Needles, California Wants to Declare Itself a Pro Gun Sanctuary

I lived in California in the mid 1980s.  Even then it was known as the land of fruits and nuts, but it was something we all joked about.  Now, it's no joke.  The inmates are running the asylum, and the whole State is going to hell in a hand basket - to put two cliches' together.  But California wasn't bad to live in then.  In fact, the year round sunny and warm weather was great.

Now, however, I suspect it would be a nightmare unless you are a Leftist.  But over at Bearing Arms Tom Knighton points out that a California Town Wants To Become a Pro Gun Sanctuary.

Yes, Sir, and the town is...wait for it...Needles. Needles is in Southern California, all right, but in the hot dry desert part on the border with Arizona. Still...


Knighton writes:

I have serious doubts that the town will be permitted to be a pro-gun sanctuary in an anti-gun sea, mind you. If there’s anything I know about lawmakers, it’s their hypocrisy. Ignoring laws is fine when it’s for something they support, but when it’s not, suddenly they’re all about law and order.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter. Just seeing a small community make a stand like this warms my soul. Not only that, but I suspect it’ll inspire some to check out the small community if for no other reason than to not be surrounded by anti-gunners as you will in other parts of the state.

It may also inspire some other communities to make similar declarations.

Indeed, I hope it does inspire other communities to declare themselves pro gun sanctuaries. I have long noted that when Leftists can get away with blatantly disobeying the law, then the law protects no one.  both sides can play that game.  This ultimately helps no one, and makes everyone less safe.  But, if declaring cities and counties pro gun sanctuaries makes the Leftist think twice, I say go for it. 

The Frightening Power of the Anti-Gun Media

I don't have much time today, but I wanted to highlight this piece by Beth Alcazar at the United States Concealed Carry Association entitled The Frightening Power of the Anti-Gun Media. I want to pull out just this one quote:

Of course, this bias has contributed to the declining trust most Americans have in the mainstream media. A 2018 poll from Gallup and the Knight Foundation found that 69 percent of U.S. adults say their trust in the news media has decreased in the past decade. And when people were asked why they no longer trust the media, about 45 percent referred to things like bias, inaccuracy and “fake news.” A general lack of credibility and the concern that reports are “based on opinions or emotions” are two other reasons. And about 10 percent of those surveyed also mentioned sensationalism, “clickbait” and hype as negative factors.

Interestingly, twice as many young adults (ages 18 to 34) as older respondents said that politically focused coverage or partisan bias was a major factor in their lack of trust. It’s too bad that it’s not a major factor for their lack of media consumption too. After all, watching these stations continues to give them support, and continued support just gives them more power.

Please go read the article, and ponder what you think you should do. Personally, I listen to the news for the weather reports, and not much else. Even so, I manage to know most of the important things currently being spouted by the media. One almost can't help it.

Anything you can do, I can do better, she said

Selwyn Duke had a piece yesterday at the American Thinker that makes the point that the current "problem" of so called trans men winning is a natural consequence of feminist insistence that a women can do anything a man can do, and probably better. The article can be found at Hey 'Trans' Men in Womens' Sports: Good Luck Fellas-Go For The Gold!

“Equality” cries were cherished by feminists when they gave females entry into military academies, boardrooms and the ranks of police; prize-money parity in some sporting events; and access to boys’ athletics. But with these appeals now putting sexually confused men in women’s sports, well, feminists’ cries are a tad different. Equality can be a real downer when it’s principle and not ploy.

As for my position, I’ve devoted more ink to combating the made-up sexual status (MUSS, usually called “transgender”) agenda than most any other writer. In fact, almost first in the field — and almost alone there — inveighing against MUSS ideology 10 years ago, I was criticized for political incorrectness by conservatives (some of whom now sing my tune). It thus may be surprising that I today say to MUSSmen athletes everywhere:

Best of luck to you, lads — may the best man win!

Mrs. Polykahr and I have had these debates since...well...since I have known her. Yes, women deserve equal pay for equal work, though determining what constitutes "equal" work can be more difficult than many think. But as a principle, it is one I can get behind. However, as for the rest of it. it has been a one way street.  Can a woman drive a race car as well as a man?  Well, sure.  Can a woman fix an engine as well as a man?  Why not?  Can a woman compete on the NY Giants?  Can a woman even compete on the professional golf tour?  If they can, why is there a Ladies PGA, and for that matter, why is the ladies' tee always several yards closer than the mens'?

What I am highlighting here is that men and women are different in more ways than the obvious: that women can bear children, while men can not.  But men can father children, while women can not.  differences in size and shape indicate, perhaps our Creator had different roles in mind.

Up until the Rise of the MUSSmen, male-female Equality™ had been a one-way street called Feminism Ave., sort of equality lecture + selective application = whatever advantage I darn well want at the moment. Prestige-oriented feminists could complain about too few female CEOs while never being asked about too few female garbage collectors, iron workers or loggers; or why women aren’t subject to Selective-Service registration. Politicians could bloviate about the workplace intersex wage gap, which somewhat favors men, and ignore the workplace intersex death gap, which greatly favors women. Activists could sanctimoniously agitate over men outearning women in acting while uttering nary a peep about women outearning men in modeling. Professional female soccer players (and other athletes) could lose to 14-year-old boys, lobby for the same pay as the men without being laughed at — and never be told the obvious: If you want the men’s money, emerge from your separate, protected athletic realm and try playing in the men’s arena and succeeding. Your separate ain’t equal, hon.

But enter the MUSSmen. They have won females’ competitions in track, weightlifting, golf long driving, and are generally breaking barriers (and sometimes bones) in women’s sports everywhere. This is called unfair, but why?

As one commenter quoted here put it, “I’m constantly told that men and women are equal and that gender is a social construct. I’m constantly shown ‘bad[***] women’ on TV and in movies that can beat up men easily. I’m told a woman can do anything a man can do. So…[w]hy segregate sports?”

Yes, women can compete successfully in many endeavors, and make important contributions to society. But as I alluded to before, men and women are different in ways that defy explanation. For example, Larry Summers came up against it when he spoke the truth to some feminists that they did not want to hear about men and women in math and the sciences.  We have now considerable scientific evidence that women and men actually think differently, and that these differences are caused by differences in our response to the same hormones. Again, it points to our Creator having different roles for men and women. Maybe we should be paying attention?

Have We Crossed The Tipping Point?

Ben Domenech has a piece over at The Federalist entitled The Cultural White Walkers Have Descended in which he argues that we are past the tipping point where Christian love of our enemies and politeness for the sake of our fellow human beings will win the day.

Politics today is for the rough, the confrontational, and the unapologetic. It is not comfortable unless we lie to ourselves about where it is and where it is going. Instead, American Christians inhabit the position where their foes are animated by beliefs consistent with an apocryphal quote from Frank Herbert’s Children of Dune: “When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.”

And it could get worse: it’s possible both the perspectives of these Christian conservative thinkers are too optimistic. Social conservatives should be most concerned that both French and Ahmari are wrong about what the enemies of freedom believe possible, that the harshest voices in the American left won’t be satisfied just driving traditional American values from the oped pages or the universities or the local boards. Instead, the left may be turning into the culture war white walkers, bent on utter and total destruction of everything American Christians hold dear – including the liberty to hold beliefs at odds with the consensus of the elite – and that they will root for that belief, even when it is hidden in their hearts.

I suspect...no hope...that Domenech is too pessimistic. There are signs that the Left has peaked, and will soon fall, but I have to admit that history does not give much hope. Too often the Left has enslaved whole populations for its own aggrandizement. Yet, I do believe that God will not let this country fall until there is another. He will not let the Left win forever.  When they over play their hand as certain states have done on abortion, He will eventually lose patience with them.

 Meanwhile, please read the article at The Federalist. He could be right. In the meantime, keep your powder dry!

The Problem of an Affluent Society

Deborah C. Tyler, in an article at the American Thinker entitled The Psychology of a Post-scarcity Society, claims that rather than the scarcity of needed resources, it is their very abundance that is driving the current deviation in politics and morals.  Indeed, it seems that rather than be grateful that they no longer have to do constant work to stay alive, our entitled population is lashing out.

When the struggle to sustain existence in a world of scarcity is replaced by affluence so absolute that even the incompetents, the ill and the lazy are all able to survive thanks to handouts from government and private sources, the results are far from the paradise imagined by materialists...

I agree with Tyler's assessment to a certain degree. I remember the stories my father and grandfather told of their struggles in the 1890s through the Great Depression era in America. Because I am firmly grounded in history, and in the deprivation that characterized the lives of those living in the past, I can look at the luxuries I have today, and be grateful for them.  It is this lack of gratitude that I believe drives what Tyler calls "lifestyleism."

Now, I am grateful to God for the abundance he has given me.  But if you simply can not believe in God, everyone should be at least grateful to the other people in society that made these things available.  You should also be grateful simply to be here.  After all, with abortion legalized up until birth, we should be grateful that our parents chose to have us.  And we should all be  grateful to the many industrialist and inventors for bringing to market the wonderful things we enjoy today.  We really do have it good compared to our parents, and even more so to previous generations.  And, yes, they did it to solve a particular problem and make some money, but that is how capitalism works.  We should not fault them for needing to do what we also need to do: earn enough to live.

However, I do agree that the problems today are not problems of a scarcity of resources, but rather a lack of spiritual training and growth.  In other words, a moral problem:

The definitive documents of religious and secular law in America – the Bible, especially the Old Testament, and the Constitution -- were given by God and Godful men in divine presence to bring compassion and justice to the seemingly eternal struggle for existence. These documents are not purposed to guide people through adventures in identity and lifestyles. The Bible and Constitution have had to be abused and broken to extract excuses for such perversions as the right to lifestyle abortion and sexual expression posing as the touchstones of freedom.

It is a cliché to observe that contemporary left-wing politics is a mental illness characterized by fantastical thinking and obsessive hatred. Leading Democrats are recycling monstrous and disastrous policies of the past such as infanticide and centralized government command economics as “social justice” solutions. The widest plank in the Democrat platform emits the stench of burning hatred for our President and contempt for the voters who elected him. This political madness is the distilled ideology of the religious, moral and psychological declines that have accompanied post-scarcity lifestylism. Religious conviction, sanctified lifespan marriage, the ideal of abstinence outside of marriage, loyalty and courage in defense of the nation, self-regulation of varieties of consumption are all ancient, rigorous challenges in the service of survival in conditions of scarcity. These essential components of mental health have become fustian notions in a society where there is no challenge to survival, no material need to curb addictions, and a comforting delusion that it falls to somebody else to defend home and nation. It is the nature of the mind to crave justification and a sense of superiority in one’s viewpoints, however harmful they may be. This is why we hear so much pandering ignorance about “socialism” though it has never been less necessary than it is today. This is why smug elites wrap themselves in contempt for “organized religion,” romanticize drug abuse (especially cannabis), and hate the deplorables who love America, take responsibility for their own armed defense and still try to follow Judeo-Christian moral ideals.

The ultimate problem, I am convinced, is that lacking a belief in a higher power, people have become convinced they are themselves god. Narcissism drives the lifestyleism, which in turn creates all these pathologies we see around us. Yes, it is caused by our affluence, but it needn't be that way. If we are consciously grateful for what God has done for us, we will see that we in turn need to do for others. When we are thinking of others, we are not thinking of ourselves, and we may just work our way out of the pathologies plaguing our society.

Please go read Deborah Tyler's think piece, and do indeed think about it.

How Much Democrats Will Respect YOUR Rights if Elected

Speaking of our dysfunctional Congress, at Bearing Arms Tom Knighton has a pieces Delving Into Representative Eric Swalwell's Gun Control Proposals. Knighton takes apart Rep. Swalwell's proposals a piece at a time and shows that these would not reduce either the common types of crime, or mass shootings.  Indeed, what the proposals would do is further burden law abiding citizens exercise of their Second Amendment rights, while giving the government vast new powers to track down normal Americans who do in fact exercise their rights.

As noted in a previous post, such legislation offends the Constitution, and therefore is null and void.  But note that it doesn't stop any of the declared candidates for the Democrat nomination for President from making such proposals and promises.  What does that say about how much they will respect YOUR rights, should they be elected?

Our Dysfunctional Congress

At first blush the article by Jon N. Hall at the American Thinker entitled Congress Is Dysfunctional, So Send In The Cavalry sounds like a cry for a coup d'etat. What he is actually talking about, however, is to declare martial law on the border and send in the army to turn back the invasion. But before Hall gets to the crisis on the border, he first takes apart the role of Congress itself:

Having presided over the nation’s first trillion-dollar deficit in 2009, Pelosi is the most fiscally disastrous speaker in history. Voters were warned that she was lying about ever abiding by her promises of PAYGO. Every so-called “moderate” Democrat representative who vowed to not vote for this ridiculous woman to be Speaker of the House (third in line to the president) but who then voted for her, should be “primaried” in 2020, and never heard from again.

House Democrats are an alarming admixture of hoary antiques and feral children. But these two groups have one thing in common: the answer to everything is more government and more spending.

But Congress has been shedding its responsibilities for decades. Congress has ceded over its own authority and duties to the judiciary (by not removing judges who “legislate from the bench”), to the Federal Reserve (by expecting the Fed to keep unemployment down, rather than using fiscal policy to help the economy), and to the bureaucrats of the administrative state (i.e. the permanent government) to create regulations that have the same impact as laws. Congress has also forked over power to the president, such as the power to levy tariffs. There are exceptions, of course, but nowadays Congress is more like a gaggle of effete palace courtiers than a body of serious lawmakers.

Frankly, I have been saying the same things for years. What gives the Congress the authority to pass of their responsibilities under the Constitution to unelected bureaucrats and the judiciary? In fact, nothing. The Constitution is fairly clear that legislative power rests in the Congress, and the Congress alone.  The Federal agencies may make rules for themselves, but they can not make regulations and impose them on us.  Only Congress can do that.  There would be fewer regulations if Congress had to make them. 

Finally, Hall gets to the border crisis, and using a Tucker Carlson segment notes that we have troops in something like 163 foreign countries.  These troops could be brought home, and defend our own border.

A damn good idea, I say.

Another Amendment Bites The Dust

In highlighting this article by Judge Andrew Napolitano, I am not condoning robbery, but I also do not condone overly zealous prosecutions, nor twisting the words of the Constitution to permit such unscrupulous prosecutions. As Napolitano also notes though, many people who should not be prohibited persons for guns, in fact are.  Napolitano writes:

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no person shall "for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This is commonly referred to as the double jeopardy clause. Like the other initial eight amendments in the Bill of Rights, the Fifth Amendment was written largely in response to government excesses and abuses during the colonial period. In the case of this clause, it was expressly written to prevent repeated attempts to convict.

...snip...

Compare that clear liberty-loving language with the Court's tortured idea of the textual differences between offenses and crimes, and one can see that judicial intellectual chicanery can always find a means to an end. The Supreme Court should be in the business of protecting our rights, not upending them.

The benefit of any historical doubt or textual ambiguity should always favor liberty over power, because liberty is inalienable and integral to our humanity and essential for our happiness. Power is whatever the government wants it to be.

Go read the entire article which is located at Townhall.com today. Napolitano is correct that Americans should not be subject to prosecution for the same crime twice. This is known as double jeopardy, and the 5th Amendment is pretty clear on this subject.  Once again, the Supreme Court sides with the tyrants rather than the people.  Of course, this ruling is null and void because it offends the Constitution, but unfortunately, the effect is to put real people in double jeopard.

Neither Judge's Decisions, Nor Legislative Decrees are the Law of the Land Unless They Agree with the Constitution

An interesting argument was made by columnist Deroy Murdock at Gunblog.Online entitled Does the Government Have a Subrogatable Right to Regulate Us? The argument, which Murdock answers in the negative, is general, but his example deals with gun rights.

  The general misconception is that any statue passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows: "All law which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Mardbury vs. Madison, 5 us (2 cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803) "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491. “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” These simple words set a clear standard on the governments inability to infringe on our right to own firearms.

  The right existed prior to the formation of the government and was in no way granted to the people by the government. As such, the Second Amendment is a restriction on the government and is not in any form a privilege granted to the people. The Supreme Court ruled in Mardbury vs Madison that “No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law." As such, any control or restriction placed over a particular firearm is an Infringement on the people. Anything that prevents citizens from purchasing a firearm or requires them to turn in their weapons goes directly against the Second Amendment. Further, current laws involving a permit or license to purchase, possess or carry are unconstitutional. This was made clear by Murdock vs. Pennsylvania: "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution…No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.” The Second Amendment is very much a secured liberty.

Mr. Murdock makes a powerful argument, and, one suspects, if he were writing in the 19th century, he would find much agreement in any court in the land, including the Supreme Court. That was then, this is now. The Constitutional ignorance which reins among the population as a whole permits the government to get away with such Unconstitutional acts.  And that ignorance is deliberate.  Leftists have taken positions in the academy that allows them to influence the teaching of American history and our Constitutional rights.  If we want to reclaim our rights, we must take the time to learn the true nature of our Constitution, and teach it to our children.

As a start, go read the linked article.

Guns For All!

A week ago I heard that Joe Biden, current DemocRat front runner had made the claim that since abortion was a constitutionally protected "right," that taxpayers were obligated to pay for it!

Wait...What?

Well then, does that mean that the actual constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms is also supposed to be paid for by the Federal government?  I don't remember hearing about such a program.

Hmmm...

Today over at the blog Of Arms and the Law Deroy Murdock has written a piece proposing exactly that entitled If Taxpayer Dollars for Abortion Are A Right, Give Us Guns For All!

Hehe...Go read the article at the link. Just as Jonathon Swift before him made a modest proposal, so Deroy Murdock now makes another. And just as Swift's proposal wasn't to be taken seriously, so Murdock's real point is this:

It’s only fair: If Democrats want to kill the Hyde Amendment and stick pro-life taxpayers with the tab for the constitutionally protected abortions that the Left loves so much, then Republicans should enact Guns for All and force pro-gun-control taxpayers to underwrite the constitutionally protected firearms that the Right loves so much.

On second thought, let’s try this:

Democrats should keep their sticky fingers off of the Hyde Amendment, and Republicans should ignore Guns for All as an idea whose time has not come. Instead, this simple concept should enjoy bipartisan support: If you want an abortion or a gun, pay for it yourself.

The Unintended Consequences of Locking Up Your Gun

John R. Lott, Jr. takes Texas to task for giving in to anti gun groups who insist we should keep our guns locked up in a post at Townhall.com entitled Mandating Gun Locks Can Have Unintended Consequences. Lott claims that the people killed because they were unable to get to their self defense weapon in time, dwarf the number of people killed by children stealing their parents' guns.

The media just can’t help itself playing this public safety campaign spending as a defeat of those who support gun ownership. But the media completely ignores another bill that really will project school children, a bill that expands Texas’ program to let teachers carry guns at school.

Please go read the entire article. I would note that in the North Carolina State Legislature, Rep. Larry Pittman has introduced a bill that would allow armed teachers in schools, H216.  If you are in NC, it might behoove you to support this bill. 

What the Gun Grabbers Don't Get

John Lott tells us yesterday over at Townhall.com What Gun Control Advocates Fail to Grasp After Mass Shootings. It is of course as obvious as the nose on your face, if you are a normal person. But, of course they are not. So what is it?

These killers face no real penalty for violating gun laws. Shooters die in three-quarters of attacks. Even when they don’t, the threat of losing their job or facing a few year prison term means nothing to someone who is already facing multiple murder counts.

Gun control advocates don’t seem to grasp this important point. Attackers don’t follow gun laws. But the penalties for illegally carrying a gun are very serious for law-abiding people.

Exactly so.  Murder is already illegal.  Yet some people find a need to murder their fellow man.  Are they likely to be deterred by a law that says they can not have a gun?  I don't think so.

Rather than trying to control guns, we should get rid of gun free zones, which have proven to be nothing more than target rich environments for those with intent to kill.  Our children are not safe in such a place, and neither are we.

Of course, you should read the entire article.  Dr. Lott has done extensive studies of the effects of gun laws on actual crime.  His book More Guns Less Crime should be on every patriot's book shelf. The gun grabbers can't refute it, so they just ignore it.

Do the People Work For Government, or Does Government Work For the People?

Today's post comes from Ammoland.com where we find an excellent explanation, not only of the original reasons for the Second Amendment, but also its relevance to the average American today. The article is entitled Second Amendment Makes Clear: Americans Are Not Subservient to Government-Part Two by Roger Kate. As this is only Part 2, I urge readers if they have time to read Part 1 and Part 3. All are excellent and the arguments made in these articles should be in every patriot's ammo bag.

I will not quote the entire article, since I am a poor scribe, and Kate himself is a far better wordsmith. However, to give the reader a taste of what you will encounter, allow me to quote:

Thus, Collectivists relentlessly attack the notion of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They are adamant in their refusal to accept the idea that the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists– or is even capable of existing–independent of Government authorization.

But, there is reason why Collectivists refuse to countenance the notion of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as fundamental, natural, and immutable, quite apart from their rejection of natural law. To the Collectivist, an armed citizenry is an inherent danger to Society. As the Collectivist theorizes, a safe and secure society is one under absolute Governmental control, one under constant supervision and surveillance. So Collectivists remonstrate not only against the existence of an armed citizenry but against the right of unconstrained freedom of speech and freedom of association. And, they attack the basic idea that the American citizen has an unalienable right to be secure in their person and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Collectivists place their sole faith and trust in Government, not in the citizenry. They presume that the citizen cannot be trusted. Contrariwise, the founders placed trust in and their faith in the individual, a sentient being endowed with an immortal soul, by a Divine, Loving Creator. For the founders, it is, then, Government that should not, and cannot be trusted. Thus, the founders designed and implemented a Constitution establishing a Government of limited power, authority, and reach; incorporating into the Constitution, a Bill of Rights, setting forth an expansive set of fundamental, natural, and immutable rights and liberties to be retained solely by the people, in the people themselves, beyond the power of Government to diminish or abrogate.

If you also get to part 3, you will also encounter this:

But, it is tyranny that Cuomo and Swalwell want, and it is tyranny upon the American people that the American people will most certainly get, if Cuomo and Swalwell, and others like them, prove successful in foisting on the American people, a vision of the world at odds with the vision of the founders and one the founders sought to cement through the creation of a system of checks and balances in Government; and through incorporation into the Constitution–the blueprint for the new Nation they had conceived–a set of natural, fundamental, unalienable rights: codified in a document called the Bill of Rights.

But, if the Collectivists' vision for this Nation takes root, Americans will see the realization of that vision decimate all that our founders created and that so many in our Nation had given their lives to preserve. As a dense thicket of weeds overtakes and squeezes out a carefully planted and tended garden, we will see all that our founders held dear smothered and blotted out.

The fundamental question is do the people work for the government, of does the government work for We the People. Our government is designed to work for the people. The people are sovereign, and lend some of the enforcement of their rights to government.  But if the socialist come to power, all of that will be destroyed. Our faith is in God, their faith is in government. As these rights are from God, we need to defend them at all costs.

Having No Evidence of Guilt...Means You Are Guilty

Please go and read Derek Hunter's piece at Townhall.com today entitled If Liberals Were Held To Their Own Standards. Hunter is on a tear about the fact that the Left keeps changing the rules. In particular, because then can't impeach the President legitimately on the basis of the Mueller report. they want to change the basis of the justice system to say that since he can't be exonerated by a lack of evidence, he is therefore guilty. I am guessing here that the Democrats believe there target audience is too stupid to know the difference. In any case:

Robert Mueller was “unable to clear” the President of any wrongdoing, which is decidedly not how the justice system works how every story is framed. CNN ran a long blog posted disguised as a “fact check” because the former Special Counsel “publicly refused to exonerate” the President.  Using that standard, I have no proof everyone at CNN is not either a child abuser, necrophiliac, or both. I’ve looked, but I can’t exonerate them the allegations because I have yet to find proof they don’t do it.

While we’re at it, I can’t find any proof the employees of MSNBC aren’t cheating on their spouses. If I were married to any of them, especially the on-air “talent,” I’d be worried because I can’t prove otherwise. And don’t even get me started about what I can’t prove they don’t do to farm animals and small woodland creature.

No one, rightly, would accept the idea they were guilty of something simply because they couldn’t prove themselves innocent. I suspect most of us have no alibi for what we were doing when Malaysian flight 370 disappeared, does that make us suspects? Are we now a Kafka novel?

By this standard, anyone is vulnerable to the most outrageous accusations. the new standard is that someone has accused you. No evidence needed. Instead, it is up to you to provide evidence of your innocence.  Once again, we must resist the Dems push to turn justice on it head.

This is similar to anti-gunners who, having no evidence that any NRA member perpetrated any of the mass shootings that have plaqued our country,  never the less blame that organization for those mass shootings.  By that standard, I could say that while I have no evidence whatsoever, Mr. Bloomberg is guilty of funding the perpetrators of these crimes.  Now Mr. Bloomberg has to prove he didn't do it., right?  But of course, that is a ridiculous standard, and no, I don't believe Bloomberg committed such a heinous act.  But this is what the Dems are opening us up to.