The immediate aftermath of the murder of George Floyd saw a dramatic increase in violent crime across the country. But the political movement Floyd’s death spawned — “Defund the Police” — ended up creating a massive spike in the murders of black people as law enforcement pulled back from policing black communities in what’s referred to as “The Ferguson Effect.”
The left sniffs at the Ferguson Effect because it, in essence, blames their coddling of violent protesters for the spike in crime. But given the anecdotal evidence from every large city about the reality of the effect —some police making a conscious effort not to get involved — it would seem that the Ferguson Effect can certainly be included among any causes for the increase in violent crime.
The year 2020 may have been unique because of the pandemic and conditions surrounding the lockdowns.
Buying your kid a Browning t-shirt could soon be impossible, at least if you live in California. Democrat Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan has introduced a bill that is starting to get some attention in the state legislature, and it poses a clear threat to the First Amendment rights of Second Amendment supporters.
In Bauer-Kahan’s view, AB 2571 “seeks to restrict the malicious and manipulative firearms marketing geared towards children and youth,” but a perusal of the text shows her real aim is to crack down on parents who aim to educate their kids about safe and responsible gun ownership.
According to the current language of the measure, the proposed law would “prohibit a person or entity that publishes materials directed to minors in this state in any medium from marketing or advertising firearms in that material, as specified, and would prohibit a person or entity that publishes a marketing or advertising communication from publishing or disseminating marketing or advertising for firearms that is attractive to minors, as specified.”
What makes a particular communication “attractive to minors”? The bill is open-ended, but includes things like using cartoon characters to promote firearms or firearms products; offering firearm brand name merchandise, such as hats, t-shirts, or stuffed animals, for minors; or even offering firearms or firearms accessories with colors or designs that are specifically designed to appeal to minors.
Violations of the law could result in a $25,000 fine, which is clearly an attempt to chill pro-Second Amendment speech.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Mark Oliva tells Bearing Arms that it’s clear that state lawmakers “aren’t satisfied” with curtailing Second Amendment rights and now trying to infringe on the First Amendment as well.
“Commercial speech is still protected speech,” says Oliva, adding, “California’s bought-and-paid for gun control politicians might find it disagreeable that parents actually teach their children safe and responsible firearm ownership, but that is a reality, albeit one they are attempting to erase. Advertising images of parents and youths hunting together would be illegal. Youth hunting clothing branded with firearm and ammunition maker logos would be banned. The bill authors know this is a clear violation of First Amendment rights, but they give no consideration to fundamental rights when it comes to advancing a gun control agenda.”
Why would they, honestly? Most California Democrats don’t view the Second Amendment as a fundamental right that must be protected. At best they see it as an anachronism that has no place in 21st Century America, and far too many of them see our right to keep and bear arms as an evil that must be eradicated. They don’t see AB 2571 as the censorious pile of rat droppings that it is. No, they honestly believe they’re protecting innocent children from the evil and twisted firearms industry.. not to mention the deplorable gun-owning dupes those kids might have as parents.
Here’s my question for Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and other backers of this bill: even if gun companies were marketing their products to minors (which I don’t think is actually the case), shouldn’t all of the gun control laws on the books in California prevent minors from getting their hands on a gun? I mean, minors can’t legally purchase firearms or ammunition in the state, and there are background check requirements for all gun transfers and ammunition purchases. If California’s gun control laws work as well as Democrats say they do, then why do they believe this bill is necessary?
Sadly, I know the answer. This legislation isn’t about preventing minors from illegally acquiring firearms. It’s about demonizing the firearms industry.
I would love to say that this bill is going nowhere, but it already has the backing of Gov. Gavin Newsom and appears to be gaining some traction in the state Assembly, where it was referred to the Judiciary Committee on Monday. The time for California gun owners to speak out is now. I don’t know that even a wave of opposition from gun owners across the state will be enough to derail the bill in the legislature, but it’s the first step in what’s likely to be a long campaign to defend our First Amendment right to support the Second Amendment.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (WWTI) — Local lawmakers are voicing their support in new legislation aiming to protect second amendment rights.
On April 11, the Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2022 (H.R. 7493) was introduced to Congress by House Republications to amend Title 11 of the United States code pertaining to a federal bankruptcy law.
According to lawmakers, if passed, this legislation would modify the federal bankruptcy law to allow an individual debtor to exempt one or more firearms from their bankruptcy estate. These firearms could have up to a total maximum value of $3,000.
Congresswoman Elise Stefanik cosponsored this legislation and said it would “ensure an individual’s right to self-defense is not stripped due to financial hardships.”
“I am proud to sponsor legislation to ensure gun owners can always maintain their Constitutional right to bear arms. The government should not be allowed to take advantage of lawful gun owners who have declared bankruptcy,” Stefanik said in a press release.
Stefanik added that the bill also labels firearms as household goods that are not subject to liens. This would be a claim against assets used as a collateral to satisfy a debt in bankruptcy situations.
Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, a reliable barometer of certified liberal opinion inside the Beltway, has a column up about the matter of Dianne Feinstein, which even a careless reader can make out as another loud note in chorus of coordinated voices that has determined that Feinstein needs to be forced from office.
The article breaks no new ground in terms of news value or reporting, as with one small exception it simply recycles the details of the San Francisco Chronicle story. The one small exception is this passage:
Feinstein’s handling of the 2018 Brett M. Kavanaugh confirmation hearings — in particular, her decision not to alert fellow lawmakers to the allegations by Christine Blasey Ford — prompted a near-insurrection by her Democratic colleagues.
I hadn’t heard previously that other Democratic Senators had been annoyed by being blindsided by the Blasey Ford allegations, and I am not sure I believe it.
The column pretends to be a high-minded meditation on the general problem of people staying too long in office, and here, too, there is an interesting tell. As Marcus explains it:
Feinstein is the oldest sitting senator, but she is far from the only official whose mental acuity has been called into question. . .
So one question raised by the focus on Feinstein must be whether, as some of her defenders insinuate, there is sexism at work. I think I have pretty good radar for sexism, and I just don’t see it. . . To the extent that there is differential treatment, the explanation might be less gender than ideology. Progressive Democrats long frustrated by Feinstein’s centrism are eager for a more liberal replacement.
There it is. (Never mind that Feinstein’s “centrism” is largely a myth, but it is easy to pull off that con when your fellow Senator is Barbara Boxer and then Kamala Harris.) And beyond this candid admission, we have to wonder whether this effort to drive Feinstein from office is a dry run for how the left will try to remove President Biden at some point soon.
Why not just say it plainly? Biden is a bald faced liar, and always has been.
Since taking office, Joe Biden has been busy weaponizing the federal government against Americans who make or desire to purchase firearms. Naturally, he defends this by trotting out false claims about the Second Amendment. A favorite of his is the statement that when the Second Amendment was adopted, people couldn’t buy a cannon.
Since he first made that statement, it has been refuted several times, such as in this article by Robert Wright.
Does Biden know or care? Of course not. The truth or falsity of a claim doesn’t matter, only advancing his agenda.
Even if it were true that the Second Amendment doesn’t allow anyone to buy a cannon, that would not logically lead to his conclusion that the feds should prevent buying all kinds of other firearms. Neither truth nor logic are of any concern to Biden.
Gov. Brian Kemp has signed constitutional carry into law. It’s now in effect here in the state of Georgia, which means your’s truly doesn’t need a permit anymore unless I leave the state and want reciprocity.
And since the two states I generally travel to are also constitutional carry states…
Anyway, I appreciate what Kemp did, but the truth is that we’d have liked to have seen it happen much sooner. I think everyone feels that way.
Yet, political realities are what they are.
Despite that, it’s a point of contention in the GOP primary where the governor’s challenger, former U.S. Senator David Perdue has taken issue with it not being done earlier
“I think that’s great,” said David Perdue. “It’s too bad it took four years to get it done and it’s too bad it took me getting in the race for them to get any energy to get that done, but I’m glad it’s getting done.”
Now, understand that it would have passed last year were it not for House Speaker David Ralston deciding the bill shouldn’t advance because of the mass shooting in Atlanta. I don’t really see how you can put that on Kemp.
However, Kemp had a response to Perdue’s criticism.
“Well, you had to get the votes in the legislature,” Gov. Kemp explained. “But look, he was in the United States Senate for six years. I don’t ever remember him pushing this bill up there. It’d be great if they did that at the federal level. We wouldn’t have to do it with all the states.”
OK, I don’t care who you are, that’s amazing.
Look, even though I live in Georgia, I don’t have a dog in this particular fight. I’m skeptical of Perdue’s claims that he’s the only one who can beat Stacey Abrams when he couldn’t even beat career candidate Jon Ossoff while Kemp actually did beat Abrams.
Yet either is preferable over an anti-gun Abrams.
However, Perdue’s attacks on Kemp for not doing something earlier seem more than a little bizarre considering Kemp actually got it done.
The governor is also right about how great it would be to have a law like this at the federal level. It would be absolutely amazing. Then even California and New Jersey residents could enjoy the benefits of constitutional carry.
Look, I’m not doubting both of these two men support the Second Amendment. I also know that it’s a primary and they’re going to fight it out.
However, I can’t help but feel like Perdue is counting on Georgia gun rights advocates to buy into this idea that Kemp could have just snapped his fingers at any time and made constitutional carry happen. It’s like he’s counting on the ignorance of a segment of the base he’s desperately courting, and I don’t like that at all.
Yet the governor flipped the script on him in a way that works for me.
Frankly, I can’t find Perdue sponsoring any pro-gun legislation during his time in the Senate. As such, he probably needs to sit the gun arguments out
LINCOLN — In a surprise, state lawmakers failed to muster enough votes Monday to advance a concealed carry handgun bill, called “constitutional carry” by some.
The vote to invoke cloture was 31-9, two short of what’s needed to stop a filibuster and advance a bill. It was also four fewer senators than the number who supported advancement of the bill from first-round debate.
“To say that I’m disappointed is an understatement,” said State Sen. Tom Brewer of Gordon, who has made passing the bill a priority during his six years in office.
25 other states
At least 25 other states have passed such laws. In Nebraska, it would have allowed people to carry a concealed weapon without obtaining a $100 state permit, undergoing a criminal background check and passing a gun safety class.
Brewer had worked for several weeks to negotiate a compromise to Legislative Bill 773 with the Omaha police union and police department, which had expressed concern about the bill watering down existing gun control ordinances in the state’s largest city and complicating their job of reducing gun violence.
The compromise amendment would have left in place an Omaha ordinance that requires registration of handguns. It also would have allowed for the continued prosecution of the crime of “carrying a concealed handgun” if a concealed gun was used in a long list of “covered offenses,” from robbery and kidnapping, to cockfighting and disorderly conduct.
NRA urged ‘no’ vote
But the powerful National Rifle Association urged a “no” vote against the amendment, calling it “a discriminatory attempt to place Omaha’s extreme firearm registration requirement into state law.”
Senators failed to pass the compromise amendment on a 13-29 vote — 12 fewer “yes” votes than needed.
The defeat pushed the Omaha Police Officers Association from neutral on the bill to oppose and sparked a debate over whether voting for LB 773 was a vote against law enforcement.
Once more, into the fray……….
I think they shouldn’t be regulated as a firearm at all, but getting them off the NFA is a compromise I can live with, for the time being. It would mean that a person would be able to make their own, because, even with this new ‘ghost gun’ regulatory crap, there’s nothing, except state laws, that would stop that.
U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), of Brookhaven, announced Monday she has cosponsored legislation to reform the regulation of suppressors and make them more available to help preserve the hearing of sportsmen and their hunting dogs.
The Hearing Protection Act (S.2050) would reclassify suppressors to regulate them like a regular firearm. U.S. Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) authored the measure.
“Eliminating a lot of the red tape that restricts access to suppressors could help hunters and sport shooters in Mississippi avoid permanent hearing damage,” Hyde-Smith said. “The Hearing Protection Act would make commonsense improvements to make it easier for responsible, law-abiding Americans to enjoy their Second Amendment rights and protect their hearing.”
Regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA), suppressors are subject to additional burdens that often exceed those imposed by more liberal European nations that actually require their use to reduce hearing-related injuries.
S.2050 would:
Reclassify suppressors to regulate them like traditional firearms;
Remove NFA jurisdiction over suppressors;
Replace the overly-burdensome federal transfer process with an instantaneous National Instant Criminal Background Check System background check, making the purchasing and transfer process for suppressors equal to the process for a rifle or shotgun;
Tax suppressors under the Pittman-Robertson Act instead of the costly NFA, putting more funding into state wildlife conservation agencies.
The Hearing Protection Act would not change any laws in states that already prevent suppressors, nor does it get rid of the requirement of a background check.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, American Suppressor Association, Gun Owners of America, and National Rifle Association support this legislation.
Next Monday, the Nebraska Senate is poised to vote on important Constitutional Carry legislation, Legislative Bill 773! The measure is still progressing through a series of votes before it officially passes out of the Senate to the Governor’s desk. That is why it is more important than ever that you immediately contact your State Senator and ask them to SUPPORT Legislative Bill 773 without further amendments!
Half of the Nation has now enacted some form of Constitutional Carry. Nebraska can lead the charge for the second half to do so as well. However, an attempt is being made to add Amendment 2106 to this important self-defense measure, which codifies Omaha’s firearm registration, stigmatizes firearms by increasing penalties for non-violent offenses, and makes “failure to inform” a felony.
The point of Constitutional carry is to make it easy and affordable for everyone to exercise their right to self-defense. Amendment 2106 is a discriminatory attempt to place Omaha’s extreme firearm registration requirement into state law, only affecting Nebraskan’s in Omaha. Your NRA-ILA stands staunchly in opposition to these additions to LB 773.
Legislative Bill 773recognizes that a law-abiding adult who is legally allowed to carry a concealed firearm, can do so without first having to obtain government permission. This ensures that citizens have the right to self-defense without government red tape or delays. Additionally, this legislation maintains the existing concealed handgun license system, so citizens who still wish to obtain a permit may do so.
I used to attribute this to ignorance. No longer. This is straight up stupidity and mendacity
Golden State Warriors coach Steve Kerr reacted to Sunday’s shooting in Sacramento by pushing gun laws that already exist in California.
FOX News quoted Kerr saying, “I don’t think moments of silence are going to do anything. At some point … our government has to decide are we going to have some common sense gun laws, it’s not going to solve everything, but it will save lives.”
He added, “Despite the fact that 80 to 90% of Americans support background checks and you know, you think about all of the common sense laws we could and should put in place.”
Background checks via the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) have existed in every state since the mid-1990s. Moreover, California adopted universal background checks in the 1990s, which means every gun sale in the state–retail or private–requires a background check in order to be legal.
So the background checks Kerr is pushing already exist in California.
Breitbart News noted that President Joe Biden also responded to the Sacramento shooting by pushing gun controls that are already the law in California.
Ban ghost guns. Require background checks for all gun sales. Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Repeal gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability. Pass my budget proposal, which would give cities more of the funding they need to fund the police and fund the crime prevention and intervention strategies that can make our cities safer. These are just a few of the steps Congress urgently needs to take to save lives.
California already bans “ghost guns,” has universal background checks, bans “assault weapons,” and bans “high capacity” magazines.
Police noted there were multiple gunmen involved in the Sacramento shooting and also pointed out that the incident was preceded by a fight.
CNN quoted Sacramento Police Chief Kathy Lester saying, “We know that a large fight took place just prior to the shootings. And we have confirmed that there are multiple shooters.”
A stolen gun was recovered at the scene of the shooting.
NATO says the military phase of the conflict in Ukraine is far from over. Of course, no one will let Zelensky make peace.
Ukraine is not a subject, but an object, where the Zelensky regime is not an actor, but a tool.
Therefore, it is necessary to take into account the intentions of the enemy and use the period of the military phase of the operation to continue the methodical destruction of the military infrastructure of Ukraine, and taking into account NATO’s course of prolonging the conflict, it is advisable to consider moving on to the destruction of industrial facilities in the territories of Ukraine that lie outside our interests, especially paying attention to those objects that Ukraine, for obvious reasons, will not be able to restore. Later, such a convenient opportunity to complete the deindustrialization of Ukraine may not present itself.
An “opportunity to complete the deindustrialization of Ukraine.” Putin isn’t defeated or baffled or confused. He’s turning the crank on the meatgrinder. One doesn’t have to read too far into these lines to conclude that Putin hoped that Zelensky would cut a deal on his terms once Russia invaded, but when Zelensky refused to cut a deal, Putin moved to Option B, which is to erase most of Ukraine from the face of the earth. That’s not as difficult as it sounds. Putin will keep the bits he wants in the Southeast (Donetsk and Luhansk), leave the West to factory farming, and pound the rest to rubble with artillery and air power.
Ukraine’s national population of 45 million had fallen to just 33 million by 2020 because half the working-age population left. Another 5 million refugees have fled, and millions more will leave before Russian cannons fall silent. There won’t be enough working-age Ukrainians left to begin reconstruction. Putin claimed on Feb. 23 that the West intended to turn Ukraine into a NATO missile platform with a 300-mile distance to Moscow. If he can’t get Ukraine to accept neutrality with Russian control over its southeast provinces, he’ll eliminate the threat Richelieu-style.
It’s horrible. But what’s going to stop Putin? To flatten Ukrainian cities, all the Russians need is artillery. All the Javelin anti-tank missiles in the world won’t do any good.
Blue cities and states have lost ground since the spring of 2020.
The Census Bureau formally counts the population only once every decade, but it updates its population estimates annually. While those estimates are not always rock-solid, they reflect the best available data — more precise than moving-truck rentals — to show where our people are shifting.
The latest data add the population change for counties between mid 2020 and mid 2021, following the release in December of the population shifts for states. First, the grim national news:
“The population of the United States grew in the past year by 392,665, or 0.1%, the lowest rate since the nation’s founding.”
“33 states saw population increases and 17 states and the District of Columbia lost population, 11 of which had losses of over 10,000 people.”
“More than 73% (2,297) of U.S. counties experienced natural decrease in 2021, up from 45.5% in 2019 and 55.5% in 2020.”
With immigration sharply curtailed during the pandemic, Americans just aren’t reproducing fast enough to make up for deaths from Covid. Some of this is a temporary problem that should get a bit better as things reopen, but it also reflects long-term trends as birth rates fall. The United States remains in an enviable position: We can add as many people as we need just by letting in more immigrants, if we want. But depending too much on immigrants is a poor substitute for a more balanced approach to population growth built around more born-and-raised Americans.
(census.gov)
The boomingest place in America? Idaho. If we measure from April 2020, when the official census was taken, to July 2021, only ten states have grown their population by 1 percent or more:
If you’re keeping score at home, that’s seven states with Republican governors and Republican legislatures, one with a Democratic governor and a Republican legislature, and two with a Democratic governor and Democratic legislature. Of course, political leadership isn’t the only factor; who governs a state doesn’t even fully describe its governing climate, which may be built into long-standing laws. But the pattern is nonetheless pretty pronounced. Most of the growing are states in the Sun Belt or the Rockies with large religious populations.
By contrast, ten jurisdictions (eight states, D.C., and Puerto Rico) lost at least half a percent of their population:
Again, if we are keeping partisan score, the big blue states (New York, Illinois, and California) stick out along with D.C. and Hawaii as the top five slots on the list, with the Democrat-affiliated government of Puerto Rico in seventh place. The rest of the list includes two states with unified Republican governments, one (Louisiana) with a Democratic governor and Republican legislature, and one (Massachusetts) with a Republican governor and Democratic legislature.
(census.gov)
Drilling down to the county level, we see Idaho and the surrounding areas with the strongest growth, as well as big parts of Tennessee, east Texas, north Georgia, and most of Florida outside Miami, but also people fanning out of cities such as New York and D.C. to the surrounding suburbs. The Rockies and the southern Appalachians are doing strongly, as Americans literally headed for the hills; the big cities and the Mississippi Valley took a pounding, and no state suffered as uniformly between its big blue city and its red counties as Illinois.
The hardest-hit counties in population decline, reflecting remote-work patterns and rising crime and housing costs, were dominated by the big blue cities. Four of the top ten were Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn, plus San Francisco and neighboring San Mateo County, Boston, and Jersey City.
What do we see in the booming areas? A lot of communities like The Villages and Myrtle Beach, and nine of the top ten in Florida, Idaho, or Utah.
As I have discussed at some length before, Democrats dodged a bullet by having the census conducted as of April 2020, rather than after a year of pandemic, remote work, and progressive law enforcement. If we take the mid-2021 population figures and run them through the formula for reapportionment, two states gain an additional House seat (Texas and Idaho), while two lose a seat (California and Minnesota). That is likely a net gain of two seats for Republicans in the House, and almost certainly a net gain of two electors in the Electoral College in a normal year.
Without getting too far into the math, these are the districts that just make it, and the ones that just miss, if we run the 2021 numbers:
While California would lose a seat if reapportionment was done as of mid 2021, it would also not be that distant from losing two seats. That is a grim trend for the Golden State if it continues in that direction for the rest of the decade, even at a slower pace post-pandemic. New York may also continue its downward trend, which has been ongoing for quite some time; the state had 45 House seats in the 1940s. Florida and Arizona, by contrast, have edged closer to adding another seat just from growing their populations since the census. In terms of the national balance of political power, this seems like good news for Republicans — but help that won’t arrive until 2032.
At least in the political climate of the moment, if not a decade from now, one thing all of this suggests is that we may see shifts in the relationship between the national popular vote for Congress and the presidency and the outcomes, as the major blue states in the next few years are likely to represent fewer people per House seat than the major red states.
A “Constitutional Carry Act” that Gov. Brian Kemp pledged his support for during his 2018 gubernatorial campaign was passed by Georgia Republican legislators on Wednesday.
Georgia is expected to soon become the latest state where people can carry firearms in public without a license.
On Wednesday, House Republicans passed Senate Bill 319, permit-less carry legislation that’s a top priority for state and national gun rights groups that argue carrying guns is a constitutional right that shouldn’t require permission from the government.
Many gun rights organizations have stepped up their campaign to roll back gun restrictions, claiming that liberal politicians and progressive groups like Moms Demand Action will trample gun owners with gun regulation lobbying.
Wednesday’s 100-67 party-line vote marks the second time this month that the House advanced a bill ending licensing requirements for handguns. House Bill 1358, an identical bill, had already cleared the House and is now in the Senate chamber.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced Tuesday he has called a special legislative session to be held next month, during which lawmakers could bring up other legislative issues, including constitutional carry.
“I would love to have property insurance, I would love to have data privacy, I would love to have constitutional carry,” DeSantis said Tuesday. “I will ask the legislative leaders, ‘Is there something that you can get across the finish line?’ And I will encourage them to do that.”
A joint statement sent by Senate President Wilton Simpson and House Speaker Chris Sprowls said the special session could start April 19.
Currently, 24 states allow law-abiding residents to carry concealed firearms without government fees or permits.
The President of the United States, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., who is 79 years old and suffering from senile dementia at the end of a long life of bullying, lying, boasting, conniving, grifting, grafting, and living off the public tit to an extent indecent even by Washington standards, declared war on Russia on Friday. In the course of a typically blustering, hectoring speech, the senescent Biden went off script and interpolated the following peroration: “My God, this man cannot remain in power.”
To which the only proper response is: “My God, this man cannot remain in the Oval Office.” Joe Biden needs to be removed from the White House as soon as possible, before his failing mind, his erratic behavior, and his proven lack of character get us all killed. The question is, is there enough political will in the capital to do what needs to be done?
Biden’s blunder was immediately walked back by the few adults left in the room, called a “gaffe,” or—worse—actually defended by the neocons and other leftists as truth-telling on a heroic scale, evocative of Ronald Reagan’s 1987 “tear down this wall” speech at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, which two years later actually did result in the Wall coming down. But his rash words continue to ring, now matter how swiftly his handlers and apologists and even Biden himself try to make us disbelieve our own lying ears:
Mush-mouthed as usual, and delivered with all the Scrantonian sincerity of one of his typical campaign speeches, Biden’s address was not only the low-water mark of his presidency so far, but a nadir in the history of the United States and its practice of diplomacy.
David Solway wrote Sunday that “there is now considerable anxiety that an Armageddon scenario may have become a possibility.” That is absolutely true, but it is also true that in another sense, the Armageddon scenario is already upon us. Joe Biden may appear to be simply a dementia-ridden puppet fronting for a corrupt, America-Last administration, but his failure as president is so comprehensive, so all-encompassing, that it has taken on eschatological dimensions: Old Joe Biden has unleashed the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
Armageddon, if you haven’t read the Book of Revelation lately, is the place where the forces of evil gather for the final battle with the faithful (Revelation 16:16). The same Biblical book, which is the last book of the New Testament, presents the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (the final destruction of the world) in a terrifying vision that is often understood as referring to the end times.
First there is “a white horse, and its rider had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer.”
The second horse is “bright red; its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth, so that men should slay one another; and he was given a great sword.”
Then follows “a black horse, and its rider had a balance in his hand,” apparently for the rationing of food in a time of famine.
Finally, there is “a pale horse, and its rider’s name was Death, and Hades followed him; and they were given power over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth.” (Revelation 6:1-8)
The four horses and four afflictions, conquest, war, famine, and pestilence, neatly encapsulate the administration of Joe Biden. Old Joe himself is to a great degree responsible for this impression, as he seems to like to sound apocalyptic notes. He certainly has done so more than once, particularly when he declared on Dec. 16, 2021, “For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm.” There’s the Biden pestilence. Yes, COVID-19 came upon us during the Trump years, but Biden promised to end it, and that turned out to be yet another of his empty promises. With Anthony Fauci threatening that “more rigid” restrictions are in the offing, pestilence looks as if it’s going to be a permanent feature of the Biden era.
The Biden famine is more of a threat than reality as of yet, but it could come to us any day now. As PJM’s Athena Thorne noted, Biden said Thursday, “With regard to food shortage, yes, we did sss- re- re- s- talk about food shortages. And, uh, and it’s gonna be real. The price of these sanctions, ahem, is not just imposed upon Russia, it’s imposed upon an awful lot of countries as well, including European countries and our country as well.”
Biden’s war is obvious: it is happening in Ukraine now. However much the establishment media tries to blame Trump for Putin invading Ukraine, and pretend that Trump would be applauding his move if he were still president, the ineluctable fact remains that Putin moved against Ukraine and occupied Crimea while Barack Obama was president, did nothing while Donald Trump was president, and launched the present invasion while Old Joe Biden was pretending to be president. And conquest? Look at the people streaming into the country across what is officially known as the Southern border. If they keep coming at the rate they came in 2021, Biden’s threat to transform America fundamentally will be a reality.
Joe Biden has not just unleashed the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. His entire political career as a serial liar of marginal (at best) competence, cheerfully savaging Clarence Thomas and others for political gain, parading his religiosity while going to war against actual religion, presents us once again with the age-old theological problem: why do the wicked prosper? Whatever the answer may be, Joe does prosper, and that means we don’t.
And maybe Old Joe isn’t a tool of the apocalypse at all, but just another corrupt kleptocrat feeding at the public trough and selling out the people he is supposed to be serving for his own short-sighted gain. Either way, it’s going to be tough times ahead.
BLUF:
In the November 2022 midterms, we are likely to see a historic “No!” to the orthodox left-wing agenda.
What will replace it is a return to what until recently had worked.
The prophets of the new world order sowed the wind and they will soon reap the whirlwind of an angry public….
President Joe Biden believes the Ukraine war will mark the start of a “new world order.” In the middle of the COVID global pandemic, Klaus Schwab and global elites likewise announced a “great reset.”
Accordingly, the nations of the world would have to surrender their sovereignty to an international body of experts. They would enlighten us on taxes, diversity, and green policies.
When former President Donald Trump got elected in 2016, marquee journalists announced partisan reporting would have to displace the old, supposedly disinterested approach to the news.
There is a common theme here.
In normal times progressives worry that they do not have public support for their policies. Only in crises do they feel that the political Left and media can merge to use apocalyptic times to ram through usually unpopular approaches to foreign and domestic problems.
We saw that last year: fleeing from Afghanistan, the embrace of critical race theory, trying to end the filibuster, pack the court, junk the Electoral College, and nationalize voting laws.
These “new orders” and “resets” always entail far bigger government and more unelected, powerful bureaucracies. Elites assume that their radical changes in energy use, media reporting, voting, sovereignty, and racial and ethnic quotas will never quite apply to themselves, the architects of such top-down changes.
So we common folk must quit fossil fuels, but not those who need to use corporate jets. Walls will not mar our borders but will protect the homes of Nancy Pelosi, Mark Zuckerberg, and Bill Gates.
Hunter Biden’s lost laptop will be declared, by fiat, not news. In contrast, the fake Alfa Bank “collusion” narrative will be national headline news for weeks.
Middle-class lifestyles will be curbed as we are instructed to strive for sustainability and transition to apartment living and mass transit. But the Obamas will still keep their three mansions, and Silicon Valley futurists will insist on exemptions for their yachts.
In truth, we are about to see a radical reset – of the current reset. It will be a different sort of transformation than the elites are expecting and one that they should greatly fear.
Yep. He’s a politician all right. He was against it, until it became law, then realizing which way the wind was blowing, he’s now for it. The only question about politicians is whether or not they’re ‘honest’ which means ‘they stay bought’.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a new measure into law on March 11 that will change the way gun owners carry their guns.
No longer will citizens be required to obtain a concealed carry permit.
House Bill 272, The Constitutional Carry Bill, no longer requires citizens to have a permit but also changed the language regarding penalties for unlawful carry.
“Unlike states who are doing everything in their power to make it harder for law abiding citizens, Alabama is reaffirming our commitment to defending our Second Amendment rights,” Ivey said. “I have always stood up for the rights of law abiding gunowners, and I am proud to do that again today.”
HB 272 trickles down in Alabama to all levels, including Lee County. Sheriff Jay Jones approached the Lee County Commission in November, before Ivey signed the bill, asking commissioners to continue a requirement for purchasing concealed carry pistol permits.
“It’s about pro-community safety,” he said in November. “… The current law that’s in place [requires] a person to obtain, by a fee, a pistol permit, to carry a handgun, concealed on about their person or even more importantly, in their vehicle, as they go about their business. And it’s the business of some that I would like to address.
“The tool allows us when we encounter people, who, are generally up to no good quite frankly, in possession of a weapon because they’re not going to get a permit … Criminals aren’t going to go to the trouble of getting a permit. And we depend on that. Because as a result of that, we can confront them when we encounter them without one in a vehicle and are able, in many cases, to relieve them of those weapons, which many times, are stolen.”
At the time, three citizens spoke against Jones’ request, however, the commission voted in favor of his resolution.
Three commissioners voted in favor, while District 5 Commissioner Richard LaGrand abstained.
“You know, Jay, if this is something that helps you and the three gentlemen back there with you in law enforcement, if it helps y’all do your job, I would encourage the commission to support this,” said District 4 Commissioner Robert Ham. “And I think what I just heard is that it did.”
Now that HB272 has been signed into law, however, Jones said he supports Ivey’s efforts for Second Amendment Rights.
“[I] agree that Alabama should be strong in affirming the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” he said in a statement to The Observer. “Whether the purpose is for protection of self and family or to engage in hunting or sporting activities, the right to acquire and own a firearm is fundamental. As a Sheriff, I support citizens exercising this right and encourage the concept of responsibility by acquiring the knowledge and skills to safely handle and maintain a firearm.”
His concerns, however, are still in place, he said.
“Law enforcement professionals at all levels remain concerned that a tool utilized by our peace officers around Alabama has been removed,” Jones said. “These concerns are based on experience and knowledge gained by those who keep our communities safe every day. We will remain vigilant and our hope is that our concerns do not come to fruition when the law takes effect next year.”
“I WILL NOT COMPLY”
WASHINGTON LAWMAKERS PASS MAG CAPACITY LIMITS AS CLICHES FLY
Nothing makes less sense than politicians who know zip about firearms, to say nothing of personal protection, passing laws that put restrictions on guns used by armed citizens to defend themselves, their families and in an emergency, their neighbors.
Not only does a magazine ban affect rifles, it also will create problems
for people who own pistols such as this Sig Sauer P229 Elite with its greater capacity.
Washington lawmakers recently passed such a law, and to suggest it stinks would be excessively civil. According to the affected gun owners whose remarks I’ve read on social media, the Evergreen State is taking on a shade of brown, and it’s got nothing to do with fall colors.
Long story short, the legislation prohibits the import, sale, trade or manufacture of a “large capacity magazine,” which is defined as an “ammunition-feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition…” As one might guess, this set off a buying frenzy, because—and here’s the puzzling part—any such magazines owned prior to the July 1 effective date will be “grandfathered in.” That is, the owners can keep them.
I can hear you all wondering, “How are they going to enforce this?” Magazines don’t have serial numbers, and if somebody has a garage full of them, how would anyone prove that individual didn’t have all of those magazines six months ago?
I happen to own a trio of 25-round magazines for my Ruger 10/22, which—believe it or not—falls within the initiative-adopted definition of a “semi-automatic assault rifle.”
It is imperative for you folks in other states to remember Washington is considered something of a “test tube” state by the gun prohibition lobby. It used to be California, but the Pacific Northwest has become the new petri dish for all manner of gun control nonsense to see what can be passed, and what can’t. What is tried in Washington this year might be coming to a state legislature near you next year.
Outbreak of Clichés
As noted earlier, nothing makes less sense … except perhaps for how some people react on social media to a gun restriction anywhere in the United States.
It’s the same all over, whether in New Jersey, Oregon, California, and Massachusetts; pick a state with a new gun control law and I guarantee you will hear or see the following:
“I will not comply!” pops up first, frequently followed by “I had this tragic boating accident.” What may have been amusing a dozen years ago has lost its oomph. Besides, trying to be clever to get around a dumb gun law can end badly, and such claims are juvenile at best.
At this writing, plaintiffs in a federal case challenging California’s “high capacity” magazine ban had filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court for review of their case, known as Duncan v. Bonta. They won twice, at trial and then on appeal to a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, but then the court held an en banc re-hearing with 11 judges, and they reversed.
So, since Washington is also in the Ninth Circuit, we’ll all probably see authorities in that state pushing hard to prevent the high court from reviewing the Duncan case. It is time for the Supremes to take such a case to further define the parameters of the Second Amendment. Let’s hope they are very broad.
Just for edification, the 10-round limit applies to pistol magazines as well as those for rifles. Suddenly, owners of striker- fired Glocks, Springfields, Smith & Wessons, SIG SAUERs and other popular pistol brands and models are paying attention. It’s not just guys with rifles who are being targeted. Handgunners are in the crosshairs as well.
I inquired with a couple of pals at the National Shooting Sports Foundation about the origin of the “magic” 10-round limit. Whose idea was that? Neither of my contacts was certain, but it appears to have originated with someone in the gun control lobby, once again demonstrating a lack of firearms understanding evidently rampant among that bunch.
Comment(s) O’ The Day
this is what happens when we source everything to the “experts”
No. This is what happens when you ask simple questions of someone who is so deeply dishonest that all they see is a trap.
“The significance of the passage of time, right? The significance of the passage of time. So when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time…there is such great significance to the passage of time.”
