With this as further confirmation, if you haven’t figured out by now that demoncraps are in any sense American, I can’t help you anymore.

NASA leasing bill transformed into “voting rights” legislation.

WASHINGTON — NASA’s ability to lease property at its facilities to companies or other organizations remains in limbo after a bill meant to reauthorize it was transformed in the House into voting rights legislation.

H.R. 5746 was introduced in October by Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), chair of the House Science Committee’s space subcommittee. The bill extended NASA’s authorization to enter into what are known as enhanced use leases, or EULs, of agency property to companies, government agencies, or educational institutions, for 10 years. The House passed the bill by a voice vote Dec. 8.

The Senate amended the bill, extending the EUL authorization by only three months instead of 10 years, and passed it by unanimous consent, sending it back to the House.

The Democratic leadership of the House, in an unusual move, then took the Senate-amended bill and stripped out the NASA provisions, replacing it with the text of two voting rights bills and now called the “Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.” They did so because H.R. 5746 had already passed the House and Senate, so the amended version could go directly to the Senate floor without the threat of a filibuster from Senate Republicans, who oppose the voting rights legislation.

The move effectively sacrificed the NASA portions of the bill, something that Beyer said he accepted. “Though I did not expect this outcome when I first introduced the NASA Enhanced Use Leasing Extension Act, if my legislation will help overcome the filibuster, the Senate can finally have the long-overdue debate on voting rights this country deserves,” he said in a Jan. 13 statement. “I would be honored to make this unexpected contribution to the cause of protecting our democracy.”

The House passed the bill Jan. 13 220 to 203 on strict party lines, with Democrats voting in favor of the bill and Republicans against it.

Republican members, including some who co-sponsored the original H.R. 5746, strongly criticized the decision to turn the NASA bill into a vehicle for voting rights legislation. “The majority has taken a practical, bipartisan bill and gutted it, inserting 735 pages of unrelated legislation and forcing the House to vote on it barely 12 hours after the text was released,” Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), ranking member of the House Science Committee, said in a statement. “What’s more, by stripping this NASA bill and replacing it with an attempt to impose federal control of elections, they have killed our only vehicle to extend NASA’s authority to lease out underutilized property and save taxpayer money.”

NASA’s EUL authority lapsed Dec. 31, meaning that the agency cannot enter into new leases until that authority is renewed. NASA had signed leases for 65 properties as of 2019, which provided the agency with nearly $11 million in revenue that went to support other facility improvements.

It’s unclear what the next step is for restoring NASA’s EUL authority. A Senate bill introduced in December proposed a two-year extension, but that bill remains in the Senate Commerce Committee.

“We hope and expect to pass an EUL extension in future legislation,” Aaron Fritschner, spokesman for Rep. Beyer, told SpaceNews Jan. 13 after the House vote, but details on how to do so were still being worked out.

 

Reading the 2A tea leaves in SCOTUS vaccine mandate ruling

On the surface, there aren’t a lot of similarities between the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate put on ice by the Supreme Court on Thursday and the New York City carry laws that SCOTUS is currently considering. Beyond the obvious difference between a vaccine and a firearm, one case revolves around an OSHA rule while the other is challenging a state law that turns the Second Amendment on its head.

Despite the differences, however, I think we might actually be able to glean a couple of things from Thursday’s ruling, starting with the fact that we had three separate opinions handed down. There was the majority opinion staying the enforcement of Biden’s mandate, but in addition to the dissent by the progressive wing of the court, we also saw a concurring opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito that’s much stronger in its criticism of Biden’s attempted power grab than the per curium opinion released by the Court.

Both the majority and concurring opinions agree that the OSHA regulation goes way too far by introducing a workplace rule that extends beyond the workplace, but Gorsuch’s opinion brought home the threat to individual liberty posed by Biden’s vaccine mandate.

The question before us is not how to respond to the pandemic, but who holds the power to do so. The answer is clear: Under the law as it stands today, that power rests with the States and Congress, not OSHA. In saying this much, we do not impugn the intentions behind the agency’s mandate. Instead, we only discharge our duty to enforce the law’s demands when it comes to the question who may govern the lives of 84 million Americans. Respecting those demands may be trying in times of stress. But if this Court were to abide them only in more tranquil conditions, declarations of emergencies would never end and the liberties our Constitution’s separation of powers seeks to preserve would amount to little.

In other words, even in states of declared emergencies, our rights don’t shrivel up and shrink down to the size of a raisin.

Of course, for the progressive wing of the court, our rights must always take a back seat to the interests and desires of the state. I was talking with Mark Walters of Armed Armerican Radio on Thursday, and he made an excellent point about the dissenting opinion and how it relates to the Bruen case challenging New York’s carry laws. Read the opening paragraph of the dissent and replace “COVID-19” with “gun violence,” and you can see the line of argument that Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan are likely to take a few months from now.

Every day, COVID–19 poses grave dangers to the citizens of this country—and particularly, to its workers. The disease has by now killed almost 1 million Americans and hospitalized almost 4 million. It spreads by person-to-person contact in confined indoor spaces, so causes harm in nearly all workplace environments. And in those environments, more than any others, individuals have little control, and therefore little capacity to mitigate risk. COVID–19, in short, is a menace in work settings. The proof is all around us: Since the disease’s onset, most Americans have seen their workplaces transformed.

I don’t know about you, but I can easily see these same three justices proclaim that “every day gun violence poses grave dangers to the citizens of this country, and in particular those who live in densely populated urban areas,” which therefore justifies the extraordinary position taken by the state of New York; nobody has the right to bear arms in self-defense, and only those who can justify their “need” to do so can get permission from the state to carry a gun.

After seeing SCOTUS’s decision on Thursday, I still feel good about what the Bruen decision will say, but I will admit to being a little more concerned about the prospect of multiple opinions from the conservative wing of the Court. I hadn’t thought much about the idea of six justices agreeing on some basic fundamentals in striking down New York’s law, with the Thomas/Gorsuch/Alito wing offering up a concurring opinion that would go even further, but it’s definitely a possibility when the decision comes down later this year.

Well – they’ve got  crap-for-brains to begin with, so ignoring truth is not ‘second nature’ but first nature for them.

BLUF:
They can look at contrary evidence clear in the face and just pretend it doesn’t exist, reject it out of hand simply because it goes against their preconceived notions that gun control is good.

You’re never going to talk sense into these people. You generally can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

How anti-gunners ignore inconvenient facts

When it comes to a discussion of guns in America, there will always be something of a divide. Those who want to regulate almost anything will always want to regulate guns and those who do not wish to be ruled will argue against such regulations.

It’s really not a difficult dichotomy to comprehend, all things considered.

Currently, with violent crime raging, anti-gun folks are pushing hard and using the violence to justify any and all demands.

Take this bit regarding Iowa.

In 2018, the Center for American Progress and Progress Iowa wrote an issue brief warning that, while gun violence in Iowa remained relatively low compared with other states, efforts in the Legislature to weaken the state’s gun laws threatened the safety of Iowa communities. Unfortunately, Iowa lawmakers did not heed this warning and in 2021 continued to undermine gun safety in the state by repealing two crucial measures that have helped keep gun violence in Iowa at comparatively low levels: 1) the law requiring a permit, and therefore a background check, prior to every handgun sale and 2) the law requiring a permit to carry loaded, concealed handguns in the community.

At the same time, similar to trends in other states, the coronavirus pandemic has been accompanied by an increase in gun deaths in Iowa: According to early data from the Iowa Department of Public Health, gun-related deaths reached an all-time high in 2020, with an estimated 353 people killed. Once again, it is crucial that policymakers in Iowa take the issue of gun violence seriously and resist efforts to further weaken the state’s gun laws.

Now, on the surface, if you knew nothing else about guns or gun control, it would be easy to look at this plea and think that maybe it’s a good idea.

The problem is, it isn’t.

Now, 2020 was a nasty year for violent crime all across the nation. That includes states that have long favored gun control policies such as California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, and so on.

2021 was a slightly different animal, but not by much.

Chicago saw the highest homicide rate it had seen in 25 years. Los Angeles had the highest it had seen in 15 years.

So clearly, it was rough for a lot of places.

However, we also saw violent crime go down in a couple of large cities. Dallas saw a decline. So did Miami.

So what’s the difference between these four cities? The two where homicides went up were in anti-gun states while the two where it went down were in pro-gun states.

Now, I’ll be the first to concede that this is just a data point and far from conclusive evidence. However, if fewer restrictions on guns result in greater violent crime as the anti-Second Amendment types claim, then shouldn’t Dallas and Miami have seen the worst violent crime compared to Chicago and Los Angeles?

What happens is that anti-Second Amendment folks don’t want to look at that. They prefer to ignore inconvenient truths whenever possible.

Gun-controlled states are having issues while non-gun-controlled states are having fewer problems. This isn’t opinion. This is a fact, one based on the actual numbers.

But you’ll never get an anti-Second Amendment type to acknowledge it. Instead, they’ll just pretend those facts don’t exist, all while pushing the next bit of gun control to strike their fancy. They’ll ignore it, all while pretending that those who oppose gun control want to do nothing to address violent crime.

The term is cognitive dissonance. They can look at contrary evidence clear in the face and just pretend it doesn’t exist, reject it out of hand simply because it goes against their preconceived notions that gun control is good.

You’re never going to talk sense into these people. You generally can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

Current List of Anti-Gun Businesses You Should Avoid Giving Your Money

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Do you watch movies at AMC Theaters? Was the film produced by Bad Robot?

  • Do you eat at Chipotle, Shake Shack, Panera, Burger King, or Subway, or have a meal delivered by Door Dash?
  • Do you wear clothes from Levi Strauss, the Gap, or Gucci?
  • Do you watch CNN, MTV, NBC, HBO, MSNBC, or Showtime?
  • Do you browse Tinder, Yelp, eBay, or Pinterest on a Microsoft computer with Comcast internet?
  • Do you shop at Costco?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, you have financially supported companies that want to strip us of our God-given constitutional rights.

Continue reading “”

Yes, there is a town named ‘North Pole’ Alaska.

North Pole [Alaska] Gun seller fatally shoots 1 of 2 men who planned to rob him

A firearms sale in which two men planned to rob the seller resulted in one of the men being shot dead, North Pole police said Thursday.

Officers responded to a report of an armed robbery in progress near 301 N. Santa Claus Lane late Wednesday night, the North Pole Police Department said in a statement. Police were told that one person had been shot while another was being held at gunpoint, and when they arrived at the scene, officers detained several people in the parking lot.

Investigators determined Adam Dane Selid, 18, and Dalen Davis, 19, had arranged to meet an individual to buy firearms from them but actually planned to rob the seller during the transaction, police said. During the meetup, Selid and Davis agreed to buy the weapons, then Selid pulled out a gun and threatened the seller, according to police.

During a struggle over Selid’s gun, “the seller was able to retrieve a handgun that he had on his person and fired one round, striking Selid,” police said in the statement.

Selid was shot in the abdomen and taken to Fairbanks Memorial Hospital, where he was later pronounced dead, police said. Next of kin have been notified.

After investigators interviewed Davis at the police department, he was arrested and taken to the Fairbanks Correctional Center, police said. Online court records show that Davis faces charges of first-degree robbery and second-degree manslaughter. North Pole police said he “knowingly engaged in conduct that resulted in the death of another person.”

The gun seller, who fatally shot Selid, “has not been charged at this time,” police said.

Today, January 14

1539 – Spain annexes Cuba.

1639 – The “Fundamental Orders”, the first written constitution that created a government in the colonies, is adopted in Connecticut

1784 – The U.S. Senate ratifies the Treaty of Paris with Great Britain.

1943 – Conceding defeat on Guadalcanal, Japan begins to evacuate its forces from the island

1950 – The first prototype of the MiG-17 makes its maiden flight.

1954 – The Hudson Motor Car Company merges with Nash-Kelvinator Corporation forming the American Motors Corporation.

1969 – An accidental explosion of a Zuni rocket detonating under a plane’s wing aboard the carrier USS Enterprise off Hawaii causes a fire, killing 28 crewmen and injuring  314 more.

2010 – Yemen declares an open war against the terrorist group al-Qaeda.

Sinema Kills Biden’s Election Power-Grab Scheme Just as He Arrives on Capitol Hill to Push It

Despite all of President Biden’s blustering fire-and-brimstone doomsday talk about evil Republicans — who are simply operating within the Senate’s established rules — it was a Democrat Senator who on Thursday delivered a mortal blow to the White House’s latest attempt to secure a legislative victory on so-called “voting rights.”

Arizona Democrat Senator Kyrsten Sinema took to the Senate floor on Thursday afternoon to once again explain why the 60-vote threshold to stop a legislative filibuster is both necessary and not worth upending for a temporary wish.

Demonstrating more foresight than the late Harry Reid or current Senate Majority Chuck Schumer demonstrated, Sinema declared that “eliminating the 60-vote threshold will simply guarantee that we lose a critical tool that we need to safeguard our democracy from threats in the years to come.” Ending the legislative filibuster in order to force through Democrats’ radical federal takeover of elections is something Sinema said would “worsen the underlying disease of division infecting our country.”

“The debate over the Senate’s 60-vote threshold shines a light on our broader challenges,” Sinema continued in her floor speech. “There’s no need for me to restate my longstanding support for the 60-vote threshold to pass legislation. There’s no need for me to restate its role protecting our country from wild reversals in federal policy.”

As Vespa covered earlier in January, Sinema’s opposition to getting rid of the legislative filibuster as a tool to ensure broad support for new federal policies has been made clear. And despite Senator Sinema’s detractors who allege she’s being bought off or somewhat manipulated into opposing an overhaul of the process for passing legislative through the Senate, she made clear on Thursday that her support for the legislative filibuster is longstanding, even while she was in the House.

“It is a view I’ve held during my years serving in both the U.S. House and the Senate, and it is the view that I continue to hold,” Sinema explained. “It is the belief that I have shared many times in public settings, and in private settings. Senators of both parties have offered ideas — including some that would earn my support — to make this body more productive, more deliberative, more responsive to Americans’ needs, and a place of genuine debate about our country’s pressing issues,” Sinema said reiterating her point that she’s not opposed to certain changes in how the Senate operates. But when it comes to the legislative filibuster, it’s a non-starter for Sinema.

“A discussion of rules falls short of what is required,” she explained of the current attempt by Schumer to shatter Senate norms. “American politics are cyclical, and the granting of power in Washington, D.C. is exchanged regularly by voters from one party to another. The shift of power back and forth means the Senate’s 60-vote threshold has proved maddening to members of both political parties in recent years,” she reminded.

“Used either as a weapon of obstruction or as a safety net to save the country from radical policies, depending on whether you serve in the majority or the minority,” Sinema said. “What is the legislative filibuster other than a tool that requires new federal policy to be broadly supported by senators representing a broader cross section of Americans — a guardrail.”

With her floor speech, Senator Sinema effectively ended Schumer’s hopes of changing the rules to allow President Biden’s latest legislative priority to pass. It also proved that Biden’s speech on his election overhaul priority was a total fail.

It turns out that Biden’s hollering about anyone who opposes passing the federal election takeover being equal to the president of the confederacy does not in fact change minds. In making her consistent stance clear on the Senate floor, Sinema has likely handed the White House and congressional Democrat leadership another defeat as the new year begins.

Man shoots attempted burglar

LANSING, Mich. (WLNS) – Lansing Police are investigating a shooting that took place on the 3000 block of S. Washington Ave. at approximately 1:00 p.m. this afternoon.

According to police, a 22-year-old homeowner fired his gun at armed people attempting to break into his apartment.

Within minutes of arriving, officers were notified of a 25-year-old man walking into a nearby hospital room with a gunshot wound.

The gunshot victim was “not forthcoming with information,” police said.

Officers later concluded that the shooting and wounded man were connected.

Police say the man who was shot is expected to survive.

The investigation is ongoing. Both men have been identified and are speaking with investigators.

Washington would-be armed robbery victim shoots suspect after being shot in the arm, police say
Auburn police say victim shot, killed suspect despite being shot in arm

A Washington state man who was shot in the arm during an attempted robbery Tuesday night turned the tables on his attacker when he drew his own gun and fatally shot the suspect, authorities said.

The incident unfolded in Auburn, located about 27 miles south of Seattle, just after 9 p.m. when the victim walked out of a business in a strip mall, Auburn police said.

The male suspect allegedly approached the victim and held him at gunpoint.

When he tried to rob the victim, police said that the victim drew his own gun and exchanged gunfire with the suspect. It was unclear whether the victim was licensed to carry a firearm.

The victim was critically injured after being shot in the arm while drawing his own weapon, Q13 FOX reported, citing police. The suspect was dead at the scene when responding officers arrived.

Police did not immediately release the identities of the victim or suspect.

No further information was released as authorities said they were still in the early stages of the investigation

The announcement describes the charges with reference to the statute’s inclusion of efforts to oppose or delay execution of a law, not its reference “to conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them …” But watch, the media and the leftists proclaim that the defendants are being charged with conspiracy to overthrow the government.

Comment O’ The Day

A federal grand jury (D) in the District of Columbia (D) returned an indictment yesterday…

FIFY

DC is 95% Democrat. The phrase “a federal grand jury in DC returned an indictment today” is synonymous with “Democrats returned an indictment today.” This are the same jury pool who wouldn’t indict ANY of the hundreds of leftist rioters who were arrested during the three days of rampaging during and after Trump’s inauguration, the rioters who took over the Senate during the Kavanaugh hearings, or the assault on the White House that saw the Secret Service evacuate the president for the first time since 1812.
Voting harder won’t fix this.

Leader of Oath Keepers and 10 Other Individuals Indicted in Federal Court for Seditious Conspiracy and Other Offenses related to U.S. Capitol Breach

WASHINGTON – A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned an indictment yesterday, which was unsealed today, charging 11 defendants with seditious conspiracy and other charges for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, which disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress that was in the process of ascertaining and counting the electoral votes related to the presidential election.

According to court documents, Elmer Stewart Rhodes III, 56, of Granbury, Texas, who is the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers; and Edward Vallejo, 63, of Phoenix, Arizona, are being charged for the first time in connection with events leading up to and including Jan. 6. Rhodes was arrested this morning in Little Elm, Texas, and Vallejo was arrested this morning in Phoenix.

In addition to Rhodes and Vallejo, those named in the indictment include nine previously charged defendants: Thomas Caldwell, 67, of Berryville, Virginia; Joseph Hackett, 51, of Sarasota, Florida; Kenneth Harrelson, 41, of Titusville, Florida; Joshua James, 34, of Arab, Alabama; Kelly Meggs, 52, of Dunnellon, Florida; Roberto Minuta, 37, of Prosper, Texas ; David Moerschel, 44, of Punta Gorda, Florida; Brian Ulrich, 44, of Guyton, Georgia, and Jessica Watkins, 39, of Woodstock, Ohio. In addition to the earlier charges filed against them, they now face additional counts for seditious conspiracy and other offenses.

Eight other individuals affiliated with the Oath Keepers, all previously charged in the investigation, remain as defendants in two related cases. All defendants – except Rhodes and Vallejo – previously were charged in a superseding indictment. The superseding indictment has now effectively been split into three parts: the 11-defendant seditious conspiracy case, a seven-defendant original case, and a third case against one of the previously charged defendants.

In one of the related cases, the original superseding indictment, charges remain pending against James Beeks, 49, of Orlando, Florida; Donovan Crowl, 51, of Cable, Ohio; William Isaacs, 22, of Kissimmee, Florida; Connie Meggs, 60, of Dunnellon, Florida; Sandra Parker, 63, of Morrow, Ohio; Bernie Parker, 71, of Morrow, Ohio, and Laura Steele, 53, of Thomasville, North Carolina. The other case charges Jonathan Walden, 57, of Birmingham, Alabama.

            The three indictments collectively charge all 19 defendants with corruptly obstructing an official proceeding. Eighteen of the 19 defendants – the exception is Walden – are charged with conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiring to prevent an officer of the United States from discharging a duty. Eleven of the 19 defendants are charged with seditious conspiracy. Some of the defendants are also facing other related charges.

Continue reading “”

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Biden’s Vaccine Mandates

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday to strike down President Joe Biden’s Wuhan coronavirus vaccine mandate for private businesses. Justices upheld his executive order requiring vaccination for healthcare workers at facilities receiving federal funding.

Native Nations and The Right to Bear Arms in a Post McGirt World

In 2012, I published an article examining the interplay between Indians (Indigenous Americans) and guns.[1] That article traced the relationship between Indians – individually and as members of Native Nations – and firearms, stretching from the earliest days of contact between Natives and colonizers, up to present day. The complex historical and legal dynamics discussed therein were animated by three intertwined theories, articulated as exceptionalism, citizenship, and race, respectively. Since that article was published almost a decade ago, there have only been a few scholarly works that have contributed to the conversation around guns and gun rights in Indian country. But, as the United States continues to set itself apart as a nation in which gun rights seemingly flow in one direction – more guns and greater gun rights – the issue of how Indian tribes govern the ownership, use, and control of guns remains relatively unexamined.

Continue reading “”

The gun grabbers used to continually squeal that there would be ‘Wild West Pimp Style Shootout Blood Flowing In The Streets!™’ when concealed carry permit laws were being passed during the last 30+ years.
Now that that has been shown to be absolute BS, they’re trying the same old playbook out with permitless carry.
It’s all they have, and everyone should know by now, from the lack of that ‘Wild West Pimp Style Shootout Blood Flowing In The Streets!™’ in the states that have passed permitless carry, that it’s still absolute BS

The weakest argument yet against Constitutional Carry?

Ohio lawmakers have approved two separate Constitutional Carry bills in recent weeks, but neither have received the final votes needed to be sent to Gov. Mike DeWine for his signature, and while the bills are still sitting in the state capitol building opponents have been trying to muster up enough last-minute opposition to derail the legislation from becoming law.

There’ve been no shortage of op-eds and opinion pieces proclaiming that Ohio will become the “Wild, Wild West” or descend into a dystopian hellscape if the state no longer requires a government-issued permission slip before legal gun owners can lawfully carry, but one of the weakest arguments I’ve run across came from retired attorney former law professor Doug Rogers, who seems to believe that the state’s current laws are actually preventing criminals from illegally carrying a gun.

The Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio testified that Senate Bill 215 will “create a threat to officer safety.”

Hamilton County Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey testified: “Allowing virtually anyone in Ohio to conceal weapons on their person without training or background checks will make Ohio less safe.”

The Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association testified, “There must be a minimum training requirement for someone … with the awesome right of carrying a weapon that can deprive another person of their life.”

Ohio already allows for the open carrying of firearms without a license or training, and there’s no minimum training requirement to own a firearm either. How is carrying a firearm concealed so much different from openly carrying one? While I strongly encourage every gun owner to continually train with their gun, mandating an official training course before one can exercise a constitutionally-protected right is an undue burden on the right itself.

Rogers goes on to complain about several other aspects of the bill, including language that clarifies when someone who’s legally armed needs to inform a law enforcement officer of that fact.

Finally, the senate bill would further endanger police by: (1) eliminating the current responsibility of a civilian carrying a concealed handgun stopped by the police to promptly notify police that he is carrying a concealed firearm; and (2) switching the duty to the police officer to ask if that civilian is carrying a concealed weapon.

The Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police said, “To remove the duty to notify is setting us all up for confrontation and potentially tragic failure.”

I’d argue that the current ambiguous language is even more likely to lead to confrontation and potential tragedy. With the clear standard outlined in the permitless carry legislation, an officer can simply ask an individual if they’re carrying a firearm when they initiate the stop. I think that’s a much better solution than leaving it up to the gun owner to “promptly” (a term which isn’t defined in state law) notify police themselves.

There are 21 states with permitless carry laws on the books, and police departments in every one of them have figured out how to continue to do their job and arrest violent criminals after the law took effect. No state has ever gone back and repealed its Constitutional Carry statute, which also says quite a bit about how the law actually works in practice.

Rogers wraps up his lame argument by calling on the legislature to reject Constitutional carry “because it is anti-police and anti-public safety,” which is an outright lie. There’s nothing anti-police about a pro-civil rights piece of legislation. There’s nothing anti-public safety about ensuring that legal gun owners can publicly protect themselves. Frankly, there’s no good reason why Ohio shouldn’t join the 21 other states that have already adopted Constitutional Carry. The bills are there and now’s the time for lawmakers in Columbus to move this legislation across the finish line and send it to the governor for his signature.

BLUF:
I’ll leave you with a GOP strategist marveling at Biden choosing to expend evaporating political capital on this base-placation exercise.  Which seems destined to fail.  Which, in turn, will only inflame the base’s dissatisfaction.  Galaxy brain stuff.  Americans do not generally view the right and ability to vote as under genuine threat.  They’re more worried about rising prices, various shortages, and other hardships.

Desperate Demagogue: Those Who Oppose My Elections Power Grab Are ‘Domestic Enemies’

One more post on that nasty, mendacious speech delivered by a desperate, shrinking president.  Mitt Romney made some strong points in rebuttal on Tuesday, and we followed up with a few additional arguments yesterday.  But we haven’t tackled this soundbyte yet, which was among the ugliest and laziest lines in the president’s extended expression of performative, impotent rage.  President Unity is really on a roll:

Continue reading “”

Quote O’ The Day

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States….Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America” — Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.

Observation O’ The Day

Those words clearly indicate that even at that early point in our nation’s history, the right was ‘recognized’ and thus was a preexisting right, not a right given to the people by the goobermint. Of course, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that in the U.S. v Cruickshank case in 1876-“This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.“. And the latter part makes clear that while the populace has that right, the will to use it when necessary is just as important.

That is all…………….

Today, January 13

1840 – The steamship Lexington burns and sinks 4 miles off the coast of Long Island with the loss of 139 lives of the 143 passengers and crew aboard.

1888 – The National Geographic Society is founded in Washington, D.C.

1910 – The  De Forest Radio Telephone Company makes the first public radio broadcast, a live performance of the operas Cavalleria Rusticana and Pagliacci from the Metropolitan Opera House in New York.

1968 – Johnny Cash performs live at Folsom State Prison.

1977 – JAL Cargo Flight 3054, a Douglas DC-8 jet, crashes onto the runway during takeoff from Anchorage International Airport, killing all 5 crew aboard.

1982 – Air Florida Flight 90, a Boeing 737 jet, crashes shortly after takeoff into Washington, D.C.’s 14th Street Bridge and falls into the Potomac River, killing 74 of the 79 passengers and crew aboard as well as 4 motorists.

2001 – An earthquake of 7.6 on the Richter scale hits near San Miguel, El Salvador , killing more than 900 people.

2018 – A false emergency alert warning of an impending missile strike in Hawaii caused widespread panic in the state.

2021 – Outgoing U.S. President Trump is impeached for a second time on a charge of incitement of insurrection following the storming of the Capitol one week prior. Interestingly not one of the demonstrators arrested is charged with ‘insurrection’.