Let's give the Left a snoot full of our outrage

D. Parker has yet more on the gun-grab by the New Mexico governor at Leftists banning civil rights for an 'emergency'...who did Nazi this coming? at the American Thinker today. You see what he did there?  Parker believes that the Left has designated Grisham to float the trial balloon of using what they define as a 'public health emergency' (it is no such thing) to grab the guns. How much will this attempt draw attention? Can they do it elsewhere? Here in North Carolina, after Governor Perdue attempted to tell gun owners they could not carry during a snowstorm, the legislature took that power away from future governors. But that was a decade ago. Time to try it again, apparently.

But just when you thought suspending a basic human right was bad enough, the story devolved into something even worse. In explaining the order erasing a whole portion of our founding documents:

The governor says she doesn’t expect criminals to follow the order. But she hopes it is ‘a resounding message,’ to everyone else in the community to report gun crime. ‘The point here is, is that, if everyone did it, and I wasn’t legally challenged, you would have fewer risks on the street, and I could safely say, to every New Mexican, particularly those folks living in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, I believe that you’re safer for the next 30 days, we have to wait and see,’ said Lujan Grisham.>

Did you catch that? The governor says she doesn’t expect criminals to follow the order.

So, she is not only endangering the people by disarming them as is usually the case with the left’s socialist national agenda. But she also doesn’t care if the criminals comply with that order. Shouldn’t that be her top priority if she supposedly cares about safety?

Or is there something else at work here?

Because when you really think about it, how do the gun-grabbing ghouls of the left prioritize their supposed “concerns” about violence—gun or otherwise?

Do they focus on criminals and truly mentally unstable and immoral people?

Or do they bizarrely focus on inanimate objects that cannot actuate themselves without human intervention?

Solving a problem starts with properly identifying the source of the trouble. Misidentifying the source of trouble means you will never solve the problem. As in the case of constantly identifying inanimate objects that cannot do anything on their own except gather rust or dust.

Clearly the governor's explanation for this edict doesn't make logical sense. She doesn't expect the criminals to obey the order, indeed, isn't even concerned about that. Meanwhile what does she plan to do if concealed carriers decide to not obey the unconstitutional and illegal dictat? After all, their guns will be concealed? Does she expect to stop everyone in Bernalillo County to see if they are obeying? And if the problem is that too many shootings are taking place, what is the plan to deal with that? But of course she doesn't really care about that, which is obvious.

Then there is this bit of illogical thinking: our ability to defend ourselves depends on the level of violence not exceeding some unspoken number of crimes. Are our liberties to be held hostage to the criminal class? As long as they don't commit too much crime, we can carry a weapon?  What, are we in the 7th grade, where the entire class suffers detention because some moron threw a spitball at the teacher when she turned around?

This means that leftists aren’t interested in solving the problem of “gun violence,” it should be clear by now that for them, crime, insanity, and suicide are merely crises to attack the common-sense civil rights of innocent people, without regard for the actions of criminals.

M. B. Matthews seems to agree with D. Parker on the real reason for Grisham's illegal dictat:

Let no one be fooled: This is Step One to see if Americans are paying attention and if they have the stones to fight back. If they are not and don’t, this will go national and the Second Amendment will fall. Democrats are clever. They won’t try this in a large, populous city with national attention. They will try dying a corner of the fabric first to see if the color is good for the whole garment. It seems the Guv got national attention anyway, probably because of the outrageousness of the grab.

Our Constitution is a paper document with nothing to protect it from being burned to ashes. Unless the People rise up against this gun grab, the rest of us will be forever unprotected against what has become The Beast that is governmental overreach. We are on a knife’s edge of freedom and liberty right now and unless we rise up against the smaller slings and arrows, we will never again be able to fight the cannons that will surely be arrayed against us.

The Second Amendment was written to protect Americans from tyrannical kings and rulers. It was not given to us to hunt for food. Too many Americans, utterly ignorant of why America was formed in the first place, are only too happy to have us under the fat thumb of tyrants who will do for us what so many are too lazy to do for themselves. Kings have absolute power. So does any government where the People do not know their history.

I urge gentle readers to share this particular post far and wide. If they want to gauge outrage, let's give them a snoot full. Remember that what finally started the Revolutionary war was when the King decided to disarm the colonists.

Making Her Own "No Guns" Signs

 Cam Edwards at Bearing Arms reports that the New Mexico governor says she's banning concealed carry in state's biggest city. If you watch the press conference where she announced this executive order making the entire city off limits to good guys with guns, she says it is because drug dealers are standing around on street corners with guns sticking out of their pants. But, no, she can't arrest them. Asking why not no doubt will yield a bunch of harumphing all around, but the truth is that she is well aware that the good guys with guns will obey, while the criminals will not. It calls into question whether or not she cares about the average New Mexican.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is begging for a lawsuit and putting lives in danger with a new executive order issued on Friday afternoon that bans both open and concealed carry in Albuquerque for at least the next 30 days.

...snip...

Over the past five years Democrats in New Mexico have steadily restricted lawful gun owners, enshrining “universal” background checks, “red flag” laws, and several other anti-gun measures into law. Those laws haven’t led to lower crime rates in Albuquerque, so now Grisham is taking her biggest shot yet at gun owners and trying to criminalize their right to bear arms at a time when she admits the city’s streets are incredibly dangerous.

It’s not lawful gun owners or concealed carry holders who are the cause of this crime, but Grisham is still painting them as the problem, and violating their Second Amendment rights while scapegoating them for the failures of her own gun control agenda.

Grisham fully expects to be challenged, and one suspects to be overturned. But by then, the 30 days will be up and of course will be mooted by the courts. But it is the blatant idea that it is guns, rather than the criminals wielding the guns, that is the problem of violence. Suspending the rights of concealed carriers will make no difference. And while you can suspend the rights of the criminals (who are already prohibited), they will not obey your stupid edicts. Arrest, which seems to be off the table is the only way to stop them from killing.

It seems as if Governor Grisham has been looking at the wrong youtube channels and drawing the wrong conclusions.

Update: Olivia Murray at the American Thinker has an excellent article on entitled NM governor issues emergency public health order...banning the carrying of firearms. She points to something that I had not caught, that this edict was styled as a "public health emergency." Of course it is nothing of the sort. It is a criminal matter pure and simple. And her saying that there are too many to arrest betrays a lack of imagination. If the police arrest a small percentage and throw the book at them, the rest will get the message. Of course, the criminals will still illegally carry weapons, but they will be both more circumspect about doing so, and more careful about shooting innocent bystanders.

Murray also accurately states to whom we owe our rights:

Lujan Grisham is accurate in her assessment that there are restrictions on freedoms, because we aren’t free to go out and indiscriminately murder (unless you live in a hard-blue city), without facing punitive consequences, but murder isn’t a God-given right protected by the supreme law of the land; however, the right to self-defense is, which is the whole point of the Bill of Rights.

It annoys me to no end when conservatives concede (albeit unwittingly) to the left’s war on language (and liberty). Rights do not come from government, they come from God; God, not government, is the ultimate authority. Like the Declaration says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights [emphasis added], that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men [emphasis added], deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….

God gave to (endowed) mankind rights that He alone has the authority to revoke, and the sole purpose of government is to secure, or guarantee these rights. To say things like “constitutional right” (as Lujan Grisham did) or “Second Amendment right” is irresponsible — the correct phrase is “constitutionally-protected rights.” The right to self-defense is a right given to mankind by God, and it is a right that is recognized and protected by the Second Amendment. God is entirely a part of the equation, whether people want to accept it or not.

Be sure to read both articles.

More on Liberty Safes

Well, well...it turns out that Liberty Safe is owned by a left-wing hedge fund called Monomoy Capital Partners who apparently donated to top Democrats...er...Wolves wearing Sheeps' Clothing. Sarah Arnold has the story at Townhall.com entitled Anti-2A Company Gave Nearly Half A Million Dollars to Gun-Control Happy Democrats.

Campaign finance documents found an unsurprising connection between Liberty Safe’s parent company and the Democratic Party in an attempt to restrict American’s Second Amendment rights.

Monomoy Capital Partners, which purchased Liberty Safe in 2021, has contributed more almost half a million dollars to prominent Democrats such as Senators Raphael Warnock (D-GA), John Fetterman (D-PA), and Mark Kelly (D-AZ).

All of the donations made by the company total over $400,000 to the party that seeks to limit firearms.

Liberty Safe is the gun safe company that cooperated with the FBI and recently turned over a private, secure passcode used by a January 6 protestor to agents who later raided his home.

...snip...

An aide to Fetterman, who received $2,900 in donations from Monomoy, was caught on camera bragging about how the company wants to overturn the Second Amendment, adding that they would be content with a total ban on owning personal firearms.

The more that comes out about Liberty Safe, the more one realizes that they have been playing the Second Amendment community in particular, and conservatives in general. Of course, you can do what you want with your money, but if you are in the market for a gun safe, I suggest looking elsewhere. Money seems to be the reason companies that depend on gun buyers sell out. It is as if Lenin was right, that the capitalists will sell the Communists the rope that the Communists will use to hang the capitalists.

You May Not Want to Buy a Liberty Safe

 Gentle readers who may be looking for a gun safe may not want to purchase a safe from Liberty Safe company.  Jordan Boyd at The Federalist has an article entitled Liberty Safe Let FBI Seize Cunstomer's Safe Content Without Court Order.

Liberty Safe willfully granted the FBI backdoor access to one of its customers’ gun safes because the federal law enforcement agency demanded it.

“The feds called the manufacturer of his Liberty Gun Safe and got the passcode to get into it too. All for protesting at the Capitol over 2 1/2 years ago,”...

Of course, I don't know what the FBI may have on Mr. Hughes, but if it is like so many people who were walking through what is, after all, our house, paid for with our tax dollars, taking selfies and gawking, it sounds like more overkill. And at some point, Liberty Safe needs to decide whose side they are on. The FBI clearly stands with the far-left fascist Democrats, Globalists, Communists, and are clearly against normal Americans. Like Bud Lite, Target, Dick's even Smith and Wesson, Liberty Safe finds itself on our s**t list. They will have to change policies if they are to work their way back into our good graces.

Update: Andrea Widburg has more information at the American Thinker entitled Liberty Safe is only to too willing to work with the FBI.

In effect, Liberty Safe has turned a search warrant into the type of general warrant that helped drive the American Revolution and that led to the Fourth Amendment. General warrants were issued to customs officials and allowed them to search a property anywhere, anytime, and in any way. That is why the Founders insisted that

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

...snip...

The last few years have provided a clarity long lacking in America. Between COVID, BLM and Antifa, and January 6, we are learning who in America believes in the Constitution and who does not, and who will comply with a government acting outside of the Constitution and who will not. I hate living in hard times, I really do, but it’s refreshing to be rid of those blinders that the mainstream media put on our faces in the 1950s, and that controlled much of our behavior and many of our beliefs ever since.

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Should Be the Name of a Convenience Store, Not A Government Agency

 It has been said that Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms ought to be the name of a convenience store, not a government agency.  Indeed, I have always wondered why alcohol and tobacco, two substances taxed as "sin taxes" are lumped in with firearms, a Constitutionally protected civil right.  It says something about our kleptocratic ruling class, that they foisted this monstrosity on us, because the ATF has always been, as far as I have been alive, anti-gun. But the only thing the ATF should be doing is enforcing federal law, not making up novel ways to confiscate guns.

Today, at the American Thinker, D. Parker has a piece on yet another unconstitutional abomination entitled A 'gun registry' is leftist code speak for government control of personal property. The ATF is assiduously striving at every turn to pick off legitament gun dealers on the one hand, and when those dealers go out of business, take their bound books and build a registry of gun owners. On the other hand, they are also trying, through 'universal background checks' to get their hands on any transfers between gun owners. Of course, this is the reason why in some states, they want to know who purchased what ammunition, since why would you purchase ammunition unless you had a weapon from which to shoot it?

Sometimes you almost have to admire (not really, but work with us here) how the fascist far left has turned the gutter-level immorality of outright dishonesty into an art form with many facets and subtleties. After all, this is a survival mechanism for them, because no one in his right mind would support people who care only about controlling others. Like how the chameleon can change colors or the skunk sprays a noxious substance when threatened, leftists lie because that's the only way they can survive in the face of people who want to be free.

Like master artists who can work in oils, watercolors, or pencil, leftists work in many different kinds of lies and propaganda. Everything from straw man arguments to repetitive lies is carefully crafted and deployed with finely honed instincts. But their first love in lies always has been, and always will be, accusing others of what they are doing at the moment, better known as projection.

This is their favorite form because it forever confuses everyone and constantly knocks their opponents back on their heels. Most if not all the time, they never have proof of their charges, but that's not the point. They do that so the pro-freedom side is always on the defensive with these ridiculous indictments.

So have you ever heard them accuse the pro-freedom side of wanting to confiscate guns?

Anti-liberty leftists are careful in never projecting this particular little lie. Now, why is that? Could it be that if they tried this projection, it would be obvious that this is an outright lie, as in just about everything else they say?

Because it should be clear that they obsess day and night over confiscating our guns. Recent history has shown that they are working constantly to dream up new schemes to identify gun owners.

Remember, gentle readers, that these people are paid rather handsomely to dream up these new ideas for confiscation, unencumbered by the Constitution or any law passed by any legislature, while those working to stop them are for the most part working stiffs who have other jobs and responsibilities, and are paying both the ATF's salaries and volunteer groups to stop them. The ATF schemes are coming at us faster than we can counter them. And volunteer funded groups such as the Second Amendment Foundation and Gun Owners of America can't sue everyone who is attempting to confiscate guns.

If it is not clear yet, let me make it clear now: anyone, government, globalist billionaire, or petty tyrant on a city council, who doesn't trust you and me with a gun, can not themselves by trusted. Furthermore, as David Codrea has so rationally put it, anyone who can not be trusted with a gun can not be trusted to walk among us without a keeper. That means of course that under the "new rules" where we jail our political opponents most such people should be behind bars.

Their latest effort in moving toward their obvious goal of gun confiscation is taking 20 miles from the inch that our "heroes" the hapless Mitch "freeze frame" McConnell (R-Ky.) John Cornyn (R-Texas), and "Traitor Thom" Tillis (R-N.C.) outlined in the surrender document also known as the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA).

During the surrender "negotiations," the people concerned about your freedom tried to explain to the coalition of the gullible that if you give the gun-grabbing ghouls an inch, they'll take a mile. This proves that the pro-freedom folks were correct.

This unconstitutional abomination will put the federal government in control of private property. That's just firearms for now, but who knows what the anti-liberty authoritarians will want to control next?

...snip...

Have you ever noticed that for all the time they spend calling for these authoritarian abominations and unconstitutional property controls (universal background checks), leftists never quite explain how these are supposed to keep anyone safe?

In point of fact, the people that the gun-grabbing ghouls are concerned with can usually pass the existing background check system (yes, it exists, despite leftist insinuations). Thus, it should be obvious that these are meant to catch as many transfers as possible, so the authoritarians can build an illegal and unconstitutional gun registry.

You should also know that getting permission to own a gun from the government (AKA a gun registry) is the only way to enforce such a system. That will be the left's next step if this unconstitutional abomination is allowed to stand. You can bet on it. If the gun-grabbing ghouls manage to get this, it will take them only a few nanoseconds to start calling for government permission to buy a gun (gun registration).

Here is the reason I have always opposed the background check system. It is a start down the path to the ultimate goal of the gun ghouls, confiscation. Having laws against the misuse of a gun is perfectly fine. But having laws against who can and who can not posses a gun is not fine. Again, if someone can not be trusted to walk among us with a gun, that person can not be trusted without a keeper. What that means in practice is that such people should be locked up. The entire Federal Firearms License industry should fall, and no one keeps a record of who owns what. Before 1968 (I know, that is before most gentle readers were born) people could buy guns at the local Sears or Montgomery-Ward store, and there were regular advertisements in the newspapers.

Our so-called 'gun violence' problem is not that at all. It is, as it has been since Cain killed Able with a rock, a just plain violence problem. It is just violence, committed by people who for various reasons decide that killing is the answer to whatever problems they have. What the gun as done is make it possible for the old, the weak or the infirm to defend themselves against the young, the strong, and the bullies who what take from them what isn't theirs. at is what the government is trying to take from us, and it is wrong.

We are well and truly in it

 Molly Slag writes an excellent analysis of the far-left fascist Democrat attempt to destroy the United States of America as founded.  Her post is entitled The Democrats are systematically attacking reality, but we can win. Her analysis notes that the Democrats, who have been hoaxing us for years, are fully aware that these are in fact hoaxes and not reality. Of course, the useful idiots are not aware of this fact, but people like Gore, Kerry, Michael Mann, and of course the ghouls at the WEF, know it full well. This is about power and greed. It's about destroying the United States. It's about reducing here people into poverty, misery, and death.

Americans are awash in creative opportunities to evade reality: social media, motion pictures, computer games, recreational drugs, alcohol, sports, etc. We call it “escapism,” meaning escape from reality. But, of course, that’s a misnomer. We cannot really escape from reality. We can only escape from the knowledge of or the consciousness of reality. When we are done with our episode of “escape,” reality is right there before us, just as it always was. Whatever reality is, it never takes a holiday, and we can never escape it. For better or for worse, we are immersed in it.

It can surely be disputed whether the dictum “May you live in interesting times” is a blessing or a curse. Nonetheless, there is no question but that we do, in fact, live in interesting times. Currently, it is terrifying to look reality square in the face because reality has become surreal, as though we were living in an episode of Rod Serling’s The Twilight Zone.

Ours is an era of hoax and delusion. A partial listing of the hoaxes would include:

Transgenderism

Abortion

Homosexuality

Open Borders

Climatism

There are more. Add your favorite hoax to the list.

Slag then demonstrates that these are indeed hoaxes, by first telling us the common characteristics, and then demonstrating how each is a hoax. I will take just one example:

These hoaxes all have two things in common:

(1) The hoax is obviously false. This fact is significant because it means that the hoaxers themselves are fully aware that their hoax is a lie. Hence dialog with the hoaxers is hopeless, for their falsehood is deliberate.

(2) The hoaxers seek to destroy America.

Thus, the practical effect of the transgenderism hoax is to destroy children and erase real women. The “trans man” is a weak nonentity, mocked and creeped out by the real men around her, but the “trans woman” is an Amazon superwoman, eclipsing the real women around him. Real women are being erased.

So far, she isn't saying anything I didn't already know. But here is the shocking part, the part that shows us exactly where we stand:

Yet, notwithstanding these ideas being obviously false and utterly destructive of our nation, our government and all our institutions are all in on all of them, everything from transgenderism to climatism.

But the fact is that, whether we deny it or avoid it, it is nothing short of stunning, depressing, and terrifying to look full in the face of the satanic evil that is descending upon us from our own government. This evil moves toward us on several fronts, but the principal two are a pincher movement of the two broad columns of (1) climatism and (2) sexual perversion.

We are embroiled in a civil war, currently non-kinetic, that can go kinetic at any time. As actor Jon Voight has remarked, “This is a civil war against all of us.”

Whether we can win is open to debate, though Slag does make some useful suggestions. But what is clear is that we, the average citizens, are well and truly in it now.  

Zero Carbon Means Death for Whales, but Humans Too

 James T. Moodey has an interesting piece at the American Thinker today entitled Zero Carbon is a Whale Killer. It is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek title, but then, if the Zero Carbon goals are actually reached, who know? It could become reality.

John D. Rockefeller destroyed the whaling industry by replacing whale oil with Earth's natural compost: refined oil. Whale oil had many uses, pharmaceutical and industrial, including lubricants for nearly all machines and trains. And it was the age of machines.

The whaling ships of Nantucket were slow. Their primary prey were gray whales who do not navigate by echolocation, like many other whales. They follow the contour of coastlines, and they swim only about 3–6 mph. Modern ships move much faster, and they will have technology to find and kill the faster and more acrobatic whales, including blue whales and humpbacks. Using modern technology, they can find and kill them where they feed, in the Bering Sea.

Although this is mentioned to harpoon the left, and to grab your attention for the larger issue below, the point is not far-fetched. Whaling is still legal in some countries. And African countries, with all their efforts, cannot stop poaching. All that is required is for the price of refined oils to rise significantly. The whales won't stand a chance.

The virtue signaling "save-the-whales" types should have a shrine to old John D. Rockefeller and Exxon Mobil, but of course they don't because learning history is so yesterday. Still, if the real goal of zero carbon, or as the now call it net zero is achieved, nobody will have the time or inclination to worry about the whales. We will be too busy worrying about our own survival. You see the real goal is to cut the population of the world down as rapidly as possible to anywhere between a few million and a billion or so. And the ones driving the net zero agenda being leftists, by any means necessary.

Moodey's theory on inflation is that the price of crude oil is what today drives inflation. More importantly, his examples seem to prove him right.

Net-zero carbon may spell death for more whales. It will certainly result in more poverty for us. Poverty tracks with prices. If prices are low enough, there is no poverty. Our low point of poverty occurred in the Roaring Twenties, when an average home cost $4,000 and cars were $400. We could pay off our homes in 3–5 years (mortgage terms at the time) and pay off our cars with only two months' average pay.

It is the inflated price of goods that causes poverty. And contrary to the current groupthink that the money supply is causing inflation, inflation tends to track with the price of oil. That became apparent to me when I wrote my first economic essay in the late 1970s about oil prices and inflation. The price of oil started at a low of $1.25 per barrel in 1970 and climbed to $37 in 1980 as a result of three enormous tax increases. OPEC imposed an approximate $6.00 tax in 1976, followed by an $8.00 tax. Then oil more than doubled to $37 in 1980, when Jimmy Carter's windfall profits tax took effect.

...snip...

In 2009, president Obama signed the $787-billion stimulus and added the remainder of TARP at $370 billion. This was more than three times the cost of the Afghan and Iraq wars over five years, all in Obama's first 90 days. This was followed by continuing resolutions of $813 billion stimulus for each of the next four years, plus two years of Q.E. spending at $200 billion each. That is the largest increase in government spending and resulting money supply in our history.

Yet inflation did not budge. In fact, inflation during those years and beyond, from 2009 to 2020, averaged only 1.8 percent. That is undeniable proof that spending and the money supply did not cause inflation. The spending and money-supply cause of inflation is a worn out myth.

One could wish that the people who support the net zero initiatives would attempt to live without products derived from oil. But that would mean no telephones (plastics) no cars (plastics, gasoline) no food supplied from a grocery store (Deisel fuel), no modern pharmaceuticals, and on and on. Why, even Dawn dishwashing liquid is a surfactant derived from oil. They would have to use actual soap to clean dishes, which dries out the hands. Essentially, they would be forced to live as our colonial ancestors lived. Of course, they would be too busy surviving for another day to worry about "the climate," which is a good thing because man cannot do anything about it anyway. Oh, and the glue they use to glue themselves to various objects like art and pavements. That derives from oil too. Sorry.

Why is inflation so affected by the cost of oil? Each barrel produces these derivatives: gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, bunker fuel, heating oil, mineral oil, kerosine, naphtha, solvents, benzene, surfactants, propane, butane, propylene, ethane, ethanol, and natural gas. Each derivative has its own supply-and-demand market. That is why, in 2021, oil prices doubled but jet fuel tripled.

These derivatives create such products as plastics, synthetic rubbers, glues, cosmetics, lubricants, detergents, paints, paraffin, medical ointments, most industrial fluids, electric power, and a clean heating source for nearly all factories including food processors. The dilating cost of these products rises further due to subsequent processing.

Net zero carbon 2050 will cause runaway inflation that our country has never seen, and inflation causes poverty.

Inflation causes poverty, but not just poverty. It causes premature deaths as well. In 1900, our average life span was 35 years, mainly because of infant mortality. Many of our medical devises, and indeed medicines derive in one form or another from oil. Do we really want to go back to those times? I surely don't.