Not expanding production in Connecticut? I sense a pattern here.

Raytheon Technologies sees shift of Pratt & Whitney work from Connecticut to North Carolina as one way to cut costs in the pandemic


Pratt & Whitney, a division of Raytheon Technologies Corp. (NYSE: RTX) plans to invest approximately $650 million and create 800 jobs through 2027 in Asheville, Governor Roy Cooper announced today. The project will bring a new high-tech turbine airfoil production facility to Buncombe County.

“We are positioning North Carolina to come out of this pandemic with these and other good paying jobs which signals a bright future in aviation even with the current challenges the industry faces. Manufacturers know they can count on our strong workforce, our innovation and our leadership in uncertain times,” said Governor Cooper.

Pratt & Whitney, a unit of Raytheon Technologies Corporation (NYSE:RTX) is a world leader in the design, manufacture and service of aircraft and helicopter engines, and auxiliary power units. The new project in Asheville will lead to the development of a new 1,000,000 square foot advanced manufacturing facility.

“This investment will enable Pratt & Whitney to continue to modernize and transform its operations with cutting-edge technologies,” said Chris Calio, president, Pratt & Whitney. “Turbine airfoils are a critical component across our engine portfolio and demand will increase significantly as the market recovers over the next several years. We need to invest today to ensure that we have the infrastructure, production capabilities and workforce in place to meet future market demand and provide the best products to our customers worldwide. We are grateful for the support provided by the State of North Carolina and the local community.”  Continue reading “”

KIMBER® Names Troy, Alabama Corporate Headquarters

Kimber Mfg., is pleased to name Troy, Alabama, as its official corporate headquarters and to announce it is hiring aggressively in all departments. After a carefully planned shift of leadership, R&D and manufacturing resources, Kimber has made substantial progress in the transition to its new, state-of-the-art headquarters in Troy, Alabama.

The final step in completing this new facility is adding staff across all departments. Kimber’s new headquarters is situated on 80+ acres with more than 225,000 square-feet of space and is now home to industry-leading design engineering, product management and manufacturing capabilities.

After an exhaustive search, Troy was chosen for a multitude of reasons including its proximity to top-tier engineering schools as well as gun- and business-friendly support from the city of Troy and the great state of Alabama. Kimber’s Alabama expansion is well ahead of schedule, having filled hundreds of its planned Troy-based positions.

Kimber is seeking qualified applicants across multiple positions and business areas including CNC technicians, machinists, quality control specialists, lean technicians, design engineers, compliance analysts, customer service representatives, materials planners, maintenance technicians, finishing operators, and assembly technicians.

“Kimber is a great place to work, especially if you love firearms,” said Pedi Gega, director of assembly and product finishing. “We have two indoor gun ranges, one outdoor range, a state-of-the-art design and prototype fabrication center, and a dynamic team of professionals who pride themselves in producing firearms with unmatched attention to detail, design and performance.

Every Kimber firearm is created with a unique blend of advanced precision technology and authentic human craftsmanship.”

Interested applicants are encouraged to apply at


“Christianity isn’t about being socially popular, but a lot of people — especially among church leaders who want to be socially popular — seem to think so.” GHR

Church Leaders Sell Their Souls to the Democratic Party.
Evangelicals stumble over themselves to endorse a political party and a candidate openly against life

Over the past couple of months, while the world has been distracted by all-things-COVID-19, a very important bit of news slipped under our radar and went virtually unnoticed. The contemporary church sold its soul to the Devil for a pot of political porridge.

Consider the evidence.

Last week “pro-life” evangelicals across the land started stumbling over themselves to endorse a political party and a candidate who is openly against life and against evangelicals.

At the same time, pastors, priests and laymen too numerous to count continued to trample each other in a parade proclaiming that some lives matter but others don’t (especially the lives of Donald Trump and his supporters).

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, otherwise known as Rome, the vicar of Christ pontificated that “Trust… in the role of international organizations (apparently not Christ?) … is indispensable for building a peaceful world.”

And off to the side of all this neo-Marxist goose-stepping stands the Congregation of Critical-Race Racists who, shamelessly shame all who, to their shame, are born of a wrong race, for which they are ashamed.

This past January, the Christian Research Center of Arizona Christian University surveyed 2,000 adults in the United States from four major religious groups: Evangelicals, Pentecostals and charismatics, mainline Protestants and Catholics.

In this survey, respondents were asked about their views on 51 topics, including marriage, absolute truth, the sanctity of human life and the authority of the Bible.

While there were notable differences among the four Christian traditions, “The most startling realization,” said research director George Barna, was “how many people from evangelical churches are adopting unbiblical beliefs.”

Mr. Barna goes further to clarify his concern.

According to his research, 52 percent of evangelicals now say they do not believe in objective moral truth or that the Bible is inerrant and trustworthy in all its content. Seventy-five percent believe that people are basically good instead of basically sinful. Forty-three percent believe Jesus sinned during his time on earth. Fifty-eight percent believe that the Holy Spirit is merely a symbol rather than a person. And a majority of respondents do not believe in the exclusivity of the Christian faith.

Other findings from the survey include that 44 percent of evangelicals believe the Bible’s teachings on abortion are ambiguous, 40 percent do not believe human life is sacred, 34 percent do not believe marriage is between one man and one woman and 43 percent do not think that God has a unified purpose for all people.

Yes, this political season has shined a spotlight on some very ugly facts concerning America’s heart and soul, and among them is this — Christianity in the United States is now in the midst of great reversal of its Great Awakening.

Under the banner of being “woke,” the church is now being “de-formed” rather than reformed. Two thousand years of ecclesial teaching is now being dumbed down and redefined, and those charged to be the guardians of orthodoxy now appear to be the very ones who have unlocked the door to rampant heresy. Today’s Evangelical leaders are no longer known for imparting the good news of the euangelion but rather for being hell-bent on selling-out the Gospel and its creeds all for the sake of the thin gruel of political popularity and being culturally in vogue.

While this is all very sad, we must remember it is also no surprise.

St. Paul warned of it in his second letter to Timothy:

“But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of self … boastful, proud … unholy … conceited … having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people … They are men of depraved minds …; their folly will be clear to everyone … Imposters will go from bad to worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned … and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus …”

Since the very first days of the church we have been told that this falling away would come. But we’ve also been told something else. There will always be a remnant. There will always be those who “continue in what they have learned from the Holy Scriptures” and against whom the gates of hell cannot prevail. Christ promised it, and we can take his promises to the bank.

As my friend, Jim Garlow has said, “What a wonderful time to be alive!” The battle lines are clear. There is little ambiguity. In the days ahead, take courage. Stand strong. We’ve read the end of the book. We know who wins. Not even hell itself can defeat the obedient and faithful Body of Christ — His one true church

Sorry, there will be no return to normalcy under Joe Biden

As the presidential campaign enters its final phase, one of the messages of the Biden campaign is that putting him, a 47-year veteran of national politics, into the White House will return us to something approaching normal. With Biden in charge, all the Trump craziness will expire, and things will be safe, sane and familiar.

In fact, there’s no chance of this happening. If Biden wins, things won’t go back to “normal.” You probably won’t even hear less from Donald Trump. And in a lot of areas, like foreign policy, it turns out the establishment’s version of normal wasn’t all that normal anyway.

Many of my lefty friends want Biden to win not so much over policy as because they have a visceral reaction to President Donald Trump. They hate the sight of his face, the sound of his voice, even the mention of his name. Electing Biden, they expect, will sweep Trump off the national stage.

But will it?

We are a long way from normalcy

Trump was big on the national stage long before he was president. Why would he go away after the election is over? He’ll still have tens of millions of (probably angry) followers, deep pockets and a huge megaphone.

There has already been some talk of Trump starting his own television network to rival Fox News, and/or his own social media platform — the latter made more plausible by the heavy censorious hands of those running Twitter and Facebook — and I suspect that Trump would regard a 2020 loss as a setback, not a defeat.

 Grover Cleveland came back to win a second term after losing the White House, Trump might reason. Why not me? He’ll probably hold campaign-style rallies around the country starting right after the election.

And the deep toxicity of national politics, which grew worse after the 2016 election but which has been brewing at least since the turn of the millennium, is not going to go away. In fact, a lot of what we’re hearing from Biden supporters suggests that it will get worse under a Biden administration.

Democrats are already calling for a Biden administration to pack the Supreme Court by adding new justices until Democrats have a majority, to pack the Senate by admitting Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., as states, and even to establish a “truth and reconciliation commission” in which Republicans will be dragged in front of the public and forced to confess the error of their ways. And, of course, abolishing the Electoral College. None of that is normal.

COVID-19 won’t simply disappear

Of course, maybe a “return to normal” really just means an end to worries about the coronavirus, which has in fact turned the world upside down. Biden is running commercials suggesting that tens of thousands of deaths from coronavirus are Trump’s fault.

That’s a pretty weak argument, given that Europe is doing no better than the United States, and arguably is doing worse.

Politicize things as much as you want — and Biden, who accused the president of xenophobia after Trump’s January order banning flights from China, and continued to hold mass rallies for two weeks afterward even after many states declared emergencies, is on thin ice here in claiming Trump acted too slowly — the coronavirus isn’t going away no matter who is in the White House on Jan. 21. It’s an aspect of nature, over which politics has very little influence.

So forget talk of a return to normal under Biden. It’s not going to happen. At most, you can vote for the flavor of abnormal that you prefer. Good luck!

Top Gun-Control Group Ducks Guns in Election Ad
Brady PAC focuses on health care, not gun control, to boost Dems

A top gun-control group has blanketed Virginia airwaves with a new ad, but its missive is missing one key word: guns.

Brady PAC, which advocates for increased gun control, released an ad attacking Virginia Republican congressional candidate Nick Freitas on health care policy. The ad, for which Brady and the House Majority PAC paid, does not mention gun issues at all.

Brady’s turn away from gun-control messaging comes after Everytown, the largest gun-control group in the country, also abandoned the issue in election ads.

The change provides further evidence that Democrats and liberal interest groups do not view gun control as a winning issue in 2020—a year that has seen record gun sales and an influx of new gun owners.

George Mason University law professor Joyce Malcolm told the Washington Free Beacon that gun-control groups have lost faith in their core message and believe focusing on other issues is the best way to get their allies elected.

“The gun-control issue is a loser at this point,” she said. “So, the gun-control groups are pushing the health care issue in hopes of helping the election of Joe Biden.”

Biden’s pledge to take away “assault weapons” and support for a variety of strict new gun-control proposals are key reasons the groups support him, Malcolm said.

“If Biden wins, the gun-control folks expect to be in the driver’s seat,” Malcolm said. Continue reading “”

October 27

939 – Æthelstan, the first king of all England, dies

1553 – Michael Servetus is burned at the stake for heresy at Geneva

1682 – Philadelphia is founded in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

1775 – King George III declares a Proclamation of Rebellion in the Thirteen Colonies at Parliament.

1795 – The United States and Spain sign the Treaty of Madrid, which establishes the boundaries between Spanish colonies and the states

1810 – The United States annexes the former Spanish colony of West Florida.

1838 – Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs issues the Extermination Order, which orders all Mormons to leave the state or be killed.

1904 – The first underground New York City Subway line opens, later designated as the IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line.

1962 – Major Rudolf Anderson of the U. S. Air Force becomes the only direct  casualty of the Cuban Missile Crisis when his U-2 airplane is shot down over Cuba

1964 – Ronald Reagan launches his political career by delivering a speech on behalf of Republican candidate for president, Barry Goldwater.

2004 – The Boston Red Sox defeat the St. Louis Cardinals to win their first World Series in 86 years.

2018 – A gunman opens fire on a Pittsburgh synagogue killing 11 and wounding 6

1782 – Niccolò Paganini
1806 – Juan Seguín
1811 – Isaac Singer
1858 – Theodore Roosevelt
1914 – Dylan Thomas
1920 – Nanette Fabray
1939 – John Cleese
1942 – Lee Greenwood
1943 – Carmen Argenziano
1963 – Marla Maples

1990 – Xavier Cugat
1992 – RM3 Allen R. Schindler, Jr. USN
2018 – Joyce Fienberg, Richard Gottfried, Rose Mallinger, Jerry Rabinowitz, Cecil & David Rosenthal, Bernice, & Sylvan Simon, Daniel Stein, Melvin Wax, Irving Younger
2019 – Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Tucker documented his first hand knowledge of the shenanigans by the actual people who had just enacted and ratified the Constitution to try and subvert and evade its restrictiveness.

View of the Constitution of the United States 

On amazon:
View of the Constitution of the United States 
by St. George Tucker

As professor of law at the College of William and Mary, St. George Tucker in 1803 published View of the Constitution—the first extended, systematic commentary on the United States Constitution after its ratification and later its amendment by the Bill of Rights. View was originally part of Tucker’s “Americanized” or “republicanized” edition of the multivolume Commentaries on the Laws of England by Sir William Blackstone. Generations of American law students, lawyers, judges, and statesmen learned their Blackstone—and also their understanding of the Constitution—through Tucker. As Clyde N. Wilson notes, “Tucker is the exponent of Jeffersonian republicanism . . . in contrast to the commercial republicanism of New England that has since the Civil War been taken to be the only true form of American philosophy.” In addition to the entirety of View, the Liberty Fund volume includes seven other essays from Tucker’s renowned edition of Blackstone. These include “On the Study of Law,” “Of the Unwritten, or Common Law of England,” and “Of the Several Forms of Government.”

St. George Tucker (1752–1827) was an officer in the American Revolutionary Army, a Professor of Law, justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, judge of the Federal District Court for Virginia by appointment of President James Madison, progenitor of a long line of jurists and scholars, and stepfather of John Randolph of Roanoke.

There’s still time for some certain Biden voters to repent

Clawing back votes: 7 states allow voters to resubmit ballots.

Seven states allow voters to resubmit mail-in ballots after they have already sent them in to be counted, according to 37 out of 50 state election officials who responded to inquires from Fox News.

The laws allow residents in seven states who have already voted for select candidates by mail to change their minds, usually within a specific time frame after the first ballot has been cast. In some states, voters can resubmit ballots several times.
In Arkansas, voters can resubmit absentee ballots up to two times.
Connecticut voters may withdraw previously submitted absentee ballots from their town clerks until 5 p.m. on the Friday before Election Day.

Voters can “then either vote in person in a polling place or fill out a new application for an absentee ballot,” a Connecticut election official told Fox News.
Voters in Delaware can contact their county elections office if they wish to make a change to their submitted absentee ballots.

“If a voter has already returned their voted absentee or vote-by-mail ballot, and then wish to make a change, the voter should contact their county elections office as soon as possible to determine if this will be feasible,” a spokesperson for State Election Commissioner Anthony Albence said.
In Michigan, voters wishing to change their mail-in ballots must submit written requests to their city or town clerks.
In Minnesota, voters can change their absentee votes as long as they do so at least 14 days prior to Election Day.

“You can ask to cancel your ballot until the close of business two weeks before Election Day,” the state’s website reads. “After that time, you cannot cancel your ballot. To cancel your ballot, contact the election office that sent your ballot. Your options are to have a new ballot mailed; vote in person at your local election office; or vote at your polling place on Election Day.”
Wisconsin voters can resubmit mail-in ballots if they do so on time.

“If you need a new ballot, contact your municipal clerk as soon as possible. If there’s enough time, your clerk can cancel your original ballot and give you a new one,” the state’s website reads. “Depending on how close you are to Oct. 29 — the legal deadline for requesting absentee ballots by mail — you might need to get your new ballot in person.”
New Hampshire
The process is a bit trickier in New Hampshire, where those who voted by mail can vote again if they show up to a polling place within the first hour it’s open or before their absentee ballots are processed.

Other states allow residents to withdraw their mail-in ballots and vote in-person on Election Day, including Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Pennsylvania and New Mexico. Some of these states require voters to sign an affidavit canceling their absentee ballots before voting in person.

Voters in most states can also receive new ballots if they have incorrectly filled out their first ballots so as long as they have not been submitted and they contact their local election clerks on time.

“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 “”

Dr. Dobson’s Open Letter To Christians Regarding The Election

Dear Friends,

This will be my final letter before Americans cast our ballots on November 3rd. It is a breathtaking moment in the history of the United States. Perhaps I will be permitted to repeat a brief comment I made in my August letter because of its relevance to today. Many political commentators have stated that this election is the most significant since 1864, when Abraham Lincoln vied for a second term against Democratic nominee, George McClellan. The future of our beloved nation hung in the balance that year. If Lincoln had lost, the Civil War would have ended precipitously and the wretched evils of slavery would have remained legal in the Confederate States, and perhaps even in the North. Had Lincoln been defeated, the Union would have been torn asunder. Thank God Mr. Lincoln won, even though it cost him his life!

Now we are approaching another presidential election that carries enormous implications for the stability of our democratic system of government. Indeed, Newt Gingrich said that what we are facing now might bring an end to civilization as we have known it. He may have been referring to a possible revolution. Regardless, I believe his grave concern for our nation is valid. For centuries, America has stood as a shining light for liberty and freedom in our nation and around the globe. If we abandon our founding core values, the world will suffer for it. The binary choice before us is that stark.

How will Americans, and how will you, decide who to vote for as our Chief Executive Officer? I have heard from dozens of friends and acquaintances in recent weeks who tell me they will base their decision solely on a candidate’s rhetoric, tone, style, or likeability. Does that describe your thinking process?

Just now, as I was about to react to that idea, my wife, Shirley, brought in an email that she had received a few minutes before from a friend. It quoted an anonymous statement that gets to the heart of the issue, as follows:

“This is not a junior high or high school popularity/personality contest. I’m not voting for the person—I’m voting for the platform!

I’m voting for the Second Amendment. I’m voting for the next Supreme Court justice. I’m voting for the electoral college. I’m voting for the Republic in which we live. I’m voting for the police and law and order. I’m voting for the military and the veterans who fought and died for this country. I’m voting for the flag that is often missing from public events. I’m voting for the right to speak my opinion and not be censored for it. I’m voting for secure borders. I’m voting for the right to praise God without fear. I’m voting for every unborn soul that is at risk of being aborted. I’m voting for freedom and the American dream. I’m voting for good and against evil. I’m not just voting for one person.

I’m voting for the future of my country!”

I couldn’t have said it better, although I want to add to the writer’s list. I’m also voting for candidates who will exercise sound leadership internationally. I’m voting for those who will support Israel. I’m voting for those who will protect children from leftist curricula. I’m voting for the nation’s fiscal integrity. I’m voting for parental rights. I’m voting for school choice and home education. I’m voting for freedom in the suburbs. I’m voting for Little Sisters of the Poor and other Christian organizations. I’m voting for racial unity. I am voting to support “In God we trust” and school prayer. I’m voting for freedom of conscience for physicians and other professionals. I am voting for marriage. I am voting for life in all its dimensions. I am voting against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. I’m voting for wisdom in handling the pandemic. I am voting for protection for the Church from oppressive politicians.

One final thought: With all respect, this election isn’t about you. It certainly isn’t about me. It is about our kids and grandkids. It is about those who are yet to come, if they are allowed to live. This vote has awesome implications for future generations and the nation we love. It is about our Constitution and the immutable, God-given rights it protects. It is about values, and truth, and greatness, and hope. That is why the notion of choosing a president based on frivolous personality characteristics is so unfortunate.

In summary, this election is for all the marbles . . . the Presidency, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. Together, they set the agenda for this country.

If you love America and don’t want it to be “fundamentally transformed,” it is time to do three things:

  1. Pray like never before that God will spare this great nation from tyranny and oppression of religious liberty.
  2. Volunteer to help your candidates.
  3. Vote for the candidates who will best uphold your values and convictions.

Also, consider forwarding this letter to your friends, family, and others whom you might influence.

May God bless America!


Is Our Freedom For Sale?

The old idea, “If you want to understand what’s really going on, follow the money,” certainly holds true when it comes to gun-control groups. The NRA gets its funding from millions of members and supporters who cherish American freedom. In contrast, as you’ll see here, the vast majority of money fueling gun-control groups comes from a few mega-wealthy individuals who live very protected lives, but don’t think you should have the same security as they do.

Searching publicly available records, we were able to get a good idea of how the gun-control groups are financed. This involved doing forensic accounting work on the three biggest gun-control groups’ political-action committees (PACS): the Michael Bloomberg-funded group Everytown for Gun Safety, the Giffords PAC and the Brady PAC

[I’ve moved part of the article about the Giffords PAC forward to emphasize it. To me, it simply looks like a method that the Kelly’s have to fund the lifestyle they’ve become accustomed to. Miles]

Giffords PAC
The Giffords PAC (FEC ID C00540443), headquartered in Washington, D.C., is an entirely different political machine. It, too, is not a charity and thus cannot be rated by Charity Navigator or similar organizations. However, other sources show that as of June 30, 2020, Giffords had taken in $8 million in receipts and spent $6 million, with  around $2.8 million in reserve.

Two things immediately stand out about this PAC. First is how narrowly and sparingly it spends its money. As this was being written, it had made a mere $198,000 in campaign contributions and spent $1.4 million of its independent-expenditure PAC money against one campaign: Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) who, at press time, was in a tight race with Democrat John Hickenlooper, a man who wants to deeply restrict our Second Amendment rights. This is considered to be a key race for control of the U.S. Senate.

The other thing about the Giffords PAC is the nature of its expenses. They are, compared to the frugality of Everytown, astronomical. The administrative, fundraising, media, salary and miscellaneous expenses of this group take up the largest use of its donations.

Everytown for Gun Safety
The Everytown PAC is the brainchild of one man, Michael Bloomberg. When he was the mayor of New York City, Bloomberg originally founded Mayors Against Illegal Guns. This name was basically scrapped after a lot of mayors turned on the group for simply promoting an anti-gun agenda, and it morphed into Everytown for Gun Safety. Continue reading “”

Rural California is divided, armed for revolt. What’s the matter in the State of Jefferson?

Carlos Zapata has a message for any government official who shows up at his Tehama County restaurant and tries to enforce California’s pandemic shutdown orders.

“I’ve made it very clear that if they come to shut us down, I’m going to call 100,000 people that’ll be there with guns, and what happens happens, you know?” Zapata said Tuesday. “I’m hoping that they’re not stupid enough to want that kind of a fight over a restaurant being open, but if they want it, we’ll definitely give it to them.”

It’s not the first time the Red Bluff restaurant owner and U.S. Marine combat veteran has made those kinds of threats. A few weeks ago, he told the Shasta County Board of Supervisors to expect trouble if they enforce Gov. Gavin Newsom’s COVID-19 restrictions on local businesses.

“Right now, we’re being peaceful,” he said in a short speech that has since made Zapata a celebrity among far-right groups. “But it’s not going to be peaceful much longer.”

Just about anywhere else in California, that sort of talk would have been widely condemned. But here, in what’s arguably the capital of the State of Jefferson — a decades-old movement to break off conservative northern counties from Democrat-controlled California — many have shrugged Zapata off as commonplace. Continue reading “”

Washington State Firearm Confiscation Law Found Unconstitutional

The case is State v. Zachary James Marshall, available here.

Earlier this year, in a ruling of first impression in Washington State, the Kitsap County District Court decided that the state’s compulsory “firearm surrender” laws violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the analogous provisions in the state constitution. “In our constitutional system of government, individuals have rights that the government and its agents (including courts) must respect. Among those rights are the right to be free from compelled self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, and their counterparts under Washington’s constitution.”

To appreciate the ruling, it is necessary to understand the underlying statutory framework. Washington State courts issuing certain protection orders in a civil or criminal case have the authority, or are required, to also order that the restrained person retrieve and “immediately surrender” to law enforcement all firearms and dangerous weapons that the person possesses or has control over, as well as any concealed pistol license (CPL). As soon as the order is issued, the restrained person becomes prohibited from possessing, acquiring or accessing firearms and weapons, and is ineligible for a CPL.

Within five days of the order, a restrained person must file with the court a written proof of surrender in a prescribed form, under oath (or alternatively, a declaration that he or she has no guns, weapons or CPL to surrender). The state law directs, further, that the court must “verify timely and complete compliance with orders to surrender weapons” by holding a compliance hearing as soon as possible. At this hearing (or any other hearing where compliance with the order to surrender weapons is addressed), the law demands that the restrained person attend and provide testimony under oath verifying their compliance.

If there is cause to believe that a restrained person is not in compliance, a court may issue a surrender search warrant to search any “locations where the firearms and dangerous weapons are reasonably believed to be” and confiscate this property.

It is a crime to fail to comply with a surrender order, and the offender may also face sanctions for contempt of court. A separate state law makes it a felony for the person to possess a firearm during any period of time that the person was subject to that court order. Noncompliance by an out-of-custody pretrial defendant would also be a violation of release conditions, resulting in revocation of those conditions and confinement until trial.

The challenge to this law arose out of misdemeanor charges for fourth degree assault, the lowest level of assault, brought against Zachary James Marshall. Marshall has no previous criminal history and there is no indication in the ruling that Marshall had used or threatened to use a firearm or other dangerous weapon during the alleged assault. Continue reading “”

October 26

1774 – The first Continental Congress adjourns in Philadelphia.

1825 – The Erie Canal opens, allowing direct passage from the Hudson River to Lake Erie.

1936 – The first electric generator at Hoover Dam goes into full operation.

1944 – Off Cape Engaño north of Luzon Island Philippines, the final battle between Japanese and U.S. naval fleets results in an overwhelming American victory.

1958 – Pan American Airways makes the first commercial flight of the Boeing 707 from New York City to Paris.

1967 – Mohammad Reza Pahlavi crowns himself Emperor of Iran.

1995 – Israeli Mossad agents kill Islamic Jihad leader Fathi Shaqaqi in Malta.

2001 – The United States passes the USA PATRIOT Act into law.

1529 – Anna of Hesse
1609 – William Sprague
1854 – C. W. Post
1860 – Frank ‘Pistol Pete’ Eaton
1865 – Benjamin Guggenheim
1869 – Washington Luís
1912 – Don Siegel
1914 – Jackie Coogan
1916 – François Mitterrand
1919 – Mohammad Reza Pahlavi
1942 – Bob Hoskins
1945 – Pat Conroy, Jaclyn Smith
1946 – Pat Sajak
1962 – Cary Elwes

1675 – William Sprague
1864 – William ‘Bloody Bill’ Anderson
1866 – John Kinder Labatt
1931 – Charles Comiskey
1972 – Igor Sikorsky
1979 – Park Chung Hee
1999 – Hoyt Axton

Homeowner fatally shoots burglar in Marquette Park

A homeowner shot and killed a suspected burglar Sunday in Marquette Park on the Southwest Side, according to Chicago police.

About 11:15 a.m., the man, believed to be in his 40s, was shot by the homeowner during a burglary in the 7100 block of South Mozart Street, police said.

The Cook County medical examiner’s office has not yet commented on the death.

Area One detectives are investigating.