I don’t agree with her original premise, primarily because the Senate, with its 60 vote cloture barrier to stop ‘debate’ quite often kills legislation proposed from both sides of the aisle, and the Senate and the House also have to have a super majority to override a veto from an adversarial President.
And anything passed by a convention would still need to be ratified by 3/4 (that’s 38) of the states.

However this is still an important question about the proposal for a constitutional convention.

If Conservatives Can’t Get Good Laws, How Can They Run An Article V Convention?

A conservative movement that cannot elect good lawmakers is unlikely to control an Article V Convention of the States.

Recently in The Federalist, I asked, “Why is the Right Betting the Constitution on an Article V Convention?” Mark Meckler, who heads the Convention of States (CoS) Project, wrote a countering essay, arguing that an Article V Convention of the States must be a good idea because left-wing groups oppose it.

Meckler’s Exhibit A is an amusing video of Hillary Clinton, America’s mistress of deceit, and a list of leftist groups said to oppose the CoS project. Of course, leftists object to anything conservatives propose. Witness Kamala Harris saying she would not take a Covid-19 vaccine if President Trump said to take it. They also don’t tell the truth, so it’s unclear if their real goals differ from their stated desires.

Meckler quibbles about whether he is promoting an Article V “Convention of the States” or a “Constitutional Convention”—usually called “Con-Con.” That no-difference distinction does not change language in your pocket Constitution: “The Congress . . . on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments . . .” Article V specifies that three-fourths of the states must ratify amendments, but it says nothing about operating procedures for the convention.

For the sake of discussion, I’ll concede that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi won’t take control of the convention, even though she violated congressional rules when setting up her January 6 commission. I’ll also concede that Republicans control 31 legislatures at this time.

Whether political dynamics like these will remain static until 34 states file convention applications with Congress is a matter of speculation. Meckler should concede that the 50 states are independent sovereign political entities, both red and blue, and not monolithic. All would act in their politicians’ interests.

Even in red states, Republicans may not have the will, power, or votes to appoint or elect only conservatives. That is already the case with many elected Republican officials. Most delegates also likely would be politicians appointed by the same politicians who keep accepting budget-busting federal grants and, in 2020, allowed state officials to change or override election procedures.

Meckler claims there are historical precedents for convention procedures, citing previous state or regional conventions. None of these was an Article V event. A search of the WestLaw legal database reveals no federal court decisions addressing procedures for an Article V Convention of the States.

Delegates to an unprecedented convention of both red and blue states would horse-trade and compete for power to decide credentials, rules, agenda, and possible amendments. This is what conventions do.

Conservatives should be wary. Regardless of how an Article V convention of the states is called or who promises what, optimistic expectations cannot be guaranteed. Progressive delegates could easily dominate the proceedings from beginning to end, including ratifications.

Given the pre-election shenanigans seen in 2020, why wouldn’t they? The concern here is not about a “runaway” convention, but an event that does exactly what progressive state delegates want.

Meckler promises that a Convention of the States would only consider amendments within the broad scope of issues mentioned in the application language. Once the gavel drops, however, convention delegates could propose “amendments” with radical, unexpected consequences.

For example, it is not difficult to imagine the language of a proposed Human Life Amendment being gutted to codify Roe v. Wade. Law Professor Emeritus William A. Woodruff explains how with a thought-provoking point:

Amendments can be used to accomplish something way beyond the original proposal. Consider how we got the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). In 2009 the House passed a military housing bill (HR 3590) and sent it to the Senate. Democrats needed to quickly pass Obamacare while they still held a Senate super majority. They amended HR 3590 by erasing everything except the bill number and substituting the Affordable Care Act legislation.

The ‘amended’ bill, which looked nothing like the House-approved HR 3590, passed the Senate 60-39 and was sent back to the House for a 219-212 favorable vote. Only majority votes would prevent similar unpleasant surprises at a Convention of the States.

Someone could propose limitation of the Supreme Court to nine justices, but the convention could substitute an amendment specifying 18-year, staggered terms for Supreme Court justices. One of three Progressive, Libertarian, and Conservative Draft Constitutions set forth by the Constitution Drafting Project already proposed this. The same Draft Constitution recommended reducing the number of senators to one per state, chosen by each state legislature and limited to nine years, and a single six-year term for presidents.

The revised Second Amendment would ban infringement on “the right to keep and bear arms of the sort ordinarily used for self-defense or recreational purposes . . .” and the States may “. . . enact and enforce reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms, and the keeping of arms by persons determined, with due process, to be dangerous to themselves or others.”

The excerpt is from the Conservative Draft Constitution, not the Progressive one. Some concepts make sense and others are unacceptable, but sober debate and guaranteed outcomes in a convention of both red and blue states would not be possible.

Meckler promises conservatives that the ratification process would prevent harmful consequences, but the argument concedes that a convention could produce bad amendments. Show me a conservative movement that cannot elect good lawmakers to pass good laws, and I’ll show you a conservative movement unlikely to control the delegates, rules, or outcome of an Article V Convention of the States.

Three-fourths of the states could block progressive amendments, but huge costs will have been wasted on a multi-stage constitutional crisis that produces nothing worthwhile. Time, money, and energy would be better spent electing good people and working for sound policies that might restore confidence in government.

We are talking about the U.S. Constitution, the splendid document that underlies our republic if—as Benjamin Franklin said—we can keep it. My initial question remains unanswered: what justifies a high-stakes gamble with the Constitution? If this risky wager is lost, conservatives will ask the saddest question of all: Where do we go to get our Constitution back?

“People who don’t even buy guns are coming in and buying magazines just because they might buy a gun someday.”

Sales of high-capacity magazines brisk as bill banning them heads to Governor’s desk

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Business is brisk at this local gun shop, three days after a historic vote banning the sale of high-capacity magazines in our state.

The legislation cleared the Washington State Senate last Friday and is now headed to Governor Jay Inslee’s desk.

The bill bans all gun magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, making Washington State the 10th state to do so.

There is now a big demand for these magazines. A lot of people appear to be stocking up on them.

That has people here saying law-abiding gun owners are once again being penalized for the actions of criminals.

“These are all going to be banned,” said Tiffany Teasdale. “It’s a lot of our inventory.”

These are the waning days for Lynnwood Gun and Ammunition.

Teasdale and her business partner are closing shop after eight years. She says it is a coincidence that the Washington state legislature has voted to ban the sale of high-capacity magazines, just as she’s shutting down her business.

The vote is already impacting her store.

“People who don’t even buy guns are coming in and buying magazines just because they might buy a gun someday,” said Teasdale.

“Yeah, I think there’ll be a short-term impact where people go out and buy the ones that you can legally access,” said Sen. Marko Liias, the 21st District Democrat who sponsored the legislation.

He says his goal is to prevent mass shootings like what happened in his district in Mukilteo in 2016.

A 2015 Kamiak High School graduate killed three fellow graduates, including an ex-girlfriend, seemingly on impulse.

“And so, taking these products off the shelf means that folks who are disturbed like he was won’t be able to access that when they get into that, into that dark place,” said Liias.

Senate Bill 5078 will prevent anyone in this state from manufacturing, distributing, possessing, buying or selling high-capacity magazines — anything that holds more than 10 rounds.

Senator Liias says he believes the bill will save innocent lives.

“We know in states where they have passed a law like this, they see lower levels of mass shooting violence,” he said. “And that’s my goal.”

“They’re saying that this magazine is going to promote public safety,” said Tiffany Teasdale, holding a high-capacity magazine.

She says the bill will mostly penalize law-abiding gun owners.

“Just because they are banned for law-abiding citizens,” says Teasdale, “doesn’t mean criminals aren’t going to have them.”

She says a better deterrent is to adequately fund the police and prosecute the criminals they catch.

Senator Liias says if the governor signs the bill, it could become law in mid-June.

‘The Trace’ (Yes, ‘The Trace’) Reveals the Lie Behind San Jose’s New Gun Owner Liability Insurance Law

[Sam] Liccardo, the mayor, has said that safe gun behavior will determine insurance rates and lead to discounts. He told Slate last month: “When you notify the insurance company, the insurance company can start to ask questions like, ‘Do you have a gun safe? Do you have a trigger lock? Have you taken gun safety classes?’ And those kinds of actions can help to reduce the premium.”

But experts we spoke with said insurance companies won’t be asking these questions, and gun owner behavior probably won’t influence rates, because the ordinance only requires policies that cover accidental shootings, which are rare in San Jose. “It’s totally oversold,” said George Mocsary, a law professor at the University of Wyoming. “I think it’s an idea that makes sense on the surface. But when you dig into it a little bit, it essentially falls apart.”

A spokesperson for the Mayor’s Office, Rachel Davis, told us that staffers reached out to “over a dozen” insurance companies and that all of them asked about risk factors. These included whether children lived in the home, whether someone was on medication for depression, whether there is a gun safe, how many guns were in the house, and if the gun owner had safety training. But Davis didn’t say how these factors would affect premiums.

“While there’s a clause in most policies that covers negligent gun harm, it’s up to the gun owner to disclose more information that could affect their rates,” Davis said in an emailed response to our questions. “It’s also up to each of the insurance companies to define their policy requirements and up to residents to find the insurance policy that will work for them.” Davis insists that when gun owners file a claim, they will be asked about risk factors like gun storage, and the answers to those questions will determine whether a shooting is covered.

We reached out to several major insurance providers for more details about how the policies will work, but only three got back to us. Farmers and State Farm, referred us to [Janet] Ruiz of the Insurance Information Institute, while AAA said in a statement: “AAA supports the safety and security of our communities, which is why we offer insurance covering a broad scope of losses. We are reviewing the newly passed ordinance to determine whether it affects our products.”

According to the Pacific Institute study, San Jose has an average of two unintentional shooting deaths per year. The nonprofit Gun Violence Archive, meanwhile, has recorded just three unintentional shootings in San Jose since 2015, resulting in two deaths and two injuries. Those figures may be an undercount — GVA bases its tallies on news and police reports, which can be incomplete — but even so, none of those shootings would have been covered by San Jose’s gun owners insurance because they all resulted in criminal charges.

According to Mocsary, the rarity of unintentional shootings make the odds of ever paying out on a claim so low that “the insurance companies just don’t care.” “They’ve already had the opportunity to do the actuarial math on this, and they found that it makes no difference,” he added. If risky gun behaviors affected their bottom line, insurers would already be asking about them. “And they don’t,” he said.

That contradicts a major selling point of the ordinance: the claim that risk-adjusted premiums will encourage gun owners to take safety courses and invest in gun safes, trigger locks, or chamber-load indicators.

— Jennifer Mascia in Will Requiring Gun Owners to Buy Insurance Improve Firearm Safety?

Another Eastern European Country Is Seeing Gun Sales Skyrocket After Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

Citizens of Lithuania are taking advantage of the country’s relatively relaxed gun laws and are buying firearms in droves in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Euronews reported Lithuania gun stores are experiencing sales surging up to eight times and applications for gun licenses doubling, along with more people visiting gun ranges to brush up on their skills:

“Sales have shot up for all categories of weapons but the largest demand is for handguns used for self-defence and semi-automatic weapons that could also be used in military situations. Some stores have reported selling as many handguns in a week as during the preceding year….

“Many stores also report that they have run out of military-style gear such as night vision and thermal vision equipment, flak jackets and tactical clothes. The Lithuanian Defence and Security Industry Association has said that most of those goods have been bought to be sent to Ukraine as privately funded military assistance.

“In stores, handguns cost around €600 while semi-automatic rifles around €2,000. Second-hand guns sell online for just over half the price.”

“Many more clients are coming. they buy semi-automatic rifles – unfortunately, I have no more to show them, I sold them out – and handguns,” said gun store manager Gytis Misiukevicius.

“People buy handguns most probably for self-defense, as they are of course not suitable for war. So they buy them out of their insecurity, to protect themselves, their families and relatives should something happen. Whereas semi-automatic rifles, they can be used for firefights,” he continued.

Lithuanians “with a spotless reputation and appropriate medical certificates” are able to purchase firearms after obtaining a license from the police.

Lithuania borders Belarus, where Russia has launched troops and missiles into Ukraine.

During the opening days of the major Russian offensive into Ukraine in February, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told Ukrainians the government will be providing weapons to anyone who would be willing to fight against the Russians. Zelenskyy further told the country to prepare to fight “in the squares of our cities.”

Fontana Homeowner Fatally Shoots Attempted Burglar
Police are investigating a Saturday night fatal shooting in Fontana, after a home owner says he had to defend himself during an attempted burglary.

Police are investigating a Saturday night fatal shooting in Fontana [California] , after a home owner says he had to defend himself during an attempted burglary.

The homeowner, whose name has not been released by authorities, called the Fontana Police Department at 10:47 p.m. Saturday.

He told police multiple people were attempting to break into his house at the corner of Cypress Avenue and Baseline, that he believed at least one of them was inside, and that he believed they were armed. The home owner then armed himself with a handgun before the call with Fontana PD disconnected.

When police arrived at the scene, the home owner came out of the house and surrendered himself, saying he had shot someone inside the home.

When police went inside, they found a man dead in the hallway. The dead man was wearing gloves and a COVID-19 mask, and looked to be between 20 and 30 years old, according to the police.

The dead man also had a semi-automatic handgun next to his hand, and according to police, there were signs of a shootout in the home. Brass casings from two different weapons were found.

The other individuals the home owner said tried to break in ran away. Police are searching for those individuals.

Neighbors in the Fontana community are on high alert after the incident occurred.

“If they came here, what exactly would have happened?” said Michelle Luna, a neighbor.

Police are conducting a thorough investigation, but believe the man found dead inside the house was attempting to burglarize the home, and the home owner defended himself against an armed subject. If the investigation finds that to be the case, the home owner will not face charges.

The home owner was not injured in the incident.

These People Are Desperate

The Guardian published an opinion piece on Sunday in which they stated
“…there is a danger that the battle for Ukraine may divert attention from the approaching climate change crisis.” Seriously?? There’s a war on, there are approaching a million refugees entering neighboring countries, and you’re worried that the war is a distraction? That is sheer desperation on the part of those who planned to pivot us all away from Wuflu and on to climate change. Then Putin, that bastid, stuck a monkey wrench in their plans and invaded Ukraine. The nerve!

In the U.S., John Kerry, the man who has a carbon footprint bigger than Godzilla and flies to Davos in a private plane, wants all of us to suck up high gas prices, ride the bus, and worry about how the war, the UNPROVOKED INVASION, of Ukraine by Russia, will set back the momentum on climate change. For real. The man is a walking billboard for “out-of-touch-elitist.”

But to really get a feel for this latest panic pivot on the left, let’s do a bit of a fisking of the Guardian article. Article in bold, my comments in italics.

Continue reading “”

What’s going on in Joe Biden’s mind?

I know; I know – the jokes write themselves.

Biden’s mind? What’s that?

But I continue to think that Biden has more input into all of this than most people believe. And of course, whether he does or doesn’t, the same question can be asked about “Biden’s” mind – that is, the mind or collective minds of those behind-the-scenes people who actually may be running the show.

It was glaringly obvious even while Biden was running for president that his plan was to end our energy independence. To me, that alone should have been enough to ensure that virtually no one would be voting for him, but of course I knew that wasn’t the case. Whether you believe that Biden won because of fraud or whether you think he won fair and square, there isn’t any doubt that a lot of people did vote for him. I certainly know plenty who did.

Why were the Democrats so intent on this obviously destructive path that would weaken the US and its economy, give more power to Putin and Russia, and actually do nothing for the environment (only changing the source from which we get fossil fuels rather than usage)? I believe that, for some of them, weakening the US was a feature rather than a bug. Great Reset and all that.

But for others – and I tend to think Biden was among them – the motives were these:

(1) Whatever Trump did, do the opposite. This was in part reflexive and in part spiteful.
(2) Whatever Obama did, do more of it and go that extra mile.
(3) Virtue-signal to your leftist base and give them what they want, or you will lose them.

Even now, with this Russia invasion of Ukraine, they’re not going to reverse direction.

For Biden, almost everything is political. He’s been in politics nearly his entire adult life, which has been a very long time. I don’t think he has many principles except winning and self-aggrandizement, and though history may not be kind to him he mostly looks at short-term gains. His judgment over the years has proven abominable except in the political sense of landing on his feet.

But now that Biden’s finally achieved his lifelong ambition of becoming president, his actions have a lot more consequences than they did when he was a mere senator. Too bad we all have to suffer as a consequence.

In addition, we are presently poised on the brink of a reportedly disastrous Iran deal. Why is that happening? The short and probably too-simplified answer is that it fulfills all three of the criteria I listed above. An additional answer is that some people in the Biden administration seem to want to do their best to hurt the US and the western world and empower our enemies, and that this isn’t motivated by stupidity but rather by malevolence.

BLUF:
HB272 passed last month in the State House of Representatives. The bill passed as substituted in the Senate, and now moves back to its house of origin for concurrence. If agreed upon by the House, the bill will be sent to Governor Kay Ivey for signature.

State Senate clears constitutional carry

MONTGOMERY, Ala. – The State Senate today approved legislation to enable Alabamians the right to carry a firearm without obtaining a concealed carry permit. The bill – HB272 sponsored by Representative Shane Stringer (R-Citronelle) – was carried by Senator Gerald Allen (R-Tuscaloosa) in the Senate.

 “The Second Amendment affords protection to an American individual’s right to possess a firearm and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes. As an elected official who swore to uphold the constitutions of this state and country, I will always do everything in my power to preserve the rights of Alabamians, especially those granted by the Second Amendment,” said Allen. “I appreciate Representative Stringer’s work on this issue in the House, and I am proud to have worked alongside him to move this critical bill in the Senate. I look forward to finally delivering constitutional carry to the people of Alabama.”

Continue reading “”

Poll finds Republicans would stay and fight, Dems less so

It’s not exactly breaking news that there are profound differences between Republicans and Democrats. We see them every single day, especially in how we view the Second Amendment.

Now, understand, there are pro-gun Democrats. There aren’t many of them, but they do exist and I’m more than prepared to stand side-by-side with them to defend our right to keep and bear arms.

But they’re the minority in their party.

Yet the Second Amendment was meant as a bulwark against tyranny, either domestic or from foreign invasion, which brings us to Ukraine. What if something like that were to happen here. Who would stay and fight and who would flee the country.

Well, Quinnipiac decided to ask in a recent poll, and the results are fascinating.

As the world witnesses what is happening to Ukraine, Americans were asked what they would do if they were in the same position as Ukrainians are now: stay and fight or leave the country?
A majority (55 percent) say they would stay and fight, while 38 percent say they would leave the country.
Republicans say 68 – 25 percent and Independents say 57 – 36 percent they would stay and fight,
while Democrats say 52 – 40 percent they would leave the country.

“When confronted with a terrible hypothetical that would put them in the shoes of the Ukrainians, Americans say they would stand and fight rather than seek safety in another country,” added Malloy.

Nearly half of Americans (49 percent) say the attack on Ukraine has contributed to them feeling anxious, while half (50 percent) say it has not.

1,374 U.S. adults nationwide were surveyed from March 4th – 6th with a margin of error of +/- 2.6 percentage points.

So more than two-thirds of Republicans and more than half of independents would stay and fight for their homes compared to more than half of all Democrats who would run.

Fascinating.

Continue reading “”

The Fake-Meat Revolution Has Stalled
Consumer trends suggest a meatless near future is increasingly unlikely.

Recent reports suggest there’s a growing realization among consumers, industry, investors, and others that overheated predictions of a meatless future—one in which steaks, bacon, chicken nuggets, and other foods made from dead animals will be supplanted by plant-based imitations of meat dishes and lab-grown meats made from animal cells (the latter of which is still exceedingly rare)—may have been based on wishful thinking.

As Food Dive reported this week, sales of imitation meat products are faltering. The website cites remarks and earning reports from Beyond Meat—a leader in the plant-based sector that counts among its fans none other than me—that combine a bleak present reality of “negative growth and high net losses” with fears over whether this market downturn could be permanent.

Continue reading “”

She’s a leftist political hack  – seems the most hacks are leftists doesn’t it?- who will recite any point her paymaster wants.

Is This the Dumbest Claim Jen Psaki Has Ever Made?

Sometimes, I wonder about Jen Psaki. How did she get picked to be White House Press Secretary? How has she kept her job? Sometimes I can’t tell if she is deliberately lying to the American people or if she living in an alternate universe and actually believes the horse manure she’s shoveling.

Case in point: In response to a question about John Bolton’s bizarre speculation that Trump might have pulled the United States out of NATO in a second term, Psaki claimed that the American people are “grateful” for Biden’s different approach to foreign relations.

“Well, I think that’s […] you know, another reason why the American people are grateful — the majority of the American people — that President Biden has not taken a page out of his predecessor’s playbook as it relates to global engagement and global leadership,” she said. “Because, certainly, we could be in a different place.”

We most certainly would be in a different place, if Biden had showed the strength and resolve that Trump did.

Of course, the premise of the question to which Psaki gave her inane answer was absurd. It’s hard to understand precisely where Bolton got the idea that Trump would have pulled us out of NATO, as the former president made robust efforts to get other NATO nations to pay their dues and make the alliance stronger. “There would be no NATO if I didn’t act strongly and swiftly,” Trump said last month. “Also, it was me that got Ukraine the very effective anti-tank busters (Javelins) when the previous Administration was sending blankets.”

But moving on from that, Psaki was utterly wrong about what Americans think. A recent poll found that 62% of voters believe Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump were still in office.

Psaki made her stunning comment the same day that Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg admitted that the administration would consider buying oil from terrorists instead of increasing domestic production, and on the heels of Psaki inadvertently admitting that Putin tends to invade other countries when Democrats are in the White House.

“You know, I was at the State Department, the president was the vice-president, the last time Russia invaded Ukraine,” she said last week. “This is a pattern of horror from … President Putin and from the cronies around him.”

Does Psaki really believe that Americans are grateful for Biden’s approach to “global engagement and global leadership” when that approach allowed for Putin to invade Ukraine, gas prices to skyrocket, and our tax dollars to fund terror-sponsoring nations?

President Trump’s leadership strengthened NATO and kept Russia at bay. The only Americans who could possibly be grateful for Biden’s approach would have to be Putin apologists.

An open letter to Gabby Giffords, Shannon Watts and Michael Bloomberg

Dear Gabby, Shannon and Tiny Mike;

The instant the first Russian T-80 crossed the Ukrainian border, the whole world could see the uselessness of everything you’ve ever said and everything you’ve ever done. You’ve been overtaken by events – mooted and muted in one fell swoop, so scram. Leave the field. It is time for you and your gun-ban groups to go.

There’s a madman with nukes on the loose who’s just 50 miles off Alaska’s port bow. No one knows how far he’s willing to go, so you’re out. The adults are taking charge. Your services are no longer required. Please take the Demanding Moms and their creepy husbands with you, open a box of wine and have yourselves a good cry. Ukraine learned nearly too late that the right to keep and bear arms saves lives, while the civilian disarmament pipedream you’ve been peddling for decades costs lives.

If you are in doubt, ask the brave Ukrainian single mom with the yellow ribbon tied around her sleeve if she’s comfortable battling Russian Spetsnaz with a standard-capacity magazine in her Avtomat Kalashnikova, or if she’d prefer a 10-round mag you’ve long advocated for and a rifle that’s California-compliant. You could also ask the young Russian conscript bouncing around in the back of a BMP – who’s belly is churning from the rations he’s eating, which expired in 2015 – if he’d prefer shooting at disarmed civilians or ones who can shoot back.

Ukraine was a bastion of gun control – something you would have found refreshing – but when Russian fighters started strafing runs, they quickly came to their senses, repealed their gun laws and issued AKs by the thousands to anyone who asked. What the Ukrainians lack in training and marksmanship they’re making up for with sheer tenacity and uncommon valor.

The whole world saw how quickly the holy grails of your gun-ban industry – licensing and registration, waiting periods, background checks, magazine and “assault weapon” bans – were cast aside once Vlad the Invader came calling. The Ukrainians issued assault weapons to their citizens – real ones – without delays, licenses, checks or 4473s. Thank God they weren’t too late.

America will never be put in that position, no thanks to you. We train constantly with the rifles you want confiscated, and we’re not going to tolerate any more of your infringements: Our guns, our gear and our ammunition are now off limits to your foolishness. You need to find something else to do – another way to occupy your spare time. Our armed civilian populace is a strategic national asset, something more than a few would-be invaders considered before declaring war. You and your ilk have been trying for years to undermine this asset. I’m pretty sure there’s a word for that, and it carries a stiff penalty, especially in time of war.

The Ukrainian resistance is showing the world – at tremendous cost – how free men and women can resist tyrannical invaders if they’re given the right tools. Thankfully, Americans have the right tools, and we will savagely resist any attempts to reduce their effectiveness or take them away.

“We let the WHO be taken over by the Chinese, but still treated it as neutral on Covid. We let UN human rights bodies be dominated by human rights violators.
We deserted our friends in Afghanistan. No wonder Putin thought he could try it on.” – Lord David Frost, former British Minister of State.

WA Gun Owner Fury Erupts as Lawmakers Pass Magazine Ban

By a 55-42 dead-of-night vote, the Washington State House of Representatives has passed a ban on rifle and pistol magazines holding more than 10 cartridges (including magazines for rimfire rifles), causing outrage among Evergreen State grassroots activists who will be looking unseat as many Democrats as possible in the November 2022 election.

Senate Bill 5078 goes to the desk of anti-gun Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee, who has already vowed to sign it. Two Democrat House members—Reps. Kirsten Harris-Talley from Seattle and Steve Kirby from Tacoma—voted against the measure, breaking ranks from their majority Democrat colleagues.

The vote came about two weeks after Liberty Park Press published a revealing report about the ineffectiveness of magazine capacity limit that many readers sent to their state lawmakers.

The late-night Friday vote was hailed by anti-gun Democrat Attorney General Bob Ferguson in a tweet now posted at the Facebook page of the Washington 2022 Legislative Action Group. The legislation was introduced at Ferguson’s request by Democrat Sen. Marko Liias of Lynnwood.

“Today is the fulfillment of years of hard work from so many,” Ferguson wrote. “More than five years ago, I stood with the parents of shooting victims, legislators, mayors, police chiefs and representatives from faith communities to say enough is enough, and proposed banning the sale of high-capacity magazines in Washington state. Today, our Legislature chose public safety over the gun lobby, and I am deeply appreciative of their service. This policy will save lives and make our communities safer from gun violence.”

 

But Wade Gaughran, owner of a Bellevue gun range and firearms retail business, reacted bluntly, telling KING News, “There’s no way that an intelligent person is going to look at this law and see that it would stop or limit or change the of any kind of mass shooting.”

He predicted a surge in magazine purchasing, a notion reinforced by an announcement from at least one firm—Palmetto State Armory—announced it will prioritize orders from Washington State residents: “All magazine orders placed from Washington State with Palmetto State Armory with ship out immediately and receive priority over all other orders.”

Dan Mitchell, owner of Vancouver’s Sporting Systems, posted a “Fact Sheet” about the magazine ban, which included a depiction of the state flag with dictatorial overtones.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
Peter Ambler of Giffords Law Center is unhappy that gun rights advocates are pointing out evidence that further unravels his cause, so it’s not surprising that he thinks it’s “deeply irresponsible” to do so. In other words, he wants us to stop pouncing and seizing and hammering and exploiting and feasting and gloating.

Giffords’ Ambler to 2A Supporters: Stop pouncing on Ukraine!

The history and rationale behind the Second Amendment are clear-cut. The defense of self, family, community, and country is protected in the founding documents of several states, not just the U.S. Bill of Rights. In a constitutional republic with checks and balances, with power splintered and diffused among various levels of governments, an armed citizenry is the ultimate check and balance against enemies both foreign and domestic.

The United States is approaching its 250th anniversary. That the republic has lasted so long, contributed so much to human flourishing and prosperity, spread the ideas of liberty and justice around the world, doesn’t mean that we can take the status quo for granted and forget or distort what it took to get here. The rest of the world provides periodic reminders and warnings of what could happen if America abandons its founding principles. Ukraine is the warning du jour.

Our friends in the Gun Grab Lobby, however, aren’t drawing the same lessons from Ukraine. When faced with yet another example of why an armed citizenry is good, their response is to cry foul and ask us to not cite it.

Ukraine crisis emerges as talking point in U.S. gun debate

By Barbara Goldberg and Brendan O’brien

NEW YORK, March 1 (Reuters) – Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, gun rights advocates in the United States have sought to use the crisis to bolster their position on the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, injecting a new element into the heated debate.

Arguments linking the invasion to gun rights have cropped up this week across social media, in a post by the National Rifle Association and during a legislative vote in the Georgia statehouse.

“What is happening in Ukraine proves the wisdom of our founding fathers in drafting the Second Amendment,” the NRA said in a blog post on Monday, pointing to Ukrainians who have armed themselves to defend their country.

Is a newly discovered fossil a talking point in the evolution “debate” or is it yet another piece of evidence supporting evolution? Ukraine is not a mere talking point despite how the headline downplays it as one.

Anti-gun violence advocates, however, point to increasing fire-arms deaths in the United States and say tighter regulations and fewer guns are what is needed.

Peter Ambler, executive director of Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said it was “deeply irresponsible” for gun rights advocates to tie their “more guns everywhere” advocacy to the Ukraine crisis.

“The tyrannical actions of Vladimir Putin don’t erase the fact that 45,000 Americans died from gun violence in 2020, nor do they erase the urgent need for commonsense, popular gun violence prevention policies like background checks and funding for community violence intervention programs,” Ambler told Reuters.

“Anti-gun violence advocates,” better described as Anti-Second Amendment activists or gun control supporters, want fewer guns in the hands of the citizenry. A good question to ask them would be, “Can you define fewer?” We all know the answer to that, and it’s no mystery that the question was not asked by the reporters.

Peter Ambler of Giffords Law Center is unhappy that gun rights advocates are pointing out evidence that further unravels his cause, so it’s not surprising that he thinks it’s “deeply irresponsible” to do so. In other words, he wants us to stop pouncing and seizing and hammering and exploiting and feasting and gloating.

Seasoned readers and Second Amendment advocates know this already, but new readers may not, so I will also point out that the 45,000 “gun violence deaths” that Ambler is citing is vastly inflated using suicides, which are the bulk of firearm mortalities. That would be like calling suicide by hanging “rope violence” and suicide by jumping “bridge violence” or “gravity violence.” Ambler’s suggested background checks and community violence intervention programs won’t do anything to address the bulk of those mortalities.

Ukraine was among the arguments wielded by Republicans to win a 34-22 vote in the Georgia state Senate on a concealed carry bill that split down party lines on Monday.

“I would be willing to bet you today that 99 percent of the people of Ukraine would give anything that they have to have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” Lindsey Tippins, a Republican state Senator, said in asking his fellow legislators to back the bill.

It’s unfortunate that it was a party-line vote, but thanks to the “arguments wielded,” the end-result is a win for our natural right of self-defense. Three cheers for pouncing on Ukraine!

Let’s all meet the shooter;  Jalyon Elmore
Student charged in Olathe, Kansas school shooting

MISSION, Kan. (AP) – An 18-year-old football player was charged Saturday in a shooting that wounded an administrator and a school resource officer at a suburban Kansas City high school.

The Johnson County prosecutor’s office announced Saturday that Jaylon Desean Elmore is charged with attempted capital murder in the shooting Friday at Olathe East High School. His bond is set at $1 million and no first appearance has been set..

Online records show he has a previous conviction for aggravated robbery.

KMBC 9 News learned that a school administrator pulled the student, who was a senior, from class this morning after receiving a tip that the teen had a gun in his backpack.

They went to the administrator’s office. The student refused to open his bag. That’s when the assistant principal called for the school resource officer. When SRO entered the office and that’s when the shots were fired.

 

Report: Good Guy with Gun Stops Kansas High School Shooter

An armed school resource officer shot and wounded an alleged school shooter, and the officer himself was shot and wounded, at Kansas’s Olathe East High School on Friday morning.

An administrator, a school resource officer, and a student — the alleged shooter — were injured in the incident, which occurred around 11 a.m., the Kansas City Star reported.

“Police said it was that school resource officer who shot the suspect,” KMBC noted.

The school administrator and resource officer were both in “stable condition,” as of 2:30 p.m. local time, KSHB observed.

Again, it’s nice when pictures are available for positive ID

BLUF:
Dr. Leonardo wants to solve the “problem of whiteness” or pose it as a problem. The real problem is that people have begun to see others as impediments to their ability to move forward in life. It actually foments racism, division, and anger. It teaches victimhood by always having someone to blame because of the color of their skin.

UC Berkeley Prof. Zeus Leonardo: Abolish Whiteness, Abolish White People

Zeus Leonardo

UC Berkeley Professor Zeus Leonardo believes in Critical Race Theory. In so doing, he made the statement to a class that “to abolish whiteness is to abolish white people.” Is he advocating genocide?

“To abolish whiteness is to abolish white people. That’s very uncomfortable perhaps, but it asks about our definitions of what race is and what racial justice might mean.”

UC Berkeley education professor Zeus Leonardo:

Continue reading “”

“The deep commitment to an Iran nuclear deal that makes no sense has me convinced that a lot of people are either being bribed or blackmailed.”
–Prof. Reynolds

Joe Biden Spits on US Allies to Secure a Deal That Makes No Sense.

While the Biden administration has done its best to hide the ongoing negotiations, you’ve probably been made aware by now that a new JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran is in the works.

Guess who’s at the forefront of helping secure that deal? That would be none other than Vladimir Putin, who the United States is ostensibly at economic war with over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. About now, you are probably asking how that makes any sense at all. But stick around, because I promise you that it gets even worse.

Recently, I wrote two articles noting the seeming subservience of the Biden administration to Russia (see here and here), even as Biden himself has trotted out the tough-guy talk for a gullible public. Yet, behind the scenes, it appears that a deal with Iran has taken priority, even as Putin continues to bomb cities in Ukraine.

But hang on, I told you things would get worse. According to Kenneth Vogul, the Biden administration is now looking to normalize relations with the communist Maduro regime in Venezuela. How does that connect with the Iran deal? We’ll get to that in a moment.

 

Ostensibly, this action is being taken to help separate Venezuela from Russia. But anyone who is able to critically think and possesses a modicum of knowledge regarding international relations will quickly realize how dumb that contention is. Venezuela and Russia are allies, to the point where the latter held nuclear exercises there back in 2018. Russia has also been a supplier of commodities and materials to Venezuela as the South American nation has suffered under Western sanctions.

Now, does anyone think a quick visit from the Biden administration is going to “drive a wedge” between Venezuela and Russia given the relationship that exists between the two nations? In short, the Times’ spin on the matter, no doubt meant to protect the White House, doesn’t add up.

There is something that does add up though, and it connects to the Iran deal.

 

That makes much more sense. Russia has reportedly been making demands as part of its role in negotiating the new Iran deal. Putin having one of its chief allies legitimized on the world stage, setting up the framework to have sanctions removed while expanding Russia’s sphere of influence, sounds like a pretty good win for the Russian leader, doesn’t it?

In short, Biden’s pursuit of a boondoggle Iran deal boils down to empowering Russia and spitting on our allies, whether we are talking about Ukraine, Israel, or Venezuela’s democratically elected government. And for what? What is the United States getting out of a deal with Iran? There is no strategic interest there, especially given Israel, which does actually have a direct strategic interest, is against the JCPOA.

Again, nothing about this makes sense, and when nothing makes sense, it’s probably time to start asking tougher questions about what lies beneath the surface. Why have the last two Democrat-led presidencies been so obsessed with making a deal with Iran? Who is gaining what here? Are there payoffs involved? Why is Russia even a part of the negotiations given its behavior in Ukraine?

It seems the Biden administration is willing to do just about anything to hand the Iranian Mullahs another big win. That shouldn’t just be extremely concerning, it should be a scandal.