Making America Moral Again

Unless something comes up between now and the new year,  this will likely be the last post before January 1, 2019.  So, it is fitting then that an important think piece by Selwyn Duke is the article being highlighted today.  The article, at The American Thinker is entitled Restoring Civilization. Duke expends considerable ink debunking the notion that either moral relativism, or more likely, moral nihilism has any relation to true morality at all. Such notions of "morality" have at their heart, the notion that man is indeed the measure of all things, and thus what is moral today can change tomorrow. We have seen this happen with abortion, with transgenderism, with the LBTQxyz movement, and lately with the idea that our rights can be taken away because ...well...the majority thinks so.  Various excuses are offered such as the right not to be offended, or public safety, but in the end these are just fig leafs covering our nakedness.

Duke makes the point that in order to make America great again, we must first invest the time and effort to make America moral again.  Duke gives examples:

Well, imagine the vast majority of the world loved chocolate but hated vanilla. Would this make vanilla “wrong” or “evil”? It’s just a matter of preference, of whatever flavor works for you.

Okay, but is it any more logical saying murder is “bad” or “wrong” if we only do so because the vast majority of the world prefers we not kill others in a manner the vast majority considers “unjust”? If it’s all just consensus “opinion,” it then occupies the same category as flavors: preference.

One can see that if there is no absolute truth, no moral authority beyond ourselves, then even a situation like The Purge would be "moral." The Purge represents people taking revenge for the smallest hurts for which they otherwise can not get "justice." Were you just laid off at the Chevy factory when you neighbor drives up in a brand new BMW. The Purge is your answer.   Come purge night, make the bastard pay for belittling you in the most public way.

Conservatives and libertarians have often written about our decaying morality by talking in humanistic terms about the consequences of one item or another.  Unfortunately, people don't believe them, or else believe that the consequences won't happen to them.  Everyone is afraid to offend their fellow beings by bringing up the "G" word, or worse, the "J" word.  How gauche!

Perhaps we should all talk a little more about God, about sin, about the saving grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ, One with God and the Holy Ghost.  From there, we know that murder is a sin.  Abortion is murder.  Theft, robbery, fraud, are all sins.  Bearing false witness is sin.  God created mankind male and female.  Just two genders.  You are what you are, God doesn't make mistakes. And God, or Creator, endowed us with certain inalienable rights, among these being life, liberty, and the ownership of property.

Selwyn Duke is correct, that efforts to make America great must start by making America moral.  Everything else is just putting a band aid on a gaping infected wound. 

Yes!

In a blog posr at the American Thinker today, Bruce Walker tells us that All Totalitarianism Is Leftist. This can not be stated too often. Walker:

All totalitarianism is leftist, but it is also vital to grasp that the ideological spectrum itself is simply a macabre and surreal fiction – a Jabberwocky for those familiar with Lewis Carroll – a term that describes nothing at all. Politics does not conform to any artificial geometrical model.

...snip...

Conservatives – and the word "conservative" does have real meaning – will always lose, even when we "win," if we still used the rigged semantic game of our enemies, the totalitarians. Once we grasp the surreal contortion of language that deprives us of the means of understanding anything about politics, then we can always win, because all totalitarianism is exactly the same.

This is one thing that bugs me...a lot. They change their identity and their language as much as normal Americans change their cloths. They invent new words to capture these what is essentially old fashioned totalitarianism, something that has been around since Nebuchadnezzar.

The early Fascists were all Marxists. Indeed, Mussolini was the most radical Marxist in Italy before the First World War, and Trotsky considered him one of the greatest Marxists in the world. Fascism famously stood for nothing except action. It was passionately philo-Semitic before 1938, when it adopted Nazi anti-Semitism. It professed support for Catholicism, and yet it attacked high clergymen and confiscated the Vatican periodical and beat up Italians who vended it.

Nazism was founded by men who strongly opposed "Capitalism," a nonsensical term invented by Marxists that requires a tacit acceptance of the Marxist lexicon to use in thought or writing. Many of the early Nazis were outright Marxists, and most of the powerful Nazis – Himmler, Goebbels, Bormann, and Ribbentrop – belonged to what was described at the time as the "left wing" of the Nazi Party.

Why does this matter still? It matters because those who seek state power, which is to say leftists, invariably paint their opponents as "Nazis" who are "diametrically opposite" leftists, despite the fact that Nazis and Marxists have almost identical belief systems and because this false and macabre argument still persuades those Americans who have been stripped of the ability of individual thinking by the institutions of power.

Go read the whole article. The takeaway from this article is that no matter what the various leftists call themselves, whether Progressive, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Fascist, Nazi, Anitfa, etc. etc. etc., they are all Totalitarian. They all view government as the solution to all problems, and wish to impose a one size fits all solution to what are seen as problems. They all see government as the source of your rights, and government therefore has the right to take them away. Conservatives, in contrast see government as the solution to few and distinct problems, relying instead on the private sector for most things. Conservatives see your rights as coming from our Creator. The purpose of government then is to protect these rights for all.

 As you can see, there really is no compromise with the Left, and they are not going to leave you alone.  You will be made to take sides.  Which will it be?

Sheriff Had No Duty To Protect Parkland Students

A U. S. District Judge, Beth Bloom has ruled, as all Federal judges and justices have ruled, that Sheriff's Deputy Had No Duty to Protect Parkland Students. Ton Knighton has the article at Bearing Arms. It is disgusting, but it is the way it is. Knighton writes:

Unfortunately, the law requires these potential victims to be disarmed. It makes it impossible for them to defend themselves from an attack, even while the state has absolved itself of any responsibility to protect those they’ve disarmed. Frankly, it’s disgusting.

...snip...

You and yours are the only ones you can trust to protect you. If school children and teachers who are barred from carrying a gun on government property aren’t going to be protected, there’s no way you’re going to be. For some of us, this is the reality we’ve understood for quite some time. That’s why we have guns. That’s why we carry guns. That’s why we train with them. It’s also why we become so belligerent when some anti-gunner starts screaming bloody murder about how our guns somehow make them unsafe. No, they don’t. My disarmament will make me unsafe.

Tom Knighton typically writes short posts on gun topics, so go to the site and read the whole thing.

Knghton touches ever so briefly on the morality of the issue. You can find more about that in the book A Nation of Cowards by Jeffery Snyder, now out of print but still available on Amazon. Is it moral to demand that someone else sacrifice his life for yours? Answer, no. Thus the Judge's ruling is correct. However, if that is the case, does the State have the moral right to mandate defenselessness under these circumstances? Answer, no, it does not. That is the basis then of the Second Amendment.  The State either must protect each and every citizen, a clearly impossible task, or it must allow its citizens to arm themselves for protection. 

Pittsburgh Prepares to Deny Rights Under Color of Law. Groups Prepare to Sue.

Over at the website Bearing Arms Tom Knighton reports that Group Threatens Lawsuit Over Pittsburgh Gun Measures. The Mayor of Pittsburgh, PA has stated his intention to ban certain firearms, accessories and ammunition inside the city. In addition, he wants other cities throughout the nation to pass similar measures. Of course, Pittsburgh is not an island unto itself, but a part of a State that has preempted the cities from making and enforcing such laws. But that doesn't matter to Democrats (read Communists). If it is a law they don't like, they ignore it, or actually defy it.

Naturally, we can't expect the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to enforce its own laws; heck no.  Instead, we have to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth ourselves, which cost money.  And of course, that means we have less money for ammunition, training, competition and so forth.  Therein lies the real goal.  Besides making it more difficult for the honest gun owner, who must decide if he plans to visit Pittsburgh today or not, they hope to bleed us dry.  Knighton assigns very little chance that the law stands.  But then it doesn't have to stand, does it?  The mayor will effectively send the signal that the police can harass gun owners and concealed carriers without penalty. 

I don't know if Pennsylvania law allows asking for the costs to be paid by the loser, but the groups suing should certainly ask that.  In addition, the mayor should be held criminally liable.  I know, I know, fat chance that.

But just once, wouldn't it be nice to see these crap weasels perp walked out of their offices?  Wouldn't it be nice if THEY had the target on THEIR backs instead of constantly having it on us.?  Well, a man can dream.

Why We Are Losing Our Country

Today over at the American Thinker, Christopher Chantrill offers an explanation for the current gilets jaunes ripping up France at The Harvest of Free Stuff. For those who do not know French (and who really does?) gilets jaunes means yellow vests. So, the Yellow Vests are ripping up Paris, and they have appeared in Canada. Then there is the Brexit mess in the (Formerly) Great Britain, and the increasingly louder shouting going on over the 2016 election and the Mueller investigation, as well as the 2018 election results. What to make of all of it.

Look, everything our educated ruling class has forced on us sucks, from bankrupt entitlements to useless education. And it’s all about force. The three-legged stool of ObamaCare illustrates the problem. First, insurers were to be forced to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions; then consumers were to be forced to buy health insurance; then taxpayers and health-insurance consumers were to be forced to subsidize coverage to make it “affordable.” Hey, how about this three-legged stool? Graduates of selective colleges should be forced to work for two years as Walmart checkers, then used-car salesmen, then check-cashing clerks, before they can do a lick of “activism.”

But really, it’s all good. If a real-estate mogul and reality show star can twist the ruling class into pretzels, and the gilets jaunes can bring France to a dead stop in a couple of weeks, then there is something in the air. And the good thing is that our ruling class really does not have a clue what to do except sicc its deep-state thugs on anyone that dares to challenge its high-caste right to rule.

But lookee here people. If you sign up for the ruling class’s free stuff then you are signing up for them to jerk you around. That’s their thing: seducing the innocent and bullying the powerless.

And of course, all this ties in with the current immigration issue as well. Yes, some illegal immigrants come here to work, raise a family, and become part of American life. But more come here for the free stuff. Indeed, free stuff becomes a magnet beckoning people who just want to be taken care of, and care little about freedom and liberty.

As always, please read the whole thing.  Chantrill is an excellent writer and has a keen eye on the culture.

 One has to ask oneself why it is that the conservative message of equal under the law, everyone must work in order to eat, and so on such a hard sell?  It should be painfully obvious to most that human nature is to not do any more than is necessary to satisfy needs.  If you are going to give me free stuff, why should I work?  Interestingly, Dennis Prager has an answer over at Townhall.com entitled  Explaining the Left, Part V: Left vs. Right is Brain vs. Mind. Prager starts out by pointing out what should be obvious, but is not:

With the increasing secularization of society, less and less wisdom has been conveyed to young people. One particularly obvious example is most secular people, especially on the left, believe human beings are basically good. It is difficult to overstate the foolishness of this belief. And a belief it is: There is no evidence to support it, and there is overwhelming evidence -- like virtually all of human history -- to refute it. Jewish and Christian kids who study the Bible know how morally flawed human nature is by the age of 10.

Another thing I tell young people -- which, if they take seriously, will make them immeasurably wiser, finer, happier and more productive -- is life is a daily battle between the brain and the mind. The brain wants an ice cream sundae; the mind knows too many sundaes will make a person overweight and eventually diabetic. Similarly, the brain (especially that of the male) wants sex with anyone it finds attractive; the mind knows the trouble doing so will likely lead to.

Again, please read the whole thing. Taken together, you will come to understand why the wheels are coming off.

Several weeks ago I got into a discussion with a Leftist on the immigration issue.

Leftist: Trump is separating children from their parents and putting them in cages.

Me: Those pictures you see are from 2014, when Trump was not in office.

Leftist: Well, in any case, Trump is separating children from their parents.

Me: We don't know that in all cases the children even belong to the adults. Many children are kidnapped and used by illegal immigrants to gain entry into the US.

Leftist: If you had seen those pictures... You just don't have enough compassion, that's your problem.

Me: If you take the worlds 7 billion people, and subtract the United States, Europe Japan and Australia, you have left maybe 5 billion people, all of whom are poor, beset by disease, hunger, and violence. By your standard, we should have compassion for all these people and therefore, all 5 billion should be here in the US. But with 5 billion, the US would soon become a hellhole like the places they left. I have compassion, but I also know all 5 billion can not come here.

As always, that ended the discussion.

Gun Confiscation Under Color of Law

Daniel John Sobieski today, writing at the American Thinker tells us that Gun Confiscation Begins in New Jersey:

President Obama and President Trump were both right, Obama when he told us elections have consequences and Trump in his 2018 stump speech that a consequence of Democrat victories would be renewed attacks on the Second Amendment. New Jersey’s ban on high-capacity magazines has been upheld by a federal court, opening the door to door knock gun confiscation and making off-duty police officers subject to criminal prosecution. The inmates are officially running the asylum.

To be fair, gun confiscation has occurred in the United States before here, here here and here. These of course are just in the recent past. Here and there it has happened throughout America's history. In the South in particular, Blacks were often kept from owning guns, or had their guns taken from them. Any way you look at it though, this is theft under color of law, and it is the hallmark of would be tyrants everywhere.

Sobieski writes:

Which part of “shall not be infringed” does the Third Circuit not understand? Assault is a behavior and not a particular weapon or an ammo clip. Ever since Cain slew Abel with a rock, it has been the desire to kill which motivates evil. Buildings are blown up with fertilizer bombs. Marathons are blasted with pressure cooker bombs, trolls in southern France turn to tragedy through the use of, dare I say it, a high-capacity rental truck. Cars careen down New York parkways mowing down joggers and pedestrians.

Las Vegas concerts and Florida schools become free-fire zones not due to high capacity magazines but from the secular culture liberals have created absent a true moral compass. Gun-free zones, bullet bans, and other “sensible restrictions” merely create more potential victims.

Yes, high capacity magazines have been used in mass shootings. But they have also been used to stop them...

We will forgive Sobieski for using "ammo clip" instead of the more correct "magazine" because he does indeed understand the real purpose of the Second Amendment. It is not to hunt, but rather to provide the American people with the means to repel invaders or tyrants with the same weapons that would be used against them. If the police while on duty, or the military is exempt from these laws, that proves they should be considered Unconstitutional.

Top 10 Reasons To Own An AR 15

Mark Overstreet has a post at The Federalist giving you The Top 10 Reasons You Should Own An AR 15.  

Please go read and decide for yourself.

Marines Testify Against ANTIFA

Tom Knighton asks the question:

And the anti-gun Left wonders why we want our Second Amendment rights. I can’t imagine why any of us would want to carry a firearm, can you?>

in a piece at Bearing Arms entitled Marines Attacked By ANTIFA Domestic Terrorists Testify

The Marines testified that they were attacked because they happened to be in the vicinity of an alt-right demonstration, that the ANTIFA were counter protesting.  There were in town in Philadelphia to attend a Marine event that night at a local hotel ballroom.  In the meantime, they were touring historical landmarks.

Go read the whole article, please.

The ANTIFA stands for Anti Fascist but of course, is anything but. It's tactic of using street violence to achieve it's purposes prove it to be as collectivist as the people they allegedly are fighting.  The real argument between these groups is whether we should be a Fascist nation period or we should be a "white" Fascist nation.  And these are the people the Democrats back, and even praise.  These are the "good guys" according to the media.  Nonsense.

How about instead of being any stripe of Fascist, Progressive, Communist or Socialist, we instead return to being a Constitutional Republic with laws that apply to everyone, no matter your political party, no matter your status or wealth.  How about that?  And how about applying the Bill of Rights as originally written and intended.  Want to change the Constitution?  Fine, try amending it.  It has, after all, been done 27 times.  It is a daunting task, but not impossible.   

Parkland Commission Recomends Teacher Carry Guns

Tom Knighton at Bearing Arms notes that the Commission looking into the Parkland School Shooting made a recommendation that the school needed better law enforcement response and teachers need to be armed. The article can be found at Bearing Arms entitled Parkland Panel Blames Sheriff's Office, Argues Teachers Need Guns.

Anyone analyzing the threat to schools realizes that most schools are relatively soft targets with large numbers of relatively helpless children attending every weekday.  It is no wonder that schools attract those who want to make a statement by killing as many people as possible.  Making schools harder targets is only so helpful.  A fellow student can still get in because he belongs there.  And making the schools "gun free zones" (read target rich environments) doesn't make schools a less attractive target.  So, you still need some teachers who are willing to carry guns.

What Rep. Deutch is failing to note, what his party routinely fails to note, is that no one is demanding that all teachers be armed. Law enforcement isn’t demanding teachers carry guns, either. All anyone is saying is that it’s ridiculous that a teacher doesn’t have the option to be armed and they should have that choice.

You know, be pro-choice? I’m sure Mr. Deutch has heard that phrase before. Let’s call it a hunch.

While we all recognize that not every teacher will want to carry a gun, but there may be some. Carrying concealed is a burden, but surely some would not mind doing it for their students. Why not let those who do want to carry their guns to do so to schools? These would be concealed firearms, and unless someone blabs, there is no reason for any student to know who, if anyone might be carrying. This provides an additional security by complicating the calculation of those who would commit mass murder.  If we get rid of the "gun free zone" designation, parents who carry concealed and have business at the school could also carry, further complicating the would be mass murderers calculations.  I suspect that are much too self absorbed to care, frankly.

There are things we can do to harden the physical facility, but beyond that, we need to have armed security as well as concealed carry to make a those who would commit mass murder to think twice or more, and maybe think it might not be a good idea.

A Potentially Wide Ranging Supreme Court Case. Will The Supremes Do the Right Thing?

Tom Knighton, writing at Bearing Arms sends the post entitled SCOTUS Agrees To Hear Case That May Ultimately Undermine ATF Power. Well, yes it may undermine ATF power, which is good. If it goes far enough, and it really should, it may undermine the administrative state, as well as the power of the executive branch, bringing the power balance between the three branches closer in line with the Constitution.  

The real problem the Left has with Donald Trump is that he keeps appointing conservative judges and justices to the Federal courts. They still have leftist judges, of course, but if Trump is allowed to remain in office for eight long years, he may take the courts away from the Left. Since so much of their agenda is not really popular, they need the courts to put it into place. As an example, in a Democrat wave election, the people still voted to place Voter ID requirements into the North Carolina Constitution. Still, I expect that an attempt will be made to declare our new Constitutional Amendment somehow Unconstitutional through the Federal judiciary.  That is the current power of the Federal courts.

The Federal judges in turn have buttressed the administrative state through rulings such as the  Aure Deference and Chevron Deference that basically means that many regulations that are patently Unconstitutional are never looked at by the courts.  Striking down these deferences to the regulatory state may eventually dismantle the power to make laws and enforce those same laws.  It also will make it more difficult to change their minds on a whim, providing better assurances that the law is indeed the law.  As it stands, the law you rely on to form the basis of your actions may not be the law tomorrow, and indeed you may be charged with a crime that was not a crime when you took such action.*

Here's the dirty little secret: Presidential candidates rail against the administrative states power that is currently goring whatever portion of the constituency is crying loudest.  The EPA is always a target, of course.  The Department of Education has become a target because of Common Core.  In the gun world, the ATFE is often maligned.  But when in office, no President wants to give up any agency or power.

If the so called conservative Justices of the Supreme Court follow the Constitution, they will begin dismantling the administrative state.  All legislation, including rule making, belongs in the Congress.  The executive branch should only be enforcing the laws, rules and regulations that Congress makes.  If there is a difference of opinion, the Courts should be deciding it.   Let's see how successful Trump's judicial picks really are.

* As an example of such a law, I will site here New Jersey's new law that makes previously legal magazines contraband at Third Circuit: Second Amendment Is A Second Rate Right.  Though this Unconstitutional train wreck is a law created by actual legislators, it illustrates that in the current climate where the Constitution is no longer respected, such rulings become more and more likely.  Relying on deference, these Unconstitutional rulings will likely stand.  One of the things that has made our nation prosperous has been the idea that you can not be prosecuted for something done while that action was not illegal.

Are We a True Republic, or a Democracy In Name Only?

Kurt Schlichter says at Townhall.com in Viva La French Revolution 2,0, and Our Own what T, L. Davis says in his post at the Christian Mercenary entitled The Truth Remains, except Schlichter says it with more snark and humor. But the truth still does indeed remain.

Now, the protesting Parisians aren’t conservatives in the American sense – lots of their demands have a lefty vibe. But what they do share with us is how the abuse les deplorables have suffered mirrors the abuse America’s increasingly militant Normals have put up with. The French elite has kept dumping on them for decades, impoverishing them through economic mismanagement, cronyism, and corruption, changing their culture without bothering to ask permission through unlimited Third World immigration, and taxing them to increase elite wealth while stripping them of a say in their own government.

Sound familiar?

...snip...

So, what happens next? Bad stuff – and the dumber members of the elite will tell you their plans if you only listen. If you think our American elite is going to suddenly rediscover its obligation to work on behalf of Normals instead of using them as livestock, you haven’t been paying attention to just how arrogant and stupid our ruling class is. Look at their no-holds-barred quest to delegitimize and eliminate the challenge to their social grift posed by Donald Trump. But fortunately, he’s still there – no 67 senators are going to vote to impeach him because he paid off a couple of aging bimbos and, through some bizarre interpretation of “campaign finance laws” (which never seem to apply to the elite’s favorites), this is somehow THE WORST CRIME EVER TREASON EMOLUMENTS COLLUSION and MORE TREASON.

Oh, there are signs that the infamous Clinton Foundation may finally be investigated, and who knows, perhaps Hillary may be indicted. But this is all too little too late. Now that the Democrats have no use for her, they throw her to the wolves. But they allowed her to get away with all the felonious behavior as long as she served her purpose, and defended her all along the way.  The Democrats also let Eric Holder get away with Fast and Furious, because he still may be of use to them.  When he no longer is of use, perhaps he too will be finally investigated.  Then there is the whole Uranium One scandal.

These scandals and the felonies they entail will never be fully investigated, and the people who committed them will never be indicted much less receive jail time because powerful democrats don't have to follow the same laws everybody else  does.  And look, now they are making their felonies legal by through "ballot harvesting."  Soon, you will have no say in your own governance because the Leftists can always harvest enough ballots to overwhelm your vote.  Sorry illegal immigrants, the Left no longer has use for you either, now they have found another way.  Go home.

Please go to the links provided and read each article today.

Third Circuit Delivers Blow to NJ Gun Owners

Dean Weingarten has an interesting post over at Ammoland that looks at the dissent in the case of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc v. Attorney General of New Jersey which challenges the recent ban on magazines carrying more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Weingaten's article can be found at Third Circuit: Second Amendment is a Second Rate Right.

First, Weingarten sets the table:

The two majority judges followed the trend of other Circuits where the Second Amendment is being degraded and reduced to second-rate status. Only a month ago, the First Circuit ruled the Second Amendment does not apply outside of the home.

The rogue Circuits are able to do this because the Supreme Court has been refusing to hear Second Amendment cases for nearly a decade. The Supreme Court only hears a limited number of cases. They are not required to hear all cases.

Some Circuit courts are gutting the Second Amendment by claiming it is not really a right. Rather, they say, it is a privilege the government may regulate if the government thinks it might do some good to regulate it. These Jurists seem embarrassed by the Second Amendment. They seem to believe their job is to limit it as much as possible, rather than to protect it as a fundamental right.

Weingarten then cites the Dissenting opinion in the case of Judge Stephanos Bibas, and implies that this is a Judge we should be watching.

Yet the majority treats the Second Amendment differently in two ways. First, it weighs the merits of the case to pick a tier of scrutiny. That puts the cart before the horse. For all other rights, we pick a tier of scrutiny based only on whether the law impairs the core right. The Second Amendment’s core is the right to keep weapons for defending oneself and one’s family in one’s home. The majority agrees that this is the core. So whenever a law impairs that core right, we should apply strict scrutiny, period. That is the case here.

Second, though the majority purports to use intermediate scrutiny, it actually recreates the rational-basis test forbidden by Heller. It suggests that this record favors the government, but make no mistake—that is not what the District Court found. The majority repeatedly relies on evidence that the District Court did not rely on and expert testimony that the District Court said was “of little help.” 2018 WL 4688345, at *8. It effectively flips the burden of proof onto the challengers, treating both contested evidence and the lack of evidence as conclusively favoring the government.

We can only hope the Supreme Court hears this case, and finds for the New Jersey Association of Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. According to an article by George Rasley at Conservative HQ, entitled Yes, They Are Coming For Your Guns:

Charles Toutant, writing for the New Jersey Law Journal, reports the appeals court, by a 2-1 margin, said the law limiting high-capacity magazines does not violate the Second Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The court affirmed an order from the U.S. District Court that denied the challengers’ motion to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the law.

How many is Eric Swalwell willing to see killed?

Kurt Schlichter today asks Rep. Swalwell (Communist, California) How Much Blood Would Leftists Be Willing to Shed to Disarm Patriotic Americans? at Townhall.com. It is, as Schlichter notes, a fair question. At least one person has already been killed by police attempting to disarm one individual in Maryland under a Red Flag Law. So, Schlichter's question is not an idle one. We have proof of what these sorts of laws produce in the hands of gun grabbers.  We can also see the gun grabbing Left doesn't mind trampling all over our rights in order to achieve their goal of a docile and compliant population.

Schlichter:

Swalwell is the MSNBC stalwart who recently wrote an op-ed advocating that the government confiscate the guns that make people like him wet themselves and imprison those of us who decline to surrender them. Millions of Americans own these basic tools of freedom, which the ignorant call “assault weapons,” and these loyal citizens keep and bear them to protect themselves, their families, their communities and their Constitution. But Rep. Swalwell would make these citizens felons, though these patriots are only a threat to criminals and aspiring tyrants.

Of course, he wants to make these patriots felons because they are a threat to criminals and aspiring tyrants. After all, that’s what leftist Democrats like him are.

...snip...

So, in light of his party’s track record, I want to know how many people Rep. Swalwell – who fancies himself a potent Democrat presidential contender – is prepared to see die so he can ensure Americans are disarmed in order to please the liberal Californians he represents.

How many?

One?

One hundred?

One thousand?

One hundred thousand?

More?

I suspect we know the answer. Communist and their kissing cousins, Fascist governments killed an estimated 120 million of their own people in the last century. Is there any reason why Eric Swalwell might feel any more compassion for people standing in the way of his goals?

Georgi Boorman on Abortion

Interestingly, I find that a number of everyday people feel as I do that aborting your child is murder.  Period.  And if it is murder, then Yes, it would be just to punish women for aborting their babies according to Georgi Boorman at the Federalist. Of course, a number of women who abort their babies do find the act haunts them, and perhaps it is indeed all but the sociopaths who do. Still, if we recognize abortion as murder, then there must be a legal proceeding against it, or as I have often promoted, a legal proceeding to provide due process to the execution of an unborn child. To maintain otherwise is to maintain a cognitive dissonance for political expediency.

Ms. Boorman goes through all the reasons why otherwise pro-lifers back away from making the principled arguments.  Please go read the whole piece.  But let me leave you with this:

None of this makes any sense. While maintaining these inconsistencies may allow for moderate changes to the abortion regime, they will never succeed in outlawing abortion on a large scale or making it truly “culturally unacceptable.” Pro-lifers lose some of that zeal that comes from knowing the truth because they are constantly pouring effort into propping up failing arguments to appeal to moderates; yet the left keeps winning moderates by turning what should be well-presented, carefully considered, and logical arguments into scare tactics because no one is willing to think it through and articulate it to them.

You don’t have to ultimately agree with the practicality of, say, putting the death penalty on the table for abortion, to take the position seriously and respect its logical consistency. Yet mainstream pro-lifers are falling into the left’s hysteria trap by frantically trying to quash any mention of such propositions. We can’t seem to have an honest conversation even about prosecuting women, much less a death penalty, because we’re too busy trying to save face.

Backing prosecution for women who get abortions is the only tenable position to take. From there, the arguments are more practical. How long of a sentence is reasonable? How do mitigating circumstances factor in, such as coercion from a partner or family members? Are convicted aborters a danger to future children or society in general? How do we balance the cost of incarceration with the concept of justice? Are there other ways they can pay for their crimes?

Yet we can’t seem to move on to those important discussions, to introducing them carefully and thoughtfully to the public, because both the left and the mainstream pro-life movement are stuck on the fallacious idea that women should be exempted from all responsibility for their actions. MikFor the pro-life movement to succeed, they need to embrace their own core arguments’ conclusions.

Ballot Harvesting: The Newest Way to Steal an Election

I was initially puzzled when I read that Republican candidates in Kalifornia had been unseated by a process known as "ballot harvesting."  What on earth?  Apparently it caught a number of people by surprise because the methods used by ballot harvesters are just now coming out.  Scott Morefield has an article on the practice over at Townhall.com entitled 'Ballot Harvesting,' California Dems' Latest Election Stealing Tool. From the sound of it, no doubt Brenda Snipes wishes she could have had such a tool at her disposal in Broward County, Florida. Morefield talks about the various ways that Democrats can steal votes with this new system. To fully understand the quote, however, it helps if you first view an example of "ballot harvesting" being accomplished by a young woman calling herself Lulu:

Imagine the ramifications, or the ‘possibilities’ if you’re a Dem. What happens if, for example, Lulu’s next house visit has a “Make America Great Again” flag planted in the front yard? Could Lulu go there, pretend to be a Republican, then toss the completed ballot in the trash on the way to Ben & Jerry’s? Of course she could, and the likelihood of getting caught would be next to zero. Could she then go to someone’s home who had no intention of voting, then ‘convince’ them to vote Democrat and give their ballot to her or else their next social security check won’t be coming? Again, yes she could.

Or maybe a union boss asks the folks under his charge to become permanent “vote-by-mail” voters so, you know, he can keep them ‘informed’ on the issues. Or maybe a partisan nursing home administrator ‘helpfully’ collects the ballots of her residents only to shred those from all the guys wearing the Vietnam Veteran hats.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. It’s not that voting should be difficult, but at the same time it should be secret, transparent, and require a basic investment in time, becoming informed, and properly identifying oneself as an American citizen eligible for the right. The numerous ways California has sought to make the electoral process the ease-equivalent of an America’s Got Talent contest has opened the door to endless forms of fraud.

Please go read the entire article. Then go to the American Thinker, where you can also read a post by Monica Showalter entitled The Stomach Turning Ballot Harvesting That Enabled Democrats to Walk Off with California Note that this makes California a total one party state. Republicans need not even bother voting, unless they are willing to use the same tactics as Democrats.  Then it will become a race to see which party can deliver the most harvested ballots.  This is not democracy, this is straight anarchy.  Ballot harvesting takes away the one person has one vote idea (which they may exercise, or not.  Not exercising your vote is a vote nonetheless.)

You can expect the same practices to come to a State near you as soon as Democrats get control of a legislature in your State.  Even if they can't get control of a legislature, expect them to use the courts where possible to shift the balance their way, as they have used the courts to constantly tear down North Carolina's Voter ID laws.  Indeed, they attempted to sneak a Democrat on the ballot this time as a Republican in the Supreme Court race.  There seems to be no perfidy too low for these guys.