Friday, August 16, 2019

Trump Is Reading My Blog Again

A couple of weeks ago I posted that there might come a time when white Americans and Europeans will be seeking an ark as third world migration swamps the nations they built: An Untapped Export: White People?

In that post I suggested a dark horse candidate as a future home for people of European descent: Greenland.

Lo and behold, this week we see:

Trump Expressed An Interest In Buying Greenland

If he would read my blog more often and listen to Ivanka less, he would be in better shape for 2020.....

Of course, Greenland is not excited about the prospect....: Greenland Responds To Trump: "We're Not For Sale"

....but there are a whopping 56,000 people on Greenland right now and the U.S. already has a military base there, Thule Air Base. The Danish military (Greenland is sort of part of Denmark) fields an impressive 27,000 troops. The U.S. Armed Forces numbers a measly 1.3 million. Granted, several thousand of those are trannies but the rest can fight. Hell, the Coast Guard alone has over 42,000 personnel, dwarfing the Danish military. So pretty much if we want Greenland, the Danes can't do much about it. Let's hope they are reasonable and it doesn't come to that.

Thursday, August 15, 2019

Maurice Hill: The Real Face Of Gun Violence In America

Last night in the super fun city of Brotherly Love, Philadelphia, the news erupted with a story of a shoot-out where six cops were injured. At one point when I checked in on the police scanner app, over 22,000 people were listening to the feed from the Philadelphia police. The fact that there was a shooting in Philadelphia isn't newsworthy but the fact that six cops had been injured was. The shooting shed a quick glimpse on the real world of American gun violence, a very different picture than you get if you just graze on the mainstream "news" like a sheep.

According to the media and entertainment world and most of the socialist clowns running for President in the Democrat primary, the gun violence problem in America is mostly a problem with white men. In order to address gun violence we need to take guns away from white men who haven't actually committed a crime and ban "assault weapons" that are rarely used in shootings. But the FBI reports that more people were killed with blunt objects in 2017 than by all rifles (which would include regular bolt action, lever action and single shot rifles)....

FBI: More People Killed by Hammers, Clubs than with Rifles of Any Kind

Breitbart News reported the most recent numbers–those for 2017–on September 26, 2018. Those figures showed that 467 people were killed with “blunt objects (hammers, clubs, etc.),” while 403 were killed with rifles.

Obviously what America needs is common sense bi-partisan hammer control legislation. Do it for the children!

The real story of gun violence in America is not what you are being told. There is a reason we are still talking about El Paso and "white supremacy" and the need for gun control but the story of the police getting shot in Philadelphia is disappearing down the memory hole. It is simple psychological manipulation designed to soften up white Americans to support being disarmed while they are simultaneously being systematically replaced.

Some random white kid in an El Paso Wal-Mart with an AK is not the face of gun violence in America. This is the face of gun violence in America:

Photo from the Philadelphia Inquirer, accessed 8/15/2019
According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, the suspect in the shooting last night is 36 year old Maurice Hill and he is not unfamiliar with the po-leese.

In North Philly standoff, alleged cop shooter Maurice Hill has a long criminal history

In his storied criminal career as an adult (it is safe to assume he didn't start committing crimes when he turned 18), Mr. Hill has been arrested around a dozen times in 18 years. He has been busted for evading police on an unlicensed scooter (seriously) as well as drug dealing, assault and a slew of gun charges, which seems odd since as a felon he isn't allowed by law to own a gun. It is almost as if people who are felons are notable for a rather strenuous disregard for the law. I am sure a new gun control law will be just the thing to dissuade him from a life of violent crime.

Mr. Hill is a 36 year old black man who has spent his entire adult life, and probably most of his teen years as well, either committing crimes or being incarcerated for committing crimes. He is also the epitome of criminals who use guns in America. You hear about white kids shooting up Wal-Mart stores because it is a) politically useful and b) reasonably rare. You don't hear about blacks shooting people because it is a) politically inconvenient and b) so common place that it becomes background noise. Thanks again to Colin Flaherty for doing the work and making the connections the media refuses to:




Gun violence in America is largely an issue in the non-white community. Blacks and to a lesser extend Hispanics commit violence far out of proportion to their share of the population. Whites are deeply underrepresented in violent crime, especially murder. The face of gun violence in America is a black man who likely is a career criminal and probably shot another black man and an assortment of bystanders, not using an "assault rifle" he purchased at a gun show but instead using an illegally obtained handgun.

Don't let the media lie and manipulate you into giving up your firearms.

How Much Will Trump and The Republicans Surrender Without A Fight?

So called "mass shootings" occur all the time, mostly in urban areas and overwhelmingly carried out by non-whites (more on this in my next post). For example, see DeWayne Craddock And The "Mass Shooting Is A White Guy Thing" Fake Narrative. Also, Colin Flaherty does great videos providing evidence that mass shootings are mostly carried out by blacks, like this one: Colin Flaherty: Mass shootings for the last 7 DAYS. 22 mass shootings...21 by the fellas!. But when a mass shooting is carried out by a white guy, the media and liberals go crazy for a few days, then they run out of steam and start complaining about Trump again. That changed with El Paso and Dayton. While one of the two shooters was a far left loon and we don't know much about his motivations, the media has successfully shifted the narrative so that people are starting to think that the real problem in mass shootings and gun violence in general is not 13% of the population committing over 50% of all murders and 75% of mass shootings, it is actually that all white men are ticking time bombs waiting for an excuse to start gunning down peaceful people of color. The Zman had this to say in his post The White Fright:

The underlying assumption of the White Fright is a belief that whites are secretly organizing to overthrow the current order and impose some sort of pale patriarchy on the country. These white supremacists are everywhere and look just like normal everyday white people, so any white person could possibly be one of them. These people can, at any moment, turn into a violent spree killer, if exposed to certain kinds of content called “hate speech” which is found on-line.

The similarities to medieval witch hunting are too obvious not to notice. The adversary is not something that appears in material form. Like Old Scratch, white supremacy is an evil spirit that works through the infected. Once under the control of white supremacy, the person no longer has agency. Not surprisingly, like the accused witches in Salem, the modern white supremacist is most likely to be someone that vexes the moral authorities, either by their presence or by their actions.

There are really a lot of people out there who honestly think that the middle of the country is full of Klan rallies and rednecks sitting around waiting for a dark skinned fella to walk by so they can lynch them. They think we have secret meetings and even a psychic connection to one another so we can communicate our racial animus without saying a word.

Having named white supremacists as the greatest threat to America, the goal is now to disarm white men so we can't start gunning down minorities at will. If you point out that most shootings are carried out by non-whites and especially when you only look at shootings where non-whites are the victims, you clearly are a white supremacist. See how that works? You get accused of some bullshit and then when you try to defend yourself that is just proof of what you were accused of. That is why defending yourself against these charges is a waste of time and actually counter-productive so Quit Chasing The Stick.

So it wasn't long after the dust settled that Republicans, including President Trump, started tripping over themselves to be seen as "doing something" about gun violence and it is pretty clear that many of them are all too happy to throw their most reliable voters under the bus. Expanded background checks (that wouldn't have stopped either shooter), unconstitutional red-flag laws (that also wouldn't have stopped either shooter) and even bans on "assault weapons" all seem to be on the table. Trump daughter Ivanka has been lobbying Republicans to cuck on this issue: Ivanka Trump is quietly calling lawmakers about the gun debate, and whenever she is involved, regular Americans are getting screwed. Lindsey Graham took a break from banging the drum for more wars to get on-board with more gun laws: BIPARTISAN GUN SEIZURE BILL PROMISED IN CONGRESS.

Trump is all on board with red flag laws and seems to be oblivious to how those will backfire on his followers. I am not going to reiterate that logic, John Wilder's post Red Flag Laws, or, How To Repeal The Second Amendment Soviet-Style Without A Pesky Vote is a good primer.

Trump is not stupid but he is ignorant, and those are not the same thing. Trump knows a lot about some things but he is the product of his upbringing and environment. I don't know much about being a real estate tycoon, I own my house and that is about it. Likewise Trump doesn't know a much about a lot of subjects so he relies on advice from others. It also seems that he gets a lot of terrible advice from his inner circle, most notably daughter Ivanka and her loathsome husband Jared. Assuming we still have a nation, when the real history of the Trump presidency is written it will hopefully cast light on how often Trump was misdirected from what he wanted to do by Javanka. Guns are an area he knows almost nothing about. Sure his kids were competitive shooters and hunters, but being a rich kid on safari is not at all the same thing as a kid growing up shooting whitetails for meat in Michigan. Trump doesn't know much about guns and he seems unwilling to think about the ramifications of what he is doing but someone is whispering in his ear that passing gun laws sure to piss off his base is a great idea, just like wasting time getting some thug rapper that hates him our of jail in Sweden will for sure get him the black vote in 2020. Trump has the attention span of a toddler drinking Mountain Dew in a sippy cup and he is possessed of an awe-inspiring and often undeserved sense of self-confidence so I expect this from him. Where many people don't expect it is from the supposedly wiser and more experienced Republican party leaders.

One of the basic political truths that I have come to believe based on decades of political involvement and engagement as a conservative is this:

If you can count on anything, it's that you can't count on Republicans. 

Regular normie conservatives out in the heartland are often still under the impression that the GOP is a unified political party united behind Trump and working tirelessly to advance a conservative agenda. In reality most of the GOP leadership doesn't care about "conservative values" and in fact a lot of them fear and despise rank-and-file "deplorable" Republican voters just as much as Democrats do. Look at the years long pouting from "conservatives" like Bill Kristol and David French. What country club, Chamber of Commerce, DC insider "conservatives" really want to conserve is their own cushy gig. They want to write their little columns and publish their little magazines and make the right noises about the right issues, until they change their minds and make different noises about different issues, but above all they want to be able to eat at their fancy restaurants and attend their posh cocktail parties where liberals are in attendance and not be embarrassed by what the little people out in the heartland are doing.

It is almost a given that Republicans will surrender on "red flag laws". They will likely also surrender on expanded background checks for private gun sales. What is worse, it is likely this will get even broader once they start to "negotiate" with Democrats. Republicans "negotiators" give it up like a freshman sorority pledge at a frat kegger once they get behind closed doors. Happens every single time. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like a ban on "high capacity" magazines or even a resurrection of the Clinton-era "assault weapons" ban. Fox News ran a poll right after the shootings and it was pretty grim:

Fox News Poll: Most back gun restrictions after shootings, Trump ratings down

Fewer, although still a sizable 67 percent majority, favor banning assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons. That’s up from 60 percent in 2018.  Support includes over half of those living in a gun-owner household (53 percent). Over half of independents (58 percent) and an overwhelming majority of Democrats (86 percent) favor a ban.  Republicans split 46-46 percent, which is a shift from 2018 when it was 41 favor vs. 56 oppose.

Via Foxnews.com accessed 8/15/2019

Look at that a little closer. Half of people self-identifying as a gun owning household support banning "assault weapons". An even split of Republicans polled supported a ban on "assault weapons". Further, 81% of people support taking guns away from "at-risk" people. So if you think that the Epstein "suicide" seemed a little sketchy, you are a conspiracy theorist and therefore mentally ill and some quack psychiatrist can testify that you should be disarmed by force. Starting to see this all coming together yet?

What Trump and Republicans seem to not understand is that their collective cucking on this issue isn't helping them. Trump said all the "right" things after the shootings and his approval ratings still went in the toilet. Granted, these are registered voters which is far less representative of the actual electorate than "likely voters" but still it indicates that Trump and the GOP's signaling on gun control isn't helping them but it is pissing off their base.

I'll be watching this closely but it is just a matter of damage control at this point as the Republicans have once again surrendered on the principle and are now just fighting over which scraps the Democrats will toss them from the table.

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

More On The Future For Boxed Wine Boomers

Earlier this month I posted about, Nshimiyiana Hamzat, the migrant nursing home worker who was sexually assaulting a disabled 50 year old white woman: Angry Cat Ladies: Welcome To Your Future. Then today I saw another lovely story:

Nursing home workers accused of taunting 91-year-old woman with dementia in Snapchat video

Nursing assistant Brayan Cortez is accused of waving a gown at Collins, as his girlfriend and fellow Nursing assistant Jamie Montesa filmed the incident. The caption in the video reads, "Margaret hates gowns" with two laughing emojis.

Here are the pranksters....


How delightful! More vibrant immigrants doing the jobs Americans won't do! Since most people, even dimwits like these two, aren't dumb enough to film themselves tormenting old people, how much of this happens every single day and no one is the wiser?

We have eviscerated the family so there is no longer family continuity meaning the elderly no longer can rely on their children to care for them, therefore we have a huge demand for low-skilled, low-wage "care" providers to take care of our old folks. But oops! We stopped having enough children to supply the demand for these care workers and the kids we did have ended up with worthless college degrees and six figure student loan balances so they can't afford to work as care-givers. That means importing people to care for the elderly who apparently don't care about the elderly. As a bonus, once they get here they are inundated 24-7 with messages about how terrible and racist white people are and how white people are the cause of all of their problems. Shockingly this stuff follows.

If you don't have a family support structure, you are going to live for decades at the whim of people like this. Maybe you will get good ones, maybe you'll get awful ones, most likely you will get indifferent ones. 2 of the 3 options make for a miserable life after you get old.

But hey, look at all of the cool electronic gadgets you bought and fun vacations you took instead of having kids because they were "too expensive"!

Monday, August 12, 2019

The Right To Bear Arms, The Tenth Amendment And Federalism

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Please note, there is not an asterisk next to the 2nd Amendment that provides reasons why shall not be infringed really means it is OK to infringe.


There is no part of American law that is more contentious than the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and nothing is more bedeviling than the words "well-regulated militia". Because we live in the same country 225 years later and the language we use and our ability to understand complicated concepts has also changed, people today read the words of the 2nd Amendment and find it confusing. Some people take the apparently plain meaning, reinforced by contemporary writings, that see the 2nd Amendment as guaranteeing the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, focusing on words like "shall not be infringed". Others claim that the most important words of the 2nd amendment are "a well-regulated militia" and interpret that to mean that only officially government sanctioned groups are covered by the 2nd Amendment.

What makes this even more confusing is that we don't have a militia today. We have the National Guard but that is an offshoot of the massive standing army, something else that would infuriate the Founders. The militia was not a semi-professional military force that could be called up and sent to fight for Israel for freedom in pointless overseas wars, it was just the everyday citizenry, people like me, many who never served officially in the military. Then there is the problem of the word "militia" that carries the connotation of scary right-wing domestic terrorists, thanks to Oklahoma City and the militia movement.


It is especially noteworthy that there is not and never was a federal militia. The militia is a state and local issue. The Founders were understandably very leery of standing armies. Even a century later in the Civil War, the soldiers were organized according to their states.

So the issue of the militia and what that meant was left to the states.

That brings us to the most often ignored amendment in the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment. A significant number of people (although nowhere near a majority on the street) could give you some of the basics of the First Amendment, at least that it talks about speech and religion and the press, and many know the Second Amendment is about guns. I doubt one in a thousand would know the Third Amendment talks about quartering soldiers or why that was an issue. The Fourth and unreasonable search and seizure? Fewer yet. The Tenth? I doubt you could find anyone on the street that wasn't a pretty die-hard conservative that could tell you what the Tenth Amendment says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Basically, if the Constitution didn't specifically grant to the Federal government the oversight of an issue, it properly remained with the states or the people. That is how it was designed, but obviously that is not how it is working today. The Second Amendment provided that no law would be passed that would interfere with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and it left the issue of what that looked like to the states.

So what do the states have to say about the issue? Let's look first at my state of Indiana. According to the Constitution of the State of Indiana, effective 1851, Article 1, Section 32:

"The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

Nothing about a militia, well regulated or otherwise. The People. That's me. As a citizen of the state of Indiana, I have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms for my own defense and the defense of the state. Not for hunting or target shooting. For my own personal defense and in defense of the state of Indiana.

Indiana is hardly alone in this. The USCCA lists the gun laws for each state and the applicable state Constitution section regarding the bearing of arms. So for example, our neighbors to the east, the Constitution of the state of Ohio where I was born and raised, has this to say in Article 1, Section 4:

"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."

Again, The People have the right to bear arms for their defense and security. Nothing about hunting or target shooting. Our neighbors to the north in Michigan, a state we lived in for many years, says this in their Constitution, Article 1, Section 6:

"Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."

Every person, The People, have a right to keep arms to defend themselves and the state. Our neighbors to the west, home of the shooting gallery known as Chicago which has very restrictive gun laws, has this to say in the Illinois Constitution, Article 1 the Bill Of Rights, Section 22.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is a little more vague ("police power"?) which is a backdoor way to regulate what Section 22 says, that there is an "individual right" for citizens of Illinois to keep and bear arms. So I would begrudgingly say that based on the tenets of federalism and the Tenth Amendment, Illinois has some capacity to regulate guns under the amorphous "police powers".

Even states like Oregon have very similar sounding state Constitutional protections for keeping and bearing arms, as do many of the original colonies. Virginia has some of the same language about "well-regulated militia" as the U.S. Constitution. Massachusetts invokes the idea of "common defense" which could mean a lot of different things. Georgia guarantees the right to keep and bear arms but also provides for the "power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne." but the New Hampshire Constitution reads:

"All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state."

Nothing about the militia or regulating the bearing of arms. Connecticut in Article 1, Section 15 says:

"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."

Pennsylvania, Article 1, Section 21...

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Hell, in PA you can't even question it! Delaware, Article 1, Section 20:

"A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for hunting and recreational use."

So protection of self, family and home as well as hunting and recreation. Very comprehensive, I liked that one. Rhode Island, Article 1, Section 22:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Short and sweet as befits the tiniest state.

On the other hand, some of the original colonies like New York, Maryland and New Jersey have no mention of a right to keep and bear arms at all, perhaps because they assumed the 2nd Amendment would suffice.

What does that mean? First, it means that as the Federal government has no jurisdiction over firearms other than a prohibition against infringing on our right to keep and bear arms and as the Tenth Amendment leaves to the states all areas not specifically given over to the Federal government, the Constitutions of the individual states are the supreme authority on the bearing of firearms. The "well-regulated militia" thing is irrelevant to gun ownership. The Second Amendment only prohibits the Federal government from regulating the keeping and bearing of arms.

Second, most states have some sort of Constitutional provision protecting in some manner the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Over 150 years ago when Indiana was still mostly wilderness as the 19th state on the extreme edge of the United States, it was still important enough of an issue for the state Constitution to specifically spell out the right of The People to keep and bear arms.

Third, when you add in the Tenth Amendment, it is clear that Federal firearms regulations are inherently unconstitutional, in the sense of being contrary to the Constitution rather than the contemporary definition of unconstitutional meaning whatever a majority of the court says on any given day.

In the real world, this doesn't mean much because the Feds still feel free to create whatever arbitrary rules about keeping and bearing arms they see fit, prohibitions on them doing so notwithstanding, and furthermore they have all sorts of groups from the FBI to the BATF who will politely shoot you, your wife with a baby in her arms and perhaps even burn your children alive if you argue. In other words, this is just an academic exercise. It ought to give you some food for thought. Firearm regulation at the Federal level is a clear and unambiguous overreach by the Federal government, in open violation of the Constitution but given bogus legal cover by the Supreme Court.

Each day we drift further away from the intent of the Founders and as we replace heritage Americans with a historic tie to things like individual liberty with people who are here for the gibs and don't know anything other than despotic narco-state socialism, that is only going to accelerate. Something to keep in mind when we rebuild from the ashes, let's make sure things are a little more explicit when we form a new legal framework the next time.

Sunday, August 11, 2019

A Credibility Crisis Tipping Point

In the least unexpected breaking news story ever, world famous pedophile, pal of the Clinton's, procurer of young kids for sex for the movers and shakers and possible Mossad operative Jeffrey Epstein "committed suicide" yesterday. I don't have much to add to the already ample hot takes that followed his death, bolstered by awesome Clinton memes. Maybe he really did kill himself, as inexplicable as that sounds. Far more likely he was Vincent Foster'd by the Clinton crime syndicate. Or perhaps he was indeed a Mossad agent who outlived his usefulness and was silenced, or perhaps even was spirited away to Israel and is undergoing plastic surgery right now to alter his appearance. We are never going to find out as the same FBI that never seemed to be able to explain the Las Vegas shooting, which is odd because they knew everything in the world about the El Paso shooter before the last brass hit the ground, is going to do an "investigation".

They have top men working on it right now....

The Epstein files being carefully reviewed by the FBI
What is more interesting to contemplate is whether or not this actually shifts normie perceptions. It seems like an awful lot of people called B.S. on this right away. It was just too obvious, too well predicted. There are a lot of tweets talking about Epstein committing "suicide" from a week or more ago and now he ends up "dead" in his cell. All too convenient, too obvious coming a day after the first file dump hit and implicated some minor but still well known people.

The genie seems to be out of the bottle here. With the feds trying to label "conspiracy theories" as terrorism and soon to be mental illness and the blatant murder of Epstein dominating the news, even as Twitter tried to suppress it by pushing the ridiculous #TrumpBodyCount in place of the well established #ClintonBodyCount, it seems that the Overton window on what people will believe or at least entertain as an idea is shifting. I have seen quite a few people say what I was saying a few years ago, I used to dismiss "conspiracy theories" out of hand but now you would have to say something pretty out there for me to not at least give some thought to just about any proposal.

Stuff like the Epstein suicide/murder chips a big chunk out of many people's institutional trust. The less they trust what they are told, the easier it is to get them to consider things they never would have even a few years ago. That is dangerous for the globohomo establishment. It depends on soporific people to blindly accept what they are told while consuming more cheap crap and focusing on sportsball. They rely on people to not ask inconvenient questions.

Epstein's murder served their short term purposes by shutting him up before he could implicate the powerful as a pack of ravening wolves preying sexually on children. But it long term helps us to chip away at public trust in the institutions that keep them in line. It was a tactical win for them but a strategic win for us.

Thursday, August 8, 2019

Four. Hundred. Million.

The Washington Examiner posted an article talking about the surge of gun purchases after last weekend's mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton: Gun sales surge fueled by first-timers, mostly for ‘concealed’ pistols. Just as additional anecdotal evidence, while I didn't buy a firearm since last weekend, many of the big online retailers of firearms are showing lots of "temporarily out of stock" on semi-auto rifles, especially AK-style rifles. A chart included in the article shows the number of NCIS background checks performed since November of 1998.....


The total in the last 20 years is 320,524,675. Sure a lot of those probably were declined but that it is still a lot of background checks. What that doesn't capture is how many guns were already in circulation prior to November of 1998 and that is a huge number. Also not captured are the firearms that are home-built that don't require a background check. That is an increasingly popular hobby that coincidentally won't stop if background checks are expanded.

So realistically the number of firearms in private hands in America is well north of 400,000,000. Yeah, it should be no problem to ban and confiscate more firearms than there are people in the U.S.