Demoncraps were going to sneak in a new immigration amnesty for illegal aliens by putting it in a appropriation bill that can be passed by a simple majority vote of ‘reconciling’ the differences of a bill supposedly already passed by both houses of Congress.


Senate parliamentarian deals blow to Democrats’ immigration plan

Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough on Sunday dealt a significant blow to Democrats’ plan to provide 8 million green cards as part of a sweeping spending package, warning it doesn’t comply with tight rules that determine what can be in the bill.

MacDonough’s guidance, a copy of which was obtained by The Hill, likely closes the door to Democrats using the spending bill to provide a pathway to citizenship for millions of immigrants.

MacDonough, in her guidance, called the Democratic plan “by any standard a broad, new immigration policy.”

“The policy changes of this proposal far outweigh the budgetary impact scored to it and it is not appropriate for inclusion in reconciliation,” she wrote in the ruling obtained by The Hill.

Democrats pitched MacDonough earlier this month on their plan to use the $3.5 trillion spending bill to provide 8 million green cards for four groups of immigrants: “Dreamers,” temporary protected status (TPS) holders, agricultural workers and essential workers. Getting legal permanent resident status allows an individual to eventually apply for citizenship if they can meet other qualifications.

Continue reading “”

The Wit and Wisdom of Mark Milley.

It has been fascinating to follow the recent career of General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, an advisory body of military commanders that, by law, lies outside the chain of command.
It’s not clear Milley knows that.
Being a thoroughly modern major general, he seems to be more interested in blockading “white rage” than honing the fighting skills of our military.

So I was edified to see that Milley has put down some of his thoughts in a new Art of War. It is a very different sort of book from the Chinese classic by Sun Tzu.

It is not just that Sun Tzu was interested in winning wars and prevailing over the enemy. He also understood that his country had enemies and that it was important to be able to distinguish effectively between friends and enemies. “I will force the enemy to take our strength for weakness, and our weakness for strength,” he wrote in one famous passage, “and thus will turn his strength into weakness.”

Milley has turned that old-fashioned “binary” idea on its head—he deconstructed it, you might say, and implicitly showed how out of sync with our times poor old Sun Tzu is.

Continue reading “”

Book Review

America Transformed: The Rise and Legacy of American Progressivism

It is no secret that American public life is fracturing. The fissures can be seen in our gladiatorial-like Supreme Court nomination hearings, the collapse of confidence in our institutions, and the mounting sense that many have that elections won’t change the country’s fundamental trajectory. These disputes are merely symptoms, however, of a broader problem, the roots of which extend back decades.

As Ronald J. Pestritto, graduate dean and professor of politics at Hillsdale College, argues in America Transformed, our present-day clashes reflect a fundamental “divide over first principles,” which he traces to the rise of the Progressive Movement in the late nineteenth century. Pestritto makes a convincing case that the Progressives—including Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Croly, and John Dewey—sought to “revolutionize both the theory and practice of American government.”

The Progressives had their differences and factions: consider the fierce 1912 presidential campaign between Wilson and Roosevelt. Yet they adhered to a “coherent set of principles, with a common purpose.” They unleashed a “direct assault on the core ideas of the American founding,” openly rejecting the natural rights teachings of the Declaration of Independence. Wilson once told an audience that “if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface”—the same preface that contains the most concise articulation of the Founders’ political theory.

Pestritto argues that, for progressives like education reformer Dewey, the Founders’ “great sin” was to think that principles such as a natural human equality in rights and government by consent transcended “the particular circumstances of that day.” Influenced by Hegel’s philosophical idealism, they argued that historical progress had shown that what the Founders thought were universal truths were in fact simply ideas of their time. In fact, the principles of the American Founding, and the Constitution built to reflect them, actively prevented government from taking the swift action that the public now demanded.

Pestritto suggests that “native influences” had already compromised the American immune system by the time the Progressive Movement emerged. A toxic mix of Social Darwinism, pragmatism, and the rejection of social compact theory in New England and the antebellum South prepared American intellectuals and politicians to accept an alternative account of politics that seemed better able to meet the challenges of modern society. The Progressives claimed that historical progress necessitated a dynamic and perfectible human nature, an idea that the Founders rejected. James Madison’s claim in Federalist 10 that the prevention of majority tyranny would always be a problem in political life was simply false, they believed. Thus Woodrow Wilson and political scientist Frank Goodnow sharply criticized the Constitution’s separation of powers and the slow, methodical lawmaking process the Framers had put in place, which they saw as hopelessly out of step with the public will and too often stymied by a combination of political machines, big business, and other special interests.

Pestritto maintains that the progressives worked toward “democratizing and unifying national political institutions,” though they sometimes differed on the means to achieve this end. Ever the radical, Theodore Roosevelt proposed policies such as overturning judicial decisions and the recall of recalcitrant judges who resisted heavy regulation of business. Herbert Croly, a cofounder of The New Republic, wanted to eliminate political parties altogether.

To make politics fully democratic, the Progressives insisted that political leaders accountable to the people needed to find means of breaking the constitutional logjam—think of Roosevelt’s “bully pulpit.” Roosevelt and Wilson frequently enlisted (and refashioned) the memory of American statesmen such as Abraham Lincoln, John Marshall, and Daniel Webster, men who, in their rendering, had supposedly discerned history’s centralizing trends.

Pestritto argues that as the Progressives seemingly brought politics closer to the people, they simultaneously moved “policymaking power away from popular institutions,” handing it to “educated elites.” They essentially established a fourth branch of government, a vast bureaucracy that wields legislative, executive, and judicial powers—what Madison considered the very definition of tyranny—that would fully bloom during Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s presidency. What we know today as the administrative state (a phrase coined by the political scientist Dwight Waldo in the 1950s) had its genesis in the Supreme Court’s ruling in J.W. Hampton v. United States, which granted broad powers to supposedly nonideological experts insulated from the corrupting effects of electoral politics.

Pestritto notes that this new conception of government—the sharp split between politics and administration—originated in the “laboratories of democracy” of state and local governments. There, Progressive governors such as California’s Hiram Johnson and Wisconsin’s Robert La Follette pushed direct democracy: the ballot initiative, recall, referendum, the direct election of senators, and electoral primaries. Through the establishment of government by unelected commission and the rise of nonpartisan city managers, the notion of expert administration permeated state governments in Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, and Illinois, as well as cities such as Galveston, Cincinnati, Des Moines, and Cleveland.

The Progressives’ strong belief in the notion of historical progress also guided their foreign policy. History had demonstrated that modern democracy was the “permanent and most advanced form of government,” Wilson once wrote. To make the world safe for democracy, the Progressives’ idealistic foreign policy necessitated an aggressive series of interventions in Haiti, Santo Domingo, Cuba, Mexico, and the Philippines.

History had chosen the United States to lead the “children” (as Wilson described other sovereign nations) so that they could someday reach the heights of democratic governance. And should certain “barbaric races” fail to do what they were told, Progressive historian Charles Merriam wrote in a particularly appalling passage, they “may be swept away.”

Some Progressives saw historical progress as the will of God Himself. Marshaling rhetoric that today would be regarded as extreme Christian nationalism, Roosevelt told the Progressive Party convention in 1912, “We stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord.”

Adherents of the Social Gospel, the Progressive Movement’s religious wing, were liberal Protestants who worked to reconcile life “on earth as it is in heaven.” They turned away from concerns over individual salvation and other orthodox theological concerns and instead inculcated a social ethic that sought to use the modern state to equalize economic conditions. Pestritto observes that in one of his more moderate moments Baptist pastor Walter Rauschenbusch called for the “public ownership of essential industries.” By following God’s unfolding plan, which history was revealing to mankind, human beings would someday experience the Eden that our ancestors had failed to maintain.

Pestritto concludes America Transformed by noting that, thanks to the Progressives’ handiwork, “citizens of two different regimes [are] occupying the same country.” The regime that today opposes that of the Founders is far different from what the original Progressives intended, but by uncoupling America from its natural rights foundations, they can justly be credited (or rather, blamed) for inaugurating our current crisis. Pestritto’s concise volume, the best available overview of progressive political thought and practice, will help Americans make sense of the stark divisions that confront us.

 

If this is happening in the U.K., why would you think it’s not happening here as well?


Hyping the Covid Burden on Hospitals.

A Doctor Writes: The NHS Is Concealing Important Information from the Public

On Thursdays, the NHS release the weekly summary data in relation to Covid patients. Normally this is a more granular version of the daily summaries – it has some hospital level detail and figures on non-Covid workload for comparison. Usually interesting but not especially informative.

Yesterday was an exception. Placed down at the bottom of the page, almost like a footnote, was a “Primary Diagnosis” Supplement. Graph One shows the information contained in that spreadsheet. I find it astonishing. In essence, it shows that since June 18th, the NHS has known its daily figures in relation to ‘Covid inpatients’ were unreliable at best and deliberately untrue at worst.

The Yellow bars are what the NHS has been informing the nation were Covid inpatients. The Blue bars are the numbers of inpatients actually suffering from Covid symptoms – the difference between the two are patients in hospital who tested positive for Covid but were being treated for something different – where Covid was effectively an incidental finding but not clinically relevant.

For example, on July 27th, the total number of beds occupied by Covid patients was reported as 5,021. However, until today, we were not permitted to know that only 3,855 of those were actually admitted with Covid as the primary diagnosis. There has been a fairly consistent overestimate of the true number by about 25% running back to mid June – figures before that date are ‘not available’.

Why does this matter?

Well in one way it doesn’t matter very much. Whether the burden of Covid inpatients is 5% of the available beds or 3.5%, isn’t massively significant – it’s still a relatively small proportion. NHS managers are already arguing that even patients with Covid being treated for another condition still need isolation procedures and present an extra burden on the system. They may argue that the NHS is still under strain from staff absences, stress levels and the waiting list backlog – so it doesn’t really matter if the published figures are somewhat inaccurate.

But it matters hugely.

Firstly, it clearly shows that the NHS has been exaggerating the burden of Covid on hospitals by 25% since at least the June 18th and almost certainly for longer. All the senior NHS leaders and politicians quoting the number of Covid inpatients for the last six weeks have been painting a seriously exaggerated picture, significantly worse than the true position. Were they in ignorance about the true numbers, or were they deliberately misleading the public?

Continue reading “”

Comment O’ The Day

The densest element yet known to science has been named Pelosium.
Pelosium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 311.
These particles are held together by dark forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

The symbol of Pelosium is PU.

Pelosium’s mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons within the Pelosium molecule, leading to the formation of isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientist to believe that Pelosium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration.

This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass.
When catalyzed with money, Pelosium activates CNNadnausium, an element that radiates orders of magnitude more energy, albeit as incoherent noise, since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons as Pelosium.

Her mannerisms as she speaks her word salad BS only impresses on me the idea that she knows she’s uttering BS and believes she can cover it by appearances.


Nancy Pelosi: Partnering with China on Climate Overrides ‘Genocide’ of Uyghurs

During an event in Cambridge, England on Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said that despite communist China’s long list of human rights abuses, the United States must partner with them to fight climate change.

“The situation with China is tightening, it’s getting worse,” Pelosi acknowledged.

She continued:

With their military aggression in the South China Sea, with their continuation of genocide with the Uyghurs in Xinjiang province, with their violation of the cultural… religious priority of Tibet, with their suppression of democracy in Hong Kong and other parts of China as well – they’re just getting worse in terms of suppression and freedom of speech……

Having said all of that… we have to work together on climate. Climate is an overriding issue and China is a leading emitter in the world – U.S. too, developed world too – but we must work together. We have to have a level of communication – whether it’s COVID, whether it’s terrorism or whether it’s climate.

 

Continue reading “”

Question O’ The Day.
So was Milley lying to Trump, or was he actually that clueless?


General Milley told Trump the George Floyd protests were no big deal.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley dismissed the George Floyd riots as “penny packet protests” — insisting they weren’t an insurrection because the mobs only “used spray paint,” according to a new book.

The under-fire general — accused of going behind President Donald Trump’s back to contact his Chinese counterpart — wildly downplayed the riots when Trump raised fears they were “burning America down,” according to Fox News excerpts from the new book, “Peril.”

“Mr. President, they are not burning it down,” he told the alarmed commander-in-chief, according to authors Bob Woodward and Robert Costa.

“They used spray paint, Mr. President, that’s not an insurrection,” he told Trump.

It was not immediately clear when the conversation happened, but violent, fiery protests broke out in cities across the US soon after Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police in May 2020.

New York City saw mass looting and fires in the street, including torched police vehicles, while other cities saw deadly shootings within days, and thousands of National Guard members were ultimately deployed in at least 15 states, Fox News also noted.

Milley, however, gestured to a portrait of President Abraham Lincoln as he tried to dismiss Trump’s clear fears over the violence.

“We’re a country of 330 million people. You’ve got these penny packet protests,” he said, using a term for something insignificant, according to the book being published Sept. 21.

Milley insisted it was not an issue for the US military — and instead said the protests were understandable given systemic racism, according to the Fox excerpts.

“That’s pent up in communities that have been experiencing what they perceive to be police brutality,” Milley reportedly told Trump.

But when the Jan. 6 Capitol riot happened, Milley believed it “was indeed a coup attempt and nothing less than ‘treason,’” the book said.

He feared that Trump might be looking for a “Reichstag moment” and believed the attack “so unimagined and savage, [it] could be a dress rehearsal for something larger,” the authors wrote.

Milley’s spokesperson told Fox News that his office was not commenting on the book.

Yes, this is known, but it always bears repeating.


BLUF:
But that is really what Kulturkampf politics is all about: fortifying one’s own social status by exercising ritual domination over cultural rivals. That’s how you get punitive tax policies that don’t raise much revenue, “inclusiveness” policies based on exclusion, and gun-control proposals that don’t have anything to do with gun crime. It just feels good to exercise power over people you loathe or envy. That is the beginning and the end of it.

Gun-Control Laws Aren’t about Preventing Crimes

In the latest issue of National Review, I write about the lax enforcement of our gun laws and touch on a theme that is worth exploring a little more: Gun control is not about gun crime — gun control is about gun culture.

If we cared about keeping guns out of the hands of felons, we’d be locking up straw buyers. We’d be prosecuting prohibited “lie and try” buyers who falsify their ATF paperwork. And we’d be confiscating guns sold in retail transactions that were wrongly approved because of defects in the background-check system. But, for the most part, we don’t do much of any of that.

Instead of doing the hard work of enforcing the law on people committed to breaking it, we focus almost all of our efforts on the most law-abiding group of Americans there is: People who legally buy firearms from licensed firearms dealers, a group that, by definition, has a felony-conviction rate of approximately 0.0 percent. These are law-abiding people, but they also are, in no small part, the type of people who mash the cultural buttons of the big-city progressives who dominate the Democratic Party both culturally and financially. From that point of view, what matters is not that retail gun dealers and their clients are dangerous — which they certainly are not — but that they are icky.

Continue reading “”

The pandemic and the homicide surge will have a lasting effect on our gun control politics

The surge in new gun owners could have a political impact that lasts far longer than the pandemic and the surge in homicides that inspired it.

Between January 2019 and April 2021, approximately 7.5 million people became first-time gun owners. Nearly 50% of them were women. More than 40% are black or Latino. This is bad news for the gun control movement and, perhaps in the long term, for the Democratic Party.

One of the most telling graphics from the 2016 election came from the New York Times. It showed the great bulk of voters in households with no guns voted for Hillary Clinton in every state except West Virginia and Wyoming (the latter had insufficient data). Voters in gun-owning households favored Donald Trump in every state but Vermont. That includes the most Democratic states in the country, including California, New York, and Hawaii.

According to Gallup data , roughly two-thirds of Republicans live in gun-owning households, compared to just one-third of Democrats. Half of Republicans personally own a firearm, compared to 18% of Democrats.

Granted, it isn’t as simple as these first-time gun owners immediately becoming Republicans. But, even among Democrats, gun owners are more likely to oppose gun control measures. According to data from the Pew Research Center, 87% of non-gun-owning Democrats support banning “assault-style weapons.” That number drops to 65% among gun-owning Democrats. Allowing concealed carry in more places has support among 39% of gun-owning Democrats, compared to 16% support among Democrats who don’t own firearms.

Gun control, despite polling well as a collection of general platitudes, is already a losing issue throughout the country. Each time someone becomes a first-time gun owner, the chances of passing the strict gun control measures that the gun control movement and the majority of the Democratic Party want to see implemented go down. The pandemic will go away, and homicides will decline — but this will continue to shape our gun control politics for years to come.

Gun Grabbers Outraged At Suggestion Asian-Americans Should Get Guns

We hear an awful lot about anti-Asian hate crimes. Asian-Americans are being targeted for violent crime, and it often appears to be because they’re Asian. This is a significant problem. Anytime anyone is targeted because of their ethnicity, it’s a problem.

As such, many of us have recommended these folks look at getting firearms. After all, if you’re concerned about being attacked, having a gun is probably a good idea unless you actually like being injured or possibly killed.

Apparently, for some people, that’s a problem.

Gun control advocates from Connecticut and across the country say the firearms industry is exploiting fear of hate crimes to sell more guns to Asian Americans, according to a study led by the Violence Policy Center.

“Historically, Asian-Americans have owned very few guns, which is precisely the reason why we have experienced comparatively low rates of gun violence. That the gun industry is now targeting our community as a lucrative new market is incredibly troubling, because more guns means more gun-related injury and death,” said Gloria Pan with advocacy group Moms Rising, another contributor to the study.

Advocates said groups like the NRA and the Newtown, Connecticut-based National Shooting Sports Foundation have targeted people of color since 2015. But since the pandemic, they have started groups and social media campaigns to reach Asian-Americans.

In other words, the gun industry is looking at a series of high-profile crimes, then are trying to leverage it to make money by telling people this will make things better?

Yeah, that’s absolutely awful…wait, isn’t that literally what gun control groups do?

Why yes it is.

Look, I don’t care if someone with Moms Rising, Moms Falling, Moms Tripping Over My Socks, or any other “moms” group finds it troubling. The truth of the matter is that if law-abiding citizens are armed, they can respond to violent attacks with something besides begging or harsh language. Will it result in more gun-related injuries and death? Yeah. For the bad guys, you simple-minded twit!

That’s kind of the point of carrying a gun, for crying out loud.

Law-abiding Asian-Americans aren’t going to result in more criminal activity. Why would they? Unless Ms. Pan is suggesting that Asian-Americans are somehow incapable of controlling themselves, which sounds like a pretty racist thing to suggest. I’m sure she didn’t mean that, now did she?

Yes, many of us are suggesting these folks get guns. Law-abiding citizens acting responsibly for their own safety has never been an issue and will never be an issue for anyone except for shrieking violets (yes, this is phrased this way intentionally) who think that the entire universe really revolves around their preferences.

I, for one, welcome our Asian-American gun-owning brethren to our ranks. I’d love to invite each and every one of you to the range. I just don’t think my local range would hold everyone.

And if it infuriates the gun control crowd because yet another minority group seems to be leaving the reservation for the land of milk and freedom, so much the better.

Two arrested after Jefferson County homeowner shoots burglar

JEFFERSON COUNTY — The owner of a home near Festus fatally shot a man during an early morning burglary Thursday, the Jefferson County Sheriff’s office said.

Jefferson County Sheriff’s deputies were called around 1:40 a.m. to the 400 block of Sequoia Drive and found a man later identified as 36-year-old Wayne D. Roam, of House Springs, lying dead on the porch, according to court documents.

The homeowner told deputies he heard a knock on his door and asked who was there. An unfamiliar voice replied, and a person was shaking the doorknob as if trying to enter the house.

The frightened homeowner got his revolver, opened the door and found two men standing on the porch with masks on, court documents said.

One of the men reached inside the home and sprayed mace. The homeowner fired his gun, ran back inside, locked the door and called 911, deputies said.

As they interviewed the homeowner later, deputies saw a Nissan SUV driving away from the area. They stopped the vehicle and questioned the driver and a front-seat passenger, court documents said.

The two men had “conflicting stories” about why they were in the area and deputies noticed the passenger’s shirt had red stains on it, believed to be blood, charging documents said.

The passenger was later identified as 29-year-old Sean Ramsey, of Festus. He and the driver were arrested on outstanding warrants at the scene.

Ramsey is now facing charges with second-degree murder because a death occurred during a crime, charges said. He was also charged with first-degree burglary and third-degree assault.

The homeowner was not arrested.


Barbershop owner shoots intruder

An early morning shooting in Dededo (Guam) has sent one man to the hospital with a possible gun shot wound.

Guam Police Department officers responded to David’s Barber Shop in Dededo, along Marine Corp Drive, after receiving a report of a shooting that occurred at the barbershop.

Police arrived on scene early Wednesday morning, GPD Spokesman Sgt. Paul Tapao said, they are currently investigating the incident.

The Guam Daily Post arrived at the scene as GPD Criminal Investigation Detectives conducted their investigation.

Police were seen interviewing the owner of the barbershop David Cadaviz.


Subway employee shoots, kills suspect during attempted robbery

ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico (KOAT) — An employee fatally shot a man who attempted to rob a Subway restaurant in New Mexico, police said.

Around 5:20 a.m., officers were called to a shooting at the restaurant in Albuquerque.

“After preliminary investigation, talking to some of the employees at the business, it appears that the male had entered the business and attempted to rob one of the employees,” said APD spokesman Gilbert Gallegos. “There was an employee who was armed, that came out of the backroom, I think, to help the other employee who was being robbed.”

According to Gallegos, the Subway employee shot the suspect, killing him.

“As far as we know, the robber was armed,” Gallegos said. “Detectives are very interested in who this attempted robber is and what motived the robbery this early in the morning at this location.”

Detectives are working to identify the alleged robber and will talk to Subway employees to figure out what happened.

“It is concerning that we haven’t had, in at least a few years, an armed robbery at a restaurant or a business that turned into a homicide. And now we’ve had two in the last couple of weeks,” Gallegos said.

That deadly armed robbery happened earlier this month at Tobacco Town in northwest Albuquerque.

Toddler-Masking Biden Says Governors Are ‘Playing Politics With the Lives of…Children’
The president bemoans the incivility of politics while accusing Republicans of being “cavalier” about the potential for dead kids.

On September 10, President Joe Biden lamented to a group of Washington, D.C., middle schoolers that political disputes in 2021 have become far too nasty.

“One of the lessons I hope our students can unlearn is that politics doesn’t have to be this way,” Biden said. “Politics doesn’t have to be this way. They’re growing up in an environment where they see it’s…like a war, like a bitter feud….I mean, it’s not how we are. It’s not who we are as a nation. And it’s not how we beat every other crisis in our history. We got to come together.”

When an elected executive complains that politics is too much like war, the prudent thing to do is to do reach for your flak jacket. And sure enough, literally in the preceding paragraph, the president implied that some GOP politicians don’t care overmuch if their constituents die.

“Look, I’m so disappointed that particularly some Republican governors have been so cavalier with the health of these kids, so cavalier with the health of their communities,” Biden said. “We’re playing for real here. This isn’t a game. And I don’t know of any scientist out there in this field that doesn’t think it makes considerable sense to do the six things I’ve suggested” as a path out of the pandemic.

Table that “I don’t know of any scientist” whopper for later, and fast forward to last night. Perhaps because his previous accusations didn’t attract much attention from the nodding-along media, Biden again trained his rhetorical howitzers onto GOP electeds.

Continue reading “”

Finally:
Action on Taliban Hostage Situation With Americans in Mazar-i-Sharif.
But that’s only one (1) of six planes that sitting there.

 

I’m not going to ‘fisk ‘ this in too much detail. It’s clear that this college student is just another over educated indoctrinated proggie.
What I will do is this:
I remember somewhere years ago reading an article about placing too much reliance on centuries old English goobermint declarations and documents, their 1689 Bill of Rights in particular.
The point being made was that, although our nation was formed from English colonies, and our Bill of Rights was based on the concepts found in the earlier English one, ours is not bound or restricted by it.
We The People‘ , citizens of the U.S., secured rights to ourselves and restricted goobermint, as specified in our Bill of Rights own preamble.
The subjects of England have their rights granted and restricted by their goobermint.

This child can ‘observe’ all he wants. What I see is another elitist who likely finds all those icky guns in the hands of all those icky people almost too much to bear.


Observations Regarding the Interpretation and Legacy of the Statute of Northampton in Anglo-American Legal History

The Statute of Northampton of 1328 remains central to the current debate surrounding the limits and protections the Second Amendment provides to carry arms in public.[1] The Statute provided that “no man great nor small, of what condition soever he be, except the king’s servants in his presence…come before the King’s justices, or other of the King’s ministers doing their office, with force and arms, nor bring no force in affray of the peace, nor to go nor ride armed by night nor by day, in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the justices or other ministers” (2 Edw. 3, c.3). Certain Second Amendment scholars hold that the Statute was “not interpreted literally” and was only enforced when weapons were carried with the intent to terrify or threaten or when dangerous and unusual weapons were carried.[2] While the Statute has been much studied, some key sources remain neglected, namely the reliance of Sir. Edward Coke on 13th Century English legal scholar Henry de Bracton in Coke’s interpretation of the Statute. Coke’s quotations from de Bracton, which have usually been ignored because they are written almost entirely in Latin, offer additional evidence that the Statute of Northampton was understood to be a broad-based prohibition on the carrying of arms.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
This is another example of “rules for thee but not for me.” If “The Squad” truly believed defunding the police was a good idea, they wouldn’t hire off-duty cops for self-protection. ……….It’s time for them to sit down, shut up, and put their money where their mouth is. They should have to live like the rest of us, even if they are in the public eye.

No Surprise: ‘Squad’ Members Pay the Most in Private Security While Working to Abolish the Police

Over the last few years, “The Squad” – comprised of Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Cori Bush (D-MO) – have worked to “defund the police.” Although they continually say stupid things, like they want to “reimagining” what policing in the United States looks like, the reality is simple: they want to do away with law enforcement agencies across the country.

Americans across the country rely on two things to keep themselves and their families safe: law enforcement and/or their Second Amendment rights. When an emergency takes place, most people call 911 and know at least one law enforcement officer will be there to help them in their time of need.

What’s amazing – although not surprising – is “The Squad” wants to do away with emergency services for you and me. But that decision wouldn’t impact them. In fact, the five women have spent a large sum of money on local law enforcement officers for private security. That’s right. Our lives aren’t worth protecting but theirs are.

But the real kicker? They spent more than any other House members on private security.

The New York Post broke down their security costs:

In the two months between April 15 and June 28, Bush spent nearly $70,000 of her campaign funds on personal security, the most of any House lawmaker. That’s almost $20,000 above the median household income for residents in her district, which covers St. Louis and adjacent communities. Bush, who often wears a Black Lives Matter or a “Y’All Gone Stop Killing Us!” t-shirt, says she believes defunding the police would prevent the deaths of people like Michael Brown and Breonna Taylor. But it’s unclear who would stop the killing that would then ensue. Of the 130 homicide victims in St. Louis so far this year, half of whose residents are African-American, all but ten victims were African-American (98 men and 22 women). The vast majority of these involved firearms — not one fired by a police officer. 

Continue reading “”

David Frum is wrong: Guns save lives and sustain communities
From self defense to funding fire departments, they’re woven into the culture of red America

The debate over guns in the United States could, until recently, be divided into two extreme camps: the liberal elites (invariably protected by armed guards) who call for ever-more restrictive control of firearms, the basic functionality of which they cannot even begin to explain, and the uber-conservative right, for whom guns are a way of life and are ofttimes life-sustaining.

David Frum is evidently of the first faction, writing in The Atlantic this month about how ‘Responsible Gun Ownership Is a Lie.’ Gun sales – especially among first-time gun buyers – surged between 2019 and 2020, and continue to smash records. This trend has Frum worried.

As a card-carrying member of the second camp (I literally have a Sandy Ridge Sportsmen’s Club membership card a’settin’ here on my desk), I’d like to give Frum and other anti-gun radicals the benefit of the doubt, at least until they’ve had the chance to finish reading this article. Let’s pretend that their civilian disarmament schemes stem from innocent ignorance. Perhaps Frum and others like him simply do not understand the life-giving role guns play in society – especially in rural America.

Guns can be scary. I get it. They are loud, and, with even a little power, capable of much destruction. They are not unlike elected officials in these ways.

But in the backwoods of Pennsylvania, where Hunter-Trapper Education Certification was part of my required fifth-grade curriculum, and the opening of deer season always means two consecutive school holidays, guns are more than a political talking point.

Considering this, the debate over guns should really be set against the backdrop of two different, apolitical sets: those who understand gun culture and those who do not.

Those of us who grew up around guns know them to be tools useful in the procurement of food, the dispatching of predators, a unifying pastime, the prize showpiece of a collector’s mantle, and, yes, an invaluable means of self-defense.

Guns are more powerful than Frum thinks, but not in a bad way. In some places, firearms take on a vital role that sustains entire communities.

Continue reading “”

Tulsa’s latest 3 homicides occurred within a span of 38 hours, and each is considered justifiable

Self-defense claims are nothing new to the homicide detectives at the Tulsa Police Department, but to have three in a row that appear to be legitimate is, at the least, “strange.”

And to know the three killings were carried out in a mere 38 hours might just be something new — even to detectives who have spent more than a decade in the unit, Tulsa Police Lt. Brandon Watkins said.

“There’s a lot of people who claim self-defense,” Watkins said. “That’s usually the first refuge that people go to when they come in, but we look at the evidence.

“On these three cases, the evidence was compelling.”

The cases make up the 35th, 36th and 37th homicides to occur in Tulsa this year, according to Tulsa World records. Two of the victims died of gunshot wounds, and the third died after being stabbed; all in separate occurrences at the beginning of September.

Detectives released the names of the latter two victims on Thursday after previously releasing that of the first, which occurred about 4:15 a.m. Thursday, Sept. 2.

It was a shooting call in the 2100 block of North Hartford Avenue, and victim Isaac Weeks was found with a gunshot wound to his chest. He died at a hospital.

The 40-year-old had been at a birthday party thrown in his honor all throughout the day before, Watkins said, and he was likely intoxicated when he began waving a gun around in the wee hours of the night. His actions prompted a couple of guests to leave, but Weeks followed them and reportedly pointed his gun at a man, who shot him.

Watkins said the encounter was caught on surveillance footage, and the shooter turned himself in shortly afterward and was questioned before being released.

Police received another call later that evening: A homeowner shot and killed a man he said broke into his home, stole his belongings and attacked him.

The resident told police he received an alert that someone was attempting to break into his house in the 900 block of South Allegheny Avenue, and when he arrived at the address, he found a man later identified as Stevie Ashlock carrying items from his residence.

Ashlock reportedly began attacking the homeowner with a metal object when he called 911 and attempted to keep Ashlock from leaving the property.

The homeowner shot him in the torso about 5:10 p.m., and Ashlock, 34, died at a hospital. The homeowner suffered some scrapes, Watkins said, but no great physical harm.

The next day, a fist fight outside a convenience store at 49th Street and Yale Avenue turned deadly when a man pulled out a knife and stabbed another in the neck.

Joseph Sexton, 23, died of his injuries despite fairly quick medical attention, Watkins said.

“It was just a particularly bad wound,” Watkins said, indicating Sexton suffered an arterial bleed.

Watkins said the stabber and Sexton didn’t seem to know each other, but several witnesses along with surveillance footage pointed to Sexton as being the instigator of a fight.

“We don’t really know why the fight was being picked,” Watkins said. “But from what we’ve been able to pick up in interviews with people, (Sexton) just liked to fight.”

The man tried to hold Sexton off before eventually stabbing him, Watkins said. He fled the area, leading police to track him down in the days following, but Watkins said he was questioned and released.

This year hasn’t come close to producing as many homicides as the near-record amount of homicides Tulsa saw in 2020—this time last year, 58 homicides had occurred—but case complexity-wise, there is no break in sight, Watkins said.

Five “whodunits” out of the 37 cases detectives have received are proving to be especially challenging, but the investigations are ongoing.

“We never stop,” Watkins said

Man shot after broken necklace dispute in Jefferson County ruled self-defense

JEFFERSON COUNTY, Ala. (WBMA) — A 31-year-old man is dead after an argument over a broken necklace led to a shooting early Sunday morning, according to the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office.

The sheriff’s office said Maurice Carter was shot after witnesses reported he showed up to a home angry about a chain necklace that had been damaged during an altercation earlier in the evening.

The sheriff’s office said Carter reportedly came to the home in 200 block of 18th Avenue Northwest around 2:15 a.m., began arguing, and pulled out a gun.

Carter then reportedly pointed the gun at one of the people at the home.

The sheriff’s office said that person was reportedly able to back away from Carter with his hands up and retrieve a shotgun.

The shotgun was fired once and Carter was struck.

SEE ALSO: Woman shot to death during family argument in Fairfield

The sheriff’s office said Carter fled around the side of the home where responding deputies located him.

Deputies attended to Carter until medical personnel arrived.

The sheriff’s office said Carter was taken to UAB hospital where he was later pronounced dead.

After presenting the case to the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office, the sheriff’s office said it was determined that the shooting of Carter was in self-defense and that there will be no charges pursued.