Thursday the suspect had not been found, Prickett said.


Construction Worker Shoots, Kills Attacker

TULSA, Oklahoma – Detectives are investigating a deadly shooting at a construction site near 13th and Detroit.

Officers said the victim was sitting inside his truck getting the construction site ready for the day when a man carrying a piece of rebar ran up and started beating on the vehicle. When the man tried to get inside, the construction worker told police he pulled out a gun and fired because he was in fear for his life.

Police say the attacker died at the scene.

The victim was taken to the detective division for further questioning but police say he has since been released. Police do not expect to charges to be filed in the case.

“We could always look at the flip side of the coin in this situation. Had this gentleman not been able to protect himself properly he could have been the victim in this homicide. So we like our citizens to take care of themselves and to make sure they’re safe – and if they are going to carry a firearm, do it properly,” said TPD Sgt. Shane Tuell.


Teen burglars shot at a Tri-City man defending a neighbor’s house. He fired back

KENNEWICK, WA
Kennewick police are hunting for a pair of teens who traded bullets with a man after they burglarized his neighbor’s house.

Miguel Barajas, 29, was at home on the 3300 block of South Gum Street about 4:20 p.m. Tuesday when he heard a loud crash next door and thought someone was breaking in.

He grabbed a gun and went to check, Kennewick police said.

As he walked toward the house, he spotted two boys, who looked like they were about 16 to 18 years old, dash out of the house. They got into a tan or gray Honda sedan and drove toward Barajas.

The sedan slowly approached him and one teen fired a shot at him, and Barajas fired back, said police.

Barajas wasn’t hit.


Denver homeowner shoots suspected burglar

DENVER – A homeowner shot a man who was allegedly trying to break into the home through a window Friday night, police said.

The suspect, Aaron Rivers, 25, was taken to a hospital with non-life threatening injuries. The shooting happened late Friday in the 4600 block of Wyandot in the Sunnyside neighborhood of northwest Denver.

Police said Rivers tried to break into the home through the front door. But when he didn’t make it inside, he began damaging furniture on the porch and broke the home’s front window, police said. He tried to enter the home through the window and the homeowner fired several shots, striking Rivers in the arm, police said.

Anyone Want To Play Poker?

I was going to write part two of why California is burning. But that takes a back seat to impeachment and the latest economic news.

So I’ll shorten the “why California is burning” story. California is burning and blacked out because of insane liberal policies. First and foremost, as I pointed out in my last column, hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted over the past 20 years paying for the costs of illegal immigration instead of upgrading and modernizing the California electric grid. The chickens have come home to roost.

The secondary cause for California’s nightmare involves environmental policies that won’t allow brush clearing or cutting down dead trees. The third cause is climate change mandates that force utility companies to waste billions of dollars annually on green energy.

So California consumers get the highest energy bills in the nation, the highest taxes in the nation and blackouts when the wind blows. Congratulations.

I could solve California’s problems quickly. Clean the brush and redirect all those billions of dollars to upgrading and modernizing your electrical grid. Simple.

How the World to the Dark Tower Came.

“California,” argues Victor Davis Hanson, is “becoming pre-modern” despite ballooning government solutions. Like fictional pre-modern societies, it is becoming a two-tier society; a landscape of fantastical castles amid a sea of peasants. It is as if the technologically sophisticated components of the Golden State were creating its shadow of poor, homeless, drug-addicted and unskilled populations.

Huge global wealth in high-tech, finance, trade and academia poured into the coastal corridor, creating a new nobility with unprecedented riches. Unfortunately, the new aristocracy adopted mindsets antithetical to the general welfare of Californians living outside their coastal enclaves. The nobodies have struggled to buy high-priced , pay exorbitant power bills and deal with shoddy infrastructure — all of which resulted from the policies of the distant somebodies.

Yet in some respects, not only California but the whole global world is morphing into a similar two-tier arrangement. This may be driven by something called knowledge inequality. The processes by which a society produced its goods and governed itself were once common knowledge to a large percentage of the population. But they are not now…………

Annie Lowrey of The Atlantic writes that “California is becoming unlivable” and suggests solving the wildfire/electricity outage problem by banning development. “One solution … is to build more dense housing in urban areas … California isn’t doing enough to discourage building in fire-prone areas.” Yet regulation is what caused the problem in the first place.

The bulk of wildfire destruction in California happens in the Wildlife Urban Interface (WUI) … Although much of the WUI is naturally vulnerable to fire, human behavior is primarily to blame for the destruction. People start more than nine in 10 fires … If building in the WUI is so dangerous, why do it? In part because building new housing is so very difficult in many urban regions in California, due to opposition from existing homeowners and strict building codes.

Knowledge inequality makes “magical” solutions inevitable because an ever smaller fraction of the public know how things work or are paid for.  Healthcare woes?  Medicare for all. Housing crisis?  Make affordable housing a “right”.  Students choking under loans?  Write it off.  Graduates without literacy or numeracy?  Teach Woke Math.

Fix the wildfires by tightly regulating development sounds like a solution.  Following Arthur C. Clarke’s famous adage that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” many things are now solved by linguistic legerdemain.  Ever since Apollo politicians have been invoking associative magic as political spells:

“Nothing is impossible in this age of miracles. If we can put a man on the Moon, we surely are capable of seeing that our temporary surplus agricultural products are placed in many hungry stomachs of the world.” …

Nixon’s Democratic opponent, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, used the phrase in his standard stump speech: “If we can put a man on the Moon, certainly we can afford to put man on his feet on Earth.”

Sending a spacecraft to the lunar surface and solving homelessness might be different problems but with a few similes and metaphors they can be ‘magically’ connected and thus solved.

Thank You Beto O’Rourke

Not for withdrawing, but for ripping the cover off the ball. It wasn’t that you promised to confiscate AR-15s. It was the roar of applause that you got from that audience.

Rifles accounted for 2.9% of the gun murders in America in 2018, and ARs are a subset of rifles. If you and your audience wanted to confiscate those, either that was only the beginning or you don’t care about the other 97.1%+ of gun murders.

I vote for Door #1 on that. So, Beto, you did us all a service by finally coming out and saying what the Democratic Party wants to do. If any Democrat thinks that the message didn’t get through, you’d better think again.

Microchip guns to prevent mass shootings

My last OIC (Officer In Command) of my section often used a simple phrase to express his surprised disbelief that someone could be that stupid:
“You can’t make this stuff up.”

With the anniversary of the devastating Borderline shooting upon our community, I’d like to share the following letter I sent to Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin last November, to which I received no response.

“My name is Jim Dumond and I am a 58-year resident of the Conejo Valley. In response to the shootings at Borderline Bar and Grill, I came up with a compromise that I believe could go a long way toward eliminating our country’s mass shootings.

I believe that both gun and anti-gun advocates will see this as a positive step forward. This gives both groups the right to protect their homes, and gives the citizens peace of mind from individuals, who, like Ian David Long, intend to cause others harm.

1. Owning a weapon (gun), would still require the existing background checks, as required by law.

2. To use a purchased weapon, one would be required to register the weapon online, via a home Wi-Fi type system. The weapon would be embedded with a microchip and would be unusable until registration is complete and authorities grant activation.

This activation would require GPS of the owner’s home and simultaneous location of the weapon. Activation could not be completed at separate times, nor at different locations. Creating a permanent record/registration of owner and location needed for the lawful usage of the weapon.

3. The weapon would be given a usage radius of, say, 1,000 feet from the home Wi-Fi system. If the weapon is taken beyond this point, the weapon would no longer be usable and immediately disabled, until it is brought back into the given parameters.

4. The weapon would also have a safety fault system for tampering. If tampered with, the weapon would become useless and again disabled.

To protect our rights to bear arms, and to protect our families from those who seek to harm others are what we can do as U.S. citizens.

I understand you have a limited schedule for such matters, but I do believe this is a viable solution to our state and country’s worsening mass shooting issues. Thank you in advance for listening.” Jim Dumond Thousand Oaks

One more indication that ‘Uncle Joe’ isn’t playing with a full deck.
The Paris Peace Accords was the 1973 treaty to end the Vietnam War.
Of course – it is hoped – he meant the “Paris Agreement” which is part of the U.N. Convention on Climate Change, but with him, you just never know. And he’s still the leading contender for the demoncrap nomination for President.

Students Demand ICE Agents Give 2 Weeks Notice if They’ll be on Campus. ICE Agents Laugh.

Michigan State University, commonly referred to as MSU by most of the student body, has quite the overzealous, and quite frankly, moronic club in its midst attempting to create campus legislation that would essentially make anti-ICE liberals feel good while basically accomplishing nothing.

The East Lansing, Michigan university, having been around since 1855, has managed to get so “progressive” that in turn they’ve started to become regressive from a logical standpoint.

The university’s student government recently passed a bill requiring the university to notify them anytime U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are going to be on campus. The irony is, ICE doesn’t really have an obligation to let the university know if they’re arriving in a capacity to fulfill their duties.

Total Permitless Carry in Oklahoma becomes active today.

House Bill 2597 was the first bill Governor Stitt has signed into law since he was elected Oklahoma’s 28th governor.

…………….except this section shall not prohibit:

6. The carrying of a firearm, concealed or unconcealed, loaded
or unloaded, by a person who is twenty-one (21) years of age or older or by a person who is eighteen (18) years of age but not yet twenty-one (21) years of age and the person is a member or veteran of the United States Armed Forces, Reserves or National Guard or was discharged under honorable conditions from the United States Armed Forces, Reserves or National Guard, and the person is otherwise not disqualified from the possession or purchase of a firearm under state or federal law and is not carrying the firearm in furtherance of a crime.

Keeping one’s eyes and ears open (intelligence gathering) for the crap-for-brains anti-gun/anti-civil rights BS in the media is a good habit.

The Indiana Daily Student (IDS) is an independent, student-run newspaper that has been published for the community of Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, so we see the quality of education the college students are getting these days. i.e. Leftist claptrap.

This is nothing more than a re-iteration of a racist smear on the people of the U.S. who choose to exercise a enumerated right.
Just to make it easy for everyone to send this fallacious letter to the trashcan:

Everywhere else in the Bill of Rights where “the right of the people” is used it is expounding on an individual right as ruled by the Federal courts.

That that author attempts to deny that the Second Amendments doesn’t protect an individual right when it has that exact terminology used is more than risible, it’s blatant redefinition and mendacity.
If true it would mean those other ‘rights of the people’, already defined as individual rights aren’t either.

Piffle.

the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment 1

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment 4.

One point to make clear..No amendment in the Bill of Rights gives the U.S. citizenry anything, The document was demanded by “…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” as a restriction on government. A “these are ‘hands off’ to you” .

The only ‘threat’ gun ownership poses is to those people- and their lackeys as seen here – who seek power and control over the free people of the U.S. That’s why you see these types of deceptive letters being posted.

It is necessary to understand the true meaning of the Second Amendment

The interpretation of the Second Amendment commonly accepted by many Americans is that the right to bear arms is necessary to maintain freedom against a tyrannical government. However, when looking back at the historical context of why the amendment was passed, it is painfully obvious this was far from the intent of the founders.

The Second Amendment’s original intent was the disbanding of standing armies because they were viewed as a threat to a stable government. Following a war, the army would be forced to disband, forming local militia groups in their states.

This actually served to protect the government against a hostile takeover by a standing army rather than to empower the people to fight against a tyrannical government, the exact opposite of how many interpret the amendment.

Militias were regulated by the states and southern militias were referred to as slave patrols. In Georgia, for example, all white plantation owners or their white male employees were required by law to join the Georgia militia, making regular inspections of slaves’ quarters to prevent uprisings.

The main concern at the time to many southern slaveholders like George Mason and Patrick Henry was that the proposed constitution’s general welfare clause (Article 1, Section 8) could be interpreted to eventually free the slaves.

The general welfare clause included giving the federal government the power the supervise and regulate the militias. This worried slaveholders due to the possibility that federal militias could absorb state militias, causing them to no longer be slavery-enforcing institutions.

There was precedent for thisconcept in the lead-up to the revolutionary war during which slaves were offered freedom in exchange for fighting for the British army.

To compromise with slave states, at the command of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison changed the original draft of the Second Amendment from reading “a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country” to “free state,” to be sure there was zero ambiguity as to the state’s right to regulate state militias.

So, to be clear, the Second Amendment was enacted to disband standing armies and to allow slave states to regulate slave patrols in order to enforce and maintain the institution of slavery. Nothing to do with fending off a tyrannical government.

Until the famous court case District of Columbia v. Heller, it was understood that the right to bear arms was primarily endowed to militias, including state defense forces and the National Guard.

This case redefined the right to bear arms to be expanded to individuals, interpreting “militia” to include all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to serve in one.

This controversial case was a turning point in how the Second Amendment was interpreted with regard to self-defense and non-military gun ownership rights, overturning decades of jurisprudence on Second Amendment cases.

Now that the legal interpretation of the Second Amendment has completely changed to individual gun rights, gun ownership has become a constitutional issue rather than a political issue like it had been previously.

Unfortunately, overturning District of Columbia v. Heller is extremely unlikely and would have little effect on gun legislation.

Now that individual gun ownership rights have been grounded in judicial precedent, there will likely continue to be the endless expansion of gun rights by gun anarchists in groups like the National Rifle Association.

The intention of the Second Amendment was never to bolster individual gun ownership rights, rather it was specifically passed to protect the federal government from a military coup and to prolong the institution of slavery.

By shifting the legal interpretation of the amendment to non-military gun ownership, this strays greatly from the main reasons the amendment was passed to begin with.

The U.S. today is plagued with substantial gun violence, and strengthening individual gun ownership rights and accessibility is proven to lead to more violence.

The U.S. cannot keep following this path of universal gun accessibility. It is a threat to public safety, and it was not the founders’ intention in the slightest.

Bob Janovick: Second Amendment guarantees the First

Dave Chappelle received the Mark Twain Award on October 27. He said, “The First Amendment is first for a reason. Second Amendment is just in case the First one doesn’t work out.”

I believe that he has an understanding of what is wrong with “universal background checks.” Such a system requires that all firearms be registered in order to work. That system carries with it the necessity to record the location of the arms.

Imagine the country if the First no longer worked. Is it beyond belief that the arms to enforce the First would already be confiscated per “mandatory buy back?” Which begs the questions: How does buy back occur when it was never OWNED by the government. How does $200 (or less) for an $1,800 firearm qualify as a buy back? Would not the phrase “mandatory confiscation” be more accurate?

I am not a fan of Mr. Chappelle. But I do agree with these sentiments by event attendee, rapper Common: “He’s always been a leader in thought and culture. He says provocative things, and … it creates some uncomfortable conversations we don’t want to have, but we need people like him because even if you don’t agree with them, it brings them up and then people have to discuss it. We need courageous minds like that.”

Take that, college demonstrators!

Not a fan of politically correct (censorship) nor bully tactics.

Bob Janovick,