Alan Korwin: We Need Consequences For Infringements

To gun owners and journalists, the name Alan Korwin has been known for years. He is the author if various states gunowner's guides. Indeed, as he shows here, he is the go to person when you have a question about gun laws. And, in fact, keeping and bearing arms it is pretty confusing and risky as each state has different gun laws, and in some cases, just moving from one county or city to another jurisdiction can put gun owners in serious jeapardy. Therefore, Korwin's work is invaluable.

With that introduction to who Alan Korwin is, let us take a look at his recent article at Townhall.com entitled Giving The Constitution Teeth: The Truth About Aggravated Infringement - A Felony. Korwin's point is absolutely correct, there is no way to hold people accountable for violations, or infringements of rights and provision of the Constitution itself, for the Constitution assumes that those who have taken an oath to defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic will keep their word. Too many have proven they will not do so. Here is what Korwin proposes:

The U.S. Constitution, for all its strengths, revered and imitated worldwide, has a fatal flaw. A weakness of Greek-tragedy proportions. The Constitution lacks punishment for those who would violate its terms. Yes, there are avenues of recourse, but these have been neutered and rendered feckless in so many ways.

Politicians these days believe they can get away with anything, right? Graft, bribes, gaslighting, obtaining office by any means legal or otherwise, all-out bald-faced lies, scare tactics, misappropriation of funds... They’ll use the organs of government to assault domestic opposition (not the same as domestic enemies), place them under arrest, strangle their voices by deplatforming, controlling so-called “news” media and playing them like stenographers, it has gotten totally out of hand. Why? And what to do about it? Even when they’re exposed, red-handed—did you review John Durham’s report?—they seem to skate. Here’s why:

The ultimate protection of our “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness”—a way to force government into compliance—is use of force. Our Declaration of Independence recognized and encouraged that “...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

That option, which held more meaning right after our bloody founding, has lost some if not all its impact. It’s too extreme, too hard, too violent for subtle infringements and little incursions on our liberties. That allows the thousand cuts to build up until they are intolerable acts. Then use of force is too late. We’re there now. But there’s hope.

What America needs, what our Republic and Constitution need, is strict adherence to a policy of, “No infringement shall be tolerated.” Small encroachments—like licenses to carry arms or speech codes—must subject people proposing such violations to penalties. Gross infringements like, “We’re going to take away your favorite rifle—and of course we’ll keep ours,” require prison terms. Stiff penalties.

I can already hear gentle readers mumbling to themselves "Yeah? Who is going to enforce it. Don't we already have something about depriving people of rights acknowledged by the Constitution under color of law? Why, yes we do. It is 18 U.S Code Section 242. But really doesn't apply to the politicians themselves, though it could apply to the officials of the Deep State. But again, who will enforce it against them when it is the Attorney General himself who is directing these bad actors. But let's hear Korwin out, shall we?

Talking about violating constitutional rights is fine. That’s free speech, protected to an almost holy level. Acting to violate the rights though, like by proposing laws in clear usurpation beyond delegated powers, that is Simple Infringement, a misdemeanor.

Formally proposing infringement legislation is a bad thing. But acting on existing infringements, that is Aggravated Infringement, a felony, with stiff sentences and strict liability, even for a first offense. You cannot offer such tripe into the legislative hopper. It’s like proposing slavery. Argue for it with speech, this is an American’s prerogative. So many of my liberal friends argue for banning guns, taking away guns you own, outlawing the purchase of new guns, making new categories of prohibited people. We must support this, it is a right to speak.

You politicians, elected or appointed, and your bureaucratic functionaries—hired, appointed or in office by law—you are banned from doing these things. Without teeth though, the ban is feckless, as we see all around us. Under these proposed new statutes—you get fined for a first offense, jailed for repeat offenses. Don’t do it.

Unfortunately, Korwin never really answers the question of just who or what institution will enforce these laws. The Supreme Court has proven to be feckless very often. In any case, the cost to get something in front of the court...maybe...would bankrupt the average citizen many times over. The Attorney General is often part of the problem. Even if it is Federal judges, these are appointed individuals who are, sadly not angels themselves.

I agree with Mr. Korwin's idea, but I have my doubts as to its practicality.

Remain Committed to Seeking Truth

 I have mentioned before that you and I, gentle readers, must remain committed to speaking the truth.  For to give in to the Left's redefinition of language and words is to become demoralized in the literal sense.  If we lose the truth, we lose our integrity.  Today, we have two articles dealing with the topic.

The first article is by Laura Hollis at Townhall.com entitled Truth Is The Foundation Of Our Nation. Hollis thesis is that man is corrupt from the start, and must cleave strongly to Godly principles, however short of the mark his efforts cause him to be. But of late, society seems to have given in to the Father of Lies:

In Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament, the introduction of evil in the world starts with a lie. Satan tells the first humans that if they defy the express will of God, they "shall be like gods" themselves, something which is neither true nor possible. Whether one believes in the biblical story of creation as fact or sees it merely as allegory, the lesson is the same: at the heart of the worst human behaviors is the desire to be God, including the belief that the truth is whatever we declare it to be.

History is replete with examples, but a recent one is the transgender phenomenon. We find ourselves being told now by "experts" that men can become women and women can become men merely by declaring that they identify as such. Chromosomal biology, we're told, is irrelevant. Physical differences -- even in competitive sports -- are now deemed immaterial. Demands for fairness and the desire for privacy and safety -- in sports, in bathrooms, in locker rooms, even in prisons -- are no longer considered natural and normal but condemned as irrational "phobias" and expressions of hatred.

This is by no means the first lie that exalts human desire over scientific fact. The abortion movement has depended for decades on the falsehood that the developing child in utero is "just a clump of cells," "not a person," "not a baby." Despite advances in technology that enable us to see the developing child, including surgery in utero and 4D ultrasound, people still deny the humanity of the living human child in his or her mother's womb.

These falsehoods are born of another lie -- the oft-repeated belief that science and religion are antithetical to each other. Science and superstition may be, but science and religion, per se, are not. In fact, much of humanity's greatest technological -- not to mention artistic and literary -- advancements have been inspired by faith and achieved by believers.

In fact, attacks upon God inevitably become attacks upon science. Once the belief in an ultimate source of truth is abandoned, truth itself becomes malleable, dispensable; whatever one wants or needs to be for his or her personal aims.

While man has always been tempted with such lies, in recent decades they have become ever more pervasive. The unholy alliance between government, the media and Big Tech, and now people designated as "experts" who determine for us what is true and false have generated a monster that threatens to strangle the truth in its crib. It is here, where J. B. Shurk at the American Thinker takes us deeper into the lies and propaganda with his article entitled A Government At War With Its People.

Instead, ordinary information enjoyed and shared among regular people is now targeted for classification. An alliance of national governments, international institutions, and propaganda engines disguised as disinterested nonprofits has sprung up to toss "unacceptable" thoughts into garbage piles for "mis-," "mal-," and "dis-" information trash bins. As with everything else in modern society, the cult of expertise has even given us "disinformation experts" to decide what knowledge belongs where.

The small coterie of "disinformation experts" recognized and promoted by governments then monitor what the common people are saying among themselves, cast their nets around anything "unacceptable," and stigmatize those words and thoughts as deserving of censorship. Perhaps one day soon there will be academic degrees in "disinformation" or special licenses distinguishing State-approved professionals as qualified to tell the rest of us what is real. As a rule of thumb, if you want to know what kinds of knowledge governments fear their citizens possessing, look to the subjects that require numerous layers of authority validation before access is granted or titles are conferred. Now the knowledge that governments fear their citizens possessing is simply information outside their control.

Shurk, having fully stated his thesis, delves into the nature of truth, and praising those who seek the truth. As he points out, anyone can be mistaken on a topic, but if someone is dedicated to seeking the truth, he will over time come closer to the truth and abandon lies. But, what damage have the lies done to the fabric of our society? If as Hollis says, truth is the foundation of our nation, one would expect that our societal fabric is moth eaten.

This war directed against Americans' minds has been raging for quite some time. What is different today is its pace and brazenness. Lies about Russia collusion, COVID, vaccine effectiveness, climate change, Biden family corruption, impartial justice, biological sex, American history, border security, debt sustainability, crime rates, gun safety, banking solvency, military engagements, racial disparities, religious doctrine, Western civilization, childhood development, healthy obesity, government surveillance, hydrocarbon energy, human slavery, acclaimed literature, anthropology — no topic is off limits for those who manipulate the public for a living.

Increasingly, the question is not whether the government is lying, but rather how malicious its intentions are. Did bureaucrats mandate mRNA injections that were neither safe nor effective because they are bad at science? Because they needed an alarming reason to rig the 2020 election with mail-in ballots? As a means of rewarding pharmaceutical companies and the politicians they own with windfall profits? As an opportunity to accelerate the World Economic Forum's "Great Reset"? As a way to condition people to think of property, free speech, and personal liberty as "selfish" and instead submit to the national security surveillance State?

Are the climate change cultists committed to taking over farms and ending hydrocarbon fuels because they are too dumb to understand weather patterns, solar and geothermal energies, and chemistry? Because they are committed communists who believe in global government and command-and-control economies? Because they wish to induce instability and famine that will depopulate the planet?

Do extraterrestrial UFO stories confirm that the government has long covered up an important truth, or are they hoaxes meant to distract the public from something else?

Whew! If you read all the embedded articles, I know it will take quite a while to digest them all. But it is important to flush out the constant propaganda being put out by what I call the government-Big Tech-media complex. Much of it has to do with idea of bringing about a communist, one world government and whittling away the population. Both of these things are horribly misguided and evil. Whether they succeed only God knows. But each of us can resist, indeed throw some sand in the machine grinding us down, but telling the Truth.

The Founders Second Amendment

 One of the commentors to this article said that if he didn't know better, he would think it was satire.  But then he noted that the author was on Kurt Schlichter.  But let's get into it shall we?  The article in question is Mandatory Assault Weapons Now! by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall.com.

Before we discuss the possible strenghths of the idea, let's discuss what the rights in the Second Amendment means. The Second Amendment states that "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." Rights properly understood are liberties that one may take advantage of, but one must both assert the right and pay for any expense entailed. So, for example, while one has a right to freedom of the press, the government doesn't buy you a press, paper, and a staff of writers. Similarly, the Second Amendment acknowledges your right to own and carry a weapon, but you must purchase the weapon, ammunition, cleaning supplies, training and range time. Essentially, the rights provided in the Bill of Rights are negative rights.

The Left, however, has a different definition of rights. Under the Left's understanding, if someone has a right, it means that these rights must be provided to the person by society at large, meaning the government. Such rights are thought to be positive rights. The theory under which Obamacare was past would be an example of positive rights. Everyone has a right to health care, which is true enough. Under negative rights, you must pay for your own health care costs, whether that is health insurance, or health savings accounts, or pay as you go. Under the Left's positive rights, the government subsidizes part or all of the costs of your health care. (The fact that they don't actually do what they promised should concern everyone, but I digress.) Schlichter is here taking the Left's word quite literally, and applying it to a right the Left would like to erase.

There is an assault weapon problem in America – too few Americans are ready to do their duty to deter and defeat criminals and tyrants because they do not own the kind of weapons necessary for a free and secure people to remain free and secure. Right now, America has only 1.2 guns per person – this tragic shortage is nothing less than a crisis, considering that each citizen should have a battle rifle and a handgun in order to perform his or her duties.

A modest proposal: Make owning an assault rifle mandatory and have the government supply one to those who cannot afford one. I say we ensure an M16 in every pot.

This only makes sense. If a citizen has a gun, he is a citizen. If a citizen does not have a gun, he is not a citizen. He is a serf at the mercy of his feudal overlords. The right to keep and bear arms is not merely a right but a duty to keep and bear arms – everyone who is a law-abiding and healthy adult must have a real assault rifle and the ammunition to use it to protect himself, his family, his community and his Constitution.

This is a non-delegable duty. Like serving on a jury and paying taxes, you can’t slough this off on others. You have to step up personally. Relying on cops is a cop-out – we must all be first responders, and there’s no better response to criminals and aspiring tyrants than a bunch of Americas packing the same heavy-duty firepower that our soldiers do. We must make it mandatory, because some people are half-stepping, and we must supply those Americans without the means to buy the necessary guns and ammunition with a weapon and bullets so that they too can know the pride of participating fully in their own governance.

I like the idea. Indeed, I have floated it in the past. Every young man would train for two years in the military, and at the end of that time, would take home an M16, 100 rounds of ammunition and a side arm with ammunition. Each year, each man would be obligated to spend two weeks in military training, during which they would bring their weapons and ammunition, and ample range time to be available to refresh their weapons skills. At the same time, a program like this would obligate men to keep themselves fit enough to serve. I think this is what the Founders intended. They certainly never wanted us to have such a large professional army.

Personally, I think the Founders, if they were alive today, would find Schlichter's idea absolutely a good one.

No Forgiveness, and We Won't Forget

 John Daniel Davidson has an article at The Federalist entitled No Forgiveness For Pandemic Sins Until The Guilty Repent. Davidson tells us that to be forgiven, a necessary part of the process is for those who seek forgiveness to admit their guilt and ask for forgiveness. In addition, the guilty must repent, which means they agree not to do whatever they are seeking forgiveness again. None of these things have been done. The guilty have not asked for forgiveness, nor have they admitted their guilt. That means that they will do the same thing, given the chance.

Christianity Today published a curious piece by Paul Miller on Thursday calling for everyone to forgive each other for our supposed “pandemic sins.”

He doesn’t exactly say who sinned, just that “We got things wrong,” and “Some officials made mistakes in the early days.” Things happened. Mistakes were made. It’s time to move on. Miller’s argument is basically a warmed-over, lightly Christianized version of the essay Brown University economics professor Emily Oster wrote for The Atlantic last November, which argued for a “pandemic amnesty” on account of how “uncertain” and “complicated” things were in the face of a once-in-a-century pandemic like Covid. The ruling class did its best, OK?

Oster’s piece elicited well-deserved scorn from many on the right, including our own Joy Pullmann, who noted that a genuine amnesty “requires an admission of guilt and a commitment to repairing the wrongs done.” The absence of such an admission and commitment to change, says Pullmann, is “an indication that you’re going to do it again,” and makes it impossible to rebuild trust.

Of course, the people responsible for shutting down the economy, closing schools and churches, destroying countless businesses, and condemning the elderly to die alone in their hospital rooms are not at all sorry about what they did. To this day, they don’t acknowledge any wrongdoing whatsoever. Certainly not Anthony Fauci, who in an April interview with The New York Times defiantly faulted ordinary Americans for failing to listen to him, the self-proclaimed embodiment of science.

The same people who needlessly imposed massive learning losses on schoolchildren, or barred families from burying their dead, then foisted an ineffective vaccine on the public and tried to shame or coerce everyone into taking it, regardless of their age or health status. Plenty of Americans, including those in the military and medical professions, were faced with the terrible choice of taking a shot they didn’t trust or losing their careers and livelihoods.

None of the people who did this are sorry about it. In fact, they’re proud of it — and they will absolutely do it again the next chance they get...

So, no. No forgiveness for pandemic sins, and we will not forget. 

Here in North Carolina, our Covid Czar was one Dr. Mandy Cohen, a woman who took great delight in telling North Carolinians what to do, where they could go and not go and other dictatorial edicts with zero scientific basis. She shut down church services, and many were cowed into staying away. She shut down sports events and made going to a restaurant a torturous event. I could never figure out why one had to wear a mask to walk to the table, but then one could take it off when one sat down. Clearly it had nothing to do with spreading the disease and everything to do with social control. Unfortunately, she is going to be the new CDC Director.

Kleptocrats Keep Doubling Down on Climate Change, Despite Facts That Say Otherwise

 Following on yesterday's post pointing out that the push to deprive you of meat in the name of climate change is really a power grab by the kleptocratic elites, comes a piece by Gabriella Hoffman at Townhall.com entitled Want to Save the Planet? Stick to Eating Meat.

Preservationists, including Bill Gates, will not like the following development: Lab-grown meat– seen as a “climate-friendly” alternative to animal agriculture– is, in fact, worse for the environment than red meat.

Last month, researchers at University of California at Davis (UCD) published an eye-opening paper finding lab-grown meat is more energy intensive and responsible for a higher carbon footprint than beef, for instance, reared by farmers and ranchers.

Animal cell-based meat, (ACBM), or lab-grown meat, they concluded, “is likely to be orders of magnitude higher than median beef production if a highly refined growth medium is utilized for ACBM production.”

ACBM “meat” has a global warming potential that is “four to 25 times greater than the average for retail beef,” the study added.

Ouch. Talk about an inconvenient truth.

Yesterday, I spelled out that properly managed herds of ruminant animals is good for the ebvironment because these animals build up the soil and reverse desertification. I have observed before that many animals change the environment to suit them. You know that man does this, but I have observed that even bees promote the flowering plants that they depend upon. After we foolishly eliminated the giant herds of buffalo that kept the Great Plains healthy, we discover that we can use cattle to do the same thing. In addition to making and keeping our environment healthy, these herds provide nutrition for us, making us and them a vital part of the environment. This is exactly 180 degrees from the sick notions of our kleptocratic elites.

Eating wild game meat, another red meat, also has innumerable benefits–especially if you hunt it. The University of Wyoming says consuming deer, elk, and other wild game meat is recommended. Why? It’s rich in protein, B-vitamins, iron, and zinc and inherently boasts low levels of saturated fat.

Fake “plant-based” meats, in comparison, are far worse for your health. One Harvard University scientist warned, “Some of those products, even though they contain high amounts of plant-based protein, may also contain unhealthy ingredients, such as high amounts of sodium or unhealthy fats.”

The Dublin Declaration, a consortium of scientists who want objectively back in studies relating to animal agriculture, said divorcing livestock from the environment would have ruinous effects. Their declaration proclaimed livestock boost the environment by “recycling in various ways the large amounts of inedible biomass that are generated as by-products during the production of foods for the human diet.” Other inherent benefits include “carbon sequestration, improved soil health, biodiversity, watershed protection and the provision of important ecosystem services.”

As Hoffman writes, despite these facts, the kleptocrats are doubling down, claiming to know better than those that actually raise and depend on ruminants for a living, and insisting on their foolish desire to eliminate the cattle industry. They want to do this because they want to steal our substance, and make themselves rich by impoverishing us.

Climate Change Is A Cover for Our Kleptocrat Elite To Steal Us Blind

I have noted before that the notion that ruminant animals, such as cattle, are harming the environment by emitting so called greenhouse gases is total nonsense. Cows do not fart and burp out new carbon dioxide. Rather, they are part of the continuing recycling of existing carbon dioxide. Furthermore, by pooping out the remains of their diet and stomping this into the soil, they store a great amount of carbon and other minerals into the soil. Indeed, by properly managing herds of ruminants one can slowly bring back deserts to life. Cows then, are not the problem but rather the solution to the climate catastrophes predicted by the Left. In addition, in a world where malnutrition stalks the population everywhere, perhaps it is time that we get on board with a proper human diet and having more cows (and sheep and goats) available to provide it is just what the world needs.

But it seems the Left, in search of every more power and money wants to restrict us to eating manufactured foods, which of course puts money in the pockets of Big Food, Big Pharma, and of course Bill Gates. Ultimatley, this is not about bringing about an earthly Utopia. No, that is just the come on to get you to agree. The real goal is to enrich the kleptocartic global "elites" who are in reality the global kleptocracy.

So it is that I read today at PJ Media that the Irish Goverment Wants To Spend 600 million euros to Sacrifice 65,ooo Cows for Climate Change by Ben Bartee.

The “climate change” ideology increasingly takes on pseudo-religious aspects, demanding sacrifices from its adherents at its altar. God is dead in the West, after all, but He must be replaced with something as humans are inherently inclined to seek transcendence and meaning.

...snip...

As I’ll delve into shortly, that the world’s politicians are on board is an understatement. Destroying the livestock industry is one of the main objectives of the global technocrats that, as Klaus Schwab openly brags, have “penetrated the cabinets” of nearly every major government worldwide.

...snip...

This is a worldwide phenomenon, coming to a blue state near you. I have previously written about the Dutch Farmer Citizen Movement, which won a historic victory in the Parliament earlier this year running essentially on the single issue of rolling back the technocrats’ plans to shut down their food production and ultimately replace them with a corporatized farming system raising bugs at scale, as the World Economic Forum has encouraged.

Of course, go read the entire article, and if you have time, watch the Ted Talk by Allen Savory. I want to take a few moments to explain where vegetarians and vegans go wrong, however.

Many in the vegan and vegetarian community do so in the belief that they are being more virtuous by not killing any creatures. But in fact, every farmer of plants must kill countless creatures in order to have a crop to sell. First, they destroy an entire habitat which supports birds, insects, deer, bears, indeed all sorts of living creatures, Then they dig up the stumps and plow the ground, which destroys worms, bacteria, fungi, and turns the ground nearly sterile. They apply artificial fertilizers to make the plants grow better, but the plants still depletes the soil of minerals. Worse still, these minerals and vitamins in the plants aren't very bioavailable to the people who eat them.

But there is an ongoing war in which insects, larger beasts such as deer, and other creatures that must be killed in an ongoing effort to have a crop left to sell. Birds devour sprouting bean seeds, as do rabbits. Birds eat fruit crops such as apples, while insects deposit their eggs on fruits in an effort to give their babies a good start in life. Caterpillars eat the leaves of broccoli and brussels sprouts, cabbages and lettuce. Corn borers ruin corn, while the infamous bole weavil eats...well...cotton. All these have to be killed or driven off with various pesticides. Of course, you don't realize it because the stuff that makes it to market doesn't have any such damage. Why? Pesticides!

Now, let's look at cows. First of all, around 75% of the arable land is not suited to row crops. It is either too rocky, too hilly, or it doesn't get enough rain at the right time of year for crops to grow. But this same land can support herds of cattle and sheep. If you keep large enough herds of ruminant animals moving from pasture to pasture through out the year, one can actually build up the soil while providing a proper human diet.

But, of course that is not what our kleptocrat garbage "elite" want. No, what they want is to reduce everyone to such utter poverty that we are too busy keeping body and soul together for another day, so that we don't pay attention to the fact that they are stealing our substance for themselves.

Biden Leading Us To The Rubicon

I urge gentle readers to go to Matthew G. Andersson's analysis of the Biden administrations efforts toward war at the American Thinker entitled Why The White House Wants War and read it carefully. It is one of those pieces that are so dense, one can not take a lot of quotes, because the entire piece is quote worthy. Let me just quote the end:

An unsettling aspect of the Biden administration’s foreign policy is that, while it seeks war, it isn’t prepared to fight one (especially with a putative civilian commander qualified for 25th Amendment removal): it invites a confrontation with Russia (and to some extent with China) not to win, but in an unprecedented perversion of U.S. national security interests, to lose: it has declared America, Americanism, and a majority of Americans, as its enemy. It will use Russia as a tool for its own domestic “transformation” which means the attempted dismantling of U.S. constitutional law. The White House wants war, but an effective internal civil war that results in a reconstructed government, legal system, and political order. Biden was installed not just as an Obama proxy, but as a signal of weakness. To appreciate the risk, imagine Israel’s security interests headed by such a figure, rather than a Netanyahu.

Let all that sink in. This makes sense out of the confusing actions of the Biden administration. When Julius Caesar decided that the Roman Republic and Senate was not doing its job as he saw it, he took the fateful step of crossing the Rubicon River with his army, an act that was both illegal and unprecedented. Would he be allowed to get away with it or would there be civil war? We know how that turned out. According to Andersson, Biden is leading us toward a figurative Rubicon, daring us at every turn to stop him. Stop him we must.