Category Archives: Politics

Constitutional Rights Cannot be Redefined by Agency Decree

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The injunction is significant—not only for its immediate protection of NRA members but also for the precedent it sets in reining in agency overreach. Beyond striking down a single rule, the ruling reasserts a fundamental principle: that the power to make or change laws lies with Congress, not unelected bureaucrats.

For the firearm community, Butler v. Bondi is more than a courtroom win. It is a reaffirmation that the boundaries of federal power must be respected, and that constitutional rights cannot be redefined by agency decree.

Susanne Edward
October 13, 2025
Judges Rule Against Another Biden-Era Policy | An Official Journal Of The NRA

This is good, but it reminds me of something else I want the gun rights organizations to work on… How does anyone believe the 2nd Amendment allows restrictions on interstate sales of firearms? Why can’t someone in California legally buy a gun in Oregon or Nevada without it being shipped to a California FFL?

It is not that I think the interstate sales restrictions should be a higher priority than semi-auto rifle bans, standard capacity magazine bans, and the “sensitive places” B.S. But it should be on the radar.

Also, in an era of President Trump pushing the envelope with executive orders, this precedent will be interesting in its application to recent events.

Right Wing? Left Wing? I Don’t Care

Posted on by

They have a lot of things in common:

When the political left claims their opponents are Nazis fascists there is more than a little projection.

Right-wing and left-wing labels do not matter. What matters is, do the policies violate individual rights? If so, then those policies should be opposed.

Freedom is Incompatible with Equal

Posted on by

Via The Atlas Society @TheAtlasSociety:

People demanding equality are demanding you give up your freedom.

Believe the Science

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The Left is admitting in surveys that they’re more politically violent. In Cygnal’s October national poll, 60% of young liberals said breaking the law is OK if you disagree with the government. And 41% of all liberals concurred. Only 14% of conservatives held this belief.

Brent Buchanan
Cygnal founder and pollster
October 16, 2025
Left greenlights political violence on eve of ‘No Kings’ revolts

It is in their nature (see also here).

I want my underground bunker in Idaho to be finished.

Power Over Principle

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

They see this as a fight about how Democrats can start winning again, which makes it not merely tactical but also existential: Party officials, strategists, and activists have spent a year sifting through the wreckage of an election that was calamitous to the Democrats’ governing plans as well as their very understanding of themselves. And there is no shepherd to guide them. The party’s erstwhile leader, Joe Biden, is widely scorned. Harris, its would-be standard-bearer, is busy promoting a backward-looking volume of grievances.

Elaine Godfrey
October 14, 2025
The Democrats’ Heterodoxy Problem

As a libertarian/constitutionalist I’m always somewhat amused by a political party changing its policies. And here we have members of the Democrat party considering all policies up for revision as long as they can regain power:

“Permissive” isn’t a word you would use to describe Democrats over the past few years. The party has suffered from a perception that it has become intolerant of different perspectives and preoccupied with identity politics and language policing. Litmus tests aren’t just applied to gun policy, but to policies on LGBT rights, immigration enforcement, policing, and other matters.

But losing power has a way of shaking up party canon. And there are some signs that Democrats are ready to move past this era of ideological purity and rigidity.

I have my differences with Republicans, but the Democrats have been the sworn enemy of the Second Amendment for 60 years. To see them struggle with relevance, self-doubt, and even identity, invokes a fair amount of schadenfreude.

German National Socialist Workers Party

Posted on by

I have often seen the National Socialist Workers Party of the 1920 to 1945 era in Germany described as “right wing”. But, with socialist right there in the name it is obviously deserves the “left wing” label. Correct?

Well… perhaps not. I asked Copilot and Grok about this. They agreed with each other, but Grok described it best:

The National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP, or Nazi Party) included “socialist” and “workers'” in its name as a deliberate propaganda tactic to appeal to disaffected working-class Germans during the economic turmoil of the Weimar Republic in the 1920s. The party’s precursor, the German Workers’ Party (DAP), was renamed in 1920 to attract voters away from actual left-wing parties like the Social Democrats (SPD) or Communists (KPD). Early party programs, such as the 1920 25-Point Program, included some anti-capitalist rhetoric—like calls for profit-sharing in large industries or nationalization of trusts—to sound revolutionary and worker-friendly.

However, this “socialism” was redefined in nationalist terms, rejecting core Marxist elements like class struggle, international worker solidarity, and the abolition of private property. Adolf Hitler explicitly distinguished it from Marxism, stating in 1930 that “Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxist Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.” Instead, Nazi “socialism” meant subordinating economic activity to the state’s national goals, preserving private enterprise as long as it served the “Aryan” race and the regime’s militaristic aims. The economy under Nazism was a mixed system with heavy state direction (e.g., for rearmament and public works like the Autobahn), but it involved privatization of public services, alliances with big business (such as IG Farben and Krupp), and suppression of independent trade unions in favor of the state-controlled German Labor Front. This corporatist approach aligned more with fascist economics than left-wing collectivism.

Personally, I reject the left/right labels as far too simple. While probably still too simplistic I find the Political Quiz | Political Typology Test a big improvement over “left vs. right” labeling.

Your mileage may vary.

The Peace of the Dead

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Dozens have been killed in Gaza during violent fighting Sunday and within hours of the expected release of hostages in the war-torn region, according to local reports.

…

According to reports via Israeli outlet Ynet, the violence erupted when Hamas militants raided the neighborhood of Sabra in Gaza City, home to a clan called Doghmush, also known as the Al Doghmush family militia.

The report said the Hamas Interior Ministry had accused a militia of attacking its forces, while members of the Doghmush clan said Hamas had exploited the ceasefire to target them over alleged cooperation with Israel.

…

In total, Ynet reported 52 members of the Doghmush clan were killed and 12 Hamas militants were killed.

Emma Bussey, Efrat Lachter
October 12, 2025
Dozens killed in Gaza as violence erupts between Hamas and armed clans

One has to wonder, “Do these people know how to do anything other than kill people?”

This is from the “religion of peace.” I suspect the only peace they will ever see is the peace of the dead.

True Americans

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The true AMERICANS of Antifa, the justice warriors, are working hard to keep America SAFE from “nazis”. One Molotov cocktail and busted out storefront at a time. Today, they don’t wear all black. Today is the EMERGENCY Naked Bike Ride in PDX. Today, many an “anti-fascist” shows their ass.

Literally.

Lisa Carr
October 12, 2025
Antifa Thinks They Are The True Americans – Victory Girls Blog.

It is good to know that looting stores, throwing bombs, and beating people are the acts of “True Americans.” When someone takes their stuff, returns a Molotov cocktail, or beats the crap out of them for looting, they will know they have met a kindred spirit.

Democrats Accept Reality and Choose to Pretend it Does Not Exist

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

In her recently released book about her presidential candidacy, former Vice President Kamala Harris admits that she, too, shares concerns: “I agree with the concerns expressed by parents and players that we have to take into account biological factors such as muscle mass and unfair student athletic advantage when we determine who plays on which teams, especially in contact sports.”

But she added, “There was no way I was going to go against my very nature and turn on transgender people.”

And there it is. Tension unmasked. When reality collides with allegiance, the Democrats choose allegiance.

Macy Petty
October 10, 2025
High-ranking Democrats admit to knowingly abandoning women

Determining what is real is tough. Accepting reality can be almost as tough. Ignoring reality after you have determined what is real and accepting that it is real is insane and/or evil. In this case I am going with “and”.

Ideological Purity Only Works if Strongly Correlated with Reality

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Rapidly transforming the American public’s beliefs is a daunting task—all the more so if you dismiss their current values as unacceptable. The Democratic Party’s pragmatic wing has been pleading to broaden the tent, ideally before the Trump administration stamps out all opposition. The party’s progressives seem determined to reeducate the public rather than compromise for their votes. This is a seductive approach if the goal is ideological purity. It is a problem only if the party hopes to win elections.

Jonathan Chait
October 6, 2025
Democrats Still Have No Idea What Went Wrong

Ideological purity only works if the ideas have a strong correlation with reality. The problem Marxists have is that Marx’s ideas were found to be at odds with reality within a few years of him articulating them. His central concept, the labor theory of value, was rejected along with the incoherent fluff built upon that. He was a nobody until Lenin came along and concluded the incoherent fluff was actually genius.

Lenin brought Marx’s theories back from the dead, where they belonged, and laid the groundwork for the deaths of tens of millions in the Russia and U.S.S.R. As the Marxist infection spread worldwide over 100 million were murdered by their own governments. There have been hundreds of attempts to tweak the implementation of Marxist theory to create the promised utopia. While some of been far less deadly than others, the bottom line has always been that free markets and free minds outperform the Marx model of government.

Yet, 150 years after Marx’s ideas were first dropped into the dustbin, we have a major political party still trying to claim they have relevance. If they want to win elections (gain power) then they need to be at least somewhat content will a little power rather than a lot of power. They need to give up the authoritarian model of government. I suspect this is unacceptable to them and they would rather destroy the evidence they are wrong than accept the truth and exercise power within the confines of reality. The current government shutdown is only the most recent data point supporting this hypothesis.

Prepare appropriately.

Socialist’s Unquenchable Thirst for Power

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

This is a painful lesson that a lot of us in the Palestine solidarity movement have been learning is that we don’t have power… what we don’t have is power… the question I’m asking myself, and I’m asking you to ask yourself, ‘is where can I actually build power?”

Eman Abdelhadi
Associate Professor of the University of Chicago’s Department of Comparative Human Development
At Socialism 2025, July 5, 2025
Far-left University of Chicago professor charged with violent felonies during anti-ICE riots in Broadview

As if you didn’t already know, socialists have an unquenchable thirst for power. And, of course, all Marxists know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

I leave the remainder of this lesson as an exercise for the reader.

Please prepare appropriately.

Can Someone Explain This to Me?

Posted on by

I have seen the phrase “politically motivated” ever since I can remember. The most recent is here:

New York Attorney General Letitia James has been indicted on charges of bank fraud and false statements by a federal grand jury in Virginia. The indictment follows allegations related to a 2023 mortgage application and comes amid accusations of political retribution by President Donald Trump’s administration, which has faced criticism for targeting political opponents. James, who previously won a high-profile civil fraud case against Trump, denies the charges and claims they are part of a politically motivated campaign.

I get it, as Copilot pointed out to me:

if someone committed a crime, prosecution should follow. But the claim of political motivation isn’t always about denying the act—it’s about challenging the fairness, consistency, or intent behind the prosecution. In democracies, that challenge is part of the system’s self-correction mechanism.

But that isn’t the way I see it being used. It is used as an absolute defense. As in if the investigation or prosecution generates political advantage for some person in power, then there is nothing further to discuss. The investigation/prosecution should be halted.

Do people really believe that? Am I misreading the implications of its use? Is it just a “hail Mary” type of play when they are desperate to avoid the consequences of their crimes?

And, for the record, I am of the opinion that all government employees should be investigated and prosecuted for every hint of criminal or civil wrongdoing. They should be held to a much higher standard than people in private life.

Running on Fumes

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

They’re [Democrats] not succeeding in persuading the American people that they’re up to a leadership role, which is why, after me being a Democrat for 60 or more years, I am now going to campaign very hard for the Republicans to maintain control of the House and the Senate. Not because I love the Republican agenda. It’s because I’m totally frightened if the Democrats were to gain control of either House. Who they would appoint as chair people? Who they would put in the position of inquisitors, and how they would deny rights to people, and how they would introduce a kind of McCarthyism that we haven’t seen since I was a college student in the 1950s?

Alan Dershowitz
October 7, 2025
‘I’m Totally Frightened’: Lifelong Democrat Dershowitz Says He’ll ‘Campaign Very Hard For Republicans’ In Midterms

When the Democrats have lost Dershowtiz, you know they are running on fumes.

We live in interesting times.

A Hint of Good News in Europe

Posted on by

It’s not “free markets and free minds”, but at least it is less of the “to everyone according to their need and from everyone according to their ability” nonsense.

The Death of the Left

Substitute/Shortcut Method Used to Determine Truth from Falsity

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Make no mistake; we have a year before this country becomes a full-on autocracy, and democracy completely leaves us. And we’re looking at the election in 2026, and Donald Trump knows that in a free and fair election, he will lose. He will lose the House, the House will flip and will become in Democratic hands. There will be committee chairs who will be able to hold meetings, and this is the last thing he wants.

…

Don’t be surprised when polling booths are surrounded by American military in the guise of making sure that the elections are fair and that nobody is tampering with anything.

And when you see violence breaking out, which there’ll be protests, there’ll be inciting violence, there’ll be some violence, and they’ll keep that. Then you’ll see the commandeering of voting machines, ballot boxes to make sure that that election is secure. Well, what that means is that he will then commandeer the election.

Rob Reiner
October 5, 2025
Rob Reiner warns US has one year before becoming ‘full-on autocracy’ | Fox News

If Reiner were sharing his opinion on directing or acting someone might be able to learn something from him. But if he is offering his opinion on engineering, heart surgery, or politics you can be certain his prophecy is of zero, or negative, value.

In a perverse sort of way I find the psychology interesting.

It was in high school someone I knew told me something I thought was unlikely to be true. In attempted to convince me they pointed out how popular her source for the information was. This was incredibly confusing to me. How did the popularity of someone affect the truthfulness of something?

Later I saw it all around me. Adults with no hint of sarcasm or insincerity believed things based on the popularity of the person making an actual or implied claim of truth. If a politician said the cause of some bad situation was corporate greed, racism, or government regulation, people would believe it without evidence. If a sports figure had their picture on a cereal package, people would believe the contents of the box were empowered with special characteristics they would not have claimed the day before the picture was featured on the box. Toothpaste quality was judged by the teeth of the actress holding the box rather than the contents of the tube. In reality, the opinion of the next-door neighbors was probably just as valid.

People apparently have a hardwired propensity to believe a well-known figure. Evidence tends to be a hard sell in their struggle to discern reality. I get it that reality is hard. But wow! The substitute/shortcut methods used to determine truth from falsity are mind boggling messed up.

Accepting Reality

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Are we accepting the reality that we might already be at war, or are we still believing we are in control? We are allowing higher and higher levels of escalation with no proper answers.

If that continues, we need to expect a Pearl Harbor day for Europe, when the escalation will be so impossible to ignore that it will bring about a Western reawakening.

…

Instead of asking will we risk starting World War Three, the question is: will we risk stopping it?

Gabrielius Landsbergis
Former Lithuanian foreign minister
October 5, 2025
Europe is facing its ‘Pearl Harbor moment’

Accepting reality is almost as difficult as determining what reality is. And keep in mind that in war, truth is the first causality. Furthermore, people have a very strong tendency to believe what they want to believe.

So where does that leave us? If Russia really is intent in rolling up Eastern Europe to recover its lost glory from the peak of the Soviet bloc, then Western Europe will delay longer than they should have. If Russia really only wants Ukraine, then a case can be made that the path of least human suffering (after you add in the human cost on all sides of Western Europe going to war with Russia) is to let them have it unopposed.

The dilemma is that letting Russia have the Ukraine with even moderate support from the West runs a high risk of telling Russia they can get away with the roll up. Hence, even if they did not originally intend to roll up Eastern Europe, they will be incentivized by the inaction of the west to do what they had not planned to do. If the west does crank of the temperature dial on WWIII to HOT, then history will forever haunt us with the deaths of millions that might have lived if only we had listened to the appeasers.*

It is very nearly a lose-lose situation.

I think predictions are extremely difficult. Especially about the future. Think of it this way, you want to “accepting reality?” The problem is, no matter what reality you “accept” you change the reality.

Prepare appropriately for me means an underground bunker in Idaho.

* I forget who I was talking to recently who asserted that Russia will not attack a NATO country. Russia is close to being number two when they are only up against Ukraine. NATO, he asserted, would have a busy week, but Russia would cease to exist. Hence, there is no real downside for non-Ukrainians to let them have Ukraine.

Terminator Says, “Make yourself human again.”

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

That’s how most of the real world outside of the internet is. If you find yourself falling for the anger, go out in the real world and make yourself human again.

Arnold Schwarzenegger
September 18, 2025
Arnold Schwarzenegger shares honest view on why Charlie Kirk was killed

There are extremely few situations where you should make important decisions when you are in a highly emotional state.

I find it very telling that successful politicians are extremely skilled and practiced at creating highly emotional states. It is what political rallies are all about. And you can see them demonstrate this skill in all their speeches.

For me I find all political speech to be irritating. Show me a politician’s policy details. This is how to determine their worth or lack thereof.

Neither Side is Really Serious

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

To get rid of those guns requires confiscation. That requires a lot of law enforcement. If you like the War on Drugs or ICE’s immigration raids, you will love a War on Guns. To collect those hundreds of millions of guns will require many more cops, many more home searches by armed cops that could result in shootings, many more stops and frisks on the streets, and a great many more prison sentences for gun possession — a crime that is often under-enforced by blue-city and blue-state prosecutors because sentencing those offenders tends to lead disproportionately to jailing young black men. But if the guns are the problem and removing them is the solution, you need to act as if you believe those things.

…

What are you prepared to do? And then what are you prepared to do? If you’re not prepared for the dramatic escalation of heavy-handed law enforcement that a War on Guns would entail, then you’re not serious about one.

Dan Zimmerman
October 2, 2025
The Gun Control Industry Has Never Been Serious About What They’re Prepared to Do to Wage Their War on Guns – Shooting News Weekly

One can make the argument that Democrats originally just wanted to ban guns for blacks to enable the KKK. Then after the party was no longer dependent on the KKK to win elections they kept the gun issue because it would be inconsistent to switch talking points. Ultimately, they convinced their base that guns were the cause of crime. At that point they could continue to get votes by promising to “do something.” If they had actually been able to deliver it would have eliminated a reason to vote for them.

And, of course, a case can be made that the Republican party never wanted to actually eliminate all the repressive gun laws for similar reasons. If the repressive gun laws were eliminated, then their base would have less reason to vote for them.

Hence, for at the last ~60 years (since congress started debating what became GCA68), both sides used gun control to get votes and money from the common people. Yeah, I’m somewhat cynical at times.

Ironically, I think either side winning in a big way would have resolved it to my eventual satisfaction. A civil war over gun ownership probably would have resulted in a new government with private gun ownership a central point of the foundation of government. The pro-gun legislative rollback of GCA68 and all the state and local laws would be preferable, but the issue would probably fester for 100 years or more.

This is part of the reason I have been saying for years that I have given up on the legislative branch. It is only through the courts that we have a chance to get this mess cleaned up without bloodshed or a long fester. Neither major party is really serious about resolving the issue. It is their gravy train of votes and money.

The courts are glacially slow, but it does reduce the bloodshed and put a foreseeable end to the lingering political fester.

Good News From SCOTUS

Posted on by

Curated by Copilot:

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a Hawaii law that restricts concealed carry permit holders from bringing firearms onto private property without explicit permission from the property owner. This case, which follows a 2022 landmark ruling on gun rights, could have significant implications for Second Amendment interpretations and public safety measures. The decision may also affect similar laws in California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York.

This what is commonly known as the Vampire Rule. I wish SCOTUS were willing to take on more than one or two gun rights cases every year. There is so much stuff to be cleaned up. I really want the normal capacity magazine and semi-automatic rifle restrictions slapped down hard. But it seems those cans keep getting kicked down the road.

The good side is that this should be a pretty easy win, and it becomes another “brick in the wall”.

Also listen to what Mark Smith has to say about it:

Excellent Point

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

It’s not death they like, because everyone dies. It’s killing they like.

X — Formerly IB_Joe
September 22, 2025
Comment to Instapundit » Blog Archive » FOR THE LEFT VIOLENCE IS BAKED IN:  Death is the Solution to all Problems.

Prepare appropriately.