Radical Left’s Four-Prong Strategy For Destroying 2A: Step-One More Gun Bans

It isn’t bans on some semiautomatic weapons that the New Progressive Left is gunning for: It’s a ban on all semiautomatic weapons and all component parts of those weapons, and all accessories for those weapons.

The very fact that the Radical Left uses vague and scary expressions, ‘assault weapon’ and ‘high capacity magazine’ isn’t by accident, and this point must be pointed out, apart from the pejorative connotations of those expressions. The expressions are deliberately ‘scary’ to instill a feeling of repugnance in the minds of the target audience. And the phrases are vague and open-ended in meaning to allow Congress to place into these categories anything and everything they wish……….

Their goal is to destroy the Second Amendment because the citizenry’s exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment, operates as an existential threat to the ultimate goal they wish to achieve: absolute control of the population and subjugation of the citizenry.

To achieve the ultimate goal of expanding Government exponentially and controlling all thought and behavior of the American public through absolute control of the police, the military, the intelligence apparatuses, the media, and control of the policy-making arms of Government, the New Progressive Left antigun zealots realize they must disarm the citizenry. De facto repeal of the right of the Second Amendment is, then, their penultimate goal………….

In that effort, we find antigun groups, the Press, and antigun politicians of the New Progressive Left unfailingly and endlessly utilizing the fictions their public relations firms create for the specific purpose of manipulating the public into supporting policies antithetical to the preservation of the Second Amendment……..

The salient import of the Second Amendment is that the Nation is to be protected by a citizen army, no less so than by the Government’s own standing army; to help thwart a foreign aggressor; but also, and more particularly today, to protect the sovereignty, the integrity, and the autonomy of the American people from the visible and perverse threat posed by seditious insurgents within the Nation.

The threat that the antigun New Progressive Left poses to the American citizenry is manifest in the desire of the New Progressive Left’s intent on creating a massive, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Federal Government: the antigun New Progressive Left’s God!

To that end, the antigun New Progressive Left has demonstrated an overt proclivity and, indeed, a marked, staunch, and, in their own words, ‘muscular’ desire to disarm the public, for the unmistakable, albeit unstated, purpose of controlling it. No better reason, then, for the civilian citizenry of the Nation to be well-armed, and well-armed, to the hilt.

 

Supreme Court to Weigh Taking Bellwether Case Against Gun Industry

Here’s another suit that will give us a pretty good look at how our new justices feel about business and RKBA. It only takes 4 justices to grant certiori and the court hear the case. I definitely figure Thomas will vote for it and Alito too. We’ll see if Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have the will as well. I might even get surprised and there be more because if the Connecticut Supreme Court isn’t slapped down and hard, you see not just suits against gun manufacturers, but enterprising lawyers filing suit against any other business that makes things that people might misuse, like cars.

Another interesting point is that Bushmaster, the manufacturer of the rifle used at Newtown, wasn’t even owned by Remington at that time.
If the justices can’t see that this is nothing more than ‘lawfare’ and the anti-gun forces are simply out to play the old ‘the process is the punishment game, we’ve got more than a lack of judicial fortitude to deal with.

A suit by Sandy Hook families against Remington, the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the massacre, tries to test a law shielding the firearms industry from liability.

The Supreme Court will consider this week whether to hear a case seeking to pierce firearm manufacturers’ legal immunity in the aftermath of shootings.

The case, Remington Arms Co. v. Soto, pits relatives of those killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting against Remington, the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the Dec. 14, 2012, massacre in Newtown, Conn. Twenty first graders and six educators died.

The lawsuit challenges a 2005 law protecting gun makers from legal liability when their weapons are used in crimes. The families argue that Remington violated Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act by recklessly marketing the rifle to disturbed young men like the Sandy Hook gunman through product placement in violent video games and advertising pitches like “consider your man card reissued.”

Most attention in the current Supreme Court term has been on whether the justices will expand Second Amendment rights. But should they allow the case to move forward to trial, either by refusing to hear Remington’s appeal or by hearing the case and ruling in the families’ favor, the lawsuit could provide a legal road map for victims and survivors seeking to hold gun makers accountable for gun violence.

The justices will meet on Friday to discuss whether to take the case. The court may grant or deny review shortly afterward, or continue considering the matter.

The appeal was brought by Remington after the Connecticut Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit to proceed to trial. Remington says the families’ case, if successful, would “eviscerate” the 2005 federal law.

The National Rifle Association, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Second Amendment law professors, nine states and 22 members of the House are among the signatories of a half-dozen legal briefs supporting Remington. The N.R.A. argued that the families’ challenge to the 2005 law could open the door to other lawsuits, potentially putting the firearm industry “out of business by unlimited and uncertain liability for criminal misuse of their products.”

Remington said in a legal filing that the Connecticut lawsuit was “widely recognized as a bellwether for the future of firearms litigation nationwide.”

The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with a lower court judge that one element of the case cannot be tried, saying that the federal shield law precluded the families’ argument that Remington had “negligently entrusted” a weapon of war to an untrained civilian population.

 

Would-be armed robber shot, killed in West Philly by intended victim

A would-be armed robber was killed Sunday in West Philadelphia when his intended victim fought back, pulled his own gun and shot his attacker instead, police said.

Investigators described the hopeful thief as a black male approximately 25 to 30 years old. They said he was attempting to rob a man sitting outside a home on the 1200 block of North 60th Street, near its the intersection with Haverford Avenue a when he was shot.

The alleged robber ran down the block but collapsed on a porch a few feet away. He was transported to Penn Presbyterian Medical Center and pronounced dead just before 9 p.m.

Officers did not release the dead man’s name Sunday night, citing the ongoing investigation. He was at least the third person to die and the sixth injured as a result of gun violence in the city this weekend.

The shooter was not injured during the incident and had a license to carry his weapon, they said.


Suspected burglar shot by homeowner

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas — Corpus Christi police say a suspected burglar was shot by a south side homeowner.

The shooting happened around 5:45 p.m. Sunday in the 7800 block of Yorktown Blvd.

Police say a homeowner confronted two suspects who allegedly burglarized a home. The homeowner then pulled out a gun and fired.

A man was hit, while a woman that was with the burglary suspect took off on foot. The suspect/gunshot victim was transported to Bay Area Hospital. His condition is not known.

Police are still searching for the woman at the scene.

Former NSC Director Says Climate Change is ‘Imaginary Threat’ Brainwashing Our Youth

William Happer failed at the chance of his lifetime.

A notorious climate change science skeptic, Happer, 80, recently left the Trump administration after the White House killed his plan to create a panel to challenge government assessments of global warming.

But Happer remains undeterred, confident that President Trump, the most vocal climate change skeptic to occupy the White House, is naturally inclined to come around to the idea……………

Happer drew outrage in 2014 for declaring in an interview that “demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.”

Happer said the statement “was not meant to be in any way anti-Semitic” but that he was sorry he said it.

Nevertheless, he stood by the comparison, invoking his father’s service in the Scottish military in World War II to say that he feels strongly about opposing “fanaticism.”

In keeping up the fight against the mainstream of climate science, Happer faces opposition among an increasing number of Republicans who fear that the party will not be viable if it does not change to appeal to climate-conscious voters, especially young people.

He said he’s held his views on climate change since the early 1990s when he served as director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science in the George H.W. Bush administration.

“I feel bad about the younger generation,” said Happer, who has six grandchildren ranging from middle school- to college-age. “They have been brainwashed. The people who think this is a winning election issue are wrong.”

After leaving his post as a National Security Council senior director, Happer has returned to Princeton, where he is an emeritus physics professor.

He’s also rejoined the CO2 Coalition, an advocacy group he founded that claims rising levels of carbon will benefit the world.

So, you get the impression that the President of ‘Narco Mexico’ isn’t too hep on the idea of taking on his bosses.

NINE AMERICANS — INCLUDING SIX CHILDREN — SLAUGHTERED IN MEXICO, LIKELY IN A DRUG CARTEL AMBUSH.

 

Sanctuary County Rolls Back Its Anti-ICE Policy Following String Of Illegal Aliens Charged With Rape

Yeah, and I wonder if some enterprising lawyer representing the victims might have a good case to sue the county and Erlich.

Following months of national media coverage over the handling of illegal aliens in his custody, Montgomery County, Maryland, Executive Marc Elrich has somewhat reversed a sanctuary policy he signed into law.

Elrich will allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents the ability to access certain areas of the Montgomery County jail in order to apprehend illegal aliens, according to ABC7 News. A county spokesman confirmed to the local news outlet on Nov. 1 that correctional officers have been ordered to give ICE agents clearance to “identified areas” of the jail to “ensure that transfers are conducted in a safe environment.”

News of the cooperation between Montgomery County and federal immigration authorities comes three months after Elrich signed an executive order that prohibited county officials from working with ICE.

Elrich signed the “The Promoting Community Trust Executive Order” in July, which barred county police from asking an individual about their immigration status and largely prohibited them from cooperating with ICE agents. Montgomery County had already refused to honor ICE detainer requests, and the new order was the latest sanctuary measure enacted by a deep-blue locality revolting against the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration.

However, Elrich’s order soon proved controversial. Authorities arrested numerous illegal aliens in Montgomery County — all of the arrests taking place just weeks after the order was signed — and charged them with rape or other sexual abuse crimes. The string of rape charges shined a national spotlight on the county’s policy toward criminal illegal aliens and its fraught relationship with the agency tasked with removing them.

ELIZABETH WARREN SHOWS HER IGNORANCE

Actually it’s not ignorance, it’s mendacity, otherwise known as lying through her teeth.

Elizabeth Warren is the current favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination, but one wonders how voters will react when they learn about her bizarrely radical agenda. Warren openly advocates making all private health insurance–the kind that a large majority of Americans have–illegal. She hasn’t begun to think through the implications of this extreme proposal, but when voters begin to contemplate it, my guess they will vote against her, enthusiastically.

Yesterday Warren was asked what would become of all those people who are now employed in the health insurance industry. Her answer shows her ignorance of insurance, as well as of the economy in general:

Because insurance is insurance, right? Health insurance, life insurance: it’s all the same! And if we adopt Warren’s plan, the demand for auto accident claims adjusters will magically increase.

Perhaps the politest thing we can say here is that Warren is not a detail person. Which doesn’t deter her from undertaking to destroy the most widely-used and most popular methods of obtaining medical care for one’s family.

 

British archaeologist finds the entrance to King Tut’s tomb, 4 November 1922

In 1907, Egyptologist and archaeologist Howard Carter was hired by George Herbert, the 5th Earl of Carnarvon to oversee excavations in Egypt’s Valley of the Kings. Carter had built a reputation for scrupulously recording and preserving discoveries.

Carter searched the valley for years with little to show for it, which drew the ire of his employer. In 1922, Lord Carnarvon told Carter that he had only one more season of digging before his funding would be ended.

Revisiting a previously abandoned dig site at a group of huts, Carter started digging again, desperate for a breakthrough.

On Nov. 4, 1922, his crew discovered a step carved into the rock. By the end of the next day, a whole staircase had been uncovered. Carter wired Carnarvon, imploring him to come at once.

Trump-Ukraine Whistleblower Suddenly Won’t Testify; Lawyers Break Off Negotiations Amid New Revelations

A CIA officer who filed a second-hand whistleblower complaint against President Trump has gotten cold feet about testifying after revelations emerged that he worked with Joe Biden, former CIA Director John Brennan, and a DNC operative who sought dirt on President Trump from officials in Ukraine’s former government.

According to the Washington Examiner, discussions with the whistleblower – revealed by RealClearInvestigations as 33-year-old Eric Ciaramella have been halted, “and there is no discussion of testimony from a second whistleblower, who supported the first’s claims.”

Ciaramella complained that President Trump abused his office when he asked Ukraine to investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as claims related to pro-Clinton election interference and DNC hacking in 2016.

On Thursday, a top National Security Council official who was present on a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky testified that he saw nothing illegal about the conversation.

“I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,” said Tim Morrison, former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs who was on the July 25 call between the two leaders.

And now, the partisan whistleblowers have cold feet;

Indiana Supreme Court Applies Eighth Amendment to Curb “Oppressive” Asset Forfeitures.
The ruling is a continuation of the same case in which the federal Supreme Court ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment is “incorporated” against state governments and applies to asset forfeitures.

In February, in the case of Timbs v. Indiana, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to state and local governments (as well as the federal government) and that it constrains civil asset forfeitures. Civil asset forfeiture policies enable law enforcement agencies to seize property that they suspect might have been used in a crime—including in many cases where the owner has never been convicted of anything, or even charged. Abusive forfeitures are a a widespread problem that often victimizes innocent people and particularly harms the poor. The scale of this legalized robbery is staggering. In some years, federal law enforcement alone seizes more property through asset forfeiture than burglars steal throughout the nation.

The Timbs decision could potentially lead to tighter constraints on asset forfeiture. But the Supreme Court left one key issue unaddressed: what qualifies as an “excessive” fine in the asset forfeiture context? The federal Supreme Court remanded that question to the Indiana Supreme Court, from which the case had been appealed to the federal Supreme Court in the first place. Earlier this week, the Indiana court issued a decision laying criteria for what qualifies as “excessive.” Nick Sibilla of the Institute for Justice (the public interest law firm that represented the property owner before both the federal and state supreme courts), has a helpful summary in an article in Forbes:

To determine if a forfeiture would be “grossly disproportional” and unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause, the Indiana Supreme Court devised a three-factor test. First, Hoosier courts will now have to consider the “harshness of the punishment,” which may include considering if the forfeiture would remedy the harm cause by the offense and to what extent, as well as property’s value and role in the offense.

Judges will also need to determine what effect forfeiting the property would have on the owner. After all, courts already consider a person’s economic resources when it comes to levying court costs and civil punitive damages.

“The owner’s economic means—relative to the property’s value—is an appropriate consideration,” Chief Justice Rush wrote. “To hold the opposite would generate a new fiction: that taking away the same piece of property from a billionaire and from someone who owns nothing else punishes each person equally.”

Second, courts in Indiana must determine the “severity of the offense,” which includes examining statutory penalties, the sentence imposed, and the harm cause by the crime. Finally, judges will also be required to consider an owner’s culpability and “blameworthiness for the property’s use as an instrumentality of the underlying offenses.” A forfeiture may be unconstitutionally excessive “if a claimant is entirely innocent of the property’s misuse.”

This test is likely to significantly curb abusive forfeitures in the state of Indiana, particularly in cases where the owner is in fact innocent of any crime, but merely had the misfortune of owning a car or other property that someone else allegedly used in the commission of some offense. The court emphasized that “if a claimant is entirely innocent of the property’s misuse, that fact alone may render a use-based… fine excessive.”

The court points out that “in recent decades, the absence of certain shields against the oppressive use of civil forfeiture has encouraged the widened use of aggressive in rem for forfeiture practices.” This decision will help change that.

At least for the moment, the new test will only apply in Indiana courts. But, as  the first state supreme court ruling on the subject to follow the federal Supreme Court’s decision in this same case, it could influence future decisions on the subject in other state and federal courts.

Who Will Disarm Us Now?

 

Kamala Harris, STEP ON UP!

Kamala plans to disarm Americans because “assault weapons kill babies and police officers” (but she’s all in for killing them in the uterus with a pair of salad tongs or a shop vac) and will use her metaphorical “pen and phone” to infringe on our rights, because Congress – which is supposed to represent the American people – refuses to do so.

Harris has recently shuttered her offices and fired staff in New Hampshire, and questioned whether the American people are ready for a woman of color to be president (and by “people,” she means her own party, since this is the Democratic primary, thereby calling Democrats racists and misogynists).

I can’t lie. I’m amused at Harris’s free fall, but I will miss Beto’s awkward but entertaining attempts to pretend to be just a normal guy of the people, instead of a spoiled millionaire, threatening Americans with confiscation of their property and stumbling to correct himself to preserve the “illusion” that he and the Democrats somehow respect the Second Amendment.

Bureaucrats’ Hurt Feelings On Foreign Policy Don’t Justify Impeachment.
Privileged bureaucrats are so high on their self-righteousness that they actually think they’re protecting the Constitution by obstructing the foreign policy of the elected president.

Maybe it’s more than just ‘hurt feelings‘. How about exposing their criminal acts?

In recent testimony during his confirmation hearing, the nominee to be U.S. ambassador to Russia said, “Soliciting investigations into a domestic political opponent — I don’t think that would be in accord with our values.”

Never? Let’s do a quick thought experiment. Remember when Donald Trump said he could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and still maintain his support? Suppose a candidate for office did shoot somebody and the only witness was a Russian national who then hopped a plane back to Moscow.

Now suppose that the only way to prosecute this candidate would be for his political rival (the incumbent president) to request cooperation from Russia to extradite this material witness back to the United States to participate in a trial. Should he do it?

Partisanship Is the Deciding Factor

Obviously, in today’s climate, the answer depends on one critical fact: Whose side is the candidate on? If the candidate aligns with the left, then investigating a political opponent would be totally beyond the norms established by our cherished traditions. But if the candidate opposes the left, then the deep state will step in “to protect the country from that menace.”

You see, it’s perfectly fine for Hillary Clinton to use her campaign funds to hire foreign national Christopher Steele to investigate Trump using (probably made-up) Russian sources. And there’s nothing wrong with the FBI using those partisan Steele smears to investigate the Obama administration’s political opponent.

Crossfire Hurricane, the official operational title for the investigation, employed assistance from the British government and an Australian diplomat. So the left believes there’s nothing wrong with asking a foreign government for help to investigate a domestic political opponent — so long as that opponent is Trump. After all, “Nobody is above the law, not even Donald Trump.” But if the shoe ends up on the other foot and Trump is the one investigating, it’s a constitutional crisis!

If you listen for more than a few minutes, you realize what’s really going on here is that Trump failed to prostrate himself before the “dedicated career professionals” who possess the “experience and expertise” that Trump supposedly lacks in foreign policy. Read your Constitution. Article II vests the power of foreign policy in the elected president. These “dedicated career professionals” aren’t even mentioned in the Constitution.

Maybe the framers made a drafting error in the Constitution? Or maybe we shouldn’t have a national impeachment circus over the hurt feelings of bureaucrats.

CIA, FBI Informant Was Washington Post Source For Russiagate Smears.
These close connections between the Washington Post’s Ignatius and individuals connected to the American and British intelligence communities, and the false reporting that has taken place over the last three-plus years, raise grave concerns that the warfare of the soft coup aimed at President Trump includes using the media to push propaganda.

The Federalist has learned that the now-outed CIA and FBI informant Stefan Halper served as a source for Washington Post reporter David Ignatius, providing more evidence that the intelligence community has co-opted the press to push anti-Trump conspiracy theories. In addition, an email recently obtained by The Federalist from the MI5-connected Christopher Andrew bragging that his long-time friend Ignatius has the “‘inside track’ on Flynn” adds further confirmation of this conclusion.

Svetlana Lokhova, the Russian-born English citizen and Soviet-era scholar, told The Federalist that she only realized the significance of her communications with and about Ignatius following the filing of attorney Sidney Powell’s reply brief in the Michael Flynn case.

In last week’s court filing, Powell highlighted how the CIA, FBI, Halper, and possibly James Baker used the unnamed and unaware Lokhova and the complicit Ignatius to destroy Flynn. This James Baker is not the one who worked under James Comey at the FBI, but a James Baker in the Department of Defense Office of National Assessment.

Powell wrote:

Stefan Halper is a known long-time operative for the CIA/FBI. He was paid exorbitant sums by the FBI/CIA/DOD through the Department of Defense Department’s Office of Net Assessment in 2016. His tasks seem to have included slandering Mr. Flynn with accusations of having an affair with a young professor (a British national of Russian descent) Flynn met at an official dinner at Cambridge University when he was head of DIA in 2014. Flynn has requested the records of Col. James Baker because he was Halper’s ‘handler’ in the Office of Net Assessment in the Pentagon, and ONA Director Baker regularly lunched with Washington Post Reporter David Ignatius. Baker is believed to be the person who illegally leaked the transcript of Mr. Flynn’s calls to Ignatius. The defense has requested the phone records of James Clapper to confirm his contacts with Washington Post reporter Ignatius—especially on January 10, 2017, when Clapper told Ignatius in words to the effect of ‘take the kill shot on Flynn.’ It cannot escape mention that the press has long had transcripts of the Kislyak calls that the government has denied to the defense…………

CCRKBA DECLARES DEMOCRATS HAVE ‘HIDDEN AGENDA BEHIND IMPEACHMENT’

I don’t think it’s that ‘hidden’. Ever since the courts grabbed power, way back in Marbury v Madison, and everyone let them get away with it (almost like it was a plan) who was selected as judges has been of major concern to all parties involved.

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today declared there is a “hidden agenda” behind the impeachment efforts of House Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and it is designed to tie up the U.S. Senate and derail efforts to confirm more pro-Second Amendment judges to the federal courts.

“It is clear to us that Capitol Hill anti-gunners are doing everything in their power to prevent confirmation of conservative judges who will adhere to the Constitution,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “By burdening the Senate with this nonsense, Democrats believe they can prevent confirmation of pro-Second Amendment judicial nominees during the final year of President Donald Trump’s first term.”

Gottlieb noted that the president is fulfilling perhaps his most important campaign pledge, which was to bring balance back to the federal courts. Restoring that balance could be the president’s greatest legacy, he said.

“The same people pushing impeachment have been staunch allies of the gun prohibition lobby,” Gottlieb observed. “Anti-gunners have been horrified since Day One of Donald Trump’s presidency that he was actually determined to rein in the activist federal court system by nominating judges who understand there are ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, and that the Second Amendment really means what it says.

“More than eleven years after the landmark 2008 Heller ruling and more than nine years after the 2010 McDonald decision,” he continued, “some courts still act as though neither of those Supreme Court rulings existed. But the president has been filling court vacancies with solid, intelligent jurists who understand the difference between regulated privileges and constitutionally-enumerated, fundamental rights. Capitol Hill anti-gunners and their gun prohibitionist friends can’t stand it, and they’re using the impeachment crusade as a smoke screen to distract the Senate from doing its duty.

“This isn’t about impeaching the president,” Gottlieb stated. “This is about impeaching our Second Amendment rights. I guarantee that American gun owners are going to remember this in 2020.”

Detroit Justifiable Homicides 25 times the National Average, Murders lowest in 50 years

In 2018, Detroit had 25 times the national average of reported justifiable homicides. The police chief of Detroit, James Craig, supports the residents’ right to self defense. He supports the issuance of concealed carry permits. From detroitnews.com:

The county’s report shows there were 289 homicides in Detroit in 2018, although the county lists all homicides, whereas Detroit, like most cities, doesn’t include justifiable homicides in its report because those aren’t crimes.

Assistant Detroit Police Chief David LeValley said there were 18 justifiable homicides in the city last year. Including those in the city’s count raises the number of homicides to 279 — 10 fewer than the county reported.

Detroit’s population in 2018 was listed as 672,662. The number of murders in Detroit were listed as 261. This equates to a homicide rate of 38.8 per 100,000 population. It is the second highest city in the nation. However, the number of murders are considerably lower than they were in 2012, just before Chief Craig took over. The numbers of murders are the lowest in 50 years. The population of Detroit has dropped; thus the rate of murders is still high. The rate was 55.2 per 100,000 in 2012. In 2012, the interim police chief, Chester Logan, blamed the homicide rate on guns.

The rate of reported justifiable homicide in Detroit in 2018, was 2.68 per 100,000. About 6.5% of the homicides in Detroit are reported as justified.

Trump Is Derailing The Elite’s Gravy Train

Like the garbage French elite of long ago, our American garbage elite of today has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. For four years, it has been focused entirely on deep sixing Donald Trump for his unforgivable crime of demanding that our ruling caste be held accountable for its legacy of failure.

Instead of focusing on not being terrible at their job of running America’s institutions, our elitists have decided that the real problem is us Normals being angry about how they are terrible at their job of running America’s institutions. So, let’s imagine that they finally vanquish Trump, though every time they come up against him they end up dragging themselves home like Ned Beatty after a particularly tough canoe trip.

What happens then?

What happens then is that it’s back to business as usual, and for decades, business as usual for our garbage elite has not merely been running our institutions badly but pillaging and looting our country for power, prestige and cash.

The difference is that in the future they will be much more careful to ensure that no one who is not in on the scam will ever again come anywhere near the levers of power. You can already see it – the demands that we defer to the bureaucrats they own, the attacks on the idea of free expression, and the campaign to disarm us. Their objective is no more Trumps, just an endless line of progressive would-be Maduros with the march toward despair occasionally put on pause for a term by some Fredocon Republican who hates us Normals just as much as the Dems, but won’t admit it until after he’s out of office.

Our garbage elite talks a good game about its service and moral superiority, but if our betters were actually better than us, we would not be having this national conversation about how awful they are.

The fact is that what they want to do is go back to the way it was before Trump, back to 2015, aka the year 1 BT – Before Trump. Back then, progressive Democrats got their bizarre social pathologies normalized. Moderate Democrats got money, power and an open season on the local talent. Corporate types represented largely by squishy Republicans got globalism and the ability to ship our jobs out and import Third World serfs in. And the fake conservatives of Conservative, Inc., got to cash in without the necessity of actually conserving anything.

The only people that the old system didn’t work for were the American people……………

The simple fact is that they desperately want Trump out so they can return to the good old days of winks, nods, and payoffs.

Look at the Biden Family Crime Syndicate and the antics of the junior capo of the Cosa Nose Candy. In what universe is it A-OK that the crack-fueled Johnny Appleseed of paternity suits that is Joe’s snortunate son was cashing in on $50K a month in sweet, sweet Ukrainian gas gold just weeks after Ensign Biden got booted because he tooted? And then there’s riding on Air Force Two to the NBA’s favorite dictatorship for some commie ducats. Now there are even some Romanian shenanigans too – is there a single country on earth that Totally-Not-Senile Joe didn’t shake down for the benefit of his daughter-in-law’s second hubby? ……

In a non-bizarro political universe, the proper reaction to the Prezzy demanding, “You best fork over the evidence on these manifestly corrupt antics involving the Vice-President of the United States or we’re cutting you off from the American taxpayers’ feeding trough,” would be, “Hell to the yeah, four more years! Four more years!’

But it’s not, because the elite likes its sexual abuse and its foreign cash and its total lack of accountability to us, the Normals, the people who are supposed to be the ones that our elite is working for. The elite has not learned its lesson. It has not admitted that it sucks and resolved to stop sucking.

Instead, it has doubled down. And if it gets power again, it will act to solve what it sees as the most urgent problem facing America – the fact that we the people have the ability to reject the elite’s utter incompetence and surpassing greed and elect someone with a mandate to burn down the whole rotten edifice.

If the elitists get power again, they are never letting go of it, not without a fight. And now, doesn’t the elite’s obsessive fixation on shutting down conservative dissent, eliminating competing institutions (like religious entities), and disarming law-abiding Americans make a lot more sense?

 

 

Watch: Former Brady Campaign President Stands up for Gun Owners

That’s rich. He was one of the ones relentlessly demonizing law abiding gun owners for years and out of nowhere he suddenly reverses course? Now I have read of conversions “on the road to Damascus”, but I need a lot more than a few words from him to welcome him to our side.
We need some specifics of what he’s refering to as “promoting firearm responsibility”. That’s a phrase I’ve heard floating about trying to foist off universal background checks and licensing.

Former Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence president Dan Gross spoke in defense of gun owners during the November 2, 2019, 2nd Amendment Rally.
Gross spent years as the president of the Brady Campaign, but he told pro-gun rally attendees that he is sick of seeing gun owners maligned.

Gross added, “I’ve seen firsthand how an ideological hatred of guns and the people who own them is more important to some people than the actual goal of saving lives.”

He added, “I can tell, when I was leading Brady, I had a lot of issues with a lot of people who thought they were on my side.”

Gross also discussed what he thinks “gun owners can do to reclaim the narrative in this country.” He spoke of gun owners as “decent” people who lament tragedy just as non-gun owners do and suggested much of the gun debate can be settled via gun owners promoting firearm responsibility as passionately as they promote the right to own a firearm.