Gun Owner Loses Firearm In Sofa At IKEA

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

This irresponsible boob makes all of us responsible gun owners look bad.

This person maybe be facing charges as IKEA has a no guns allowed policy.

When you’re carrying a gun, it’s important to remember where it is at all times. After all, it’s a lifesaving tool, but only if you can get to it when you need it.

On the other hand, a lost gun is a major problem. Off your person and out of your control, you don’t know who will pick it up and what will happen with it. That’s bad for everyone.

However, one gun owner made it hard to claim we’re all responsible when he allowed his gun to do an impression of pocket change at an IKEA.

After finding a gun in a sofa at IKEA, a child fired the loaded weapon in the store, prompting an investigation of the incident.

Earlier that day, a customer at the Fishers, Indiana, store sat down on the couch to test it out, CNN affiliate WTTV reported.

When he got up to keep shopping, he didn’t realize his gun had fallen out of his pants.

Later, a group of kids sat down on the sofa and found the gun, Fishers police told WTTV. One of them pulled the trigger and fired a single shot.

No one was injured, and the store stayed open after the incident, WTTV reported.

An IKEA spokesperson said in a statement that customer safety and security is the company’s top priority.

“We take this incident very seriously and we have offered the family of the child involved our sincerest apologies,” the statement said.

IKEA says they conduct regular walks and safety audits, but it’s unlikely they had any reason to look for a firearm in the cushions of a sofa.

Prosecutors are looking at the case to decide if any charges should be filed.

For what it’s worth, I’m not sure stupidity is a criminal offense, and yes, this was stupidity.

While the report doesn’t make any reference to what kind of firearm was involved, it had to be a very small pistol. I’m thinking something like a .22 revolver or even a Derringer. It couldn’t have been anything much heavier otherwise, he’d likely have noticed. It doesn’t sound like it was holstered when found, either, so my guess is that it was a small revolver in the pocket and not in any holster, which then slipped out of the loose pocket and was later found by a kid.

Thank God no one was hurt.

Folks, we need to police our own on stuff like this. If you know someone carrying like this, give them a verbal slap upside the head. I’d advise a literal slap, but I don’t want to get hammered for instigating violence or some such nonsense. Frankly, though, this warrants a slap or twelve.

Honestly, anyone with half a brain should be able to see the problem with carrying a gun like this. Even if you’re not parking your butt on sofas, there are any number of other situations where you may find yourself in a position to lose your gun. For example, what if you have to get involved in a non-firearm altercation? If sitting on a sofa will cause the weapon to fall out of your pants, what will rolling around on the ground with a 200 lbs man going to do?

Seriously, don’t do this stuff. Make sure your weapon is secured on your person so stuff like this won’t happen.


No, Other States’ Gun Laws Have Little To Do With Boston Crime

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

The crime in Boston is do to the politically correct enforcement of laws and not guns from other states.

As part of the debate on guns, we routinely point out that gun laws don’t work. We’ve provided a pile of anecdotal data along those lines through the years, as has everyone else remotely connected to the pro-gun side. Others have provided actual data illustrating this point.

However, anti-gunners in the media routinely present only one side of things. Up to and including blaming other states for their states’ criminal problems.

ONE REGULAR REFRAIN of gun-rights extremists is that tough gun laws do little or nothing to curb gun crimes, because criminals don’t obey them.

That thinking is as simplistic (and long-lived) as the old bumper sticker that proclaimed, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

Actually, a recent study by the Boston University School of Public Health confirmed what everyone should know by now: Tough gun laws work. That study concluded that waiting periods before a gun purchase, the requirement of a permit to buy a gun, forbidding gun purchases by people with violent misdemeanors on their record, and seizing guns from those convicted of such misdemeanors could result in a cumulative decrease in gun crime of almost 14 percent.

I’m going to break in and say that I refute the findings of that study. While it found that guns flow in from other states, it doesn’t actually show that tough gun laws work. It merely cited the easiest ways for criminals to get guns currently. It doesn’t mean that every state adopting tough gun laws will stop bad people from getting guns. That’s kind of our point.

Anyway, back to the Boston Globe‘s fretting:

Still, outmoded thinking and false claims by gun rights advocates persist. One regular conservative retort to calls for tougher gun laws is a five-word refrain: How’s that working in Chicago?

Actually, when it comes to gun crime in Chicago, the focus should be less on the Windy City’s gun laws than on those of nearby states. Almost 60 percent of guns used in crimes in Chicago come from places with weak guns laws, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Mississippi prominent among them.

In other words, Chicago’s not responsible for its problems, Indiana is.

Then I ask, explain London to me, if you will?

England is an island, so there’s no easy access to other localities with loose gun laws. Most visitors have to go through a select number of entry points, all requiring tight security that should make it difficult to bring guns into the country. The limited road access points come from countries that also have strict gun control laws.

In other words, it should be difficult to get guns into the country where they’ve been essentially banned for years.

If tough gun laws work so well, why is London having such a difficult time with gun crime? Why are they having such a difficult time with violent crime in general that they even banned carrying pocket knives?

Calls to place the blame on other states are nothing more than geographic narcissism. It’s not their fault they have crime; it’s the fault of other states with ready access to guns, but far fewer crimes, another flaw in the Boston College study’s argument.

Crime is motivated by many factors, factors which seem to exist more in places like Chicago and other large urban centers. Population density, economic disparity, education, or any number of other factors may contribute far more to violence in these cities than any access to firearms. That’s the only rational explanation I can think of as to why access to guns doesn’t turn Indiana, Texas, or Georgia into war zones like Chicago.

Not that we can expect an editorial out of Boston to comprehend that simple fact.

Backlash: Democrats’ 5-Point Plan for Defeat in 2018

1 Comment

H/T Town Hall.

There is a good chance that the Republicans will get a super majority in both Houses of Congress.

Democrats have nothing to offer voters this election cycle except outrage and protests. As a recovering liberal myself, I’ve told my radio audience for years “democrats make you mad, so you don’t have to think.” Heading into the midterm elections, it’s clear their strategy hasn’t changed post-Obama.

I’ve grown increasingly convinced that Trump’s 2016 victory will not be the last political shockwave Americans will witness this decade. As you know, the party opposite the White House administration typically wins the midterm elections. With Trump’s rising poll numbers, it’s possible Democrats are in for a rude awakening this November; we’re more likely to see a “Red wave” than a “Blue wave.”

Thus far, the Democratic Party hasn’t advanced any solutions concerning the economy and job creation, domestic unity, illegal immigration or foreign policy. As a matter of fact, if you’re a part of the Trump administration, you’ll be lucky to find a restaurant where you can enjoy a meal free of protesters or without fear of being kicked out. Just ask White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders or Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.

A backlash is inevitable this fall. The question is how large will it be? I consider myself a “Wait-and-see Trumper.” I voted for Ted Cruz in the GOP presidential primary and I wrote him in on the November ballot. Today, I’d vote for Trump in a heartbeat! Furthermore, I’m so sick and tired of the Democrats’ fake outrage towards everything Trump is for, I’m actually excited to vote Republican for the first time since 2012.

Trump has racked up some great accomplishments since taking office. He’s appointed a record number of conservative judges to the federal bench; he’s got a plan to defund Planned Parenthood; he’s nearly abolished ISIS (a feat President Obama said would take 25 years); he’s signed the “Tax cuts, Jobs Act” into law, and he continues to abolish onerous regulations, particularly at the EPA, that wreaked havoc on our economy and job creators for decades. In short, with the exception of tariffs, Trump has been a pleasant surprise for conservatives like myself determined to see GOP victory this fall.

What’s the Democratic plan to win new voters this fall? I’ve compiled an unofficial list below:

  1. Repeal your tax cuts -if the Republican tax cuts are mere crumbs, why does Nancy Pelosi want the money back in D.C. so badly? Workers deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money to put food on the table for their families, buy a new appliance or furniture piece, or even enjoy something as simple as a night out at the movies. Apparently, Pelosi wants to remain rich and keep the rest of us poor. Always remember that your money is representative of your time here on earth; no politician has the right to your time.
  2. Keep racism alive– Democrats have a vested interest in keeping all forms of identity politics alive. They need us divided. If they didn’t keep their voters paralyzed by outrage and fear, they’d be forced to debate their positions on policy issues that affect all Americans – a losing battle for them.
  3. Impeach Trump – it seems Democrats will do or say anything to regain the majority in Congress in hopes of impeaching Trump. However, as new information continues to emerge in the IG report about in-house corruption and James Comey’s incompetence, it’s more likely Democrats will experience a backlash from “Wait-and-see Trumpers” like myself if they continue to pursue what’s clearly an unwarranted case for impeachment.
  4. Open borders – in order for Democrats to win elections they must keep people poor and powerless. What better way to do that than to import Democrats (illegal immigrants) from across the border? The more successful and independent you become as an American citizen the less likely you are to need public assistance. Democrats can’t afford that.
  5. Empower Social Justice Warriors in professional sports – Colin Kaepernick is no longer a quarterback in the NFL because his skill level doesn’t justify the distraction that’ll come along with hiring him. For decades Americans could attend or watch sports events and the only colors that mattered were team colors, and the only issues that mattered were winning and losing. Complete strangers shared a camaraderie that transcended race and wallet size. Sports is an escape from the real world amongst fans and friends. Now liberals have ruined that too.

The Democratic Party has been co-opted by the far left-wing of their party. Americans are growing sick of their divisive tactics. President Obama was able to march his party further left because he was an aberration as America’s first black president. By in large, Americans have had enough.

We’re not racists because we want secure borders! We’re not selfish because we believe we can handle our money better than politicians in D.C.! We’re not bigots, homophobes and xenophobes because we’re guided by the dictates of faith and religion! We’re not war mongers because we believe if you have the audacity to place our troops in harm’s way you’d better give them the tools and equipment needed so they can win quickly and decisively. We’re Americans who love our country and the Constitution, and until Democrats realize that, their happy days at the ballot box are over.

Still No Attention On Brutal SC Mass Killing. Wonder Why?

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

This murder does not fit the drive by media’s template that only evil guns cause mass murders.

Earlier this year, we reported on a brutal mass killing in South Carolina. In that case, a man beat several members of his family to death with a dumbbell. At the time, I wrote on it and pointed out how the mainstream media seemed to be ignoring it completely.

It seems that months later, the mainstream media has still opted to ignore this particular case. A quick Google search shows that there have been no recent stories on this matter since mid-March, for one thing.

Back then, the largest outlets to have touched this particular crime were the New York Post and the Daily Mail in England. The rest of the coverage comes from smaller, local news agencies like television stations or newspapers. No New York Times, no CNN, no MSNBC.

In March when this happened, the nation was still dealing with the fallout from Parkland. It had been roughly a month since a gunman had entered the Florida high school and killed 17 people. We were already primed for news about horrific events.

Now, three months later, there’s still silence.

Part of that might be a lack of movement in the case. Nothing new has happened, of course, so why report anything new. That explains the smaller media outlets not reporting anything new, but what about those outlets that haven’t reported a damn thing?

The golden maxim in the news business is, “If it bleeds, it leads.” While people say they want happy, positive news coverage, they don’t respond to that. They respond to the aftermath of violence, though. Everyone in the news industry knows it. It’s part of why coverage of mass shootings is so irresistible, even without trying to advance a narrative.

So why was this one ignored?

Back in March, I charged the mainstream media with intentionally ignoring this story because the killing not only proved mass killers could murder people without guns, but it would also help illustrate how important guns can be. After all, not a single one of the victims was able to overpower the killer, but if one of them had a gun, they might have resisted then.

I still think that was partly true. I think the other part has more to do with the media figuring they had a bigger story by milking Parkland simply because people were already wanting more information on that killing.

Neither cause paints the media in a positive light, though.

Today, three months later, it seems everyone has forgotten about this horrific crime. While David Hogg and his merry band of misfits are touring the country in a chartered bus, still capitalizing on their 15 minutes of fame from one crime, so many people are ignoring this one and the victims. Would it have mattered more if they had been shot? Would they have been worthy of our attention then? Would they have been worth a live feed from near the scene? Would friends and family of the victims have then been worthy of being interviewed?

The idea that the answers to any of these questions might be “yes” disgusts me to no end.  The fact that I can’t feel right declaring the answer as being “no” disgusts me just as much.

This crime didn’t advance the narrative, and they already had a golden goose of a story. They didn’t care about 72-year-old Joseph Manigault, 69-year-old Rose Manigault, 42-year-old Kenya Manigault or 15-year-old Faith Manigault because, frankly, they suck at their jobs.

So when people wonder why I’m quick to condemn them, this is the story I’ll show. These people were brutally murdered and the media that thinks they’re worthy to lecture us on morality not only harbors some of the most disgusting human beings imaginable but then ignore stories like this.

Again, it disgusts me.

NJ’s Governor Phil Murphy Thinks Poor People Shouldn’t Have Guns

1 Comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

Governor Phil Murphy(D-NJ)like all DemocRats swear they are looking out for the little guy when in reality they are screwing the little guy.

We already knew that Governor Phil Murphy hated guns. His signing of a slew of recent gun control bills made that obvious in case anyone didn’t know. Of course, those laws didn’t stop a recent shooting in Trenton, NJ, but whatever, right?

What we didn’t necessarily know was just how much he hated poor people.

I mean, he may pretend he’s a champion of the little guy, but if that’s the case, why does he want so badly to make it too expensive for poor people to be armed in his state?

Gov. Phil Murphy is proposing to significantly hike fees for buying and selling firearms in New Jersey, a move that would raise the cost of gun permits and licenses for the first time in half a century and likely trigger a legal challenge from Second Amendment advocates.

Murphy, a Democrat who has already signed half a dozen gun control bills in his first few months in office, has publicly called for raising such fees.

The plan would raise the cost for handgun purchase permits from $2 to $50; firearms identification cards from $5 to $100; handgun carry permits from $50 to $400; retail gun dealer licenses from $50 to $500; and wholesaler/manufacturer licenses from $150 to $1,500, among other hikes.

Scott Bach, the director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, said the move was “intended to punish law-abiding gun owners for the acts of criminals and madmen and discourage the exercise of Second Amendment rights.”

“It also has the unintended consequence of denying that basic civil right to lower-income populations,” he said.

In some cases, the changes would nearly double the cost of purchasing a firearm, some of which retail for less than $200.

Muphy argues that it’s more expensive to get a license to own a dog in most towns in New Jersey than it is to get a gun.

I counter that argument by pointing out two facts. One, dogs are more expensive to upkeep than a gun and, as a result, tend to be owned by those with disposable income anyway. The second and most important counter, however, is that owning a dog isn’t a constitutionally protected right.

Anyone with half a brain can look at these measures to see they are going to hurt poor people the most. Even for someone looking for a nightstand gun, the cost will rise from a mere $7–still too much for a right, but manageable for most folks–to $150. That’s a lot of money, especially considering how long some people have to save in order to buy a Hi-Point at a similar price.

Meanwhile, the poor are those who are most likely to live in high-crime neighborhoods where their lives can be in danger simply for looking the wrong day down the street. These are also retired people who may have assets worth stealing but little actual income anymore.

In other words, Phil Murphy wants to make gun ownership in New Jersey only practical for higher-income folks. He’s made it clear he doesn’t care about the safety of lower-income people.

Oh, and what will these measures do to prevent crime? Nothing.

For him, it really is about not liking guns in citizens’ hands and little else.

Women Warriors of the Philippines – WWII Heroines Helped Liberate Their Country

Leave a comment

H/T War History OnLine.

The story of these valiant women must to told.

Filipina Soldiers in WWII

War History Online proudly presents this Guest Piece from

The attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th of 1941 represented the initial step of the Japanese military onslaught of Southeast Asia.  The following day, the Japanese continued their aggressive military strategy in the Pacific, targeting American and European holdings in Southeast Asia.

From December 8th, 1941, to May of 1942, the Japanese campaign in the Philippines resulted in both the Japanese occupation of the Philippine Islands and the ultimate surrender of both Filipino and American troops[2].  It is estimated that 80,000 Filipino and American soldiers were forced to relocate and enter POW camps throughout the island of Luzon – if they survived the horrors of the Bataan Death March.

U.S. and Filipino soldiers and sailors surrendering to Japanese forces at Corregidor

The Japanese maltreatment of the Filipino and American POWs was visible to Philippine citizens, who witnessed first hand the Bataan Death March as it passed them by. The Philippine civilians who witnessed the brutality and killing of POWs as they marched to the prison camps were themselves vulnerable to the merciless cruelty of the Japanese military. Filipino men and women who attempted to give food or water to the marchers were wounded or killed – usually bayoneted – as a result of their actions.

American and Filipino troops surrendering at Bataan, Luzon, Philippines, 9 April 1942.

The Bataan Death March would serve as the precursor to the Japanese Imperial Military’s brutal treatment of the Philippine citizenry throughout the islands.  The visible signs of maltreatment, the aggressive removal of civil liberties, the torture and capture of Filipino citizens who sympathized with the Allies, and the immediate severing of foreign relations and aide would spur a grassroots movement to resist the Japanese occupation of the Philippine Islands.

Japanese Military Strategy in the Pacific 1941-1942.

The roots of the Philippine Resistance represented the cultural and socio-economic diversity of the Philippine Islands.  From socialist peasant farmers, middle school teachers, ROTC youths, to Moro (Philippine Muslim) warriors, the range and inclusivity of the men and women who participated in the struggle against the Japanese Imperial Army was seemingly inexhaustible.

Women guerrilla fighters especially made major contributions to the liberation of the Philippines, but unfortunately, similar to the guerrilla fighters from the Islands’ ethnic minorities, have received less acknowledgment and discussion in the history of the Pacific Theater during World War II.

WAS founder, Josefa Capistrano.

The Philippines, during the early half of the twentieth century, witnessed few advances in women’s rights.  But with the threat of war and the encroachment of the Japanese Imperial Army, the patriarchal and religiously conservative culture of the Philippines could not afford to maintain its traditional standards regarding gender.

The grassroots resistance drew heavily on the patriotic fervor of many Filipinas who saw the guerrilla resistance as an opportunity to liberate their homeland as well as prove the capabilities of their sex.

Their guerrilla efforts proved women were more than capable of taking on numerous roles: soldiers, leaders, activists, journalists, nurses, doctors, spies, and dedicated patriots.  Filipina guerrillas proved to be a vital aspect of both the soldiering and reconnaissance missions that allowed the Allies an opportunity to retake the Philippines.

Captain Pajota’s guerrillas at Cabanatuan

Historians estimate that for every ten male guerrillas, one Filipina guerrilla served in the underground resistance.  Over 260,000 male Filipino guerrillas served the resistance effort.  This number reflects how Filipinas have been neglected in the history of the war, or who, because of their status as women, were not officially counted as serving, and that female guerrillas represented possibly more than 10% of the resistance force.

Propaganda poster depicting the Philippine resistance movement.

These statistics, given the few surviving resources available regarding Filipina guerrilla efforts, brings to light the missing narratives of a traditionally very American-centered written history on the liberation of the Philippines of World War II.  The wartime experiences of women of color in the Pacific provide opportunities to address the various contributions, struggles, and cultural diversity that aided and represented the Allied front of the Pacific.

Captain Nieves Fernandez with her husband 1944. A former school teacher, she would lead a resistance group throughout the Japanese occupation. – JollyJoker83 CC BY-SA 4.0

Filipina guerrillas, similar to their male peers, were aware of the risks and the ultimate sacrifice they would have to make in their efforts to push the Japanese Imperial Army out of their homeland.  One of the added fears and risks that Filipinas shared that their male peers did not was the threat of rape and being forcibly used as ‘comfort’ women (sex slaves) for the Japanese Imperial Army.

Despite the risks of death, torture, and rape, the Filipina guerrillas of the Philippine Resistance gave themselves selflessly and heroicly to the cause of both the liberation of their people from the Japanese imperial regime and to the progress of women’s rights in Southeast Asia.

Captains Jimmy Fisher and Robert Prince and several Filipino guerrillas a few hours before the start of a raid.

Filipina guerrillas took on various roles.  Many served as medical aides or nurses.  The late Dorothy Dowlen, a Filipina mestiza (mixed ancestry of Philippine and European heritage) born and raised in Mindanao, served as a medical aide helping Allied soldiers and guerrilla fighters while helping her own family escape the brutalities of the Japanese invasion.

Filipina nurses provided the much needed medical help for struggling American soldiers who escaped the POW camps throughout the Philippine Islands.  Filipina nurses and doctors such as Bruna Calvan, Carmen Lanot, and Dr. Guedelia Pablan would continue to help civilians, soldiers, and POWs in the region surrounding Bataan despite the loss of their hospital and lack of supplies and food.

Risking their lives to smuggle medicine into POW camps and maintain their self-built health centers (nipa huts), Filipina guerrillas and female resistance supporters helped not only to physically heal the wounded but strengthened community and soldier morale to better fight the Japanese invaders.

Bicycle-mounted Japanese Troops during the Battle of the Philippines (1941-42)

Often, Filipina nurses used their medical training to assist other guerrilla groups such as the WAS (Women’s Auxiliary Service), led and founded by Josefa Capistrano. Josefa Capistrano, a Chinese-Filipina mestiza would be one of the first Filipinas to establish and train women as soldiers, nurses, and spies, schooling them in methods of reconnaissance and the use of firearms and self-defense.

Capistrano’s female troops served under the tenth military district in Mindanao and would also supply the guerrillas and local communities with food, medical, and military supplies.  In 1963, the WAS would be renamed the WAC (Women’s Auxiliary Corps) and would become an official military branch of the Philippine Army managed by women for women.

Other Filipina guerrillas undertook reconnaissance missions, establishing guerrilla networks throughout the Philippine archipelago, maintaining contact with the Allied forces, and thwarting Japanese propaganda efforts (film, radio broadcasts, newspapers, pamphlets) seeking to win over the Philippine people’s support. Filipina guerrillas like Colonel Yay Panlilio served as a radio and newspaper journalist while fighting alongside and leading her very own unit of male guerrillas under the Markings Guerrilla troops on the island of Luzon.

U.S. troops fighting in the Walled City, Manila, 27 February 1945

Panlilio used her journalist skills to cleverly hide resistance messages in public radio announcements. She also documented and maintained guerrilla activities, relaying information to the Allied forces and to other guerrilla organizations. Panlilio also routed out undercover Filipino collaborators (makapili) who sought to paint the Philippine Resistance as detrimental to Imperial Japan’s efforts to absorb the Philippines into a “friendly” pan-Asia.

These courageous women broke their society’s gender norms while playing a central role in ultimately liberating their homeland from Japanese imperialism.   And they did so while promoting the abilities, talents, and skillsets women were capable of in a male-centered society. Through their sacrifices, Filipina resistance fighters like Josefa Capistrano championed gender and racial equality as one of the goals for their resistance efforts.

Capistrano would not accept honorable mentions or awards for her efforts until the Philippine government recognized the WAC as an official branch of the military. Most importantly, their contributions in the Pacific Theater demonstrated the many strengths of past colonial territories who were undoubtedly deserving and capable of self-governance in the post-war era.

Poll: 59% fear violence from Trump haters, 31% predict civil war

Leave a comment

H/T The Washington Examiner.

If the Trump haters push America into a civil war they better just remember one thing the pro Trump crowd has lots of veterans and many well armed country boys.

The division in the United States that has escalated into the organized harassment of presidential aides has six in 10 worried about the violence from anti-Trump advocates and nearly a third fearing it will end in civil war.

The latest survey from Rasmussen Reports found that 59 percent of all voters “are concerned that those opposed to President Trump’s policies will resort to violence.”

And, added Rasmussen, 31 percent believe “it’s likely that the United States will experience a second civil war sometime in the next five years.

The new polling evidence of fear in the country over political division follows the harassment of three top Trump aides, including spokeswoman Sarah Sanders, ordered out of a southern Virginia restaurant, and senior adviser Stephen Miller whose condo drew protests from liberals.

It also follows a call by liberal California Rep. Maxine Waters to bring pressure to Trump officials when in public and urgings from legal experts for Trump aides to apply for concealed carry permits and buy guns.

In its analysis of the new survey, Rasmussen highlighted who is most concerned about violence:

Most voters across the partisan spectrum are concerned about political violence from those opposed to Trump’s policies, although Republicans are the most likely to be Very Concerned. The level of concern is about the same among Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters when it comes to the threat of violence from those critical of the media’s coverage of Trump.

Women and those under 40 are more worried about a possible civil war than men and older voters are.

Forty-four percent (44%) of blacks think a second civil war is likely in the next five years, a view shared by 28% of whites and 36% of other minority voters. Whites are also less concerned about political violence than the others are.

Anthony Kennedy retiring from Supreme Court

1 Comment


Now if Ruth Buzzi(Bader)Ginsburg would step down.

  • Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy will step down at the end of July.
  • The departure gives President Trump a second opportunity to fundamentally alter the nation’s top court for decades.
  • Senate Republicans plans to move quickly on appointing a successor as the two major parties fight for control of the Senate in November.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy, a crucial swing vote on the Supreme Court, announced Wednesday he’s retiring at the end of July, giving President Donald Trump another chance to fundamentally reshape the highest court in the land.

    His departure could have massive effects on U.S. policy, particularly on abortion rights and gay rights nationwide. His announcement immediately raised questions about how long the court would stand by its earlier abortion rulings, including Roe v. Wade.

    In a statement, the Supreme Court said the 81-year-old Kennedy will step down effective July 31. The judge called it “the greatest honor and privilege to serve our nation in the federal judiciary for 43 years, 30 of those years in the Supreme Court.” Kennedy wants to spend more time with his family, even though they were content with him staying on the court.

    He also sent a letter to Trump on Wednesday notifying the president of his decision. The court adjourned for the summer earlier in the day.

    “For a member of the legal profession, it is the highest of honors to serve on this Court,” he wrote. “Please permit me by this letter to express my profound gratitude for having had the privilege to seek in each case how best to know, interpret and defend the Constitution and the laws that must always conform to its mandates and promises.”

    U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.

    Getty Images
    U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.

    Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Trump called Kennedy a “great justice” who has displayed “tremendous vision and heart.” He said a search for his successor will start “immediately.”

    The president’s first nominee to the court, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, has already had an enormous effect on U.S. policy in narrowly decided rulings this week related to Trump’s ban on travel from certain countries, abortion and labor unions. The president said his next choice would come from a previously released list of 25 candidates. Possible candidates when Trump chose a replacement for the late archconservative Antonin Scalia included Appeals Judges Thomas Hardiman and William Pryor, among others.

    Replacing Kennedy with a conservative could have a massive long-term effect on the highest U.S. court. His decision to leave will have huge implications for the midterm elections, as Democrats and Republicans battle for control of the Senate. The chamber confirms Supreme Court justices.

    A Supreme Court vacancy could serve to motivate voters, as a young justice would have a chance to serve for decades. Democratic control of the Senate may force Trump to make a more moderate choice for the seat.

    “You do not want to give Jeff Bezos a seven-year head start.”
    Hear what else Buffett has to say

    Kennedy was the second-oldest member of the court. The oldest, Democrat Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is 85 and has been treated for pancreatic cancer. The next oldest after Kennedy is another liberal, Stephen Breyer, who is 79.

    Senate Republicans will try to fill Kennedy’s seat before November. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday “we will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy’s successor this fall.” McConnell blocked then-President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill Scalia’s seat, Judge Merrick Garland, clearing the way for Trump to nominate Gorsuch.

    Kennedy’s retirement foreshadowed tension ahead between Senate Republicans and Democrats. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday that Republicans “should follow the rule they set in 2016, not to consider a Supreme Court Justice in an election year.” McConnell has made a distinction between presidential and midterm election years.

    Kennedy’s career

    Nominated by President Ronald Reagan and sworn in in 1988, Kennedy became a swing vote on the nine-member court. He often sided with his liberal colleagues, including in the landmark ruling that recognized same-sex marriage in 2015.

    “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family,” he wrote in the majority opinion. “As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

    He also sided with the liberals and Chief Justice John Roberts in the 2015 landmark ruling on the Affordable Care Act. The 6-3 ruling allowed the federal government to provide nationwide tax subsidies to help Americans buy health insurance in the Obamacare program.

    However, in the 2012 ruling that upheld Obamacare’s individual mandate requiring Americans to obtain health insurance, Kennedy sided with the conservative dissent. He said the court’s majority “regards its statutory interpretation as modest. It is not. It amounts to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of healthcare regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect.”

    In 1992, Kennedy joined four other justices in a ruling upholding Roe v. Wade.

    The Stanford and Harvard Law School-educated Kennedy served on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the western U.S. before his appointment to the highest U.S. court. His tenure on the Supreme Court lasted more than three decades.

    Kennedy will turn 82 only days before his planned date of retirement.

    The justice left a parting message of sorts in a concurring opinion he wrote this week when the court upheld Trump’s travel ban in a 5-4 ruling. He was the only justice signed on to the opinion.

    “The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion and promises the free exercise of religion. From these safeguards, and from the guarantee of freedom of speech, it follows there is freedom of belief and expression. It is an urgent necessity that officials adhere to these constitutional guarantees and mandates in all their actions, even in the sphere of foreign affairs. An anxious world must know that our Government remains committed always to the liberties the Constitution seeks to preserve and protect, so that freedom extends outward, and lasts.”-Justice Anthony Kennedy

    Correction: An earlier version misstated the year that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of nationwide tax subsidies to help Americans buy health insurance in the Obamacare program. It was 2015.

White House Adviser Leo: Trump Likely Two More Supreme Court Picks

Leave a comment

H/T Breitbarts Big Government.

The thought of President Trump possibly getting two more Supreme Court picks is beyond a doubt giving DemocRats nightmares.


WASHINGTON, DC – Fox News Sunday this week profiled Leonard Leo, who assists President Donald Trump and White House Counsel Don McGahn in the historic task of filling a record number of judicial vacancies. Leo predicts that President Trump will have at least two more opportunities to appoint originalists to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could define his presidency as a lasting legacy for the nation.

President Trump makes his own decisions picking federal judges, and McGahn is the senior adviser most involved in presenting those choices. But the president must fill almost 170 judicial vacancies — a historic high number — and McGahn has countless duties as the president’s top lawyer, daily engaged in top-level decisions on the full range of domestic and foreign policies. He puts out the innumerable fires that any leading lawyer in the White House confronts as he helps manage the activities of 2.7 million federal employees spending a budget of $4 trillion leading a nation of 326 million citizens.

With all those demands, who advises McGahn on judges? While he has deputies and associates in the White House Counsel’s Office and works with a team in the Office of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice, no one plays a larger role in equipping McGahn to advise the president on judges than Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society.

Headquartered in the nation’s capital, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy is the nation’s flagship organization for advancing and restoring an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, comprised of almost 70,000 lawyers, law students, and supporters.

Originalism is “the idea that the words of the Constitution should be interpreted as they were commonly understood when they were written,” FNS host Chris Wallace explained in a voice-over during the interview, summing up this philosophy of studying the Constitution’s text, structure, and history to determine its original meaning.

“The job of a judge is to enforce the Constitution as it is written,” Leo told Wallace, explaining that appointing originalists to the federal bench is what converts originalism from an ivory-tower theory to a governing philosophy, as judges apply an originalist understanding of the Constitution to each case before their courts.

Originalism “advances the cause of limited constitutional government,” Wallace continues with the audience. The Constitution established a federal government of strictly limited powers, leaving all other matters to the states or to the people directly.

This debate over originalism is hardly academic, as Wallace makes clear that the reason Fox News is airing this interview segment is because there might be an imminent vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, possibly Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has served since 1988.

Brushing aside Wallace’s mention of the D.C. chatter that Leo is President Trump’s “Supreme Court whisperer,” Leo quipped, “I don’t remember ever whispering, and I know he’s never whispered.”

Leo is always quick to affirm that McGahn is President Trump’s primary adviser on judges, both by virtue of the high position that the White House counsel holds and also because McGahn has worked for decades as a lawyer and a government official on advancing originalism and textualism in American law, as discussed at the annual CPAC convention this year.

But Leo plays an essential role assisting the president and McGahn identify the right judicial candidates and navigating the process of nomination and confirmation, running a gauntlet fraught with political perils where an extra pair of skilled hands are enormously helpful.

That was certainly the case with Justice Neil Gorsuch, who proclaimed at the Scalia Memorial Dinner at the Federalist Society’s national convention in November 2017, “Tonight, I can report that a person can be both a publicly committed originalist and textualist and be confirmed to the Supreme Court,” to thunderous applause from Leo’s organization.

McGahn was also an honored guest at that dinner and a marquee speaker at the convention, giving the Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture in 2017.

There is a significant chance that McGahn’s and Leo’s skills will again be put to the test on developing options for President Trump.

“The odds are high that over the next … several years you’re going to see a couple more vacancies” on the Supreme Court, Leo explained, affirming Wallace’s question that there is “over 50-50” odds of at least two vacancies.

“If President Trump gets to nominate another justice, that will move a Court that is often split over to solidly conservative,” Wallace editorializes.

Touring the Federalist Society’s offices in Washington, DC, Wallace notes that hanging outside Leo’s office is an enormous picture of Justice Antonin Scalia’s chambers, the famous originalist justice who was a good friend of Leo, and whose sudden death in 2016 made the Supreme Court a central issue in the presidential race, culminating with Gorsuch’s nomination after President Trump’s inauguration.

“This is the originalist temple,” Leo explained to Wallace, gazing at the oversized photo of Scalia’s chambers, richly adorned with law books and hunting trophies.

“You’re dealing with fundamental transformation of the federal bench,” Leo said when discussing President Trump’s resolute commitment to appointing originalists and textualists to the nation’s courts, advised by McGahn and his team.

“It is about as inspiring and motivating as anything has been in my professional life,” added Leo, reflecting on his role assisting President Trump, McGahn, and others involved in the appointment process. “It’s really incredible.”


Whoa: Americans Have Bought More Guns In the Past Two Months Than Our Military Has On Hand

Leave a comment

H/T Town Hall.

The DemocRats think if they wanted they could have door to door gun confiscation.

May was another solid month in gun sales, with over two millionbackground checks being run according to the FBI. Yet, Stephen Gutowski of The Washington Free Beacon also touched upon the Small Arms Survey, which showed that Americans own 393 million of the one billion-plus firearms in worldwide circulation. So, while we’re not the majority owner of all guns worldwide, Gutowski broke down some interesting aspects of this report. First, that in the last two months alone, Americans have bought more guns that our entirely military has on hand, and that Americans bought more guns in 2017 than every police agency in the world did combined:

…American civilians own nearly 100 times as many firearms as the U.S. military and nearly 400 times as many as law enforcement.

Federal Bureau of Investigation background check records suggest that civilians bought more than 2 million guns in May alone, which means civilians purchase more than double the number of firearms owned by police departments. The number of gun-related civilian background checks in May and April, at over 4.7 million, is greater than the number of firearms currently owned by the American military.

The FBI reported processing more than 25.2 million gun-related civilian background checks in 2017, which is more than the 22.7 million guns the Small Arms Survey estimates are currently held by every law enforcement agency in the world combined. Between 2012 and 2017, the FBI reported conducting more than 135 million civilian gun checks—more than the 133 million guns the Small Arms Survey estimates are in all the world’s military stockpiles.

The Small Arms Survey estimated there are about 1 billion firearms currently in circulation throughout the world. By its estimate, about 85 percent are owned by civilians and American civilians own nearly 40 percent of all the guns in the world. Researchers said worldwide firearms ownership was up since the last time they studied the issue about a decade ago.

He elaborated more on social media:

Stephen Gutowski


This, of course, makes is by far the #1 in civilian gun ownership in the world with the next closest being India at about 70 million. There are more civilian-owned guns in the US than their are people Most people, I think, understand that but don’t really grasp what it means.

Stephen Gutowski


Every law enforcement agency in America combined have about 1 million firearms in their inventory. That means American civilians have about 400 TIMES as many firearms as American police.

Stephen Gutowski


In May alone, American civilians bought somewhere around 2 million firearms. That’s twice as many firearms as every police department in America combined IN A SINGLE MONTH.

Stephen Gutowski


Similarly, the American military is estimated to hold about 4.5 million firearms. That means American civilians have 100 TIMES as many firearms as every branch of the American military COMBINED.

Stephen Gutowski


If you combine May and April’s gun-related background check numbers you get 4.7 million. That means the American public bought more guns IN JUST THE LAST TWO MONTHS than the entire American military has on hand.

Stephen Gutowski


Furthermore, the Small Arms Survey estimates all the world’s law enforcement agencies combined hold about 22.7 million guns. In 2017 alone, the FBI processed 25.2 million gun checks. The American public bought more guns in 2017 than every police agency in the world combined.

Stephen Gutowski


Between 2012 and 2017, the FBI did more than 135 million civilian gun checks. That’s more than the estimated 133 million guns held by ALL THE WORLD’S MILITARIES COMBINED.

All I can say is God bless our country and our Bill of Rights.

Older Entries Newer Entries

%d bloggers like this: