Question O’ The Day

The real question is, did Ukraine hold any back when it “disarmed?”
What would you have done?


Here is Ukraine President Zelensky’s speech
A salient piece

Has the world forgotten its mistakes of the twentieth century? What do attempts at appeasement lead to? As the question ‘Why die for Danzig’ turned into the need to die for Dunkirk and dozens of other cities in Europe and the world. At the cost of tens of millions of lives. These are terrible lessons of history. I just want to make sure you and I read the same books………….

The security system is slow. It crashes again. Because of different things: selfishness, self-confidence, irresponsibility of states at the global level. As a result, we have crimes of some and indifference of others. Indifference that makes you an accomplice. It is symbolic that I am talking about this right here. It was here 15 years ago that Russia announced its intention to challenge global security. What did the world say? Appeasement. Result? At least—the annexation of Crimea and aggression against my state……..

Ukraine has received security guarantees for abandoning the world’s third nuclear capability. We don’t have that weapon. We also have no security. We also do not have part of the territory of our state that is larger in area than Switzerland, the Netherlands or Belgium. And most importantly—we don’t have millions of our citizens. We don’t have all this.

Therefore, we have something. The right to demand a shift from a policy of appeasement to ensuring security and peace guarantees.

Since 2014, Ukraine has tried three times to convene consultations with the guarantor states of the Budapest Memorandum. Three times without success. Today Ukraine will do it for the fourth time. I, as President, will do this for the first time. But both Ukraine and I are doing this for the last time. I am initiating consultations in the framework of the Budapest Memorandum.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs was commissioned to convene them. If they do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt.

Ukraine intends to develop its own nuclear weapons, and it is not an empty bravado. Ukraine indeed has Soviet nuclear technologies and delivery systems for such weapons, including aviation and Tochka-U tactical missiles, developed back in the Soviet; their range is over 100 km, but they will develop even longer-range ones, it is only a matter of time. There is groundwork from Soviet era………..


Claire Belinski:

Is it empty bravado? I don’t know. But we know this: For years, leaders around the world in Japan, Germany, South Korea, even Taiwan—have asked themselves this question: Which is safer? If we build the Bomb, we will enter an arms race that encourages our adversaries to obliterate us in a first strike. But if instead we shelter under the American nuclear umbrella, the Americans may not have our back. The NPT has held, more or less, because countries with the technical ability and resources to build the Bomb have considered this question and concluded that on balance, it’s best to trust us.

This is what we really mean when we talk about the “international order” and the “rules-based security system.”
It’s a shame we don’t speak of it plainly, because high school intellects the world around will always pipe up, “What international order?” “What rules-based security system?” They are always pleased with themselves; they always think it a clever thing to say.)

The balance is very fine. France, Israel, India, and Pakistan all considered the matter closely and concluded that however often Americans declared our fealty to the rules-based international order, when push came to shove, we’d forget we’d ever heard of them.

Fair? Unfair? Our record is mixed.

If we allow Ukraine to be gobbled up, in pieces or in whole, it may not change the world. But conversations in defense ministries the world around will surely take this into account. No one wants to be invaded by a bigger, stronger, rapacious neighbor.

There are only two solutions to the problem of a bigger, stronger, rapacious neighbor: a big, strong ally, or Shiva, destroyer of worlds.

The miserable, needless human tragedy engulfing Ukraine matters in its own right. It should matter to any sentient human even if American national security interests weren’t at play. But American national security interests—the security of the whole “rules based international order”—are very much at play, and Putin proposes to destroy that order, which will, ultimately, destroy everything.

Yes, well, this is what happens when the Pax Americana breaks down. And it breaks down when America is weak, and under Biden America isn’t just weak, it’s chosen to be weak.  

White House Staff: ‘Clean up on aisle 7! # 3492’
Once more his staff has to follow along and ‘clarify’ SloJoe opening his yap and telling the truth.

Russia-Ukraine: White House plays clean-up after Biden says ‘no one expected’ sanctions ‘to prevent anything’

The White House played clean-up Thursday evening after President Biden claimed “no one expected” sanctions to prevent Russian President Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine, despite claiming for weeks that the mere threat of sanctions would serve as a deterrent effect.

White House deputy national security adviser Daleep Singh told reporters said that had the Biden administration “unleashed our entire package of financial sanctions preemptively,” Putin still likely would have invaded Ukraine.

“Number one, President Putin might have said, ‘Look, these people are not serious about diplomacy. They’re not engaging in a good-faith effort to promote peace, instead they’re escalating,’” Singh hypothesized. “And that could provide a justification for him to escalate and invade.

“Secondly, he could look at it as a sunk cost,” he continued. “In other words, President Putin could think, ‘I’ve already paid the price, why don’t I actually take what I paid for, which is Ukraine’s freedom.’ So that’s what we wanted to avoid.

“Ultimately, the goal of our sanctions is to make this a strategic failure for Russia,” he added. “Strategic success in the 21st century is not about a physical land grab of territory. That’s what Putin has done. In this century, strategic power is increasingly measured and exercised by economic strength, by technological sophistication, and your story – who you are, what your values are, can you attract good ideas and talent and goodwill? And on each of those measures this will be a failure for Russia.”

Earlier Thursday, Biden announced new sanctions on top of previous ones against Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine, but he later admitted that “no one” expected the sanctions to prevent the invasion.

“No one expected the sanctions to prevent anything from happening,” Biden said. “This could take time, and we have to show resolve, so he knows what’s coming and so the people of Russia know what he’s brought on them, this is what this is all about.”

This appeared to go against Vice President Kamala Harris’ comments on Sunday that claimed, “The purpose of the sanctions has always been and continues to be deterrence.” On Feb. 11, national security advisor Jake Sullivan similarly claimed that “sanctions are intended to deter.” On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said, “deterrence is part of our objective.”

Biden stopped short of sanctioning Putin himself Thursday, and he did not announce a ban on Russia from the SWIFT banking system, saying Europe is not on board with such a move.

Here’s one point that gets little notice about Ukraine.
And why weak leaders and leadership always causes problems.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in ’91, Ukraine became a sovereign country again, and in return for handing over their nuclear weapons, accepted security deals from Russia and the United States.
At the end of the Cold War, Ukraine had the third biggest nuclear arsenal on Earth with over 5,000 nuclear warheads.

The 1994 agreement, known as the Budapest Memorandum had the U.S., U.K. and Russia guarantee Ukraine’s security for the nation signing on to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and giving up their nukes.

However, when Russia ‘annexed’ Crimea in 2014, anyone with 2 working brains cells knew that Putin’s word meant nothing.

Ukraine demanded the former Soviet Union and America respect its sovereignty and existing borders, but 28 later? With a senile puppet sitting in the oval office, and his lackies more concerned with gender equity and covid mandate BS, than energy independence, we get crap like this again.

Here’s When the U.S. Expects Kyiv to Fall

Even if they put up a good fight, Ukraine cannot win this war. They can’t. The gulf separating the capabilities between the two nations is wider than the Pacific. Ukraine has no way to counter Russian aircraft or missiles. They’re outmatched in men and heavy equipment. It’s only a matter of time before Russian tanks are rolling into the capital of Kyiv.

Yesterday, Russians launched their massive offensive against the rest of Ukraine which we all saw coming. Biden was asleep. We’ll hear from him later this afternoon. More American troops are said to be deployed east. We’ll keep you updated about other sanctions that are reportedly coming.

For now, the stream of cars we saw pouring out the Kyiv was for a simple reason. The people know they can’t stay there. The Ukrainian military can’t hold it. The timetable for the fall is within days. In 96 hours, the city could be surrounded by Russian troops. An airbase 15 miles from the capital was reportedly attacked by Russian forces today. Bear with us as a lot of information is unconfirmed. We’re dealing with a part of the world where state media keeps a lock and key on everything. Newsweek has more:

Three U.S. officials have told Newsweek they expect Ukraine’s capital Kyiv to fall to incoming Russian forces within days, and the country’s resistance to be effectively neutralized soon thereafter.

The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that Moscow’s focus, as revealed in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s references to a “special military operation” to “demilitarize” the neighboring country, would be to encircle Ukrainian forces and force them to surrender or be destroyed. They expect Kyiv to be taken within 96 hours, and then the leadership of Ukraine to follow in about a week’s time.

And Russia’s thunderous attacks on Ukrainian government and military institutions, paired with reports of ground personnel seeking to take strategic points including the Chernobyl nuclear facility, appeared to only be the initial phase of what may be a more comprehensive ground campaign.

… the senior U.S. intelligence officer said the next stages may be determined by U.S. President Joe Biden’s capability and willingness to risk further provoking Moscow by supporting partisan efforts on behalf of a potential Ukrainian resistance.

“Then it either becomes a robust insurgency or it doesn’t, depending largely on Biden,” the former senior U.S. intelligence officer said.

A source close to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government, who also asked not to be named, agreed with the U.S. assessment that Kyiv could be surrounded within 96 hours. But they did not believe Zelenskyy’s government would collapse.

The Antonov Airport near the town of Hostomel, just outside Kyiv, was the scene of some of the most dramatic early fighting. Ukrainian Interior Ministry officials reported early Thursday that Russian helicopter-borne forces had seized the airfield, though fighting around it is believed to be ongoing.

There are many, many issues scenarios to be gamed out here especially the potential Ukrainian insurgency phase. What do we do? What does Joe Biden do—and can he even do it? Biden has been wrong on every major foreign policy endeavor for the past 40 years. Afghanistan showed he’s still a terrible decision maker.

Constitutional Carry in doubt after Indiana committee guts legislation

The good news for Indiana gun owners is that Constitutional Carry legislation passed out of a key Senate committee on Wednesday. The bad news is that it’s no longer a Constitutional Carry bill.

HB 1077 had already passed out of the House with an overwhelming majority, but its future is very much in doubt in the state Senate after an eight-hour hearing of the Judiciary Committe left the bill stripped of its original intent.

As amended, House Bill 1077 would keep the permit requirement in place to carry a handgun in Indiana. However, it would enable qualified candidates who have applied for a permit to carry a handgun without a license until they receive their permit. The idea is that this would end complaints about delays in the permitting process.

The amendment to gut the bill just narrowly passed by a 6-5 vote, splitting the Republicans on the committee. Every Democrat voted to gut the bill. Shortly after, the committee unanimously voted to advance the bill to the floor. Some were unhappy with the bill, but voted to keep it moving.

Now, this doesn’t mean that Constitutional Carry is officially dead in the Indiana legislature. It’s possible that the bill will be amended once again to restore the permitless carry provisions once the legislation comes up for debate on the Senate floor, though many law enforcement agencies and gun control groups are going to continue their efforts to kill the bill, even if many of their arguments don’t make much (gun)sense.

Critics say there should be a vetting process.

“We will have people walking on our street never vetted by law enforcement, never receiving a background check with loaded firearms around our children,” Jennifer Haan with Moms Demand Action in Indiana said last month.

There are already people doing that right now in Indiana, and if they’re not legally allowed to own a gun they’re not legally allowed to carry it. That wouldn’t change under the Constitutional Carry language in HB 1077. The only difference would be that those who can legally possess a gun in their home could also lawfully carry it in public without the need for a government-issued permission slip.

Gun control activists weren’t the only ones making some odd arguments in opposition to the bill.

Officers also said individuals would have to background check themselves if the permit requirement was nixed, and might not know they aren’t qualified to carry a handgun. Detective Matt Foote from the Fort Wayne Police Department, said 14% of those who applied for permits in his community in 2021 were denied.

That’s actually already an issue. If you don’t know that you’re a prohibited person and you fail a NICS check, you could be charged with a crime for attempting to purchase a firearm (though under federal law prosecutors must prove that you knowingly tried to purchase a gun you weren’t allowed to possess). The responsibility of ensuring that you can lawfully carry already lies with the gun owner, and that wouldn’t change if HB 1077 became law.

Constitutional Carry still has a chance in Indiana this year, but if it’s going to get across the finish line gun owners and Second Amendment activists need to contact their senators and urge them to restore HB 1077 to its original intent when it reaches the Senate floor.

More than 20 states have already adopted Constitutional Carry, and none of them have seen any cause to repeal the law and return to requiring a license to carry (though every Constitutional Carry state with the exception of Vermont still maintains a “shall issue” licensing system for gun owners who want to be able to legally carry in states with reciprocity agreements). Indianans are no less responsible than the residents of Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Utah, West Virginia, and the other states that have permitless carry laws already in place. The big question now is whether Indiana lawmakers are as supportive of the 2A rights of residents as their counterparts in nearly half of the states across the nation.

Nice plan, but realistically, it’ll go nowhere unless you can get a lot of demoncraps to go along with it. Since we know that won’t happen, this is grandstanding, but that is politics.


Rep. Roy Introduces Bill to Close Loophole in National Firearms Act

WASHINGTON—On Tuesday, Rep. Chip Roy (TX-21), alongside more than twenty colleagues, introduced the No Backdoor Gun Control Act. This legislation would remove “Any Other Weapon” (AOW) from the definition of a firearm under the National Firearms Act (NFA), ensuring that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) could not use the AOW section to violate Americans’ Second Amendment rights. This is especially important should legislation that removes short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns (SBRs, SBSs) from the NFA be enacted. Closing this loophole is an important step forward in reining in the ATF.

“Bearing arms in self-defense is a human right. It is evident from the ATF’s behavior that, under Joe Biden’s Department of Justice, the agency is hellbent on attacking the Second Amendment through every means at its disposal. I am grateful for my colleagues’ work in Congress to remove short-barreled rifles and shotguns (SBRs, SBSs) from regulation under the National Firearms Act. However, should that legislation be successful in doing so, the NFA’s ‘Any Other Weapon’ provision would still allow an anti-gun administration to use the ATF to unilaterally regulate these firearms, and, more importantly, target their owners. The No Backdoor Gun Control Act would close this notable loophole and help protect law-abiding gun owners,” Rep. Roy said.

“The federal government has no business taxing and registering privately owned firearms with a catch-all term like “Any Other Weapon” or AOW. With the Biden Administration weaponizing definitions from the draconian National Firearms Act of 1934 to ban as many as 40,000,000 lawfully acquired guns like AR-15s, Rep. Chip Roy’s repeal of federal AOW regulations could not come at a better time,” said Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs, Gun Owners of America.

The No Backdoor Gun Control Act:

  • Removes AOWs from the definition of a firearm under the NFA
  • Ensures that AOW owners are treated as having met requirements of state licensing laws that reference the NFA
  • Requires the DOJ to destroy AOW registration records

The legislation is cosponsored by Reps. Daniel Webster (FL-01), Lauren Boebert (CO-03), Tom Tiffany (WI-07), Louie Gohmert (TX-01), Ted Budd (NC-13), Dan Crenshaw (TX-02), Marjorie Taylor Green (GA-14), Ken Buck (CO-04), Michael Cloud (TX-27), Matt Rosendale, (MT-at-Large), Jody Hice (GA-10), Ralph Norman (SC-05), Scott Perry (PA-10), Alex X. Mooney (WV-02), Randy Weber (TX-14), Diana Harshbarger (TN-01), Jeff Duncan (SC-03), Bob Good (VA-05), Jeff Van Drew (NJ-02), Thomas Massie (KY-04), Michelle Fischbach (MN -07), and Mary Miller (IL-15).

This legislation is supported by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the National Association of Gun Rights (NAGR).

A Well-Regulated Militia… Ukraine Gives Guns to Citizens ‘To Defend Our Country’

The Ukrainian government will give weapons ” to anyone who wants to defend the country”, it has said, in the aftermath of Russia expanding its war in the country’s eastern territory.

Amid reserve forces being mobilised and sent to fight the expanding Russian occupation of Ukraine’s eastern territories, the Kyiv government is taking steps to dramatically increase the supply of available fighters, promising to hand weapons to anyone willing to take up arms in defence of the nation. Joining the resistance is simple too, the government says — all you need is your passport and a willingness to fight.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made the call on Thursday morning, hours after Russia’s Putin announced his forces would be entering the Ukrainian territories it had declared to be independent republics, using the alleged widespread presence of neo-nazis in the region as a pretext for military action.

Addressing the Ukrainian people, Zelensky said: “We will give weapons to anyone who wants to defend the country. Be ready to support Ukraine in the squares of our cities.”

As Breitbart News has already reported, the Ukrainian armed forces have a considerable stockpile of weapons relative to its number of soldiers and comparatively low levels of legal civilian firearm ownership.

Government press agency Ukrinform followed up these remarks, quoting the President as having said that this process of giving out weapons to civilians to defend the nation had already commenced and would be extended to anyone to wants, and is able, to defend Ukraine.

Ukraine’s defence minister Oleksii Reznikov gave clear instructions for how citizens could get involved, saying the state had “simplified all procedures” and that volunteers need only take their passport. In return, he said: “We give weapons to all patriots who are without hesitation ready to use them against the enemy!”.

The general invitation for Ukrainians to take up arms to defend themselves from Russian aggression comes after weeks of developments leading to this point, including civilian volunteers receiving training from the nation’s Territorial Defence establishment, the army reserve. While pictures from these official training sessions have been flashed around the world, there has been controversy surrounding programmes conducted by extremist groups like the Azov Batallion, which gained some press interest for training a “babushka battalion”.

President Zelensky has locked horns with Azov groups in the past, demanding they surrender illegally held weapons in 2019.

Yesterday, Ukraine’s parliament passed a bill considerably liberalising ownership of firearms for civilians and making explicitly clear this change in law was in response to the dangers the country faced. As reported, the bill “establishes the basic rights and responsibilities of individuals”, liberalises ownership, but also “increases the responsibility for their illegal use”.

Civilian gun shops had sold out of some popular models such as AR-10 and AR-15 rifles this week.

BLUF:
I’ve met too many like Howard, (Howard’s eyes scare me. They’re pitch-black and utterly lifeless. When one looks into them, one strives to detect a spark of life, of humanity, of the person inside the body… but it’s not there)
and I take their threat very seriously.  It’s one reason I carry a gun, because I know they’re out there.  For every one behind bars, I’d guesstimate there are at least two or three on the street.

“The 1 % of the population accountable for 63 % of all violent crime convictions”

That’s the title of an article about Swedish research into violent crime in that country.  In the light of our discussion yesterday about violent crime in Washington D.C. and other US cities, I found its conclusions very interesting.  Here’s the abstract (i.e. executive summary) from the article.  Bold, underlined text is my emphasis.

Purpose

Population-based studies on violent crime and background factors may provide an understanding of the relationships between susceptibility factors and crime. We aimed to determine the distribution of violent crime convictions in the Swedish population 1973–2004 and to identify criminal, academic, parental, and psychiatric risk factors for persistence in violent crime.

Method

The nationwide multi-generation register was used with many other linked nationwide registers to select participants. All individuals born in 1958–1980 (2,393,765 individuals) were included. Persistent violent offenders (those with a lifetime history of three or more violent crime convictions) were compared with individuals having one or two such convictions, and to matched non-offenders. Independent variables were gender, age of first conviction for a violent crime, nonviolent crime convictions, and diagnoses for major mental disorders, personality disorders, and substance use disorders.

Results

A total of 93,642 individuals (3.9 %) had at least one violent conviction. The distribution of convictions was highly skewed; 24,342 persistent violent offenders (1.0 % of the total population) accounted for 63.2 % of all convictions. Persistence in violence was associated with male sex, personality disorder, violent crime conviction before age 19, drug-related offenses, nonviolent criminality, substance use disorder, and major mental disorder.

Conclusions

The majority of violent crimes are perpetrated by a small number of persistent violent offenders, typically males, characterized by early onset of violent criminality, substance abuse, personality disorders, and nonviolent criminality.

There’s much more at the link.  Highly recommended reading for those in the field of crime prevention, investigation and prosecution.

Continue reading “”

Gaslighting: CBS News Wants You to Think Ukraine-Russia Caused Our Economic Problems.
CBS News thinks we’re stupid enough to believe inflation, supply-chain issues, and high gas prices started right now because of Ukraine and Russia.

Propaganda at its finest. CBS News thinks we’re stupid enough to believe inflation, supply-chain issues, and high gas prices started right now because of Ukraine and Russia.

They think we forgot all three started in 2021.

It’s no wonder the Biden administration has pushed for war. It’s no wonder Biden all of a sudden started caring about Ukraine. Wag the dog, you guys.

They know a war would make it worse so why not? It’ll deflect the blame from them to Putin. Or so they think.

Continue reading “”

Having crap-for-brains is why and that appears to be a life long affliction


Bad arguments in favor of gun control persist

For proponents of gun control, there are tried and true arguments they trot out whenever they need them, and by “tried and true” I mean “tired and wrong.”

Over and over again, we see these arguments used, with almost no pushback from the mainstream media. After all, they’re the ones making these arguments.

Take this op-ed from the Star Tribune:

Gun regulation long has been the third rail of American politics. But the increase in murders, accidental shootings, suicides, armed carjackings and robberies, as well as the ongoing tragedy of mass shootings, shows the urgency of changing course. A responsible gun safety regulatory system would reduce crime and save lives.

Consider how we regulate cars. There are lawful uses for both guns and cars, but both are deadly when misused.

With cars, we require operators to be trained and licensed. We register every vehicle, and re-register each when it’s transferred to a new owner. We require liability insurance. We also require safety modifications and regulate how and where cars are driven.

Except that’s an inaccurate comparison. You only have to do any of that if you drive the vehicle on a public road. If you keep it confined to your farm, you’re not required to do any of that.

Further, the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected right. Cars, not so much. The courts have ruled that driving is a privilege, not a right, so comparing regulations surrounding a privilege to the lack of regulations for a right isn’t asinine, it’s idiotic.

But it’s bound to get better, right?

Don’t hold your breath.

For guns, there is no licensing, no training requirement, no registration, no insurance, no safety equipment required. This enables criminals to obtain guns with no background check, no waiting period — no means of enforcement at all.

Except that every FFL holder conducts criminal background checks on every firearm they sell.

“Oh, but private sales-”

Sure, in theory, but do you know how criminals tend to get guns? Via the black market, which is never going to conduct a criminal background check. Remarkably few buy from law-abiding gun owners looking to lawfully sell a firearm, so it’s a non-issue.

Yet the hits don’t stop there. Oh no, we get this classic gem:

The U.S. Constitution explicitly says “well-regulated” when referring to gun rights, yet the gun lobby opposes any form of gun regulation. The courts have said that reasonable restrictions may be placed on the possession of firearms. The National Firearms Act of 1934 effectively banned machine guns from most private ownership. Since that time, the “Tommy guns” of the Al Capone era and other fully automatic machine guns have not been used in mass killings or other crimes.

Oh, goodie, the “well-regulated” argument.

Talk about nonsense.

Look here, Sport. The phrase “well-regulated” meant nothing more than “properly functioning,” such as a well-regulated clock. The term didn’t mean then what it means now and there’s been a lot of actual scholarship supporting that fact.

Plus, more importantly, the right explicitly says “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s a contradictory clause unless “well-regulated” meant something differently at the time. It’s unlikely such a contradictory amendment would have been added by our Founding Fathers who desperately were trying to build a nation of laws.

But the author doesn’t care about that. He just wants to see new gun control passed, claiming it saves lives. Except, a look at the UK’s homicide rate before and after they passed gun control shows that it doesn’t really.

So not only are his arguments bad, even the facts work against him.

The word is that the Canadian Senate let him know they weren’t going to pass his power grab, so he does the politically expedient thing of reversing course so he won’t look like the loser he is


‘Trudeau backs down’: Canadian PM revokes emergency powers

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced on Wednesday that Canada will end the rarely used measures used nine days ago to deal with weeks-long protests that shut some border crossings and paralyzed Ottawa since late January.

“The situation is no longer an emergency. Therefore, the federal government will be ending the use of the Emergencies Act,” he told a news conference.

“We are confident that existing laws and bylaws are now sufficient to keep people safe,” he said.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Canada’s governor-general will formally revoke the emergency measures in the coming hours.

Following Trudeau’s announcement last week, the Emergencies Act was approved by the House of Commons on Monday, but not without opposition.

Invoking the powers was seen by the main opposition Conservative Party and some provincial leaders as overreaching.

The government said that the use of these powers would have a time limit. According to Trudeau, the powers were needed because the blockades threatened the economy and the public and because they helped coordinate the police forces.

“Trudeau backs down,” Pierre Poilievre, a Conservative lawmaker who is running for leadership of the party, said on Twitter. “Thank you to all who fought this abuse of power.”

Continue reading “”

Man with Lee County ties reportedly killed, was wanted in shooting of Taylor County deputy

A man with connections to Lehigh Acres who was wanted in connection with the shooting of a Taylor County Sheriff’s Office deputy Tuesday night is reported dead.

Gregory Mediema, 33, has listed an Arbordale Street address in Lehigh Acres as a residence. The alert said Miedema was last seen near U.S. 19 South Deer Run Road in Perry, between Tallahassee and Gainesville.

Tallahasee television station WCTV Wednesday reported that the Taylor County Sheriff’s Office says a suspect was killed during a home invasion in Steinhatchee in southern Taylor County.

That suspect’s body was found near the same car that was listed in a part Florida Blue Alert issued late Tuesday night.

The Taylor Sheriff’s Office identified the deputy who was shot as Troy Andersen with the agency’s K-9 unit. The Sheriff’s Office said Andersen was stable at Shands Hospital in Gainesville.

The Florida Blue Alert on Miedema was issued shortly before midnight seeking information on his whereabouts. Blue alerts are issued through the state’s Emergency Alert System to phones, television, radio and message boards across the highway when a law enforcement officer is killed, seriously injured or missing in the line of duty and there’s still an imminent threat to the public.

The alert was cancelled Wednesday morning.

A Facebook post from the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office shortly after 10 a.m. Wednesday said Miedema had been killed but included no other information.

Grabbing Guns Won’t Reduce Urban Violence
Firearm seizures are ineffective, and gun possession arrests are frequently unjust

If you want to reduce gun violence, New York City Mayor Eric Adams thinks, you need to go after guns. His plan relies heavily on disrupting gun trafficking, seizing guns, and arresting people for illegal gun possession.

This strategy is unlikely to work. Worse, the focus on gun possession arrests, if it fails to distinguish between people who pose a real threat to public safety and people who carry guns for self-protection, will compound the injustice of systematically denying city dwellers their Second Amendment rights.

“It is estimated that as many as 2 million illegal guns were in circulation in New York City in 1993,” the Justice Department reports. Last year, the New York City Police Department seized about 6,000 guns; even at that unusually high rate, three decades of seizures would not have made much of a difference.

Given that reality, attempts to disrupt the supply of guns are not a very promising approach either. For crime guns in New York, the average time between initial sale and confiscation is nearly 12 years.

Philadelphia, like New York, has recently seen sharp increases in homicides. But law enforcement officials in that city are rightly skeptical that gun seizures or supply-side measures are an effective way to tackle the problem.

Between 1999 and 2020, according to a January report from a committee that includes local police officials and Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, nearly 13 million guns were legally sold in Pennsylvania, an average of more than 1,600 a day. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania law enforcement agencies seized an average of 22 guns per day.

“With so many guns available,” Krasner says in the report, “a law enforcement strategy prioritizing seizing guns locally does little to reduce the supply of guns.” And if that strategy “entails increasing numbers of car and pedestrian stops,” he warns, it “has the potential to be counterproductive by alienating the very communities that it is designed to help.”

As in New York, the Philadelphia report notes, “most guns used and/or recovered are those purchased a long time ago, indicating that attempts to limit the future supply of guns now will not impact the current gun violence crisis.” The report’s analysis of 100 shootings confirms other research finding that criminals typically obtain guns through illegal transfers or theft, sources that would not be affected by new restrictions on sales, such as expanded background checks.

Data from Baltimore, another city where homicides have risen in recent years, likewise cast doubt on the effectiveness of Adams’ strategy. Based on 31 years of homicide and gun-seizure data, a Battleground Baltimore report published last week concludes that “seizing ‘illegal’ guns does not reduce violent crime, although gun seizures and gun possession arrests remain metrics frequently cited by police.”

Arresting people for illegal gun possession is not just ineffective; it is frequently unjust. Krasner says gun possession arrests “must be targeted to distinguish between drivers of gun violence who possess firearms illegally and otherwise law-abiding people who are not involved in gun violence.”

When “people do not feel protected by the police,” Krasner notes, they may “view the risk of being caught by police with an illegal gun as outweighed by the risk of being caught on the street without one.” Before he was elected, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg expressed a similar concern.

“We need to recognize that not every person charged with possessing an illegal gun in New York City is a driver of violence,” Bragg said on his campaign website. “My dad had an illegal gun not because he liked guns or because he was ‘dangerous’; he had a gun because of crime in the neighborhood.”

Bragg has since retreated from that stance, echoing Adams’ determination to vigorously prosecute people who carry guns without the government’s permission. But law enforcement agencies cannot redeem their failure to protect public safety by locking up people who respond to that failure by exercising the constitutional right to armed self-defense.

Trudeau’s Dictatorial Crackdown on Protesters Is Popular Among One Group of US Voters

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s descent into dictatorship to rein in the Freedom Convoy protest has support from a majority of likely Democratic voters in America.

According to a survey conducted by Trafalgar Group and Convention of States Action, 55 percent of likely voters disapproved of Trudeau’s handling of the demonstration, while 35 percent approved.

When broken down by party affiliation, 65 percent of Democrats backed Trudeau’s heavy-handed response compared to 17 percent who disapproved, while 87 percent of likely Republican voters opposed the prime minister’s crackdown and 8 percent approved.

One hundred percent of young voters, meanwhile, (those 25 to 35-years-old), disapproved of Trudeau’s response.

On Feb. 14, the Canadian prime minister invoked the Emergencies Act to crack down on demonstrators who had been in Ottawa since late last month protesting the country’s vaccine mandates and other Covid-19 restrictions.

The government announced they would freeze bank accounts of those even loosely attached to the protest, while Ontario’s premier threatened to revoke driver’s licenses. Protesters’ pets weren’t even off-limits.

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland also said the government would be broadening its “Terrorist Financing” rules to include cryptocurrencies and crowdfunding platforms as part of the Act.

The Canadian Parliament voted on Monday night to extend its emergency powers for another 30 days despite the blockade being over.

The survey of 1080 likely general election voters was conducted Feb. 18-20 and was provided exclusively to The Daily Wire.

Bill would reimburse defendants who shoot under self-defense

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — A panel of lawmakers introduced legislation that would strengthen Idaho’s “stand your ground” law by requiring counties to reimburse anyone charged in a slaying if a judge or jury concludes they acted in self-defense.

Sen. Christy Zito, a Republican from Hammett, said the proposal is needed to protect people like Kyle Rittenhouse, who used an assault-style rifle to shoot three people during a street protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in 2020. Rittenhouse killed Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz, but he said he acted in self-defense. A jury last year acquitted him of multiple charges including homicide.

“The way our political world is looking more and more every day, we need to make sure that our citizens are protected beyond any shadow of a doubt so if they do indeed take human life, they’re protected from that,” Zito said told the House State Affairs Committee.

Zito, who is sponsoring the proposal along with Rep. Priscilla Giddings, a Republican from White Bird, said the bill includes “immunity and reimbursement for justifiable homicide.”

The immunity and reimbursement wouldn’t apply if the person knew or reasonably should have known that the person they are using force against is a police officer, Zito said.

If enacted, the legislation would require the county or prosecuting state agency where the person was charged with a crime to reimburse the defendant for “all reasonable costs” if they are found not guilty by reason of self defense. Reasonable costs would include lost wages, the costs of any lost business opportunities and legal costs including bail, expert witness fees, attorney’s bills and other expenses.

The bill also includes a “safety net” to protect defendants if they are sued by victim in a self-defense case, she said.

The proposal was introduced on a unanimous vote.

Yes, I also think such could happen (anything’s possible), but 1, We’re not Canada and 2, I think that if SloJoe, or anyone else for that matter, tried to enact the sort of ’emergency measures’ martial law as Trudeau did in Canada, for anything short of global thermonuclear war, what would result is exactly what TPTB are scared to death of.


BARR: A Canadian-Style ‘Emergency’ Could Easily Happen Here

On Feb. 14, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gave Canadians a Valentine’s Day present, invoking the draconian “Emergencies Act” and suspending a wide range of civil liberties otherwise enjoyed by his countrymen.
Lest Americans conclude that our constitutional republic is safe from such facially dictatorial actions, they should know that under existing federal laws and the laws of every state, the president or a governor could take similar “emergency” action at any time they decide an “emergency” presents itself. COVID has demonstrated this is spades.
Regardless of whether a real emergency exists prior to a president or governor invoking such powers, and regardless of whether such declaration is for a statutorily limited time, consequential damage to the fabric of a free society results. At a minimum, declaring an “emergency” and suspending individual liberties serves as a “warning” to citizens that they had best be careful what they say and do in the future.
Trudeau’s actions in declaring a “national emergency” because of an irksome, but peaceful, trucker’s strike should cause Americans to pay far closer attention to “emergency powers” laws here at home. Doing so might force some of our countrymen to question the abject fear that has undergirded much of public policy in the United States since the terror attacks of 9/11 — made far worse by the manner in which governments at all levels have responded to the COVID pandemic in the past biennium.
From a practical standpoint, as we see in Canada, it matters little whether the declaration of the “emergency” fits clearly within the four corners of the emergency law that is invoked. What matters is the presence of circumstances in which an elected leader is able to stoke the flames of fear and anger in a sufficiently large segment of the electorate, so that the invocation of the law seems to constitute a reasonable response.
Once an “emergency” law is on the books of the sovereign entity, whether of a state or the federal government, all it takes is a “stroke of the pen, law of the land” (to quote former Bill Clinton adviser Paul Begala) to unleash the awesome powers at that sovereign’s disposal. Just watch the videos emerging from Ottawa to see how quickly the nightmare unfolds once the document is signed.
The actual form of the government declaring the emergency is of little consequence. Abuse of emergency powers can happen in a representative democracy such as ours just as easily as in a Canadian parliamentary system. Moreover, Republicans often are just as likely to play the “emergency powers” card as are their Democrat counterparts. It was, after all, Republican President Donald Trump who, in March 2020, invoked the powers of at least three federal “national emergency” laws to meet a perceived COVID emergency threat.
Granted, many emergency declarations by state and federal officials are focused toward and limited to natural disasters, such as hurricanes or floods, and used primarily to free up government assistance. However,  the actual powers nestled within those laws are frighteningly expansive. For example, a U.S. president arguably could, among other actions upon declaring a “national emergency “ (not expressly defined in federal laws), seize control of the internet pursuant to a 1930s era communications law or freeze individuals’ financial accounts in reliance on 1970s era laws.
At the state level, Second Amendment supporters will recall law enforcement officers in New Orleans seizing, at times forcibly, over 1,000 lawfully owned private firearms in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Even though subsequent legal action undertaken by the NRA and other gun-rights groups successfully challenged the seizures, many firearms never were returned to their owners.
Even today, with medical and scientific evidence clearly demonstrating that lingering COVID hazards are not dire and are manageable, many government agencies, including public schools in jurisdictions across the country, are refusing to hand back all the “emergency” powers they grabbed in early 2020.
Founding Father James Madison had it right when he wrote in Federalist 57 that placing the powers of all three branches of government in the hands of one entity (whether a prime minister, a governor or a president) is “the very definition of tyranny.”
Today, 234 years later, tyranny is still tyranny, even if it is only “temporary.”
Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

Question O’ The Day

Did Biden secretly agree in advance to allow Putin to do this? Or are we to believe this is a coincidence?


What’s next from Russia, Ukraine and the new Cold War?
Putin’s land grab in Ukraine is a grim reminder of a new world order under Biden’s watch

“This is the beginning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine,” President Biden said on Tuesday in response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recognition of Ukraine’s two breakaway regions. Putin’s decision was quickly followed by the movement of thousands of Russian troops to the region to enforce that land grab, a sobering reminder of the emergent new world order.

Moscow’s invasion of eastern Ukraine is déjà vu 2008 with the Republic of Georgia [seizure of Abkhazia and South Ossetia] and Ukraine in 2014 [annexation of Crimea], and if I were in the Baltics [Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania] and the balance of Ukraine, or perhaps even Poland, I’d watch carefully movements to my east. Putin is poised to push west against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to recover lost ground which he considers part of the historic Russian Empire.

Putin’s aggression should alarm westerners who naively cling to NATO’s prowess. Years ago, during the Cold War (1948-1991), the West was much stronger and more able to stand up against Soviet aggression but not so much now. I doubt anyone who truly understands NATO’s capabilities believes the alliance can really defeat the Russian army. The numbers just aren’t there anymore.

Meanwhile, Putin long ago planned to create the pretext to move against Ukraine’s east via misinformation about alleged atrocities. That’s been building now for weeks: hybrid warfare with psychological operations, cyberattacks, and cease-fire violations. Recently the evacuation of civilians into Russia was a clear indication Putin’s plan was falling into place. Those actions remind me of Germany in 1939 and Poland.

Has Putin set his sights on NATO member states?

What now? Putin didn’t need 190,000 troops and a phalanx of tanks, thousands of artillery pieces, and a shipment of plasma to declare the eastern Ukrainian region independent. No, there is much more and this was long ago planned.

Looking into the future, expect Russia to keep large numbers of troops in Belarus, and many thousands inside eastern Ukraine. Also, recall that Putin and Belarus’s President Alexander Lukashenko declared the formation of a reaction force, a key indicator that Russia will hold its ground. Further, expect the geopolitical temperature to rise, subject in part to NATO and the West’s response, if any.

Continue reading “”

Putin: First Person Spoken Word

If you are only reading commentary about Russian President Putin’s speech of 21 Feb 2022 or watching short clips, you are doing yourself a disservice.

While some reporting is good, there is a lot of spin, narrative shaping, and just plain lazy reporting.

If you want to try to understand if not what is in Putin’s head, but what he wants the Russian people to think is in his head, you need to read and watch the speech yourself.

When someone tells you what they’re thinking, listen to them.

Putin isn’t trying to bring back the Soviet Union, he’s focused on something much deeper and meaningful, the Russian Empire…build back better, as it were.

You can clearly see that he is playing a very long game. Just like he did in Georgia and Crimea last decade. He will take a bite, let the short term outrage burn itself out, let the rest of Europe and the international community regress to the mean, and then take another bite…etc…etc.

As long as this process works, why change it?

If you don’t have time for a full read but want to get a boildown of foundation of the argument for all that follows, here is what got my attention.

Continue reading “”

Western Authoritarianism

The original question was: “What lies at the root of the authoritarianism that seems to be asserting itself in free societies in today’s West?”

Here’s my answer:

The same root that causes irritating busybodies to take over Home Owner Associations. Some people have a lust for power. Government is the ultimate well of power. Author Frank Herbert expressed it well:

“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.”

Also:

“When religion and politics travel in the same cart, the riders believe nothing can stand in their way. Their movements become headlong – faster and faster and faster.”

Leftism is itself a religion, complete with an Eden (Earth), an original sin (Capitalism), and a god (government – aka “power over others.”) Another quote I’m fond of by a gentleman by the name of Glenn Wishard:

“The rise and fall of the Marxist ideal is rather neatly contained in the Twentieth Century, and comprises its central political phenomenon. Fascism and democratic defeatism are its sun-dogs.
The common theme is politics as a theology of salvation, with a heroic transformation of the human condition (nothing less) promised to those who will agitate for it.
Political activity becomes the highest human vocation.
The various socialisms are only the most prominent manifestation of this delusion, which our future historian calls “politicism”.
In all its forms, it defines human beings as exclusively political animals, based on characteristics which are largely or entirely beyond human control: ethnicity, nationality, gender, and social class.
It claims universal relevance, and so divides the entire human race into heroes and enemies.
To be on the correct side of this equation is considered full moral justification in and of itself, while no courtesy or concession can be afforded to those on the other.
Therefore, politicism has no conscience whatsoever, no charity, and no mercy.”

When your quest is to drag the rest of the world, kicking and screaming, into your utopia, authoritarianism is the way to get there. Never mind that you’re enabling the most greedy, rapacious and psychopathic to grab the levers of power.

In short, it’s human nature.

Alabama House Passes Permitless Carry Bill

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (WBRC) – The Alabama House passed a proposal Tuesday to allow people to carry concealed handguns without a state permit.

House Republicans have named the handgun bill as a priority for the year.

The bill would do away with the requirement to get a concealed carry permit to carry a handgun concealed under clothes or in a purse or bag when they go in public.