Archive for the ‘Featured’ Category

Gillette Shaves Toxic Masculinity

Tuesday, January 15th, 2019

It’s another depressing sign of the times.  Gillette has become the latest victim of androphobia, a disorder that seems to be sweeping the land.  As a result, their marketing department (apparently composed of hypoandrogenous boys and/or misandrous women,) is busy setting out to offend a sizable proportion of their customer base.  I don’t know what sort of business school they attended, but it can’t be a good one.  The video below chides men to drop their toxic masculinity in favor of some sort of more “civilized” maleness.  What none of these dolts seem to understand is that it has always been men who have civilized the world.  Otherwise, it would still be a matter of “rule of the jungle.”  Men won’t let themselves be bullied in this way, but it’s important to understand what’s at stake.  The Gillette Company was once a world leader, but it’s not the same company that King Gillette founded any longer.  A long time ago, when I was a young man with barely enough whiskers to shave, I bought my first razor, and it was a Gillette.  I’ve used Gillette razors all my life, but this advertisement tears it for me.  I’m a man, and wouldn’t be mistaken for anything else.  I doubt the women in and around my life would consider me “toxic” in any sense.  The idea that the default conduct of men is to rape, rampage, pillage and grill everything in sight is absurd.  When I first viewed this video, I kept waiting for the punchline. It never came:

 

Perhaps it is that Gillette is just trying to be noticed, and that this is some sort of marketing-department-generated publicity scam, but it doesn’t seem that way.  It seems as though the marketing department has been taken over by people who don’t know what masculinity is, but certainly seem to have captured every bad stereotype about it.  In much the same way that media loves to create caricatures of every group, but then disclaims bigotry, here Gillette has decided to portray men in the most negative fashion.  Masculinity is all about violence and abuse, if we are to take this video seriously.  According to this video, “men need to hold other men accountable.”  It’s been men holding men accountable since Genesis.

I’m actually surprised that more women don’t react badly against this.  They are the sisters, mothers, and daughters of men.  Surely, they cannot agree that this portrayal, this bad caricature of men, is anything but absurd.  One of the other things always implicit in this nonstop screed against the radical feminists’ view of manhood is that this is the default orientation of all men; if this is so, all women who choose men must be also fatally flawed.  They never seem to understand the self-indictment implicit in this view.

The odd part is that the masculinity portrayed in this video is out of control.  I’ve never associated “out of control” with the pinnacle of masculinity.  In fact, the models of masculinity I’ve known were very much in control of their lives and their passions.  I’m fairly certain that part of what my father set out to accomplish with us boys was to make us civilized, thoughtful, respectful, but only combative when self-defense or sport required it.  If Gillette sees masculinity in the light they’ve portrayed it here, I don’t believe they know their customers, and can’t possibly serve them well.  On that basis, I’m switching to Schick.  If that company goes off the deep end, I’ll switch to a straight razor or grow a beard.  I’ve been around far too long to permit some pubescent twits to insult me.  I don’t need them; they need me.

Grilling is always good, by the way.

Advertisements

Paul Ryan Sabotaged Nunes’ Deep State Investigation

Monday, January 14th, 2019

Swamp Rat Number One

Long-time readers will be aware that I’ve never thought much of former Speaker Paul Ryan(R-WI,) and that I’ve long thought he was just a Washington DC insider getting wealthy on his connections and position.  Now comes news that confirms what I thought all along: Paul Ryan actually punished Devin Nunes(R-CA) for tipping-off President Trump about the deep-state spying on the Trump campaign that occurred in the last year of the Obama administration.  No wonder then that Paul Ryan retired as Speaker of the House.  If the abuses of the FISC and the FISA process is ever fully disclosed, people like Ryan are going to be caught up in it all.  Ryan and his ilk are the swamp.  It’s no secret that Ryan didn’t want Trump elected, and did everything he could do undermine him.  Sure, he made some campaign appearances apparently on Trump’s behalf, but let’s be blunt: It was all about keeping up appearances.  The real truth came out when it was disclosed by Cleta Mitchell on Lou Dobbs’ show that Ryan punished(!) Nunes by putting him before the ethics committee, and that action stalled Nunes’ investigation for a year:

Do you understand what this really was? Paul Ryan, using his power as Speaker of the House, tied up Devin Nunes in a phony ethics committee investigation because he went to the President to warn him about the plot against him.  While Nunes was out of the picture, the investigation was being stalled and obfuscated.  Only once the ethics committee dispensed with the nonsensical ethics review was Nunes restored as chairman, and by then, he was going to be in a race to get things revealed to the public before the midterms of 2018.

This is sick.  Paul Ryan helped the DC Uni-Party get away with their crimes, if ultimately, they manage to do so.  I like Dan Bongino’s term for insider, DC Republicans: “Swamp Rats.”  Paul Ryan is all of that and more.  I wonder how many other swamp rats are among the Republicans who “retired” in 2018. They’ve been helping Obama’s people avoid justice because they’re owed justice too.  President Trump had better focus some of his energies on cleaning up the DC swamp before it swallows him whole.

Democrats Flooding Presidential Field

Sunday, January 13th, 2019

The latest Democrat to announce she’ll throw her hat into the ring is Hawaiian Representative Tulsi Gabbard.  The 37-year-old combat veteran joins a growing list of Democrats with short résumés crowding the field.  Of course, among Democrats, such a politician stands some chance of winning the nomination, if only because Democrats seem to seek out electoral phenomena rather than qualified leaders.  In some rare cases, like in 2008, they’re able to prevail.  Across America, there are dozens of female Democrat politicians who want to be the first female president.  It’s not to say there aren’t any in the Republican party, but Republican women generally seek to make their own résumés stronger, knowing that while the media will give popular Democrats a pass on qualifications, there’s no chance a Republican will ever be treated that way.  Young and relatively attractive, Gabbard has been cultivating an image as a “moderate” in her party, but it’s all show.  In the end, she’s another leftist, and she will advance the interests of the state.  Even twenty years ago, I’d have said she’s nuts.  Nowadays, given the direction of the Democrat Party, that seeks power at the expense of all else, anything is possible.  In a rational civilization, none of these people would have a chance, and that’s a problem for Democrats.

Gabbard is writing a memoir, which is another laughable notion, in my view.  I’m sixteen years her senior, and I don’t warrant a memoir.  In fact, I don’t want to read a person’s autobiography or memoir until they’re at least sixty years old, and then, they’d better have something compelling to say.   At thirty-seven years of age, the last four spent in Congress, what exactly has she done that is so memorable?  I don’t wish to belittle her combat experience, as she did her duty and did it honorably by all reports, but it wasn’t exactly like Audie Murphy’s. It’s also useful to note that she was a legislative aid to long-time Hawaiian Senator Daniel Akaka, a mostly useless legislator but reliable vote for the Democrats.  I don’t know that this is the source of her qualification.  By the time the 2020 campaign begins in earnest later this year, she’ll have roughly five years in the House of Representatives.  For the same reason I don’t think Robert Francis “BETO” O’Rourke is qualified on the basis of his congressional service, neither is she.

To report it bluntly, this is a problem that face most of the younger Democrats who plan on running for the Presidency: They’re not really an accomplished lot, all in all.  That doesn’t mean they can’t win, but it does mean they have serious credibility problems with a huge proportion of voters.  The most likely nominee is probably former Vice President Joe Biden, who despite his age, has plenty of pull within the Democrat Party establishment.  If Gabbard and some of the other younger Democrats are shrewd, they know this and will try to hitch themselves to Biden as the Vice Presidential candidate, and that could be Gabbard’s play here.  She doesn’t have the name recognition even within her own party yet, but if she plays her cards right, she might elevate herself in this way.

Part of the problem for Democrats is that they have either old tired bulls like Biden and a completely damaged old socialist like Bernie Sanders(I-VT,) or crazy, damaged moon-bats like Elizabeth Warren(D-MA). This leaves the inexperienced youngsters like Gabbard.  That’s not a solid path to the presidency, and if President Trump decides to seek a second term, his list of accomplishments to date will make him formidable for re-election.  Never forget that the power of incumbency is huge.  Few sitting presidents are ever defeated, and it takes a truly terrible performance for the people who elected a President to reverse their previous vote.

What I think candidates like Gabbard indicate is the frailty of the Democrat Party.  She would make a formidable candidate if she first spent some time as Governor, or something along those lines, but at present, she’s not ready.  This is the case for many Democrats in this rapidly expanding field.  There’s almost no chance they’ll be elected, but rank-and-file Democrats under forty tend to vote on emotion, so one can never say “never.”  During his two terms, Barack Obama did very little to grow the next generation of Democrat politicians.  They have some youngsters with promise, but they need more experience.  One might consider the laughable young New York Congressional member, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and it’s easy to see how Democrats can become so enthusiastic about her.  She’s raising unholy Hell at the moment, but it’s only a matter of time until leadership in the party reins her in.

Democrats face a serious problem in 2020.  Their surplus of viable candidates is mostly illusory, as demonstrated by Gabbard.  Strictly, she’s apparently a natural born citizen who has obtained the age of 35 years, but apart from military service and a few terms in Congress, I don’t see any accomplishments in her history that imply a significant or compelling qualification.  There is no record of having accomplished anything.  Where is the legislative record?  It’s pretty thin.  All in all, this is what most of the Democrats must confront.  Their old bulls have serious weaknesses.  If the Democrats run Clinton again, they’ll be beaten even worse than in 2016.  If Bernie runs, it will be a catastrophe of competing grievances against him.  He’s too damaged now to win the Presidency, and it’s now getting worse daily with the latest revelations about his 2016 campaign.  Biden certainly has a chance at winning the nomination, and with a younger, vibrant Vice Presidential running mate, perhaps like Gabbard, he might be able to pull it off.  The truth is, however, that despite their apparent electoral advantages, Democrats have a serious problem: They’re mostly not likable, by and large, and in their party, that emotional pull is a prerequisite, but even where they meet it, they’re desperately inexperienced.  As they flood in to fill the field, they should take care not to leave their few viable contenders in the position of lifeguards surrounded by a desperate crowd of drowning people.  Those who find themselves drowning may drag the stronger swimmers under with them.

Democrats Fighting For Their Lives

Saturday, January 12th, 2019

Scared Witless

The Democrats’ collective panic is growing in Washington DC.  Associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in rough condition, and may not hold on much longer.  President Trump is considering an emergency declaration with which to build a wall.  From the point of view of the Democrats, who were just sworn in as the majority in the House of Representatives, things are looking very desperate and very bleak.  Two legs of their electoral stool are under serious threat.  Roe v. Wade is the basis for a substantial proportion of Democrat fund-raising.  Protecting that faulty 1973 decision from Trump’s potential court nominees is essential.  Meanwhile, if Trump succeeds in building the wall, causing border-jumpers slow to a trickle, the leftist plan for re-populating America with voters who are apt to support their agenda becomes less certain.  If Trump launches a serious attack on their dominance of unions, the Democrats may explode in a furious tirade of violent protests.  They would be left teetering on the single remaining leg of their stool, the identity politics leg, and if that fails, the Democrat party will collapse and fade away.  They don’t dare admit it, but the faces of Chuck and Nancy on Tuesday evening said it all: Democrats are fighting for their electoral lives.  Like trapped wild animals, they are going to lash out in frightened fury; nothing is too ridiculous to consider.

It’s easy for conservatives to become discouraged.  The pace at which actual justice moves in this country seems slow when it is the DC uni-party elites who are to be investigated and judged.  The media is their organ, and there is no disguising the fact that for all appearances, they seem to have every advantage.  They’ve been busily driving the country into a ditch for more than a century without many intermissions.  They’ve captured our schools, our media, nearly all of higher education/academia, much of the legal establishment, and virtually all of the popular culture they dare show us.  They indoctrinate our children from the earliest moment that we find ourselves turning our kids over to them, and worst, and almost certainly most galling of all, they’ve figured out how to make us pay for it all!

The picture is quite grim when viewed in this way, but let’s try looking at it somewhat differently:  Despite all the advantages they’ve come to enjoy, their grasp on power is rather tenuous.  Their entire position relies on all the legs of their electoral stool remaining intact.  If any one of them falters or fails, they wind up on their backs.  They must have:

  • Judicial and Administrative control of the law
  • Unfettered illegal immigration
  • Big Labor’s undying devotion(and cash)
  • Racial, Ethnic, and Religious tensions bordering on open warfare(Identity Politics)
  • Control of popular media culture

They must hold the courts.  Too many of their most important voting and funding constituencies require it.  The more judges President Trump can place on all the Federal courts, the greater the chance that the left will find itself unable to sustain it ridiculous legal aims.  All President Trump needs to do is to populate our courts with “originalists,” or “contextualists” in the mold of departed Justice Antonin Scalia, or current Justice Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito.  If Trump is able to secure a second term, continuing his good works in the judicial arena, he will have been one of the most successful conservatives in history.  This is why the left is so thoroughly “freaked-out” by the possible loss of Ginsburg.  They are willing to concoct and contrive anything, any sort of scandal, that will help them defeat, impeach, or at least neuter President Trump.  What else could be the meaning of dragging Michael Cohen before Congress?  Why else does Mueller seem to come out of the woodwork each time the President is on the rise?  The idea is to knock him down at each turn, stealing attention away from the president, while trying to chip away at his credibility one miserable tiny cut at a time.

Illegal immigration must continue unrestrained.  The Democrats’ more radical fringe of yesteryear knew that overloading our social welfare system would eventually bankrupt the country and drop us into Venezuela-like, catastrophic hyper-inflation.  Under those conditions, all bets are off, because radical demagogues will be able to offer every manner of cockeyed solution and have at least some of the desperately poor population believe it.  Run-of-the-mill Democrats knew that at the very least, they could replace the electorate against which they’d begun to lose routinely with newly-minted Americans upon whom they could rely to maintain the Democrats in power.  Notice that up until Obama came to office, the Democrats at least feigned opposition to illegal immigration. What changed is that in 2010-11, with the rise of the Tea Party, they realized that there was a “silent majority,” which when roused, could absolutely curtail all Democrat power.  This was the impetus for the shift.  After the Tea Party, the Democrats (and not a few foolish DC-beltway Republicans) decided that the only way to get an electorate to agree with them was to import it.  Not satisfied with illegal immigration, they’re waiting for the optimum circumstance in which they have a President and both houses of Congress open to a mass amnesty, and on that day, we will suddenly have 25-30 million new voters, at least eighty percent of which will be Democrats.  That’s the plan, folks.  It will then be two generations before anybody rises to defeat the statists, but by then, they’ll have so thoroughly destroyed the country and its constitution that it will be moot anyway.

Big labor has been the exclusive province of Democrats since at least Franklin Roosevelt.  There is little chance that Republicans will reverse this any time soon, at least where the unions as institutions are concerned.  The rank and file has shifted toward Trump specifically, in part due to his position on trade, but also because their own lives’ experiences lead them away from hard-left ideology.  This is not insignificant, and it’s part of the reason that even some leaders in big labor are leaving open the possibility that President Trump could get their endorsements in 2020.  Another factor in big labor is that their effectiveness as fund-raising mechanisms for Democrats is being curtailed to some degree by the judiciary.  As compulsory membership dues are coming under increasing judicial scrutiny, this will impede unions’ power over their membership and their impact in electoral politics.

Identity politics, or the politics of collectivized grievances, is one of the most insidious tools of the Democrats.  They own this segment, and the problem is that this leg of the Democrat stool largely controls academia and the education establishment.  At present, Republicans have no hope of taking any share of this segment, but more importantly, they shouldn’t desire to capture this wing, even were they able.  This is a completely despicable part, and at present, the indispensable leg, of the Democrat Party’s political stool.  This leg must be demolished, but the method by which to wreck it is not clear.  The best approach will probably be to isolate and ridicule it, while letting it destroy itself.

In any event, with two of their pillars under clear assault, Democrats will permit themselves to do anything you might imagine to attack their opponents, most particularly President Trump.  In the coming weeks, they will haul liars before Congress to slander the President, they will continue their highly coordinated attacks on the basis of the government’s partial shutdown, they will heighten their attacks on the President’s illegal immigration control initiatives, and they will present alleged “alternatives” like Nancy Pelosi’s “technological fence.”  We mustn’t permit ourselves to be misled by any of this nonsense, and we must remain focused on defeating the left.  While they will go to great lengths to hide the fact that they are in danger.  The media, which are the buttresses that brace the legs of their stool, propping up their lies and myths, have completely fooled the American people.  The truth is that they are much more desperate than they acknowledge.  They’re going to lash out now; it’s going to be on all fronts, and at once.  They dare leave the matter either to chance or to public sentiment. The time is drawing near in which they will commence total war on our President.  He’s really the last firewall between the American republic and its enemies, apart from we, the people.  The Democrats are wounded, cornered, and  explosively vicious.  They’re down, but not out, and they’re preparing to unleash Hell on the country to stave off complete defeat.

President Considers Emergency Declaration

Thursday, January 10th, 2019

There are reports that President Trump is considering an emergency declaration to build the wall.  The whole of the DC uni-party establishment is going to obstruct this action by any means possible.  As it becomes more and more evident that the Democrats will not compromise with Trump, never mind yield, I think it’s rapidly becoming apparent that if there is to be a border barrier or wall of any sort, President Trump is going to need to declare an emergency, bring in the Army Corps of Engineers, and build the wall out of funds that already exist for emergency construction projects.  There are tens of billions of dollars available.  It may be time for the President to make war against illegal immigration.  War.  It’s what a plurality of the American people expect, and it is a plurality of Americans, via the electoral college that elects presidents.  Even now, the media is scrambling to figure out a way to ask a poll question that won’t show this fact.  President Trump is winning, and so long as he stands firm, he’ll win.  In stark contrast, the longer Speaker Pelosi(D-CA) and Minority Leader Schumer(D-NY) hang onto this shutdown, stubbornly opposing the will of the people, the bigger their loss is going to be.  The whole truth that the media, including FoxNews, is hiding from you is that Trump’s margin of support is increasing.

There’s an effort to stop any emergency declaration among some DC establishment Republicans.  Your Senators and Representatives still need to hear from you.  If you’re a Texan, you need to call Senator Cornyn(R-TX) and tell him to get off his duff and support the wall.  Do you know why Ted Cruz(R-TX) wasn’t defeated by Robert Francis O’Rourke?  The conservatives of Texas got out there and pushed him through.  Does Cornyn think he’ll get that kind of support when BETO v2.0 come along when he comes up for re-election?  Not a chance.  Conservatives ought to know that this is a chance to really take the measure of their Congressmen and Senators.  Any Republicans who don’t support this critical issue ought to be challenged in their next primary election.

I believe the President should declare an emergency.  I believe he should use existing emergency statutes to take the least amount of property possible from Americans living along the border, and compensate them accordingly.  I think he should use funding that already exists in emergency accounts, and he should bring in the Army Corps of Engineers to build it.  He should bring in Army combat engineers and Navy Seabees to provide the labor.  On the one hand, we’re not building improvised landing strips or beach-heads in any foreign S-holes at the moment, so they need the training.  We can send the 1st Cavalry Division, including all air assets, from Fort Hood, Texas, to provide security and support.

I think President Trump is right about at least one more important factor:  Our military has been shipped all over the globe for the interests of people all over the globe, except Americans, in most cases.  For a change, the military can support the American republic.  Even now, the Pentagon is drawing up contingencies for deploying forces to build the wall.  Meanwhile, the left continues to push the “manufactured crisis” narrative, as CNN fake-Republican Ana Navarro demonstrated her contempt by filing her nails as murders by illegal aliens were being discussed.

I am happy to support President Trump’s efforts on our behalf.  This situation has gone on without any sort of serious response for far too long.  It’s time we put our politicians on notice, now that we have a president who, thus far, evinces the will to get this done.  To get it done, he may need to effectively declare war on illegal immigration.  If we’re to save this country, this is a war we must fight and win.

 

 

 

 

 

President Trump Makes the Case; Democrats: “No!”

Wednesday, January 9th, 2019

In an Oval Office address on Tuesday night, President Trump delivered a simple, straightforward address.  In the address, he laid out the humanitarian, law enforcement, and national security case for building a serious border wall or barrier.  He left no ambiguity about the effect our border has on our nation, now essentially in an open and undefended state.  He refuted the notion put forward by incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi(D-CA) last week that the wall is “immoral.”  The President made it clear that what is immoral is the collection of DC politicians who refuse to help fund our nation’s security, leaving Americans wide open to being victimized by illegal aliens.  What was shocking about last night’s events was the response by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer(D-NY) and Speaker Pelosi.  The pair looked wooden, and scripted, almost Howdy-Doody-like.  Memes popped up on Twitter and elsewhere, and a lot of sport was had at the pair’s expense.  They accused the President of lying and “creating a crisis.”  After a few minutes, it was clear that they were making a political argument, but they were not addressing the crisis at the border.  First, here’s the President’s statement:

Then came the response by Schumer and Pelosi:

There were many memes, but this struck me funny:

American Tragic

There were many memes throughout the evening after the speeches, however, to return to the more serious matter of border security, it seems as though President Trump’s purpose was to lay out the case for actions he may be planning to take if Congress will not negotiate in good faith to build the border wall or barrier the country needs.  He may be forced to take emergency action, and if so, this address will likely have laid the groundwork for an emergency declaration with the American people should Congressional Democrats refuse to assist him in securing the country.

 

 

Our President Needs Our Help

Tuesday, January 8th, 2019

President Trump isn’t merely trying to uphold a campaign pledge, although that’s surely part of it too.  He isn’t simply pandering to his base, although the media would like to defame him with that smear, since it’s what passes for normal in Washington, DC.  President Trump is fighting like Hell for us!  It’s our nation. It’s our children who are maimed and murdered in endless mayhem by the illegal immigrants who stream across our Southern border every day.  You can see the diminution of our nation daily.  Socialist welfare-state programs are breaking us.  Police officers slaughtered by illegal thugs!  This is out of control, and it must finally end.  It’s our country!  Many readers of this blog were Tea-Party folk, or patriots generally, and it was you who helped fuel this.  It was you who made the current surge possible.  It’s time to stand with our President.  I don’t agree with everything President Trump does, but on this issue, on the matters of the border and the security of our nation, he needs us to do verbal combat with the media that seeks to destroy his agenda which is our agenda in this issue.  Enforce the law!  Secure the border!  Line-jumpers to the end of the line! It’s time to build that wall!

President Trump should declare an emergency if need be to get this done.  The situation at the border is clearly a crisis, as Americans continue to be maimed and killed by people WHO SHOULD NOT BE HERE!

It’s time to create a little bit of a storm, folks. It’s time to get this done. Tonight, the President will address the nation, while the Fakenews and Democrats do everything they can to downplay the situation and mock President Trump, and by association, YOU. This is just like the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was trying to rebuild our defenses after the debacle of the Carter years, and the media downplayed the need for the build-up.  That build-up finally led to the end of the cold war.  That build-up vanquished our greatest external threat.

Here we are once more.  I have long held that a military draft is immoral, because I have always believed that so long as the country is worth defending, Americans will show up to defend her.  You’re blessed in that you’re not being asked to bear arms in this fight.  What we do need is YOUR voices. Let the voices of patriots everywhere rise in unison. Let them be heard above the lies and propaganda of the media.  This is our country, damn it!  It does not belong to the people who occupy the DC bubble or the Northeast media subculture.  It’s our country, and if we mean to take advantage of this chance to keep it, it’s time to support our President as he fights for us. While President Trump is fighting for our wall, let’s get engaged so that he can finally push this through. This is our moment to begin reclaiming our country.  Let’s not waste it.

Editor’s note: Where is our commitment?  We can fight this deep-state leviathan! Go out and spread the word. One person does make a difference. We can make a huge difference together. Go get’em!  All together now! 

Queue the tweets: #BuildThatWallNow! Call your representative and senators. Tell them to stand with our President. Ignore the media. Ignore the Democrats.  Get your family around the TV together tonight. 

Napolitano Wrong, As Usual

Tuesday, January 8th, 2019

As usual, the open-borders, chamber-of-commerce media, including FoxNews rushed out to tell you what you need to know.  As usual, they intentionally mislead you about the nature of the law. While I’ve already covered this issue, demonstrating plainly that President Trump has the authority, the media is great at lying and propagandizing, and sadly, that includes FoxNews on immigration-related issues.  Everything is squeezed through the filters they want you to see.  Let’s take a look at what FoxNews “Judicial Analyst” Andrew Napolitano has to say, and let’s see about the facts.  First, the video:

Now let’s analyze Napolitano’s claims and assertions about the law, which I’ve here paraphrased and condensed for further examination:

  • Presidents can’t seize property under emergency declarations.
  • Presidents can’t spend money without congressional authorization in an emergency.
  • The President must “make a case” for a declared emergency.
  • If the President had authority to spend money under emergencies, we’d have seen it before, but we haven’t.
  • Sometimes Congress has “looked the other way” when Presidents reallocate defense money from one use to another, but it doesn’t make it lawful.

First, as a general observation, let it be acknowledged that in certain respect, Andrew Napolitano is a radical libertarian on immigration generally, which is a strong reason for FoxNews to have picked somebody else to provide “Judicial Analysis.”  Naturally, FoxNews is itself a corporation that favor open borders, so it’s easy enough to understand their motives in picking open border hacks like Napolitano to make this particular case.

The first assertion of Napolitano was that the President cannot seize property under emergency declarations.

Let us go right to a pretty open-and-shut case: Roosevelt ordered the surrender of privately owned gold and gold certificates to the Federal Reserve on 5 April, 1933.  This was done under executive order 6102, with authority arising from the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended. Gold is private property. Roosevelt was acting pursuant to an emergency he declared. Not convinced? Let’s go on to a second example, shall we?  In 1944, Roosevelt ordered the plants, offices, and warehouses of Montgomery Ward to be seized in order to force compliance with an emergency-based order of collective bargaining with a labor union, due to the ongoing war, which was the basis of the emergency. (World War II.)

Let’s just stop right there on Napolitano’s first point.  He’s busted.  Thoroughly.  There are hundreds more examples where Presidents made seizures of private property in time of war or emergency.  It’s called the “rule of necessity,” and it is the legal basis for all emergency doctrine.  Like most libertarians, I find such authority despicable, but they exist, have been exercised, and precedents must be recognized, as all the “wise judicial analysts” like to insist.

The Law: 1  Andrew Napolitano: 0

His next assertion was that Presidents can’t spend money without authorization by Congress in an emergency.  Let’s ask a Democrat Congressman:


Imagine that!  In addition to this, however, there are at least three known instances of Presidents’ spending without any prior Congressional appropriations:

  • Washington’s Unilateral spending to suppress the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion
  • Jefferson’s purchases of saltpepper and sulphur after the Chesapeake incident
  • Lincoln’s advance of $2 million to purchase supplies in advance of the Civil War in 1861

(See pages 22-23 of the following PDF from Harvard Law:  Constitutionality of Executive Spending)

These are older examples, but if it was good enough for Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, it’s probably good enough for President Trump.

The Law: 2  Andrew Napolitano: 0

His next assertion was that Presidents must “make a case” to declare emergencies.  This implies that a President must go find approval.  That’s not the case. In point of fact, all a president must do is issue an emergency declaration, and point to his legal authority, and then act.  This has been done repeatedly.

The Law: 3  Andrew Napolitano: 0

His next assertion has already been covered: He claimed that if the President had such authority, we’d have seen it used before, but we haven’t.  See Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln above.

The Law: 4  Andrew Napolitano: 0

His last general assertion is that Congress may have “looked the other way” when it suited them, but that it isn’t lawful.

The problem with this notion is that legal precedents are born of such practices.  If Congress historically “looks the other way,” time after time, permitting the President to do such things without challenging them, it can also be interpreted as an endorsement of that action, or at least an affirmation of its legitimacy. In short, the court could very well view it as a precedent that bears upon their decisions thereafter.  “Looking the other way” once or twice might be tantamount to surrendering the issue in perpetuity.

The Law: 5 Andrew Napolitano: 0

Of course, there was at least one more assertion that had been made by Brian Kilmeade in the video clip above.  He mentioned that one couldn’t rightly term this an “emergency” because it would take too long.

This is a bizarre point.  The United States has been operating under all sorts of emergency statutes for DECADES, some of them continuously since the days of Jimmy Carter, and even earlier.  Read this fascinating article.

Imagine that, and yes, score Mr. Kilmeade a big fat zero.

It’s time for the left and the pro-amnesty, open-borders media and political culture to shut the Hell up and get out of President Trump’s way.  If he declares an emergency, he’ll have every bit of law and precedence on his side.

Panic in DC: Possible SCOTUS Vacancy Driving Impeachment

Tuesday, January 8th, 2019

She can barely remain awake when she appears in public.  It is now being reported that she won’t even sit for oral arguments of cases before the court.  It’s sad that, avoiding other catastrophic, sudden ends, we all eventually come ’round to the time when we can no longer keep up a standard work-day or working life.  Nobody wants to become useless.  Nobody wants to feel like a burden to their families or their fellow citizens.  Ego has a way of driving people to continue in a fashion that both logic and nature dictate is no longer possible.  Having survived at least three serious bouts of cancer, including pancreatic cancer, which few survive, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is no longer able to keep up the schedule of a Supreme Court justice, and those with even the barest human compassion realize that it is time for her to retire, but the left is in a panic.  Donald Trump is president, and they haven’t managed to impeach him yet.  They must get Ginsburg to hold on to life and her seat on the court if they are forced to put her on life support and a feeding tube, strapping her, scarecrow-like, to a stake.  They hope they can get rid of Trump by way of impeachment in time to appoint another leftist to replace Ginsburg. The leftists in Washington DC are contemplating everything from feeding tubes to a strange imitation of “Weekend At Bernie’s” in order to attempt to preserve the seat on the high court. None of it will work, but the shame lies in the insistence that this octogenarian remain on duty until they can conjure up a method to replace her with another radical leftist.  Perhaps worse, Ginsburg has given every indication that she’s willing to be used in this fashion.

What they haven’t really considered is that even if they impeached Trump tomorrow, and somehow convinced two-thirds of the Senate to remove him the day after, the problem of a dying/retiring Ginsburg would not go away: President Pence would then make the appointment, and a Senate firmly in the hands of Republicans would undoubtedly approve.  Game over.  Checkmate.

One would think this argument would be enough to convince them to mercifully relent, and to finally let Ginsburg go.  One might think that Ginsburg would finally give in and realize that no one person is that important to the court that they cannot be permitted to retire or die.  One might think those things, but one would have to be completely unaware of what drives leftists.  In their collective hive-mind, the possibilities are endless.  They are concocting everything that the human mind can conceive (and not a few things that it can’t) in order to preserve the seat on the court.  Democrats are convinced that if they can somehow rid themselves of Trump, they will be able to recapture the ideological edge on the court, but this is a fantasy.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been the most radical element on the court since Bill Clinton appointed her to replace Justice Byron White in 1993.  It is odd that a woman who advocated for making children younger than 12 years of age capable of consenting to sex is now treated by the left as some sort of indispensable totem on the court.  Or is it?  After all, Ginsburg has demonstrated throughout her career that she is capable of the most irrational radicalism.  She agitated on behalf of sex-integrated prisons.  That’s right, she wanted to house both male and female inmates together.  Ginsburg is the person who drove the replacement of the term “sex” with “gender,” a thing that ought to make every student of language happy to see her go.  In short, she’s been a half-baked lunatic her entire working life, which by my own estimation, has gone on at least twenty-five years too long.  I am not suggesting that I want her to die.   I merely wish her to retire, but given her influence on the court and the constitution these last twenty-five years, it cannot come soon enough.

When she finally leaves the court, there will be some chance of eliminating the numerical advantage the left has due to Justice Roberts’ ridiculous posturing as the new swing vote, and the President’s nemesis.  Ever since Obama and his crew exercised pressure on Roberts, he’s been unreliable at best.  Let us hope that should President Trump get another Supreme Court pick, he chooses as well as when he selected Justice Gorsuch.  I half expect Kavanaugh to wind up as a moderate justice, having been so thoroughly smeared by the left.  He’ll feel obliged to show he’s “fair,” despite what was done to him.  Whomever Trump may eventually pick, it must be a solid originalist.

This will not go easily.  As with everything else President Trump undertakes, he will find massive and unanimous opposition from the left, and some opposition from the NeverTrump wing of his own party.  People like Mitt Romney(R-UT) are always looking to be a thorn in his side.  The Democrats are in constant fear of losing a tight ideological strangle-hold on the Supreme Court, primarily for one reason: Roe v. Wade.  The 1973 decision of the court effectively legalized abortion from sea to shining sea; from conception through delivery.  Protecting Roe v. Wade is such a baseline imperative to the left because they know it is written on flimsy medical, scientific, and legal grounds.  It’s ripe for an overturn, and this is why the Democrats are in a quiet panic.  So much of the campaign contributions Democrats receive grows out of this poisonous, wretched well of murder-profiteering that they cannot afford to leave any stone un-turned in pursuit of wrecking Donald Trump’s ability to replace Ginsburg.

If you think they were dishonest and shrill when it came to Kavanaugh, you’ve had only a sample-sized taste of what Democrats will do.  They will all come out of the woodwork now.  They will attempt to impeach Trump.  They will attempt to remove him from office.  Wait for Mueller’s Get-Trump-Brigade to pull out all the stops.  Ladies and gentlemen, there is nothing more important to the near-term political future of the Democrats.  If they don’t stop Trump from appointing another Supreme Court justice, they will see their agenda seriously imperiled for the first time in three decades.

At the moment, Democrats are playing it cool.  “Nothing to see here, just move along.”  Behind the scenes, they are frantically scouring law books and case precedents in pursuit of a strategy to stop Trump.  They know Ginsburg’s time is likely running out.  She’s effectively the patron saint of Roe v. Wade on the court.  If they lose her, it will be horrifying for them, but to potentially lose her seat in the ideological balance of the court will lead them to do almost anything.  Behind the scenes, they’re in full panic mode, and while they don’t dare admit it, or even acknowledge they’re thinking about it, you’d better believe that almost nothing else is dominating their time.

Mitt Romney: The Bitter New Flake in the Senate

Monday, January 7th, 2019
Mitt Romney: The Bitter New Flake in the Senate

Mitt Romney: Next time, you’ll vote for him or else…

In the tone of a jilted spouse, even before he assumed the office of junior senator from Utah, Mitt Romney demonstrated clearly that he still doesn’t have what it takes to be President of the United States, and that he’s still not over his defeat of 2012.  In an Op-ed printed on New Year’s Day, in that bird-cage-liner called the Washington Post, Romney couldn’t help but take one swipe after another at President Trump.  He was throwing down a gauntlet, but not to Trump.  It’s as though he wanted to poke each member of the Trump-supporting electorate in the eye: How dare you not back him as enthusiastically in 2012 as you had backed Donald Trump in 2016?  Michigan, the state his father had governed, did not vote for Mitt in 2012, but the state went clearly and convincingly for Trump in 2016.  Romney is still angry.  He still cannot believe that the American people would pass over his petulant, broodingly childish ego in favor of Trump’s. He simply can’t believe it!  He’s every bit as angry about it as John McCain became after 2008, when he decided that the American people hadn’t been good enough to deserve a McCain Presidency.  To write this diatribe, going on about the temperament of the President, while demonstrating the utter indecency of his own character is astonishing.  The one thing made unmistakably clear in this episode is that Mitt Romney has demonstrated his own definitive incapacity for the Presidency, owing to a lack of character. Here is the ultimate case of a political pot calling the kettle “black.”

In 2012, many conservatives voted for Mr. Romney as an act of desperate self-defense, myself included.  In truth, it’s the same motive that caused me(and I suspect many other conservatives) to vote for all the Republicans of the last thirty years.  I don’t remember being smitten with George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, or Donald Trump.  This was certainly true of Romney, and it’s why I didn’t know whether I could stand to vote for him in 2012 even as I stood there looking wistfully at my ballot for all the other names I’d have preferred to be able to choose.   Let’s be blunt: The sort of establishment and/or moderate candidates who tend to win the Republican nomination surely are not my preference.  Encumbered as our nomination process has become with open primaries, (permitting Democrats and Independents to exert undue influence in selecting the Republican nominee,) it astonishes me when we can pick anybody with the ability to win.  Mitt Romney was not a winner.  He was saddled with all the worst aspects of the Republican establishment class, including a record that was decidedly big-government, low-freedom, and weak on immigration.  True “Law and Order” Republicans would have trouble with him, as would working-class Americans who recognized the vastly different priorities of the establishment so that they could not therefore raise any enthusiasm for Romney.  Add to this that he was not well-liked among evangelicals in the Republican party, and what resulted was a campaign destined to fail.

This was also true of McCain in 2008, although he had made a stronger play by selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate.  She’s solid, and the electorate recognized it, but they also recognized that she was not at the top of the ticket.  When McCain played his “suspended campaign” card  in the face of the financial crisis in the Fall of 2008, he might just as well have conceded on that day.  All the good will he had gained by selecting Palin was wiped out, and despite her incredible efforts to rescue McCain campaign in its last days, wanting to campaign in Michigan and so on despite being told “no,” even her Herculean efforts to resurrect the campaign could not overcome the insufficiency of the man at the top of the ticket.  After losing the election, McCain looked baffled, and then hurt, and finally angry.  Evangelicals had withheld too many votes.  He had betrayed too many conservatives in the past with some of his more ludicrous legislative initiatives, and too many remembered his harsh words about conservatives.  Naturally, all of the people in media whose favor he’d sought when bashing conservatives, had now abandoned him in favor of Barack Hussein Obama.  Even his unwillingness to pronounce his opponent’s middle name (lest he be accused of some “ism” or other,) made it plain to conservatives that while his running mate certainly was the real deal, McCain, himself, was not.

After that, McCain was never going to be anything but a pain in the ass to Republicans in general and conservatives in particular.  He was too embittered about his second rejection by the American people to be able to overcome his anger.  His first rejection in 2000, running against George W. Bush for the Republican nomination, was stinging, but it led him to further alienate himself from the very people he would need to show up enthusiastically in 2008.  Notice that Romney followed the same basic formula: In 2008, he lost to McCain in the primaries, and in the end, even having secured the nomination in 2012, he was still angry about his 2008 loss.  The Republicans never seem to notice that their moderate candidates always seem to get their nickers in a knot when they lose the nomination.  Instead of trying to make peace with and perhaps even win over conservatives, in their next attempt at the nomination, they seem always inclined to negate and mute the influence of conservatives in the nominating process, while still wanting their votes on election day.

There is also something that happens to the psyche of a person who  is rejected for that office by the whole body of the electorate.  Think of them, our last 10 Presidential losers: Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, John McCain, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, and Jimmy Carter.  Carter and Bush were salved by the fact that they at least won a single term in the Oval office.  Neither of them trusted the American people again afterward, but the fact that they had served a term in the office protected the American people from another candidacy by either.  It’s astonishing to realize that the tendency of those who lost outright, never to be elected, rather than seeking to make themselves more appealing to the electorate, simply insisted that there must be something wrong with the electorate.  One need only return to thoughts of Hillary and her “basket of deplorables” remark to see the truth in this.  Mitt Romney’s “forty-seven percent” remarks, while essentially true in some respects, had the same net effect on working-class Americans who felt as though they had been deposited in the bin of “47%-ers” by people like Romney who unapologetically hacked up companies and sold off their bits and pieces for profit while at Bain Capital.  It doesn’t matter that what he did was legal.  It doesn’t matter that what he did was perfectly sensible in economic and market-centered terms.  It was the fact that the people whose lives had been overturned by such events felt in his remarks a searing contempt for their lives and their plights, rightly or wrongly.

People who run for the office of President have a tremendous ego in virtually all cases.  This has been true since George Washington, a man who thought very highly of his own public reputation, working tirelessly throughout his life to maintain a particular image.  Every person ever to seek the office must have some notion about their superior ability to rule over their fellow man, or they would not seek the office.  It is a very heady thing to obtain power over one-third of one-billion people, as our modern presidents now must do.  People like Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton are among the sort who think they’re owed a term or two as President.  Mitt Romney thinks so highly of himself that he saw no problem in campaigning for the Senate as somebody who would not become a Flake or a McCain, opposing President Trump at every turn out of sheer bitterness.  As other observers have noted, during the campaign of 2018, Romney never said a word about his antagonistic intentions, now plain, with respect to President Trump.  Naturally, that’s precisely what he is going to do, and now the people of Utah can see it clearly.  In short, the people of Utah fell for it, and now we’re stuck with this presidential reject and his bitterness for at least six years.

I know the feeling.  In Texas, we have on the one hand, a solid conservative fighter in Ted Cruz, and on the other, an establishment hack in John Cornyn.  In Utah, they have Mike Lee, who has been a pretty solid conservative to date, and they have the newly minted Bitter Senator.  “Win some, lose some,” or so goes the saying.  Still, I think there’s a lesson to Americans in all of this: If somebody runs in the general election for the office of President, but loses, it’s time to put them out to pasture.  No office other than President will be enough to satisfy their ego, and there’s no limit to the damage they will permit themselves to do in order to punish the electorate who dared not to elect them.  Such is the case of Mitt Romney, and it’s a bitter lesson the voters of Utah will be forced to endure, and the rest of us, not quite bystanders, together with them.

 

Presidential Authority During National Emergencies

Sunday, January 6th, 2019

As the media begins to go absolutely nuts over the idea that the President might declare an emergency and re-allocate military funds to build the wall, it would be useful to review all the sorts of authorities any President has in time of emergency.  The radical statists who comprise the left are in favor of such power, but at the moment, such power, in the hands of President Trump, is contrary to their political interests.  Their whole shtick is “resist.”  Their rabid, anti-America base will oppose him simply because he’s not them.  The NeverTrump republicans, including opportunists like Mitt Romney, will undoubtedly oppose him.  Before the shrill voices grow louder, confounding our ability to understand the issue, let’s look at the law to see if we can easily surmise whether such an action by the President is authorized by the constitution.  After all, the constitution must be our yardstick.  With that in mind, let us examine why it is that President Trump is fully within the bounds of his constitutional authority to declare an emergency and build the wall, using the military to do so if need be.

First, let’s see what the President has to say on the matter, this past Friday in the Rose Garden:

One of the things always available to any president is the powers of Commander in Chief.  Article II of the United States Constitution makes one thing expressly explicit in Section II:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”(Emphasis mine.)

The bolded portion here is easily understood.  He’s in charge of the military.  He decides how and when federal troops and state militia[national guard] will be deployed.  He, solely, is vested with the authority to determine their mission, and their day-to-day activities in pursuit of that mission.  Not Congress.  Not the courts.  Not the Secretary of Defense(who works for him directly.)  Nobody else trumps the President in the deployment of the armed forces.  Nobody can countermand him in his role as Commander in Chief.  Not John Roberts.  Not Nancy Pelosi.  Not Mitch McConnell.  Got it?  Seriously, if you have any doubt whatever about this, I have doubts about your reading comprehension.

The President can, within his authority, bring all of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, be they active or reserve components, or National Guard components, and assign them the mission of building the wall.  He can, within the scope of his authority, redirect EVERY MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES, up to and including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and also all DoD civilians, shovels and pick-axes in hand, to begin building the wall. He has this authority.

Some will point out that this is all well and good – that the President has the manpower available – but he does not have the money for the materials.  Wrong. Since the President determines the disposition of the Armed Forces, he also has some significant latitude in determining a number of things.  He can, at any moment, instruct the SecDef to cancel a contract.  Imagine all the whining Congress critters who have significant defense contracts in their districts who would lose their collective minds when he redirected funds in this manner.  It’s within his authority. Also, he can call all active forces to support the Army Corps of Engineers, who he can command to direct the construction.  There are all sorts of caches of “emergency funds” built into various budget areas that can be put to work in this way.  Congress is powerless to stop it because they’ve already appropriated and authorized the funds.

The President of the United States has broad powers already delegated to him by Congress to meet various emergencies.  For instance, while I believe the War Powers Act is probably unconstitutional if any President wanted to challenge its limits, there is nothing to prohibit a president from feigning compliance. A president could very easily declare a national security emergency arising from our porous Southern border, and deploy our forces in support of that mission. At the very least, he’d have 60 days to make an initial report to Congress, and a further 30 days to withdraw forces(which means the limit is effectively 90 days, where US border operations would be concerned.)  He need only be able to show that there is an attack of any sort on the United States.  Did you happen to notice those Soros-funded idiots throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails and other weapons at our border agents recently?  That’s an attack against the United States, folks.

Readers would do well to acquaint themselves with Title 50 of the United States code.  It would also be useful to examine the Insurrection Act of 1807, as amended.  This, by itself, may provide all the justification Trump would need under existing law.  Congress would be powerless to impede him.  Under the auspices of the National Emergencies Act, the President can do all manner of thing, but all Congress may do is pass a joint resolution of both houses of Congress to stop it. (And this may be open to Presidential challenge in courts.)

As readers are well aware, the United States of America has been at war since 2001.  Due to this fact, the President’s general set of authorities are somewhat broader than they might otherwise be during peacetime.  Folks, President Trump has so much power that he hasn’t even begun to exercise that he could build a wall from San Diego to Manhattan before the courts could untangle it all.  The simple point is that the President has this authority.  You may not like it.  Hell, generally speaking, I don’t like it because it has been abused constantly to the detriment of the American people.  Wilson and Roosevelt were monsters.  They did so many things under “emergency doctrine” that still carry the weight and force of law that I shudder to consider it.  If President Trump finally acts to build a wall along our Southern border, it will be one of the rare legitimate uses of such powers in my lifetime.

Democrats and NeverTrump RINOs might hate it, but if President Trump pursues this course, he’s certainly got every manner of precedent to support him, and there is every conceivable loophole in existing law to support it.  If he really wants to, nothing can stop President Trump from building that wall, except perhaps  impeachment and removal, and while the Democrats may be able to carry out the first, there’s next to zero chance they can remove him in the Senate. The American people would revolt.  Bank on it.

A Time for Choosing…Again

Saturday, December 1st, 2018

trump_retweetIt was more than fifty years ago when, while campaigning on behalf of Barry Goldwater in October of 1964, Ronald Reagan asserted that America had arrived at one of those moments in history when the choice before the nation would set out direction for generations to come.  He called it “A Time for Choosing,” and parts or all of his speech is still replayed on talk radio shows, and quoted extensively in conservative media.  What’s not often mentioned often enough is that American chose incorrectly in that election, and we’ve paid a steep price ever since.  I’m no Ronald Reagan, but I contend that we have again arrived at “A Time for Choosing,” although in this case, the choice is not about an election.  This time, we’re confronted by something far more terrible.  This time, it’s not about our politicians, or even our laws, but instead about us.  It may or may not be resolved be elections.  It may result in a mass resort to violence.  Ladies and gentlemen, we now exist in a period not unlike 1860-61, a nation so thoroughly divided that it may not be held together.  The Special Counsel is using his offices and authority to gather and impound all of the evidence against himself and his co-conspirators.  Robert Mueller is attempting a new sort of coup d’etat, and if we permit it, we will never see liberty again.  Neither will our great-grandchildren.  It’s time to choose, and now, you must choose a side. Will you stand for our republic as you have so often pledged, or will you let the feral swine who have corrupted our system continue to run riot on our nation?  I, for one, will stand.

The Republican Party is a bankrupt institution.  They set aside conservative principles long ago in favor of pragmatism and electoral success.  They were also morally compromised, and easily gave over to extortion.  The Democrat Party is even worse, corroded over long decades by all sorts of communist and socialist radicals who have finally converted their party into the overt manifestation of Bolshevism in the United States.  The fact that Robert Francis O’Rourke(D-NY) could come so close to victory in Texas is evidence enough of the dire straits into which our nation has drifted.  That a bumbling, moronic dimwit like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(D-NY,) perhaps challenging even Houston’s own Shiela Jackson Lee(D-TX) for the title “dumbest person in Congress,” would not be possible but for the fact that America has chosen wrong regularly since Reagan put that choice to her people more than fifty years ago.  Our elected officials either seem unaware of what’s happening, or they seem to want what is coming. They exhibit no concern whatever for the future of the country, and no remorse whatever for what they will do to our children.  Meanwhile, the vast body of the people stands by silently, letting it happen with little or no opposition.

You might ask me what I’m on about. After all, this isn’t the first time I have issued a dire warning about the condition of our republic, and probably won’t be the last.  In this case, however, the cause is encapsulated in the speech of Dan Bongino, below.  He outlined what has really happened, and what’s worse is that he explains what’s likely to be the result.  Watch it:

If Bongino is correct, inasmuch as he suggests that justice will not come for the corrupt bastards running the show, our republic is dead.  Dead.  The trouble is that you will decide that matter.  Either you will insist on justice, or your will not.  This isn’t about whether you like or hate Donald Trump.  It’s not about any of that political claptrap.  This is about whether we’re going to have a republic of the sort to which we claim to pledge our allegiance, or instead a sort of banana-republic with a mere facade of “liberty and justice for all.”  Is this going to be the Potemkin village of liberty?  Were all our war dead sacrificed for that?

I want you to think most thoroughly about the meaning of what Bongino has laid out.  Just like Bongino, Trump was not my pick in the primaries of 2016.  Just like Bongino, I’ve come to admire the fact that for all his myriad flaws, it seems that Donald Trump loves the country, and that he at least fights like Hell. What bothers me most in all Bongino says here is a notion he confirmed in his podcast of Friday, the 30th of November: There will be a deal.

His proposition is that this scandal has been so broad and so vast and included large numbers of figures in the Clinton-Obama orbit that there is no way to bring them all simultaneously to justice, and that to attempt it would be to throw the country into anarchy, chaos, and turmoil.  His implication is that the Clinton-Obama crew has intentionally fomented a hair-trigger reaction from their political adherents such that we’d have an insurrection of some sort, were all the criminals simultaneously rounded-up.

Obviously, this is too small a blog for Mr. Bongino to know of, but I wish I had a way to convey to him a few things:

1.) This is personal. The toll the Clinton crime family, and all those connected to them, have exacted upon the people of this country is large, real, and thorough. I don’t care what the cost may be any longer.  After almost three decades of watching these people make utter wreckage of our nation, it is time they are brought before the bar of justice, and if we must have civil strife to bring them to justice, then let me sign first on the dotted line to be among the instruments that will quell that strife. My life, my fortune, and my sacred honor. All these, whatever token value they may be, I pledge to the preservation of the republic.

2.) This is a matter of Justice. Our US Department of justice has been an incredibly corrupt joke ever since the Clintons began using FBI files to blackmail members of Congress and their staff, members of the bureaucracy, and also members of the judiciary back in the 1990s. The entire US Federal government, including segments of every department, have been hollowed-out and undermined by this stinking, festering rot of corruption, favoritism, and extortion ever since.  There can be no restoration of the Department of Justice, never mind justice itself, if any sort of deal is made.  These people must all go down, whatever the cost.  If we must make a deal with the villains, there can be no justice, and the restoration of our Republic will remain out of reach, foiled this time by those who ought to have been its champions.

3.) It is said that the American people will not be able to process it all if such were to happen in one fell swoop.  I disagree.  I believe people of good nature and good faith have lost their trust in the righteous nature of the most of the American people.  Perhaps too long in and amongst the villains, some seem too willing to accept the villains’ assessments of the American people.  It’s as if they believe we “can’t handle the whole truth.” I assure you, this is a faulty notion and belief.  If the President and his cabinet and other relatively clean leaders in DC and around the country go forth to tell the American people the whole truth, the American people will hear it, but those who do not and who will not are likely of the same corrupted class as the villains.

To Mr. Bongino, I would say that the idea that it would be too much for the American republic to survive is to underestimate the heart of what is the republic.  At no other time in history has the republic been more ripe for such a revival.  Our young people don’t believe in America’s greatness, we are told.  If those who had known better will now shrink from justice because it might incite a brief but calamitous fight, is their cynicism not justified? Wouldn’t it be to surrender and thereby prove the purveyors of their anti-American indoctrination correct?

I don’t speak for any person but myself.  I’m just a guy with a few remaining brain-cells and a keyboard. In this instance, and in the name of the republic, I need a president who won’t make a deal.  I’ve heard it said that the true art of the deal is to know when to say: “No deal.”

Now is that time for choosing again, but this time, if we fail – if we choose incorrectly again – there will be no chance at redemption.  Mr. President, the American people have been betrayed too often by their leaders, with too many bad deals.  Now it is time for you to say “No deals.”

Burn them all, and let us rebuild the Republic in sight of their ash-heap.

The Treason of the Anointed

Saturday, April 14th, 2018

Short Reception Wedding Dresses
If you’re an American, or if you’re a British subject, or if you’re a citizen of a European country now subsumed into the catastrophe called the European Union, you should know that your nations are in the process of being stolen from you.  There is not a single government among them that is eligible to remain, and every one of those governments is infected with the virus of treason. The United States, of the most central interest to this blog, is now in the throes of its present death, not by some armed foreign invader, but by an infectious agent deposited among our alleged “elite” political establishment.  These people are a disease unto themselves.  They have sold their country out to the world’s thugs, and the time has come to pay up.   Donald Trump was elected president under the rules of our constitution, but he will not be permitted to exercise that office in any but the most superficial way.  Every long-time visitor to this blog knows I had been no particular fan of Donald Trump, the man, or Donald Trump, the candidate.  Quite to the contrary, I have been very critical of many of his positions and pronouncements, and I doubt very seriously that this is likely to change.  One of my most thoroughgoing criticisms of Donald Trump has been(and remains) that he exhibits no particular devotion to any specific, or self-consistent body of principles.  That criticism and all of the lesser complaints that fall out of it are easy enough to understand, but what may cause some confusion is what I will say next:  If we are to save this republic, if that is our actual goal, we must preserve and rescue the presidency of Donald J. Trump, warts and all, even from itself, lest we lose our nation forever.

This seems a rather obnoxious claim, and on its surface, I would generally dismiss such claims as radical hyperbole.  Let me attempt to support that claim, or reference others who have done a masterful job in so doing.  Let me begin by making the following assertion:  Donald Trump was elected President of the United States through a process during which he took no steps that would ordinarily be considered illegal or even quite unfair under the political system in operation since our founding.   In fact, it might well be said truthfully that Donald Trump had managed to overwhelm a system that had been unfairly rigged against him.  Does anybody seriously wish to contend that the outcome of the 2016 primary season had been reduced to another Bush-Clinton showdown until Donald Trump came down that escalator in June 2015?  Do you know who are the Never-Trumpers still in existence at this late date?  They are the people furious with Donald Trump for interrupting this precise outcome.  “By what right?”  “He’s not even really a Republican!”  You can hear their shrill contempt still echoing in establishment media, and through the halls of Congress.  If in the primaries of 2016, you voted for Donald Trump, you put your finger in the eye of this establishment.  I  must here note that I did not vote for Donald Trump in the primary in 2016.  Let me also confess that had I known two years ago all I have learned since, I would have done so enthusiastically.  It is not that I believe Donald Trump is a great president, or that my opinion of Donald Trump as an unprincipled man has changed, but that I now see the true enemy more clearly than ever I had seen it before.  The real enemy is far more frightening than Donald Trump could ever be, because Donald Trump does not hate this country.  Our real enemy is out to destroy the USA, and is well along that path.  Donald Trump is the final possible obstruction.  Will Donald Trump save the republic?  I don’t know.  I only know that his will likely be the last opportunity to do so in our lifetimes, and perhaps ever.

The entire “Russian Collusion” narrative was cooked up to confound and demolish the Trump presidency.  I want you to know that any sophist who approaches you with another argument about it is either a knowing participant in the treasonous conspiracy, not merely against Trump, but against our republic, or is a willing political tool of those conspirators, believing themselves to be on the same “team.”  Think of the latter(and more numerous) group as our contemporary version of Stalin’s “useful idiots.”  This includes the more innocent “NeverTrumpers” out and about in the conservative movement, who believe their principled opposition to Trump ought now lead them to participate in the “resistance.”  These must come to understand the truth:  Trump is the duly elected President, and all efforts to interfere with his authority as such are born of the real collusion between the two parties’ DC establishments in an ongoing treason against the whole body of the American people, and the republic to which they were born.

There are a great many people attempting to chronicle the truth about what is going on, but I think if I had to credit one person in media for making it more understandable and aggregating all the bits of this monstrous situation into  a single, cogent narrative, I would have to credit Dan Bongino.  Bongino has a daily podcast, and since episode 628, he’s done more to put this story together in one coherent story that the average person can easily understand, without appealing to a single “conspiracy theory.” In fact, everything Bongino has put together is backed up by public news reports, in much the same way Mark Levin had done a little more than thirteen months ago, when he made the public accusation that FISA warrants had been used by actors within the Obama administration to conduct surveillance on the Trump campaign and administration under color of law.   For his part in bringing this to light, and for his continuing efforts to expose this, we mustn’t forget that Mark Levin has done more to lay the groundwork than any other person in media.

Before we go further, I am going to ask you something extraordinary.  Please go listen to Dan Bongino’s Episode 698. Read his show notes for that episode.  Here’s the episode, posted on YouTube:

How many of you know or remember these names:

  • Kathryn Ruemmler
  • Robert Bauer
  • Greg Craig

If you want to know who is orchestrating the theft of your country, you’d better learn these names and the deeds associated with them. Bongino has been unmasking this plot against the American people since episode 628 of his daily podcast, back on January 8th of 2018.  It just happened to be the case that I first stumbled into Bongino’s podcast for the first time on the very next day, and it happened to be part 2 of that same story.

If you want to save the Republic, let me tell you how that can be accomplished at this very late date:  Robert Mueller must be fired.  Rod Rosenstein must be fired.  The Republicans threatening to impeach President Trump should he fire Robert Mueller must be exposed.  They are part of the plot.  They are the Republican co-conspirators who are participants in stealing your country.   There are more than these vocal Republicans, a list that includes scum like my own Senator, John Cornyn, and others  like Lindsey Graham.  Trump must fire Mueller now, and he must assemble a team empowered to take down the conspirators.  You will be shocked by the breadth and depth of the conspiracy, but you must know it all if you are going to rescue your nation.  Robert Mueller must be fired to have any chance to save this republic.  The whole DC Uni-Party knows it. What remains is for you to recognize it, rise up in indignant rejection of it, and to reclaim your country.  Whether you’re a fan of Donald Trump, or perhaps instead held your nose and voted for him rather than see the epic criminal shrew win instead, or even if you didn’t vote for him at all, unwilling to “hold your nose,” it’s time to recognize that he is the president, and he is now the only person of significant governmental power standing between our Republic and the abyss.  Act accordingly.

 

Editor’s Note: On a more personal note, I realize now that many of you had hoped my previous string of posts signaled my re-emergence. Obviously, that wasn’t the case, but I do believe that day will come before this year elapses.  Between health concerns, the various burdens of my personal and professional life, it will be some time yet.  It just so  happens to be the case that occasionally, a story or bit of information comes to light that I believe must not be missed, and this is one such story.  I remain fiercely committed to our constitution and the form of government it had established, but the ugly truth of what has been done must be widely known if we are to defend and preserve it.  Forces much more violently aggressive to our liberties are afoot, and they are striking back at us now for the impertinence of electing an unapproved President. These self-anointed “elites” are nothing more than modern-day brigands hijacking a nation, or a whole collection of them.  Even now, the rats, having eaten numerous holes in the hull of our ship of state, are fleeing our capital in an orderly fashion to prevent a panic or questions. These are the conspirators who now believe too much has leaked, and too much is out  in the light for them to evade criminal culpability if they remain in Washington DC.  The ones who remain are on the hook, and there’s no way out of it for them, so they are staying to fight this all the way to the bitter end, whichever way it goes. They have nothing to lose, but everything to gain, including avoiding the noose.  Yes, this conspiracy is as serious as that, and it’s why Obama and his circle of conspirators remain in Washington DC: Should all this be revealed to any substantial degree, they’re all going to prison at the very least.  This is why we must insist that President Trump fire Robert Mueller.  Mueller is the key to this operation, and this is why people like Trey Gowdy are not to be trusted.  Ever.   

Note Two: Ever Since Facebook locked my Mark America account(last post there in June 2016) during the primary season in 2018, I’ve only had access to post to my MarkAmerica Fan Page on Facebook via a friend who has administrative rights to that page.  Instead, look for my posts on minds.com, here:

https://www.minds.com/MarkAmerica

Also, stop by and seemy friend Mr.L’s most recent video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvFrF8Ag1lY

Check this out:

The Left Doesn’t Mind Dead Children

Tuesday, February 27th, 2018

grim_reaper_ftI’ve listened to the usual suspects in politics and the media telling Americans how those who support the Second Amendment want dead children.  I know a large number of fervent Second Amendment advocates, and I’ve yet to find one among them who wants to see dead children.  This scurrilous sort of claim from the left should be familiar to you by now, because we see it in virtually every issue.  When the issue is healthcare, we’re told we don’t care about people, and want to see Americans die for lack of “affordable healthcare.” Then, as if written in the script, the left institutes a huge government healthcare boondoggle that drives up the cost of healthcare for Americans in the range of four-thousand dollars per year.  Sure, everybody has a healthcare plan, but nobody can afford to use it due to the extraordinary deductibles that have accompanied “universal healthcare.” This is the thing you learn about leftists if you watch them long enough, and see what they actually do.  Every time they accuse their opponents of some evil, you can be sure that not only is it a lie, but that in fact, it is they who seek to enact the very evils they decry.  It’s so predictable that it’s become nauseating, so now I’m going to tell you the truth about the school safety issue:  The left says the NRA and the Republicans want dead children, but I’m going to prove to you that they don’t mind dead children at all, so long as it is they who kills them.

I could stop right there and walk away, task complete, but some would not be convinced by the mere assertion.  They will need some evidence of my accusation, and I am obliged to offer it here.  For decades, all my life really, I have heard the statist left accuse Republicans and Libertarians alike of wanting dead children because those groups will not support gun control.  In the first place, Republicans support all sorts of gun control, and sadly always have. It was Ronald Reagan who signed the 1986 act of Congress that banned the further sale of automatic weapons to civilians.  From that point forward, only those automatic already in civilian hands were to be permitted to exist, and they would be heavily taxed and regulated, and due to the incredibly small number, their prices are so absurdly high that most people could not begin to afford one.  That was enacted by a Republican.  Ronald Reagan?  Remember him?  It was one of the three things he did in the entirety of his presidency about which I still have real heartburn.  (Amnesty, and pulling the troops from Beirut after the barracks bombing and the death of 241 US Marines, for the record.)  Surely, that is gun control, and surely, President Reagan was a Republican. Is he off the hook for his alleged desire to “see children dead?”  No, of course not.

Of course, if we’re interested in the question of dead children, as my friend Mr. L has pointed out recently, they had no problem with more than fifty-million dead children killed in utero by Planned Parenthood. They never miss an opportunity to see as many abortions performed as is possible.  It’s not, as they argue, about the availability of “safe” abortions, but instead, about seeing to it that as many are performed as necessary.  They claim to care about the women too, and accuse opponents of abortion as condemning women to unsafe, back-alley, coat-hanger abortions, but the truth as we have seen is that these clinics are dirty, their doctors don’t have hospital privileges, and women die due to the unsafe, unsanitary conditions, as well as the utter incompetence of the sort of hacks who tend to perform abortions in these human slaughterhouses.

The leftists who run the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association profess to us the undying love and devotion for the children of the teachers they represent, and while I have no doubt about the love many teachers have for their students, I doubt very seriously that either the AFT or the NEA have the first thing to do with it.  I have no doubt but that Coach Feis, who placed himself in the line of fire between the gunman and children, had a deep sense of devotion to the students, but I point out that while the AFT and the NEA are opposed to teachers being armed, Coach Feis was reportedly a concealed carry permit holder, but did not carry at school because it would have violated the law.  I believe the AFT and the NEA prefer dead students and teachers to the alternative of armed teachers.  So much for the AFT’s or NEA’s alleged love of their members, never mind the children.

Then there’s this: These people tell us that they don’t wish to take away our guns, but only make us safer, more like Australia!  Well, in fact, in Australia, they took away guns.  The evidence has shown that crime has increased since.  Imagine what happens to we Texans down here on or near the border when the drug cartels needn’t even worry about being repelled by ranchers with rifles?  It’s astonishing.  In Chicago, daily, they have nearly as man people shot as in the incident in Parkland, Florida, but Chicago has the strictest gun control in the country. In a month, the body county in Chicago rivals or exceeds the casualty count in the notorious Mandalay Bay shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada, and many of the dead are children, most of them young black and hispanic males.  They tell us what love they have for people of color, but what the truth reveals is that they have no problem stacking up their bodies like kindling for their socialist funeral pyre.

Even in less lethal circumstances, they always falsely accuse others of what they’ve already done.  Consider Trump. They tell you “he colluded with the Russians to swing the election,” but what we now know is that they worked with Russians and other foreign agents to concoct a story about Trump so they could justify their spying on the Trump campaign throughout the 2016 election season.  They’re even willing to undertake treason, which is the very crime of which they’ve frequently and vociferously accused others.

Now I’m going to let you in on the deadliest of their secret. As they tell you they don’t want full communism, and that that Trump and other Republicans or conservatives are “dictators” or “tyrants,” to date the only evidence of that is when they were inclined to go along with the statist left on issues like gun control. Remembering, as we must, that they accuse others of what they actually intend, consider this: They accuse Republicans of wanting to enslave others, or to kill them outright, so what then must we conclude about the left’s actual intentions?  They say they are not tyrannical, and don’t wish to take our guns, but all the evidence is contrary to that postulate, and all of recent history shows they’re actually inclined to commit the crimes of which they accuse others.  This means, taken to its logical conclusion, that the statist left intends to turn us into North Korea, or some ghastly approximation of it.

When one examines the results of the “Promise” program exposed in Parkland, Florida, whereby the criminal activities of students were concealed and obscured in order to get more federal dollars for the school district, one cannot help but notice the result: A future killer was left to roam the streets, when in fact, Nikolas Cruz should have been jailed and/or institutionalized long before.  The problem is that this wouldn’t have served their purposes at the time, so that now you know that this kid was a known danger all along, and that they left him free to eventually wreak havoc, like they knew he would.  They’re fine with havoc, so long as it advances their agenda.  They’re always willing to break a few eggs.  In for a penny, in for a pound.  The statist left doesn’t mind deaths that serve their purposes.  The money these greedy leftist school administrators took from the feds is simple blood-money to get the local stooges to happily, perhaps unwittingly play their assigned parts. The longer-term result of suppressing freedoms they hope to abolish is the primary goal of the monsters who provided the federal cash.

Ladies and gentlemen, don’t take my word for it.  Trust your own eyes and ears, and the history you know, and the facts you have discerned. If any political organization in the United States wants the death of children, it is the anti-American, statist left.  They profit from dead children, but the profit they seek is not mere money, but total dominion over your lives.  They want you and your children dead, but only on their schedule, once you’ve served whatever use they have in mind for the remainder of the miserable existence they will permit you to endure.  If Donald Trump gives them an inch, there will be even more dead children because they will have learned where is his weakness, and how to get to him.  President Trump had better catch on fast, or he will have played right into their hands.

 

 

Why Mass Shootings Continue

Monday, February 26th, 2018

school_shooter_ft

In the wake of the Parkland, Florida shooting of February 14th, many people have offered their own assessments of why these sorts of incidents continue to happen.  They appear in media to tell us that “something must be done,” or that “something has to change.”  Few of them offer any but superficial remedies, but sadly, many people fall for this nonsense, uncritically believing their passion rather than questioning either the concrete concepts involved,  or because they conceptually don’t bother and just wish the human suffering they’ve witnessed to end.  In part, this is understandable, and I could forgive the general lack of detailed understanding, but because this blind spot is exploited to strip law-abiding Americans of their liberty, I simply won’t tolerate these senseless exclamations to go unanswered any longer. On this site, I’ve gone to great pains to explain the technical aspects of the firearms, and the philosophical aspects of the foundations of our law, including what constitutes a right.  I realize this site is not the most highly trafficked destination on the Internet, but for all the howling lunatics who insist that we can “fix this” by banning guns, or by background checks, or by any other simple solution, let me state it succinctly: We will never eliminate the phenomenon of mass shooting entirely, but neither will we significantly reduce it if we ignore the question: “Whose job is it to protect our children?”

Let us start with a few facts that most people seem to disregard on their way to blaming all the wrong things, and permitting all the wrong things to continue.  Let’s focus on the shooting of Parkland, Florida as the exemplar of this type of event.  In the lead-up to this event, the FBI had at least two leads, one called in by a bail-bondsman, that was a little less specific, but also somebody closer to the shooter called in a solid tip on this shooter in January, contending he was going to “explode.”  A PDF of the full transcript of this call was posted by the NYTimes.  It’s astonishing how specific the information was, and more astonishing that the FBI didn’t act.

Local police had dealt with him in at least thirty-nine documented calls for service(mostly 9-1-1 calls.) The school had continuously wrestled with this kid in an ever-escalating series of incidents including assaults, fights, and terroristic threats, culminating in his eventual expulsion.  There were countless “red flags” about this wayward soul.  His classmates even half-joked about him becoming a school shooter, and ironically, they may have even unintentionally implanted in him the idea.  It should have been clear by the time he entered high school that he did not belong in the mainstream school population, but today’s education fads make it difficult to remove a troubled youngster.  All of the aggregated incompetence of individuals in the system, and the oppressive bureaucracy itself could not avoid producing the result of February 14th.  It’s baked into the cake.

Given all the failures in advance of the event, it was almost inevitable that this event was going to happen.  All that could now change would be the number of dead, and the result was dominated again by the incompetence of individuals as well as the bureaucracies involved.  Let us start with Deputy Scot Peterson, the sole School Resource Officer on the campus at the time the shooting commenced.  Peterson had been with the Broward Sheriffs Office going back to 1985, and thirty-three years later, and apart from the shooter himself, he would come to be the person most instrumental in the final body count.  He arrived outside the building less than a minute after the shooting had commenced, and there he waited, effectively seeking cover, but taking no remedial actions of any kind.  Even as he was joined by additional deputies, Peterson did not rally them to make entry and confront the shooter.  They simply waited for the shooting to stop. How many were shot and killed or bled out for lack of medical attention or simple first aid while Deputy Peterson did nothing?  A time-syncronized analysis of the various surveillance tapes might provide that answer, or at least a reasonable approximation of it, but Sheriff Scott Israel, the highly political head of the Broward Sheriffs Office, will likely do all in his power to prevent the disclosure or obfuscate any analysis that may ever be done.  You can’t be permitted to know, but most importantly, the people who lost loved-ones in this shooting must never be permitted to know lest there erupt some sort of popular lynching of the Sheriff and his deputies.  While the word “disgrace” doesn’t cover it, it is nevertheless disgraceful. The bulk of the media is covering for him, of course, and this is why the underlying dereliction was mostly covered-up until the end of the week and the gun control narrative had been thoroughly seeded. Imagine the complete arrogance it takes to make the statement Sheriff Israel offers in the video clip below:

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/967811615419707394

In for a penny, in for a pound.

It is at this point that something of an outrage erupts over the conduct of Deputy Peterson and his fellow officers, as well as the attempt to cover this up by Sheriff Israel, including his public attempts to deflect criticism onto the NRA.  The problem is that when all the outrage dies down, Israel and his deputies will have gotten away with it, as will the incompetent school, the incompetent FBI.  Their defenses will be their incompetence.  You can already hear it from their shills. “We’re too few, we have too little money, we have to few people, we didn’t know, and it’s the guns!”  What they won’t highlight, but I’m going to tell you, is the thing they don’t dare say in plain language to the ears of a listening world:

“It isn’t our job!”

Indeed, Sheriff Israel tells us that it’s his job to hire, train, and arm his deputies, but once they’re in the field, it isn’t his responsibility with respect to what they do as individuals.

Technically, they’re right: It isn’t their job to protect anybody.  It isn’t the school’s job, and it isn’t the job of police. It isn’t the job of the FBI or social workers or any other person even tangentially-related to this even, except: All the adults who were themselves the victims, or whose children were victims.

I know I will immediately face the angry roar of the crowd for having said this, but let me assure you that it is one-hundred percent accurate.  In more cases than can be listed here, time after time, courts have held that the only person with an affirmative duty to protect any person from harm is that person.  This duty cannot ultimately be delegated for a myriad of logical reasons. I learned this lesson the hard way back in the 1990s, when our own daughter entered Middle School.  It has always been my admonishment to her that she must never threaten violence, nor enact any, except in direct and immediate response to a physical attack upon her person.  On that point, I further explained that she had a duty to defend herself if she were ever to come under attack.  It goes almost without saying that she eventually crossed paths with a bully, older, and much larger, who attacked her in the hallway of the school, and when she rose in her own defense, perhaps feebly to scale of the task before her, by the rules of the school, which had adopted a “Zero Tolerance Policy” on school violence, she was as guilty as her attacker, and issued the same suspension. This is done by school districts so as to indemnify themselves against civil claims, but it provides no effective protection to anybody.

After several arguments, often heated, with faculty and administrators of the school and the district, we withdrew our daughter from that school in order to home-school her, because the school would not admit that she had a right to defend herself against physical attack, and because they would not assume liability for any future attacks.  In essence, they said that protecting our child against physical violence “isn’t our job.”  The question they refused to answer in light of that assertion was: “Who is liable to protect my child from physical violence?”  No affirmative answer, but only: “Not us.

One might read that and think that perhaps the school isn’t liable in any legal or financial sense, but that they must have some moral obligation to protect our children.  The courts are concerned solely with the law.  The subjective notions of morality we may hold are not their affair.  The same is true of the police.  Yes, they are supposed to stop criminals, detain and arrest criminals, thereby preventing them from committing further crimes.  What they do not have is a duty to protect you. On this matter, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held this to be the case.  Logically, it makes sense on even the most simplified basis: In order to carry out a theoretical duty to protect all people at all times, there would need to be a policeman standing guard over each of us twenty-four hours per day.  The most economical way to do this would be a prison, for all of us, including the police, who would need guards of their own.  The point is that there can be no affirmative duty to protect you or your children against every or even any conceivable harm.  It’s not possible.  This is why we withdrew our daughter from school.  We ultimately moved out of that district to a home in a vastly different district where we felt the level of risk, while still higher than we would like, was much reduced.  The school still could not (and would not) guarantee to protect our child, but the general environment was more conducive to her average condition of safety.

What does this have to do with Parkland, Florida?  Nearly every parent knows this, but pretends not to know it.  Ask any parent “whose job is to protect your children?” You would think the answer to the question would be self-evident and immediately proclaimed, but it isn’t. This same thing is true when you ask parents: “Who is responsible to educate your child?”  Or: “Whose has a duty to feed(or cloth or house or treat) your child?” Ask these questions and watch the expression on parents’ faces as they try to explain how somebody other than themselves is obligated to do all of these things.  Only honest parents will answer in all these cases: “It’s my job.”  That’s right, and it’s the only answer to any such question.

The truth is that only parents have the responsibility to protect their children against all comers. The schools know this.  The police know it.  Every department of government knows it.  The well-worn motto “…to protect and serve…” is merely a public relations pitch.  Once you understand that only you have responsibility to protect yourself and your children, we can begin to think about these mass shootings in a different light, and it immediately calls into question the whole notion of “gun free zones.”

In a “gun free zone,” under punishment of law, you are forbidden from bearing arms for any reason.  Put in other terms, what this really means is that in a “gun free zone,” you are prohibited from effective self-defense.  Much like my daughter in the school with a “zero tolerance policy,” to provide for your own defense is a crime.  When you deposit your child into one of these “gun free zones,” you have sent them into an environment where only the predators will be armed, because the predators do not regard the law as any obstruction, and they view the obstruction to law-abiding folks as an invitation to the mayhem they intend.

One of the reasons we have such large schools is for the apparent economies of scale, but such concentrations of people are inviting targets for the sort who intend massive carnage. This has always concerned me with respect to our schools, because any madman, intent on devastation, could exploit this large aggregation of our children, who we profess to be the most valuable extensions of our lives.  The truth is that the only way to stop people with guns is to confront them with guns.  All of the rest is nonsense, and as I have explained, the next school shooter is already out there.

The most pressing reason we won’t likely stop the next mass shooter is because we refuse to assign blame.  Everybody is happy to point at the killer, but people generally look for some larger reason.  The scale of the tragedy and the enormity of the human loss and suffering begs us to empathize with the victims and their loved-ones, and well we should, but we must not lose sight of the totality of this problem, requiring of us a clear-eyed assessments to come to the truth.  Let’s list them:

Let’s think of all the ways in which this shooting might have been avoided:

  • The FBI might have followed up on one or both of the tips they received
  • The school might have sought to press charges on Cruz when he committed previous acts of violence on their campus
  • The local Law Enforcement might have sought to press charges

Let’s be plain-spoken about this: If any of these entities had acted appropriately, Cruz would have been charged with felonies on multiple previous occasions, including assault with a deadly weapon(or whatever equivalent charge exists in Florida) and this would have prohibited him from purchasing a weapon.  The NICS system doesn’t magically know that some people shouldn’t have weapons.  That information has to be placed into the database.  As we saw with the shooter at Sutherland Springs, Texas church shooter, the Air Force failed to put information into the system about the shooter, permitting him to purchase firearms.  In the Parkland, Florida case, neither the school nor the law enforcement agencies ever created the paper trail that would have been entered into the database to prohibit Cruz from obtaining firearms.

This leads us to a very uncomfortable place, which is the reason guns are being blamed and the National Rifle Association is being blamed.  You see, all of the institutions named above have made quite sure they cannot be blamed, and that none among them will be held culpable, in any respect whatever.  We might become angry and claim they had “a moral responsibility to…” act or intervene or otherwise mitigated this circumstance, but the truth is that our outrage doesn’t constitute an enforceable legal claim.

I’m going to say the thing that will be most unpopular, and will cause many to heap disdain upon me, but it’s nevertheless true:  Every parent of every child enrolled in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (and indeed in every public school anywhere) knew or ought to have known all the facts outlined above long before the attack of February 14th. If they found these facts unacceptable, (and I certainly would have,) they had a responsibility to get their children out of that environment.  You might say that they had no choice but to enroll their kids in that school.  While I understand the practical arguments, I thoroughly disagree in an absolute sense, inasmuch as they are the parents, and they could move to another district, act to change that district, home-school their children, or enroll their children in other schools at their own expense.  Contextually, the tax-payers of any school district are held at gun-point to pay for that school system and in this case, for that worthless Sheriffs Office, and that is as much an indictment of our entire system as anything else.  It is said that we “get the government we deserve,” and this is equally true of schools and sheriffs.

What I would say to parents who truly wish to protect their children is to familiarize themselves with the facts variously described above.  They should inform themselves of the policies at their schools, and make their choices accordingly.  What I can say without reservation on this date is that I am unaware of a single public school in any jurisdiction, anywhere in the country, to which I would entrust the safety of my children.  To my knowledge, none of them can be trusted to provide for student safety, and none of them really want that responsibility.  You will naturally find a number of teachers who would accept that responsibility, but they are hamstrung by worthless bureaucracies, foolish unions and professional associations, and in many jurisdictions, the law.

If a teacher tells you that they are unwilling to be armed in defense of their students, what they are really saying to you is that they are not to be trusted with your children, because they don’t wish to take on the responsibility of protecting the lives of your children.

Period. End. Fin!

Everything they might say after that is merely a load of excuse-making, and largely ideologically driven.  Besides, apart from contraindicating physical disabilities, how competent is any adult who cannot(or will not) be trained to proficiency with a concealable firearm?  Should any person lacking that basic competence be permitted access to your children for any purpose?  I say “No.”

Where do we start?  We need people to answer honestly the simple question: “Who is responsible for the safety of my children?” Once you reduce that question to its irreducible constituents, the answer is all too plain.  “Something must change!”  Indeed, and what that something is must be that parents must reassert their responsibility for the lives and safety of their children.  When they do that, nearly all the school shootings will cease, and even when they do occur, there will be provisions in place to effectively defend against them.

 

 

 

 

 

Dereliction of Duty

Saturday, February 24th, 2018

broward_pussy_ft

In successive days of late afternoon disclosures, what has become clear from the tragic shooting in Parkland, Florida is a serious problem with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office.  It’s also increasingly clear that the highly political Sheriff, who on Wednesday evening during CNN’s pant-hoot-howl-disguised-as-townhall, lashed out at NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch (@dloesch on Twitter,) had more than a few pressing reasons to deflect criticism and turn the attention of both the audience and media toward guns and the National Rifle Association.  On Thursday, we learned that there was a Broward Sheriff’s Deputy who had been assigned as a School Resource Officer on the Parkland campus who failed to enter the building to confront the shooter, for more than four minutes of the slightly more than five minutes the shooter was active in the building.  On Friday, this catastrophic dereliction was discovered to have been far worse: There were at least three more officers who arrived and likewise refrained from entering the building, even after police officers responding from Coral Springs arrived and independently entered the premises. There are no words to describe this betrayal.  There is no excuse Sheriff Scott Israel can offer.  It’s time for him to surrender his badge and gun, but also for Florida Attorney General Pam Bondy, to begin an investigation of the conduct of the Broward Sheriffs Office.

People are shrieking that the School Resource Officer, 33=year veteran of the Sheriffs Office, Deputy Scot Peterson, should be charged.  After all, during the period he stood holding his gun outside the building while the shooting continued inside, it is likely that most of the deaths occurred.  He was there in perhaps less than one minute after the shooting commenced, but never entered.  Modern(post Columbine) active shooter doctrine directs officers to enter the premises immediately, backup or not, body armor or not, and to engage the shooter or shooters as quickly as possible because it is opposition that almost always stops these killers, either by being killed, or by killing themselves.  Deputy Peterson, apparently milking the taxpayer in his last years before retirement, obviously wasn’t interested in putting himself or his pension at risk to save school kids and teachers about which he seems not to have been even slightly concerned.

Friday’s revelation only makes it worse, as it appears at least three more Broward deputies arrived soon after, while the shooting was still in progress, and together with Peterson, none of them attempted entry into the building.  The shooter, Nikolas Cruz, was able to walk out unscathed and unchallenged.

I know there are plenty of fine officers, including the heroes from Coral Springs, who arrived and entered immediately as all current active-shooter doctrines demand, and this is not a general impeachment of all law enforcement, but it is an impeachment of Sheriff Israel’s leadership, or more properly, the lack thereof.  To have a department responsible for such a populous jurisdiction, but unwilling even to enter into lethal combat with an active shooter speaks volumes about how little worth Sheriff Israel has brought to his community, unless you value political patronage campaigns, in which he apparently enjoyed great success.

israel_clinton

         Rather than being “With Her,” Sheriff Israel should have been training his deputies

Perhaps Sheriff Israel should have spent more of his career training his deputies, insisting on superior performance and adherence to departmental policies.  Perhaps rather than assigning an officer ready for retirement to patrol the school campus, he might have considered sending an experienced and courageous officer to protect the most precious resource in his county.  Instead, he appears to have assigned a deputy to the school who was much closer to the end of his career than its beginning, and seemed not to be very interested in getting inside to face the shooter and protect the children and faculty.

This is sickening.  It’s bad enough that the FBI had every opportunity to have prevented this tragedy.  It’s bad enough that over the last few years, Nikolas Cruz had repeated encounters with the police and with the school, but he was permitted to go on until this disaster. None of it is excusable in any respect, but what is simply intolerable, and what must not be accepted, is a pattern of malingering and dereliction on the part of multiple officers, suggesting a mindset that is part of the corporate culture of Sheriff Israel’s department.  This sort of thing is always the result of poor leadership.  It’s always the result of bad management and a tendency in government to keep the ineffectual around long after they should have been terminated.  Instead, they’re permitted to linger on the tax-payer’s back, squandering a payroll that could have been spent on more effective public servants.

I am always loathe to second-guess the actions of officers on the scene, because there can always be factors of which a distant observer like myself might quite naturally be wholly unaware. I have family in law enforcement, and I know a laege number of courageous officers who protect the community in which I live. I know too many good men and women who take seriously their oaths to haphazardly malign peace officers. I know most of our officers, the great body of them, would not have hesitated to run headlong into that school in an attempt to neutralize the shooter, even at obvious risk to life and limb.  Sadly, this was not the case with the first four Deputies to respond to that school in Parkland, and it apparently isn’t part of the normal culture of Sheriff Israel’s department.  On the other hand, I’m sure when he was kissing-up to Hillary Clinton, as pictured above, it was his best officers who were present to provide additional security to augment the needs of whatever Secret Service protection Clinton may have enjoyed at the time.  The school gets the ROAD Deputy(Retired On Active Duty,) while more courageous officers are sent to protect much less precious things than our children.

It’s time for Sheriff Israel to resign.  It would have been bad enough to simply know the truth of this, but that it took Scott Israel more than a week to disclose this information suggests he had been hoping to cover it up or justify it so as to reduce the public relations black-eye he almost certainly will now be called upon to endure. Sheriff Israel should be ashamed, as he seemed to be when first detailing the inaction of Deputy Peterson on Thursday, but now, it has become quite evident that this shame is more thoroughly institutional within his department, and it’s time for Israel to acknowledge his shame by resigning from his office. Platitudes about “taking responsibility” will no longer suffice.  Sheriff Israel must go, just as FBI director Christopher Wray must go in the wake of the FBI’s disastrous contribution to this catastrophe.

People have asked me if the officers could be charged.  I am not entirely familiar with Florida statutes, but I do know that in a number of broadly applicable court rulings, officers have no affirmative duty to protect anybody. For that reason alone, I doubt that any of the malingerers who were derelict in the performance of their duties will face any legal ramifications. Yes, they might lose their jobs, but that says nothing of actual criminal or civil liability.

I hope the people of Broward County will seek out a new Sheriff who engenders more courage in his or her officers than Scot Peterson, who seems to have been sub-par even in comparison with Paul Blart. “Shameful” doesn’t begin to cover it.

Lastly, I wonder how long it will be before some enterprising journalist(therefore nobody from CNN) will ask for a count of shots and/or victims hit when the surveillance videos are all synchronized such that an analysis of that sort can be made. How many of the students and faculty members died while their would-be rescuers stood around outside in a defensive posture?  If I were the parents and surviving students and faculty of Parkland, that’s what I’d be demanding to know, and it’s an answer for which Sheriff Israel must be held accountable.

 

The Infantilization of America

Wednesday, February 21st, 2018

adulthood_deferred_ft

President Trump wants the sale of firearms curtailed to people between eighteen and twenty years of age.  It’s bad enough that he’s apparently decided to go along with the gun-grabbers in various ways, but now he wishes to further infantilize young adults.  Some of what I will say may ruffle some feathers, and it may be erroneously construed as an attack on the young, but frankly, I don’t give a damn.  We don’t permit 18-20 year-olds to drink.  We do permit them to vote.  We permit them to remain on their parents’ health insurance through their twenty-sixth birthday.  We didn’t permit them to purchase handguns, and now it seems we will deny them any guns of any description.  What has remained unchanged for many generations is that we permit them to serve in our military as early as seventeen.  If you wonder who is to blame for the crass irresponsibility of so many among our young, look no further than the ways in which we diminish them.  Since this seems to be the cultural trend, I think it’s time to amend our constitution to comport with our cultural and legal machinations.  Let’s make the new age of majority twenty-six, and return all those younger to a state of pre-emancipated infantilization.

Some of you will think I’m joking.  Some of you will believe that I couldn’t possibly be serious.  I am completely serious.  Let us revoke adulthood from all those under twenty-five.  Here’s how that would apply:

  • No vote
  • No military service
  • No booze
  • No marijuana even in states where it has been legalized
  • No contracts of any kind
  • No firearms of any sort
  • No “right to privacy”of any kind
  • No marriage
  • No driving

If we want to infantilize our young, let’s at least do it thoroughly and consistently. Let us return them to a state of pre-emancipated minor, subject to all forms of parental intervention, and supervision.  Understand that I don’t want this, but if we’re going to begin stripping rights from them, we must strip them as a set.  Adulthood is an all-or-nothing affair, and I think it’s time we recognize this in law.  Since the previous administration thought twenty-five year-olds should remain on their parents’ health policies, and since the current administration thinks they shouldn’t be able to buy an AR-15, then there’s no point in them being adult in any part.  Any.

I had an M16 thrust into my hands for the first time at age seventeen.  I was a big kid, so it was assumed I would also make a good candidate to drag around an M60 machine gun, with the M16 cross-slung on my back.  They seemed to think I was able to bear up under the load, and so I was, amazingly.  There’s a lesson in there, but of course, it’s lost on a President who thinks 18-20 year-olds shouldn’t have AR-15s.  My question is:  When will President Trump order Secretary Mattis to discharge all servicemembers under the age of 21?   The weapons with which they are routinely entrusted are far more lethal than anything you can pick up in your local gun shop.

Or will the President recognize that just as there is variability in young adults with respect to their fitness for military service, there’s just as much variability among the young adults and their capacity to safely own firearms?  It seems the Commander-in-Chief is confused.  He’s certainly confusing me.  He’s causing me to ask why, if he will not stand up for the rights of all Americans, including young adults, I should endeavor to defend him against the “Russian Collusion” hoax.  Truth is truth.

Meanwhile, in Florida, our children, who haven’t the good sense to defer to their parents on politics, are being exploited by the anti-gun phalanx.  They’re kids, after all, and we already know that they don’t use logic until their brains are more fully developed, as late as twenty-five?  Why do we think car insurance drops in price for people obtaining the age of twenty-five?  It’s because they make better decisions on average, because we’ve known for years that their brains aren’t fully developed until then. Of course, some people remain dominated by emotionalism in their decision-making into their seventies, apparently.

What I really believe is that all the rights and privileges and responsibilities of adulthood go together as a set.  When we define the age of adulthood, that’s the end of the argument.  It’s always been abominable to me that at seventeen, they shoved an M16 in my hands, but I was forbidden a beer or a handgun.  Now it seems the President wishes to add rifles to the round-up of things young adults cannot possess.  I think it’s horrible policy, but if we’re going to do this, then let us pick the age of adulthood and let it stand in all circumstances, in every case, everywhere and at once.

Like all such reflexive measures taken in the aftermath of a tragedy, this is another horrible mass abolition of rights for law-abiding people because in our society, we have a handful of lunatics.  I’m tired of losing my rights due to criminals.  I’m tired of losing my rights to the pleas of hyper-emotional, arrested development children. Let us at least be consistent in defining what are adults.

 

 

 

The Next School Shooter

Thursday, February 15th, 2018

parkland_florida_shooting_ft

It’s coming.  You know it, and I know it.  Every rational person knows it.  Somewhere in our nation, one or more people are preparing to go on a shooting rampage, and one of them may intend your child as a target.  That shooter-in-waiting is already armed, already possesses the means to carry out the intended attack.  It’s too late to talk about banning guns, bullets, gas masks or backpacks.  The thug is already primed, and all that is now needed is for the fuse to be lit.  Perhaps the death of a relative will be the trigger. Maybe it will be something in our highly polarized political environment that will ignite this rampage.  There’s no way to know where the shooter will appear, but there’s no doubt that the shooter is waiting, and while we bicker about banning guns or ammunition or anything else, and while we talk about “mental health issues,” we are failing our children in a sickeningly fundamental way:  We’ve shirked our first responsibility as parents to defend our children by leaving them defenseless in the face of monsters.  We cannot pretend that we can intercept these shooters by banning their implements, and we must face the fact that the only way to protect our children is to rise in their defense.

When you deliver your child to the school in the morning, or watch them load onto the school bus, you’ve effectively discharged your responsibility; everything the school does with your child is a matter of the authority with which you vested them when you placed the school in loco parentis.  You’ve effectively given the school temporary custody, presumably for the purposes of education.  At the same time, our federal government has so thoroughly nationalized our schools that we have largely prohibited the faculty and administration of our schools from participating in the defense of our children.  Except for licensed law enforcement officers, there’s nobody who can legally possess a gun on our schools’ grounds.  When it is suggested that we ought to increase security at our schools, and that the faculty and administration of our schools ought to be included in that defense, it is said that teachers cannot be armed because they cannot be trusted to refrain from a shooting rampage of their own should a child or children get out of hand.  In essence, we are told that teachers are a psychologically unbalanced lot, not to be trusted with guns.

This notion is always baffling to me, particularly when uttered by actual parents of minor children.  Are we to understand that teachers and coaches and principals may not be entrusted with a firearm, but that they are to be trusted to act in loco parentis? We trust them to shape the minds of our children, but we cannot trust them to defend our kids?  If an actual parent believes this, then there are only two rational options: 1.) Immediately withdraw your children from that dangerous school, or 2.) Reconsider your qualifications as a suitable parent for your children.  It is self-evident that if a teacher or administrator is insufficiently trustworthy to possess and carry a firearm, they have no business whatever acting in place of me with respect to my child(ren.)   If I can’t trust somebody with a gun, I certainly won’t trust them to instruct or oversee my kid(s.)

Bear all of this in mind when presented with the litany of excuses as to why we can’t or mustn’t arm non-police officers in our schools.  Remember that the thug is already out there, waiting for the timer to go off, or otherwise be “triggered” on his way.  The shooter is already armed.  The shooter already has ammunition.  You can ban guns and think you’ll discover him by psychological intervention, but you’re only kidding yourself, or permitting yourself to be misled.  The only place you can approximately guarantee the safety of your child(ren) is at home, but even there, it’s not guaranteed.  That said, you are in a position to defend your child(ren) in a way that is not possible in a conventional school environment.

It’s impossible to stress this point too thoroughly.  We must defend our children, but it must be an active defense, rather than an exercise in apprehension of villains and recovery of bodies.  Our teachers, administrators, coaches, and security must be armed and able to repel attackers.  They must be trained.  If we have teachers who cannot be trusted with a firearm, they should not be trusted with our children.  That next school shooter is out there.  It’s not possible to stop the shooter by banning anything.  The shooter is likely already armed.  The question parents must answer is this:  If you know the shooter is out there, though you can’t know his location, identity, or motive in advance, how do you defend your children?  Why are you sending your children to be safeguarded by people who are unable and/or unwilling to protect them?  Why are you putting your children in the midst of people with whom you would would not trust a gun?  The answer is an active defense.  It must be.

There will always be killers among us.  We can’t stop them all, and we can’t always intervene before they’re able to inflict casualties, but the only way we might is to present an unambiguous, active defensive curtain around our children, with trained, rational adults empowered to provide that defense.  Everything else is political cowardice.  It’s time, with all the evidence before us, for parents to insist that there be an active defense, or to withdraw their children from these schools.  What do you have that you value more?  On which political issue are your efforts better spent?  It’s simple: We must insist that our schools be empowered to mount an active defense against violent assailants.  If you sincerely wish to protect your children from the next school shooter, it’s too late to talk about bans.  That shooter is already armed, perhaps casing the target, or merely awaiting a psychological trigger; your child(ren.)  Only an active defense offers any hope.

 

Editor’s Note: It’s despicable that while the Parkland Florida shooter was preparing to commit his crime, the FBI, which had been notified of a youtuber of the same name threatening to be a professional school shooter, did only a cursory investigation, apparently too busy chasing phantom “Trump-Russian Collusion,” as directed by their senior leadership in Washington DC.  If only the FBI field agents had been able to conduct a more thorough investigation, perhaps the outcome would have been different.

The Scandal the Memo Didn’t Reveal

Monday, February 5th, 2018

memo_p1_ftNow that the country has had seventy-two hours to digest the memo released by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, it’s time to consider what the memo tells us, and to decide what we ought to do with this information.  In this examination, we must first ignore all of the shrill dismissals and whispered urgency that has characterized this release in the media all week.  On the one hand, we have hyperventilating leftists telling us that the Republicans have produced a “nothing-burger” that undermines national security and/or the rule of law.  On the other, we now have a DC establishment that’s interested in protecting Robert Mueller’s investigation, as though they’re under his thumb.  What’s never admitted by the latter, and what is completely obscured through the huffing and puffing of the former is what really happened, and what this memorandum really means, or where it should lead us.  What does the memo really say?  Is it really a “partisan nothing-burger that is intended to undermine national security?” Is it really “unrelated to Mueller and the Russia investigation?”  Let’s find out if there’s something hidden in plain sight.

The first thing to note is the subject of the memo:

Subject: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigations

For those of you who may or may not be aware, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act(FISA) is a law that governs the way surveillance is conducted on US citizens and legal residents in the foreign arena or with foreign actors.  It sets up a secret court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court(FISC,) the purpose of which is to allow warrants to be granted in a secret process not open to the public, and not ordinarily subject to public scrutiny, all on the basis that such surveillance may be necessary from time to time for the purposes of national security, and that the rights of Americans must be protected even in this context.

What happened specifically in this case is muddied, but what we do know from this disclosure is that:

  • FISA Warrants were sought and granted in the matter of US citizen Carter Page
  • Carter Page was a low-level adviser with the Trump Campaign
  • The primary basis for the granting of the warrant was the “Steele Dossier”
  • The “Steele Dossier” was generated by former British agent Christopher Steele working with Fusion GPS
  • Fusion GPS was at the time being paid by the DNC
  • The DNC was under the functional control of the Hillary Rodham Clinton Campaign
  • The information provided to the FISC was known by those seeking the warrants to be of dubious providence
  • After Steele was let go by the FBI as a source, the FBI and DOJ continued to use Fusion GPS as a source because they hired Ohr’s wife

I might add another point, though it’s under dispute at this time:

  • The entire “Russia Collusion” narrative is based on fabricated information largely derived from the Steele Dossier

On its face, this seems pretty damning, but there’s something not made clear by this memo, something to be found between the lines, or to be understood contextually if you prefer, that intimates something deeply disturbing and devious.  To understand this context, we have to view this in the time in which it occurred.  This was done in order to conduct surveillance on the Trump Campaign.  All of the rationalizations being offered now, after the fact, are cover stories being propagated by the actors and their ideological brethren.  The real order of events looks more like this:

  • FISA Warrants are sought in order to permit extensive spying on the Trump campaign for political motives
  • A justification is needed to have cover for doing the surveillance – enter “Russian Collusion”
  • Internal polling showed Clinton was not invincible
  • Trump wins the election, leaving the actors in a potentially ‘outed’ position
  • The “Russian Collusion” narrative is furthered to justify the previous political activities of the Obama administration and executive departments
  • Mueller is appointed as Special Counsel because somebody must be guilty to preserve that narrative
  • The entire narrative becomes the basis for Democrat obstructionism in order to undermine and oppose the new president
  • James Comey apparently perjured himself multiple times in testimony to Congress
  • Barack Obama knew or ought to have known what was being done
  • The entire Democrat-Media complex is now engaging in a coverup to protect the Mueller probe to give him time to find something

Ladies and gentlemen, when you boil it down, this document is damning, but it’s most damning in terms of what it does not explicitly state.  I don’t know if it constitutes “one-hundred times worse than Watergate,” but it is substantially worse than Watergate, and there are some critical reasons why this is true.

Watergate was about actions taken to hide or cover-up embarrassing actions by unofficial political actors. President Nixon covered-up, or attempted to cover-up embarrassing criminal actions of some political henchmen who acted without his foreknowledge, endorsement, authorization, or collusion.  That’s all about the conduct of a President using his office to conceal ugly criminal actions of political allies and underlings acting on his behalf, without his knowledge.

This case, for which there is strangely no agreed-upon catchy name(like “Watergate” for example,) is much worse because it involves the following elements:

  • A President’s administration seems to have been complicit in conspiring to commit criminal actions under color of their official offices
  • Actors within the various departments seem to have colluded with a political candidate in order to attack another political candidate
  • The FISC seems to have gone along with this because it did not seek to validate the providence of the documents
  • Much of the so-called “mainstream media” was complicit and acted as agents for this conspiracy
  • The conspirators remain at large to propagate their defense from the shadows and from official offices
  • Conspirators include a presidential candidate, at least one former President, his “kitchen cabinet,” and appointees, who remain in place in the government

Ladies and gentlemen, this is “the swamp.” This explains a good deal, because while the memo doesn’t go beyond the facts of the FISA abuses, it’s what those facts tell us about the overall corruption in Washington DC, how our government operates, and the extent to which abuses of power are the norm in the daily operation of government.  It also shows why we must from time to time clean out the Federal bureaucracy.  Too much power, too long-enjoyed by a like-minded group of people, perhaps operating from a shared ideological base, or from a common political organization, tends toward grotesque abuses of power.

This is just the first stone being overturned.  There are much worse abuses directly implied by the facts disclosed in this memo. For instance, was Peter Strzok the person who built the FISA application(s)? If so, aren’t the applications’ omissions of facts regarding the providence of the Steele Dossier essentially a defrauding of the FISC?  And if this is so, what happens to every case in which Strzok is or has been involved? Strzok interviewed Michael Flynn, for instance.  Is this the reason that Mueller requested a delay in the sentencing of Flynn last Thursday?

One of the things that we know, historically, is that when testimony from an officer or investigator is shown to be tainted in some way, and particularly when that witness is found to have known his testimony was false, there are generally sanctions from the court, but more, all other cases involving the witness are thrown into question.  When it is shown that a police officer lied in testimony to a court in obtaining a search warrant, not only is that warrant thrown out, but there is a high probability that every instance of testimony in any case in which that officer had been a witness is thrown into question. It essentially ends the officer’s career, as nothing he says from that date forward is given any veracity.  No prosecutor will use his testimony, and no judge will thereafter consider his warrant applications.  In other words, Strzok and every case in which he has been involved will be thrown into question.  Every case.  Strzok helped write the Clinton email exoneration.  Strzok interviewed Flynn.  There’s no end to the possibilities, and Strzok has been moved out of Mueller’s team, and out of field investigations, to the Human Resources department.  That’s because he’s of no use whatever as an investigator of any sort.  His career as a field agent is and should be over.  He may face civil and/or criminal sanctions if he lied to a court, either directly or by omission.

Who signed off on these applications at the DOJ and the FBI?  The memo makes that plain:

  • James Comey
  • Sally Yates
  • Rod Rosenstein
  • Andrew McCabe

Comey and Yates have been fired, Rosenstein is still in place, and McCabe was placed on administrative leave by FBI director Christopher Wray on Monday, after he read the memo on Sunday. These people may all face civil or criminal sanctions on the same basis.  Rosenstein is being left in place to protect Mueller, and on Sunday, we had the spectacle of Trey Gowdy claiming that this memo has nothing to do with “Russia” or Mueller.  This is a preposterous assertion, as Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch made clear in a video briefing, and during an interview on Friday, when he was asked about Speaker Ryan’s claims to the same effect.  Here’s Fitton on Fox:

Now, compare this with what Trey Gowdy, (R-SC) had to say about it, Sunday, on [de]Face the Nation:

These two views are irreconcilable.  Either Fitton is correct, or Gowdy is correct. I don’t see room for any middle ground. Gowdy claims:

  • The Steele Dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower
  • The Steele Dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica
  • The Steele Dossier has nothing to do with the meeting with George Papadopoulos in Great Britain
  • The Steele Dossier has nothing to do with “obstruction of justice”

On their face, all but the fourth of these claims seem true, except for one significant problem: The first three are certainly independent events, unrelated in terms of the specific actors, however, they are related by virtue of a timeline.  These are independent events, each in a vacuum, but they are events that add up to something illegitimate once taken together in a timeline with other things like the Steele Dossier.  To analogize, let us imagine that conspirators had agreed to take their independent parts in a plot to ensure that I would slip on a banana peel in front of cameras on my birthday. (I could see my siblings setting something like this up.) One brother buys a banana, eats the fruit, and carries the peel to the appointed place. Another brother arranges for the cameras to be present at the appointed place and time. My sister finds me, and asks me to accompany her to look at something.  Upon my arrival, my sister on my arm, another sibling distracts me and gets me to look left, as from the right, the brother with the banana peel tosses it into my path and my sister nudges me over it.  I land on my backside, and all have a great laugh at my expense. If I’m gullible, I might believe that the brother with the banana peel innocently discarded it into my path.  I might believe another brother just happened to have arranged for the cameras to be right there at that moment to record it for posterity, and I might believe my sister hadn’t been complicit in walking me into it while another brother took my attention off the path immediately in front of me.  I might be that gullible.  Is Trey Gowdy that gullible?  Is speaker Ryan?

As for the “obstruction” nonsense, just in the last week, we’ve learned how Andrew McCabe tried to set up Reince Priebus, and this is another example of a Republican being walked onto a banana peel by a duplicitous Democrat, the whole point of which was to create the impression that the Trump administration was trying to improperly influence Mueller’s fiasco of an investigation.

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked congressman Chris Stewart(R-UT) if House Republicans are “more concerned with protecting us from the Russians or protecting us from the FBI?” Here’s the video:

That’s disgraceful. You can watch the entire Fox News Sunday show if you like, but any time Chris Wallace is involved, it’s going to have a leftist slant.

This isn’t over, because the DC establishment intends to rid themselves of Trump.  As readers will know, I’m not a Trump fan, but I am a fan of the rule of law and the US Constitution.  The forces arrayed against Trump here are formidable, but the question remains: Will President Trump rise to the challenge?  Will he find a way to empower his Attorney General, who has been neutered almost from the outset?  By the way, I think what should happen at this point is that AG Sessions should fire Rosenstein, then rescind his recusal on the “Russian Collusion” matter, and appoint another Special Counsel to investigate corruption within the executive branch departments, including the FBI and the DOJ, and also the State Department.  Apparently, I’m not alone in believing this, as Rep Paul Gosar, (R-AZ) wants to see some criminal prosecutions. At the same time, Rep. Louis Gohmert(R-TX) is pressing to see the transcripts of the FISC hearings that adjudicated these warrant applications.

 

Note: All of this made me curious to see if I could find out a bit more about Fitton’s view on things, and so I went looking around, finding this, which was interesting:

 

The Memo: Read it Here

Friday, February 2nd, 2018

memo_ft

For now, I’m just posting a link to a copy of the memo. It’s the biggest scandal in American history.

The government website is swamped. I’ve copied it and placed it here:

HMTG-115-IG00-20180129-SD001_pdf

 

The Silent Coup d’état

Thursday, January 25th, 2018

silent_coup_detat_ft

It’s become pretty clear that the permanent government in Washington DC is corrupt beyond repair.  Tuesday, it was reported that a “Secret Society” was formed at the Federal Bureau of Investigations in order to stop Donald Trump from winning the 2016 election in the first instance, but having failed that, in the second instance to see him removed from office.  The most damnable aspect of this is that the latter is still ongoing.   Before losing perspective, remember that I’m not a particular fan of President Trump, and certainly no apologist for him, but in this instance, it’s certain that the forces arrayed against him are acting outside the bounds of the Constitution of the United States, and they’re showing no signs of relenting.  Worse, because the Attorney General of the United States has recused himself from the “Russian Collusion” investigation, there’s nobody who can put a stop to this madness.  What we have is an open-ended coup d’état in progress against the current President of the United States, putting the entire nation at risk.  Left unchecked, this silent executive branch revolt threatens to demolish our constitutional republic, and every legitimate officer of the United States federal government has taken an oath to prevent this.  I really don’t care about the political differences I may have with President Trump from time to time in this context, because my loyalty is reserved to the republic, and I renew my pledge each and every day: “…and to the Republic for which it stands…”  Attorney General Sessions had ought to review his own oath.  Members of Congress had better review their oaths.  It is time to fulfill them, and Americans are right to demand it.  Mark Levin has been right to call this a “Silent Coup,” and heads must roll.

Naturally, it’s worse than just the text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.  That’s merely the point at which we enter into this issue.  When it became public knowledge last week that there was a classified memo by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, headed by Devin Nunes, there erupted a call for the document to be released to the public by various House members and also people in the media, such as Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham on their respective shows on FoxNews.  This memo purportedly gives some indication of just how corrupt the permanent ruling class in Washington DC has become in administering the Federal Government.   On Facebook and  Twitter, the phrases “ReleaseTheMemo” and “ReleaseTheDocument” became explosively popular hashtags.  On Tuesday, the ranking member of Nunes’ committee, Adam Schiff(D-CA,) together with fellow Californian Senator Dianne Feinstein(D-CA,) sent a letter to Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, CEOs of Facebook and Twitter, respectively, requesting that they investigate the allegation that “Russian Bots” were driving the meme on those two platforms.

Download the entire Feinstein & Schiff_letter in PDF format

 If you read the letter carefully, you will notice that already, Feinstein and Schiff are trying to distribute their own characterization of the memo, by way of defaming it.  Also, a question arises as to how Senator Feinstein has access to the memo to the extent she can comment about the character of its contents, since the memo is supposed to be classified and reserved at this point only to House members.  So why is a Senator commenting on the character of the memo?  It implies directly that she’s seen it.  Did Schiff disclose a classified document improperly to a colleague in the Senate?  More, when did members of Congress get the authority to make requests that sound more like demands of corporations?  These people certainly appear to be desperate to stop the disclosure of the memo in question to the public, and the reason for this is clear:  It will demolish the entire Democrat Party.  On Tuesday evening, both Schiff’s and Feinstein’s offices were hanging up on a deluge of callers letting the two Democrat hacks know that they were not “Russian Bots.”

There seems little impetus in Washington DC to release the memo, despite all the obvious evidence that the government is completely out of control.  Many Republicans seem more intent on fighting with President Trump than in pursuing the reckless, treasonous cabal that has sought and continues to seek to overthrow the duly elected President of the United States.  I cannot stress this point nearly enough: These people are traitors, and they have committed treason, and if they are not brought to justice, the United States Constitution is dead. If these conspirators are permitted to evade the full measure of justice, and if their masters are likewise able to escape detection and prosecution, our constitution is dead.  The country over.  In such a circumstance, there is no longer any moral law to restrain any person of integrity.  This must be an instance in which the great multitude of the American people must proclaim: “No justice, No Peace!”

Your country is being stolen from you.  At this moment, they are conspiring to steal the law from you.  They are conspiring to steal a duly elected President from you.  You may not like Donald Trump so well, but if you now stubbornly cling to #NeverTrump in spite of the current circumstance, you are forsaking your country.  Even if you are not a Trump fan, you must know what is at stake.  This is the sort of occasion for which sincere pledges of allegiance and oaths to protect and defend the constitution were made.  The last time this nation faced such a thorough mortal threat to its very existence from within, the year was 1861, Lincoln had been inaugurated, and the Civil War had commenced. I do not mean to say that Donald Trump is equivalent to, or even like Abraham Lincoln, as it is all too plain that he is not, but just like Abraham Lincoln, he is the duly elected President of the United States, and the conspiracy against him is no less broad or deep than the conspiracy that resulted in Lincoln’s assassination in 1865.  In fact, it is fair to say that while these conspirators have not yet resorted to violent means, it is certainly true that the conspiracy is wider in scope, and worse, it is secreted within the government of the United States.

None have yet asserted it, but it is possible that Robert Mueller is a party to this conspiracy.  Attorney General Sessions must immediately step in and put an end to Mueller’s bogus investigation.  He must dispatch the US Marshals to secure all pertinent evidence in the Department of Justice, including at the FBI, and within the NSA and CIA, and any other agencies in which there were participants in this attack on the United States.  Make no mistake about it: This was(and remains) a serious attack on the integrity of a US Presidential election, not by Russians, but by agents of our own government, perhaps in coordination with members and officials of the political party in power over the executive branch at the time.  More, there is now evidence that at least two of the conspirators were involved in getting the Mueller investigation going, and getting Mueller appointed by another person who may either be another conspirator, or may have been incompetent in acting as their puppet.  This entire ordeal stinks of wretched, skulking treason, and Robert Mueller is tainted with its stench.  It is time for Attorney General Sessions to formally rescind his recusal, and to appoint a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this conspiracy, and setting to right all those instances in which justice was thwarted or obstructed, and to bring to justice those who had any part in it.  This must include any members of previous administration(s) who were even tangentially connected, and it must bring charges against all the participants, no matter how highly they had been placed in former regimes. It may be that there are members of Congress, judges, and elected or appointed officials of the executive branch who will be rounded-up under this mandate, but this must be ended, and ended with swift and unyielding reverence for our constitution.

Editor’s Note: As I finished typing up this posting, Mark Levin‘s broadcast of Wednesday evening had begun.  His first hour focused on this subject, and it was Levin who coined the term “Silent Coup” in this context, so he should be credited with that.  I’d urge you to listen to that first hour, as it covers most of the facts we now know, and in truth, it had been Levin who first began piecing together this story of treachery and treason nearly one year ago. You can listen to Levin’s audio rewind in the player below:

Stealth Attempt to Ban Your Guns In Progress

Sunday, January 21st, 2018

2nd_amendment_ftIn Washington DC, as law-abiding Americans go about their days, minding their business, the machinery of state has found a new approach to attack their right to defend themselves with modern firearms.  No longer content to accept the fact that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms, and no longer willing to accept venerable definitions even of inanimate objects, the administrative state will now redefine terms in order to further restrict your liberties, and ultimately, to strip you of them entirely.  It will be incremental, and as usual, the method will be to attack at those points where the defenders are less certain, or less committed.  The immediate object will be items like “bump-fire” stocks and “echo triggers,” but the ultimate aim is the banning of all “semi-automatic” or “auto-loading” weapons.  Those of you who think your shotguns or pistols are safe had better think again.  Those of you who think even your revolvers will be exempt had ought to reconsider.  Naturally, the military, police, and other official entities will be exempt, and you will be left defenseless, ultimately, because you will not be permitted the means to resist.  You might think you can live without bump-stocks or echo triggers, and you might be right if that’s where it would stop, but it won’t.  It never does. For that reason, I wish to arm you with the knowledge you need to make a choice, and commit to it in the face of this lunacy, and to provide you the information you need to stop this now.  The BATFE has drafted new rules, and you need to comment and oppose them.  To make your argument, you’ll need to understand how they’re attacking your liberties.

Let us begin by understanding what they want to ban.  In the end, they are intent on depriving you even of lever actions and even more primitive weapons. They will reduce you to blunderbusses used only in ceremonies and re-enactments.  To do this, they took the first step by regulating machine guns, so-called “fully automatic” weapons under the National Firearms Act of 1934. In 1986, the Hughes Amendment prohibited the production of new “automatic weapons” for the civilian market.  Now, they’re prepared to take the next step.  The “problem” they wish to “solve” is that you would be able to fire one round immediately after the previous with an additional squeeze of the trigger.  That’s what an auto-loader or “semi-automatic” does.  Discharging the round currently loaded in the chamber causes the firearm to load the next round into the chamber, ready to be discharged when the trigger is again depressed. This is accomplished by some combination of spent gas and mechanical operation, the former powering the latter. The long-held definition of a semi-automatic has been that some additional human interaction is required to cause the next cycle, ordinarily another trigger squeeze. A device like a bump-stock merely helps the operator speed up this process.  The human operator still depresses the trigger to initiate each additional discharge.  What’s different is that the human is merely taking advantage of the natural recoil of the firearm at higher speed.  The cost is that the accuracy is sacrificed.  The method is to use the slop of the added mechanism to create a circumstance whereby the weapon’s natural recoil and a sloppy hold on the weapon create a moment when the weapon is recoiling, and then quickly returns to it’s firing position, meeting the finger which is positioned to again depress the trigger.  The weapon is still a semi-automatic, but human guile has made it approximate the rate of fire of an automatic.

The truth the BATFE’s rule will not now address is that no device beyond the firearm itself is actually needed to accomplish this.  Human guile, a bit of practice, and a little time accomplish the same thing.  This truth will be “discovered” at some future date, and when it is, the BATFE will move to ban semi-automatics on the exact same basis: That they can be manipulated in such a way as to behave, to the uneducated observer, like an automatic.  At present, they are basing it on the idea of “rate increasing devices,” but that’s a hoax.  None of these devices increase the rate of fire, but the human inducing it to operate are the instrument of the increase.  Since they can’t very well ban humans, at least not yet, or ban fingers, or ban loose or sloppy holds on weapons, they will instead ban the weapons.

I encourage each reader to go view a few videos on youtube.  These videos each show a person operating a semi-automatic in such a way as to approximate the rate of fire of an automatic.  Here’s an AR-15:

 

Here’s a Glock pistol:

Here’s a shotgun: Bump-firing a Mossberg 930.  I think you get the point. There is no form of semi-automatic that can’t be “bump-fired,” and to be perfectly blunt about it, the fact that owners of any semi-automatic weapons of any description would support a ban on “bump-stocks” or any other alleged “rate-limiting device” is merely an act of ignorance or cowardice.

The only “rate-increasing device” is a human.  The only salient fact is that your rights are under attack by the BATFE, perhaps at the direction, or at least under control of President Trump.  Congress is certainly complicit, as Republicans in Congress wish to simply make the issue go away, and making BATFE the heavy in an election year is the most expedient way.  Republicans can get their ban of bump-stocks without being seen by their pro-gun voters to participate in a vote to ban them.  This nifty abrogation of their responsibility is also an shirking of their constitutional role.  Permitting them to ban “bump-stocks” or “echo triggers” will next lead to the banning of any trigger modification, including reduced trigger pull weight.  Do you enjoy that improved trigger on your Glock?  Is that trigger on your custom AR-15 really smooth and light? What about the trigger on your Benelli shotgun?  Making them lighter or smoother also makes them easier to bump-fire.  Before long, anything that can be bump-fired by any methodology will be banned, factory-standard or not.  This will be the end of your semi-automatics.  Then it will be double-action revolvers, which in principle, could also be bump-fired.  Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that permitting the BATFE to redefine the terms will permit them to ultimately ban all semi-automatic firearms, and a few more besides.

There isn’t any question about it:  This rule must be stopped, and the NRA is doing nothing about it, at least to date, but they’re not likely to do so, because they want the issue to go away too.  To my knowledge, only the Gun Owners of America is taking any action, at least to date.  You can help, and you should, even if you don’t own any of these types of weapons, because things may change and the day may come when you decide you want or need one.  Banning these items on the basis that they “increase the rate of fire” is astonishingly dishonest, since the only true “rate-increasing device” is human ingenuity.  Please visit GOA’s website for more details, and to help by making official comments with the BATFE during the current comment period.

There is one more reason to stop this rule, and it’s a constitutional problem unrelated to the Second Amendment. People have spent millions and millions of dollars on their bump-fire stocks and their echo triggers and so on.  A rule that would now effectively make the possession or use of these items constitutes a “taking.”  In effect, the rule proposes to steal the value of these items without compensation.  Now it is true that I would oppose this even if the government promised to make the owners whole, but the simple fact is that as many as a million of these various devices, perhaps more, are in circulation, and most of them cost hundreds of dollars.  It’s hard to say with an exact number, but the amount of value this would steal from the aggregate of their owners is probably in the hundreds of millions of dollars. This violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition of uncompensated takings:

…private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.

That seems pretty straight-forward, and it’s an objection we should all raise.

People with an anti-American point of view favor these gun bans, and bans on “rate-increasing devices.”  The problem is that they’re frauds, using each unfortunate attack or mass shooting as an opportunity to steal our liberties.  Note that these same devious liars did not call for the ban of Home Depot rentals after one of those trucks was used by a terrorist.  Why not?  Because too many Americans would reject it.  That’s why your voice is needed now: The government, even under President Trump, needs to know that a large number of the American people reject it.  Don’t fail to speak out in defense of your liberties, and in the name of reason and fact.

For a video discussion of this regulation, including a former BATFE employee explaining how this is being done, see the Military Arms Channel video on youtube.

The Conspiracy to Murder Kate Steinle

Friday, December 1st, 2017

kate_steinle_ft

They conspired to kill her in the open.  They gave their hired assassin a gun and the opportunity to kill her.  They might just as well have pulled the trigger themselves, and it’s clear that they had no interest in protecting an unarmed, innocent American citizen from criminal aliens.  This conspiracy has been in place for years, and it reaches far and wide across the State of California, and indeed, across the whole of the country. The conspiracy includes the governor, past governors, former presidents, former presidential candidates, and all manner of office holders up and down the ballot.  It also includes the people who selected these from among the choices on the ballot.  They have created a monstrous situation in which felons who have been repeatedly deported from our nation are permitted to return, and are not held for federal authorities when apprehended.  This is a despicable circumstance, and it’s one that every right-thinking American should not only condemn, but for which they must demand an immediate remedy.  It is time for Congress to ask, and for the amnesty-hounds in Congress to stop using as a bargaining chip.  It’s disgusting in every conceivable way, and yet the conspirators remain, free, uncharged, and unrepentant.  They stand committed to the prospect that the legal fiction of “sanctuary cities” is permissible and that these policies create new victims.  Their entire argument is a lie, and it’s time to face the fact that these conspirators constitute enemies of the United States, and both the Congress and the President of the United States must act to pursue them.  The people of the United States must demand it.

Kate Steinle shouldn’t be dead.  The man who pulled the trigger, claiming that the gun in his hand had fired spontaneously, has been found not guilty of murder by a jury.  I do not like to criticize juries in general, but based on what we know to date, the jury in question apparently believed the defense argument that the shooting had been accidental, and this means they are ignorant buffoons.  It cannot be that any of the jurors know very much about firearms.  The gun in question, a Sig Sauer P320, a .40 S&W pistol of substantially good performance and reliability, was alleged by Jose Ines Garcia Zarate’s defense to have discharged itself.  The seven-time felon, and five-time deportee claimed that he found it and it went off on its own while in his hand.  Let me state clearly: Any juror who believes this is a despicable fool.  FOOL.  I have handle and fired the model pistol in question, and like most modern firearms, it is not some cheap piece that malfunctions routinely.  If, as Zarate claims, he found the pistol under the bench, if it could discharge spontaneously without his muscular involvement, my first question is: “Why didn’t it discharge itself at some point before he picked it up?” We are asked to believe, by both Zarate and his defense team, that the gun “just went off by itself.”  This is impossible.  If it were possible, why would it lay there for some substantial period of time before he retrieved it from the ground, wrapped in some sort of rag as it was claimed, never discharging until it was in Zarate’s hand?  It’s a lie.  It’s a lie so obvious that only a jury of perfectly ignorant dolts could possibly believe it.

Of course, as foolish as the jury may have been, and as dishonest as the public defender may have been, there’s hardly a thing that could match the incompetence of a prosecutor who was clearly in the tank for the City of San Francisco.  Facing a lawsuit from Steinle’s family, the city would find it much easier to fight a lawsuit without a clear guilty verdict.  You see, and let’s be very careful to understand the logical chain, if Zarate is not responsible, then the City of San Francisco cannot possibly be guilty by virtue of their Sanctuary City policy.  This is the logic the lawyers for Kate’s parents will have trouble overcoming in their lawsuit.  If Zarate had been found guilty, the City’s Sanctuary City policy would clearly be on the hook, because they ignored the Federal Immigration detainer, and let him loose.  If he’d been found guilty, the city would be directly culpable.  Now, the City of San Francisco will claim: “Sure, we turned him loose, but he was found “Not Guilty” and not held criminally liable for Steinle’s death, therefore, our turning him loose didn’t result in Steinle’s death.”

Watch.  This will be their argument.  Bank on it.  I suspect malingering on the part of the Assistant District Attorney Alex Bastian.  He works for the City of San Francisco, after all, so with a lawsuit pending against the city, it wouldn’t be in his interest, having been hired by the DA more than one year after the murder.  Why wasn’t a more experienced prosecutor put on this high profile case?  Usually, they queue up to fight over who gets these sorts of cases.  Not here.  A new hire ADA was given this case?  Why?  He wasn’t supposed to win.  Do I have evidence?  No, of course not, but I’ve been around long enough to spot a set-up when I see one.

All of this is beside the point.  The truth is that in many ways, this case is repeated over and over again, not just in California, but all over our nation.  The left is so intent upon finding new votes that they will abet any criminality committed by those who they seek as new voters.  Many establishment Republicans also turn a blind eye toward this despicable situation, because they’re in the pocket of the US Chamber of Cronyism.  Americans cannot find justice, and Kate Steinle is just the most notable recent victim of this conspiracy.  In short, they don’t care at all for you.  They’ll sacrifice as many Americans as may be necessary to fulfill their dreams of power.  They’ll do anything to aid the criminals because their war against us is incomplete.  Justice will be denied yet again, and an illegal alien killer will be let go, or in this case, simply deported.

He’ll be back.  Maybe San Francisco will pick him up for another crime.  He’ll be let go, the City ignoring the ICE detainer.  He’ll be free to kill another American daughter, or son, maybe this time, yours, or mine.  We won’t protest. We won’t chant “No Justice, No Peace!”  We won’t call Congress to raise an unholy furor.  California will continue its slide, with the balance of America not far behind.  These people are wrecking our country.  They’re parties to the murder of our fellow citizens.  Their conspiracy against us is prevailing, out in the open, right before our eyes.

Bumping Down the Slippery Slope

Thursday, October 12th, 2017

 

bump-stock_ft

In the wake of the horrific shooting in Las Vegas, various parties have latched onto bump-stocks as the means to launch a new round of gun-control, and foolish Republicans, eager to avoid any negative press, have seemingly surrendered the ground. Legislation has been introduced that will retroactively(!) ban bump-stocks, and due to its wording, potentially criminalize simple improved triggers. Given the over-broad wording, this legislation could be taken to ban all sorts of things.  This should terrify every gun owner, as we see the NRA going wobbly on the issue, and as leftists pounce like hyenas to finish the job. We can always rely on leftists to be insanely, obsessively intent upon exploiting any mass shooting to serve their political aims, but the truth is that it is the people on our side who need the most thorough kick in the pants.  Listening to the parade of Republican politicians who are willing to ban an item the existence of which they were blissfully unaware less than two weeks ago is worse than disheartening, as it speaks to the tendency of politicians to surrender in fear an any issue in which they are unsure.  All of this is bad enough, but as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi(D-CA) made plain on the Thursday following the shooting, a ban on bump-stocks is not the end-game, and will only be used as an opening gambit in a larger grab of gun rights. She wants this to become the slippery slope, as some alleged ‘conservatives’ join with Democrats in desiring an end to the Second Amendment.  Cooler, rational heads must prevail and stop this whole process in its tracks.

Before discussing the politics of bump-stocks, it would seem practical to dispense with some of the disinformation about them. Listening to some of the nonsense going on in the media, and having heard such lunacy as ammunition described as “automatic” over the past week, I think it’s time for some education. My readers are likely aware of these matters, but I think I ought to cover the subject for the sake of those who may go in search of the answer to the questions: “What is a bump-stock” or “What is bump-fire?” To answer these questions, let’s first be sure that we understand some firearms basics, because if I hear one more stupid, ignorant, never-held-a-gun-in-my-life ignoramus-posing-as-journalist misreport this information, my head may well explode.

Since the AR-15 family of weapons is in question in the Las Vegas incident, let us restrain ourselves to that family of weapons, although the basic concepts extend to many other families of weapons, such as the AK-47 and so on.  Automatic weapons are those that permit the firer to depress/squeeze the trigger, hold it in that depressed/squeezed position, and continuously discharge the weapon. In short, “one squeeze, many bullets.” In stark contrast, a semi-automatic weapon requires the firer to squeeze the trigger for each round to be discharged.  In short, “one squeeze, one bullet.” Military rifles like the M16A1, a weapon with which I first became intimately familiar in 1983, have select fire, meaning you can rotate a selector lever from safe to semi to auto.  This permits the firer to decide for the sake of the mission or the exigencies of the moment to fire one round at a time, or many rounds at a time. In training doctrine, we were repeatedly instructed that even on automatic, we should only ever squeeze off “3-5 round bursts” in order to control our fire and to limit overheating associated with firing a member of this family of rifles at cyclic rate. (The “cyclic rate” is an optimistic rate of fire stating the maximum theoretical number of rounds that can be discharged assuming you could feed it enough ammunition continuously, and that the weapon weren’t suffering from overheating. The cyclic rate quoted to we basic trainees back in 1983 was 700 rounds per minute.) The M16 was theoretically capable of emptying an entire 30-round magazine in something around 2.5 seconds.  That’s extraordinarily fast, and if you attempted to sustain that rate of fire, for instance with drum magazines holding 100 rounds, you’d quickly overheat and damage your barrel, and you’d likely wind up with a misfire and jam at some point. All of this addresses the M16, a weapon that was designed and able to select automatic fire from the factory floor.

It is a felony offense to convert a standard semi-automatic AR-15 to select fire or automatic fire.  By the letter of the law, this means that any modification to the weapon that permits the firer to squeeze the trigger and hold it squeezed resulting in multiple rounds being fire is an offense that can and will land you in serious legal jeopardy.  We’re talking federal prison, folks, and not the resort style facility for you, should you do this.  There are many cases of people accidentally causing a material change in the operation of their AR-15 that caused it to fire multiple rounds on a single trigger squeeze that have resulted in successful prosecutions.  In short, the BATFE has no patience for excuses and claims of “I didn’t mean to…” They want people to understand that this is a serious offense and that they will hammer you for transgressions, and they want the broader public to be aware that such violations, even allegedly innocent ones, will be pursued with the full prosecutorial force of the federal government.  This is why it’s always best to leave weapons customization to professionals except for perhaps purely superficial aspects of the weapon in question.

A bump stock does not, I repeat, **DOES NOT** convert a semi-automatic rifle to fully automatic or select fire capability.

This cannot be stated often enough, loudly enough, or with enough vigor.  Under the definition outlined above, the bump stock does not materially change the fact that one squeeze of the trigger results in the discharge of a single bullet.  What a bump stock does do is to permit the user, with a little practice and coordination, to effectively depress the trigger much faster than normal.  This is because a forward force is applied to the handguard/forearm of the rifle in continuous fashion.  Essentially, what is happening is that the weapon is being pulled continuously forward so that the trigger is bumped(thus the term “bump-fire”) by the finger(or thumb) and you can effectively depress the trigger much more rapidly this way than by repeated squeezing in the standard fashion.  Watch this video for a primer on the technique. Note that no special device or parts are needed or employed.  The bump stock works to facilitate this, making it somewhat easier to accomplish because the pistol grip and butt-stock of the rifle are sliding and thus can move back and forth.  In NO WAY does it change the mechanical function of the rifle or its action. However, as the linked video clearly shows, you do not need a bump-fire stock to accomplish this. Bump-firing has been going on for many years before the widespread sale of the various brands of bump-fire stocks. It’s actually very simple to accomplish as the novice shooter in this video shows, in this case using her belt-loop to turn her semi-automatic rifle into an exercise in “spray and pray.” Here‘s the most popular model of a bump-stock.

Understanding all of this, you may now understand my bafflement at the stupidity going on in media and among politicians.  It also makes plain the reason I have advocated ditching the ban on fully automatic weapons all along: If one is willing to forgo any accuracy, any shooter equipped with a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun can produce similar results WITHOUT BUYING ANYTHING.  In fact, it can be accomplished with a semi-automatic handgun too. (See video of a standard Glock 26 being bump-fired here.)

Knowing this, you could immediately ask the rather obvious question: Does bump-firing have drawbacks? The answer is a decisive and emphatic “YES!” You see, one of the problems with bump-firing is that in order to make it work, you have to have some lack of control.  In the case of the bump-stocks like the ones sold by Slide-Fire or FosTech you accept a certain amount of slop in the firing of the weapon.  Also, a semi-automatic weapon fired at this rate becomes terribly inaccurate. As you will notice when you watch any of the videos linked above, there’s not a great deal of control. More, this is wasteful of ammunition. Most of the rounds fired this way won’t strike an intended target as this video demonstrates, and while bump-fire stocks do improve this somewhat, one has to admit that it takes a fair amount of practice to gain much control even at short ranges. Striking point targets consistently at a distance is terribly difficult, if not strictly “impossible.” (Of course, if you’re aiming at a distant area target, like a crowd, or what we in the military would have called a “gaggle,” that’s another matter, but more about that shortly.) Lastly, any time you cycle a weapon this rapidly, even a purpose-built fully automatic machine gun, you invite two troubles, and they are jamming/misfire, and [over]heating. The killer in Las Vegas apparently knew this, which is why he had nearly two dozen weapons in the hotel.  He knew in advance that he’d only be able to fire a limited number of rounds in this fashion per gun, because as the barrel heats up(and this happens amazingly quickly,) the weapons would become less and less useful, accurate, and simultaneously, would become more prone to failures and jams of various descriptions.  Under certain circumstances, this could even lead to catastrophic failure of the weapon resulting in injury to the firer.

One might ask what this all means, particularly with respect to the various gun-control advocates and the advocates of the Second Amendment.  To be perfectly unambiguous, and to remove all doubt from the situation, let me state categorically that there is no way to avoid this as a consequence of the function of semi-automatic firearms.  Semi-automatic firearms are inherently able to produce the “bump-fire” results with or without any particular parts or attachments to facilitate it.  The choice is clear, and you should understand it: If you accept that there’s nothing wrong with semi-automatic weapons, then you accept bump-firing as a consequence.  Period.  Don’t let any politician or advocacy group tell you otherwise. You might ask what my opinion is on this matter, and again, I’ll be only too happy to explain my position: The Second Amendment says(from memory):

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It doesn’t say “lever action.” It doesn’t say “firearms.” It says “arms.” The current bans on automatic weapons, accepted and enforced by the courts, are actually entirely unconstitutional in any strict constructionist’s view of the Second Amendment. There is no set-aside for this one or that one.  The Second Amendment says “arms.”

In truth, if honestly applied, the Second Amendment does not permit the Federal Government to restrict any type of “arms,” neither “small arms,” nor even “nuclear arms.” You can expect to hear some howls on this basis, but a clear and concise reading of the Second Amendment leaves the Federal Government no such authority with respect to US citizens. What individual states may do is another matter, although since the courts adopted the [fraudulent]theory of incorporation with rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, one could argue that the statists have screwed themselves.  After all, it was big government types who insisted that the rights protected in the Federal Bill of Rights be taken to extend to the state and local level.  It’s always been a matter of curiosity(actually, simple hypocrisy) that while statists hate the concept of federalism in virtually all other instances, they have long advocated the notion of federalism when it comes to the Second Amendment as they attempt to apply local or state gun control ordinances and statutes.  Then, and only then, federalism is a good thing!  This philosophical inconsistency reveals the absolute hypocrisy of the statists, and reveals that what they really desire is whatever they may desire from time to time, and that should serve as full justification from prohibiting to them any power of any sort.  In short, they want what they want when they want it, logic and reason be damned, and with them, your liberties and rights be damned.

With respect to the situation in Las Vegas, let us discuss the specifics of this case.  Here you had a madman of some sort, whether politically motivated, or simply crazy beyond all repair, who decided for whatever reasons or none at all that he ought to kill as many people as possible.  Let’s look at this closely, to discover what makes this situation somewhat unique.  First, he was in a fixed position.  Essentially, he created for himself a veritable sniper’s nest on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort.  He didn’t need to move, and he didn’t need to seek additional cover.  He was going to be virtually untouchable for some number of minutes, because the concrete platform that comprises each floor of the hotel meant that returning fire at him from anywhere on or near ground level was going to be ineffective, and perhaps dangerous inasmuch as people in rooms in the vicinity would likewise have been endangered.  The angles were all on his side, at least for the initial portion of his attack.  As time went on, and better information was derived about his precise whereabouts, and as forced marshaled to confront him, his long-term odds of escape began to rapidly diminish.  He had almost no chance of hitting a particular target. If his intention had been to kill a particular person, his chances of success while employing a bump-stock at that range were vanishingly small, but since his aim was clearly mass murder, he had no particular target, so that indiscriminate killing was the object but not a detriment to his plan.  These factors made his attack very easy to carry out. There was nothing particularly skilled or clever about this attack.  The most skillful part of his operation was clearly his ability to prepare for the attack, transporting his arsenal of arms and ammunition to the site, and keeping his motives hidden until he pulled the trigger.  In short, he doesn’t seem to have involved others, claims of ISIS notwithstanding, and to date, it hasn’t been shown that any other person had any foreknowledge of the coming attack, apart from reports of a woman at the concert screaming to attendees that they were “all going to die,” and this has not been reliably linked to the attack as of this writing, although there’s something somewhat eerily disciplined that tells me there’s more involved than has so far met the eye.  He was not a military veteran, and as of this writing, there is no indication that he had any military/paramilitary training of any sort, but he had clearly acquainted himself with the performance parameters of the weapons he intended to use.  He knew that he would need multiple weapons for this attack, since no single weapon was likely to remain effective for long at the intended rate of fire.  He apparently understood that he would have a limited time in which to do damage.  There has been speculation that he had an escape plan, but I’m not convinced of that.  From the moment he broke out the windows and commenced fire, his timer was running, and he must have known that his options would come down to:

  1. Attempt to escape
  2. Fight a standoff with SWAT team(s) and/or counter-snipers
  3. Suicide
  4. Surrender

Virtually none of these rotten dirtbags ever surrender, so you can knock #4 off the list.  He had to know that he was likely to face a miserable death if he opted to stick it out and try to hold off or combat a SWAT team.  They would have ended his miserable existence almost as quickly as he did, but his odds of suffering for a time with grievous wounds increased, as did the possibility of his apprehension, which, for all intents and purposes equates to #4, and that outcome was to be avoided at any cost.   Escape was not likely the moment the security guard identified his exact location only 7-8 minutes into the event.  Egress would be virtually impossible.  It’s been noted that he had explosives in his vehicle, and perhaps he intended something more.  The explosives may have been intended for some diversionary purpose, to help make his escape.  That’s all possible, but the truth is that this was likely to end with him dead with a bullet through his brain, one way or another, on the 32nd floor of the hotel.  He must have known this, and whether it ended by SWAT or by his own hand, the probability was that the moment he broke those windows, his life was forfeit.  Even if he had changed his mind about attacking the concert, those broken windows would have resulted in a security response at some point.  It might have resulted in a shoot-out with security at that point, but the moment he broke those windows, there was almost no way for him to go back.  More, he did nothing to conceal his identity, and so even if he had changed his mind and simply run out of the room, hoping to be miles away by the time security discovered his sniper’s nest, they were going to discover it, and then the pursuit would be on.  No, he knew that once he broke those windows, there was no longer an out, and no longer much chance that he would survive the night, apart from immediate surrender, which, as I’ve mentioned, these madmen nearly never do. In a sense, it’s like the 9/11 hijackers: The moment they stood up, box-cutters in hand, and began to attack the crew, making themselves and their intentions known, there was virtually no way to stop it. For this reason, the last moment to stop would have been prior to breaking the windows.  After that, this attack was inevitable, and in fact, should mark its beginning.

The concert goers had no warning, and no chance.  It was merely a matter of where he turned his weapon at any particular moment.  This makes it all the harder for the victims, but also the survivors who emerged essentially unscathed in a physical sense, because many will experience survivors’ guilt.  We should all grieve for the fallen, lend comfort and assistance to the wounded and injured, as well as the families of those struck down, and we must also bear in mind that those who survived this shooting will need us to listen, and need us to remain steadfast in our support of them.

Mass killings are a result of our wretched moral decay.  By this, I mean the propagating view of the lives and liberties of one’s fellow man as a disposable quantity.  This brings me to the current political uproar ongoing in Washington DC and in the media at large, with renewed vociferous demands to dispose of our liberties.  It is asserted by some that what is needed is to immediately ban bump-stocks.  As the linked videos above should make perfectly plain, that’s not going to change anything in any material way. The truth is what Nancy Pelosi has already revealed: They want bump-stocks to be the vehicle used as the barrier-buster by which they will attack ownership of every form of semi-automatic weapon, and ultimately now, fake ‘conservatives’ are seemingly happy to go along with a repeal of the Second Amendment.

What makes this all the more sickening is the position stated on Thursday by the NRA. Apparently, Wayne LaPierre thinks “regulating” bump-stocks is a fine idea.  Wayne had better pull his head out of his duffel-bag.  If the left succeeds in banning bump-fire stocks, how long do you suppose it will be before they make the following argument: “Well, but you can still bump-fire virtually any semi-automatic with or without the bump-fire stock, so let’s ban semi-automatics!” From the videos to which I’ve linked above, you know that argument to be true inasmuch as the bump-stock is largely irrelevant.  The nature of semi-automatic weapons is such that given just a bit of practice, they can be made to approximate the rate of fire of a fully automatic weapon.  With this known, you’re now faced with asking yourself whether you’re ready to surrender all your semi-automatic weapons, the possession of which, by the way, the leftists are only to happy to relieve you.

The truth of this and every previous gun-control debate is the same it has always been: They don’t believe in your basic human right to protect yourself, your liberties, and your families against all comers.  Now we see that the Republicans in Washington DC seem willing to drop your liberties like a hot rock too, and unsurprisingly to some, it appears that President Trump may be poised to side with the gun-grabbers.  Those of you who value the Second Amendment had better prepare for one of the greatest onslaughts of gun control fever in a generation.  The last time politicians in Washington DC had this much impetus in the direction of gun control was with the last foolish “assault weapons” ban. In this country is that 65% of gun deaths are suicides, and of the remainder, once you remove self-defense shootings and police shootings, the vast bulk are committed by young men killing one another in just a handful of our largest and most violent cities.  More, only a tiny fraction are accomplished with anything other than a handgun.  The “assault weapons” ban did nothing to curb killings, because killings with so-called “assault weapons” were never a significant portion of the gun deaths in this country anyway.

There can be no simple ban of “bump-stocks,” because it wouldn’t be anything beyond symbolic in any event, as I’ve explained ad nauseum above. As the article in Reason makes plain, the proposed legislation is monstrously generalized, and as they conclude rightly, will only serve to ensnare otherwise law-abiding Americans. Make no mistake: This is a all-out attack on the Second Amendment disguised as something more innocuous. This is about confiscation of all weapons, starting with semi-automatics, with bump-stocks as the first step. The problem starts with the concession that there is something inherently wrong with the higher rate of fire, and once that’s established, given the fact that nearly all semi-automatics are capable of some form of this manipulation, how long before they simply demand the surrender of them?  What’s coming is not merely the nose of the camel under the tent-flap, but the whole bloody herd, and they have blood in their eyes… Yours.

ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!