What's Not Happening

It’s been a while, but I haven’t seen any gunfights in the streets of Maine or New Hampshire the past few years and I live very near the border between the two. That’s what progressives predicted would occur if gun laws loosened and people didn’t have to get permits to carry concealed guns. I haven’t seen any newspaper articles or television reports about increased gun violence either after each state passed legislation eliminating concealed carry permits. It’s been three years in New Hampshire and more than four years in Maine, so were the progressives wrong when they predicted both states would turn into the wild, wild west?

Police chiefs in both states were also against the new laws claiming their officers would at risk. What do they say now? Nothing. Vermont never required concealed carry permits and it’s always been one of the safest states in the country. That fact was ignored by progressive gun control advocates when they argued against New Hampshire and Maine revisions of concealed carry permits to copy Vermont.

Many people in the three northern New England states still leave their doors unlocked and crime rates remain very low. Is that because guns here are as common as unlocked doors? That’s probably a factor but not the only one. Most people own guns here and know how to use them. That’s a deterrent, certainly, but they also know who their neighbors are. There’s a much stronger sense of community. People here tend to look out for each other and are wary of strangers and unfamiliar vehicles in their neighborhoods. 

Most rural towns in northern New England don’t have police departments either. They rely on county sheriff’s deputies and the state police. Because of logistics and geography, response times for those larger law enforcement agencies are slower than police departments are in New York City or Boston. Rural people know this so they’re not only more prepared to defend themselves, they’re more willing to do so as well. They’re much less likely to cower in the face of criminal aggression of any sort.

There’s been no let-up in gun crimes for either state since gun laws were relaxed, but the perpetrators usually had prior felony convictions, so carrying a gun remained illegal for them. That didn’t stop them, of course, but then it never did. If you look around and see where most gun crimes are committed, you’ll quickly learn that they’re places with strict gun control laws like Chicago and New York. Gun laws on those places have only been obeyed by the law-abiding. Criminals have historically ignored them.

Although Bernie Sanders has always been a doctrinaire lefty on nearly every issue since he was elected Mayor of Burlington, Vermont almost forty years ago, his position on gun control didn’t fit the mold. Is that because he knew he would never have been elected to state-wide office there if he favored gun restrictions? His army of supporters would likely argue that Bernie has always been guided by principle over political expediency, but is that changing?

According to an article by Russell Berman in the February 27 issue of The Atlantic: 

The senator from Vermont’s hallmark has been his consistency as an unbending progressive over four decades in elected office. Yet if Sanders has embodied left-wing purity more than any of the other potential Democratic nominees, gun policy is one area where his record has been far from pristine in the eyes of progressives… But it’s telling that on gun control, he has gone further this time around to repudiate his past positions and align himself with the Democratic Party’s mainstream opinion. “The world has changed, and my views have changed,” he said at the February debate in New Hampshire.

Was Bernie sincere about his gun control views forty years ago? Is he caving in to political expediency here in 2020? He really wants to be president, but what if he loses to Biden or Trump? Can he be reelected senator in Vermont now that he’s become a gun control advocate? We may never know because he’s not up again until 2024 and by then he’ll be eighty-two years old. Maybe he’ll retire. Maybe he’ll change his position again.

While Democrats consider abortion their most important issue, gun control seems to have become the next most important. Maine and New Hampshire have been voting Democrat the past few cycles, and Vermont has been solidly “blue” for even longer. Maine and New Hampshire, however, are moving the other way on gun control. While Vermont has become even more leftist, there’s no indication they’ll tighten up on guns.

Left & Right January 15, 2020

Publisher Mark Guerringue again sits in the left chair. We open with a question from the producer about what we think the long-term effect of the Soleimani killing will be.

It’s a good thing in my view. Soleimani was a bad guy, responsible for the deaths of more than 600 American soldiers through the use of Iranian IEDs against US forces in the region. His death opens a window into what Iranian media and western mainstream media have not shown — that he was an Iranian terrorist operative, that he trained and equipped Iranian proxy armies including Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi Rebels in Yemen and others in Syria to make war against Israel and the USA. The aftermath of his death shows also that many, if not most Iranian citizens do not support the theocratic regime in Iran.

Mark says the killing lacks a strategic objective in that Trump says he wants to withdraw Americans from the region but is ordering killings there and increasing the likelihood that we are going to have a war. He points out that wo months ago I defended Trump’s taking American troops away from the Turkey/Syria border, but now I support the Soleimani killing. The general was an Iranian government official. We got lucky the airliner was shot down because it reflected badly on the Iranian government and that seemed to prevent further escalation against us. Mark believes Trump lacks a strategy in the region and this action reflects that.

I compare killing Soleimani to killing al Baghdadi two months ago and Obama’s approval of killing Osama Bin Laden years in 2012. But Soleimani was an Iranian government official, Mark says. He was going into other countries in the region killing Americans, I said, so we should tolerate that because he was an Iranian government official? It’s a sliding scale, Mark said. There’s a reason Obama and Bush decided not to take him out, a good reason in Mark’s view.

I raise something publicized two years ago called “Operation Cassandra,” an FBI investigation into drugs and money laundering conducted by Hezbollah operatives working for Iran in the US in 2015. Involved were the Awan brothers who were also IT specialists employed by the Democratic National Committee. Although the FBI had 50 agents on the case, the Obama Administration blocked the investigation because it might interfere with efforts to reach an agreement with Iran for the Nuclear deal. Over $1 billion in laundered drug money went from the USA to Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds force under General Soleimani.

Also part of this drug scam was the stealing of intelligence from the computers of Democrats serving on congressional committees - including the Intelligence Committee — and sent to Iran by the Awan brothers. Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz ran interference for the Obama Administration and key congressional Democrats to cover it all up. The coverup continues as the DOJ and others are still hiding documents requested by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A federal court hearing was being conducted as our show was being taped because a federal judge wanted to know why the FOIA requests were being blocked.

On the last show, Mark requested that I investigate the California law about consent from two parties when conversations are being recorded. I did and discovered Mark is right about the California law but there are exceptions as I though then: if one party believes a crime is being committed, and if the recording is in a public place. 

I bring up another surreptitiously-recorded tape released the day before the show of a Bernie Sanders Campaign employee in Iowa saying Milwaukee would burn if Bernie doesn’t get the nomination there this summer. If Trump wins again in November, cities would burn. The employee, Kyle Jurek, also said gulags would be opened for Trump supporters, and other outrageous things. The networks ignored it last night (Tuesday, January 14) and so did Brett Baier on Fox.

Then I bring up a lawsuit recently settled between the Covington Catholic boy wearing a MAGA hat who was trashed after the Pro-Life march last year in Washington, DC and CNN, who was sued. CNN settled rather than go to court, but we don’t know yet the details of the settlement. Several other lawsuits against the Washington Post, reporters from other networks, Elizabeth Warren, and others are still pending.

Mark hadn’t heard of these developments and calls them “hobby horse” cases that fit my agenda.

The second question from the producer asks us if we support legislation granting religious exemptions to parents about having their children immunized. Mark says we have to balance individual rights with the public good. I agree with that and didn’t have much more to offer beyond it.

Mark asks which Democrat candidates I like and I say none of them. If I had to choose which I disliked least it would Amy Klobuchar. Mark says she’s practical in a midwest sort of way and very smart.

Mark said he had Governor Weld in (to a Sun Editorial Board interview) who is running against Trump, and Weld said someone has to do something about the deficit. He said we have to worry about AI (Artificial Intelligence) and 800,000 trucker will be out of work, which is what Andrew Yang said. He said Bernie is coming in Sunday (January 19) and Mark would ask him about those issues.

I said I would ask Bernie about Kyle Jurek but Mark isn’t inviting me to interview presidential candidates anymore because I asked a tough question of Hillary four years ago. Mark said it was a disrespectful question and it made the women in the room (on the editorial board) uncomfortable and I wouldn’t have asked a question like that of a man. He said I had a unique opportunity in life to talk to a Secretary of State and former first lady and I ask a disrespectful question. I tell him George Stephanopoulos asked Hillary the same question a week or two before our interview and it was all right for him, a former Clinton aide, to ask it but it’s a gotcha question when I do?

“It was disrespectful,” said Mark.

“I see. Was it disrespectful for Stephanopoulos to ask it?”

“I’m the one who controls the editorial board and guess what? I’m not inviting you back.”

You aren’t, I know, because I asked a tough question,” I said.

We went back and forth several more time and I said, “Okay, we disagree.”

“We do, and I get to not invite you. That’s the great part,” Mark said.

“Right. You don’t want to invite me and that’s fine, because I’m too tough on the women.”

Then Mark brought up Andrew Yang and how well he’s doing. I question his idea of giving $1000 to everyone.

As time is running out I thank him for appearing on the show and point out that we see things quite differently but that’s good for viewers.

 Mark says, “Well, thanks for having me back — and you can ban me from your show.”

“I wouldn’t do that to you,” I say. “I mean, you do it to me, but that doesn’t mean I’m gonna do it to you.”

Rich and Poor

It occurred to me a few years ago that I’m a rich man. Many would doubt that if they knew the sum total of my assets and annual income, but it’s true if you accept the definitions of rich and poor my students and I developed over the years: “Poor” is having insufficient funds to supply adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. “Rich” is defined as having all those things and some extra besides. If you have a little extra, you’re a little rich. If you have a lot extra, you’re very rich. 

By that definition, I’ve never been poor because I’ve always had basic necessities. Early in my marriage, however, our family was below the poverty line as calculated annually by the federal government according to income and size of family. I was a low-paid teacher with a stay-at-home wife and four children.

Working the woodpile at our old house

Our house needed constant repair and maintenance. We drove a vehicle that did too, but never did we lack the basics. I had to learn carpentry, plumbing, and electrical skills to fix up my house, and I had to buy or borrow the necessary tools. I had to learn basic mechanics to work on my vehicles because they frequently broke down and I couldn’t afford to have someone else do it. I had to cut my own firewood for heat. Those were our circumstances for most of three decades.

My wife and me

About twenty years ago things changed. Opportunities came up and my income rose. I could start paying down the mortgage and other debts and after ten years I was debt-free. I considered taking early retirement from teaching and a few years later I did — while keeping the part-time jobs I always had. My income went down, but with no payments to make we still lived well. I spent more time on photography, which I enjoy very much, and now I’m making money with that too. Life is good. I have everything I want — another definition of rich.

Although I’ve written the following before in this space, it’s worth repeating. My wife will agree that the happiest times of our lives so far were when we had only those basic necessities and no more —  when we were under the federal poverty line. I worried about paying the bills many months, but we did it. We never threw food away and ate a lot of soup. We shopped at thrift stores and yard sales and we got excited when finding a nice piece of furniture or clothing cheap.

Our youngest in the old kitchen

My late father-in-law came up during the depression and his family didn’t have much. Still, I remember him saying: “I was happiest when we were eating onion sandwiches.” By that, he meant bread and onions were all there was to eat for a while. My own father was the same age and he also came up through the depression His father, my grandfather, was a binge-drinking alcoholic who often burned up his paycheck with booze. He made enough money as a street-car driver in the Carmen’s Union (of which he was president), and somehow kept his job, but his family lacked basic necessities. Those were not happy times for my father, the oldest of his six children. If not for my grandfather’s drinking, his family would not have been poor.

Sad evidence of poor money management

It might be claimed that America won the war on poverty. If we still have people lacking funds for basic necessities, it’s likely because, like my grandfather, they don’t manage their money well. Yes, there are people who have had serious health problems and have run up enormous medical bills. Even if they went bankrupt and had to go on welfare, their basic needs are still met — unless they spend unwisely. Unfortunately, that describes a rising number of Americans

More sad evidence

Their DBT cards are charged up at the beginning of every month but they run out of funds after the first or second week. Can that be helped? Not by government, it can’t. If their allotments were increased, it’s likely they’d continue to spend frivolously and still be poor for two or three weeks of every month. Maybe they’ll run out of food or heating oil. Maybe they won’t have enough for gasoline. Maybe they’ll be late on the rent or the electric bill or the gas bill, or all of those.

Schools used to teach something called “home economics,” but I don’t think it’s part of the curriculum in most schools anymore. Even if people learned those skills, a certain amount of self-discipline is still necessary. My grandfather lacked it, and too many others in America do too. Their numbers are rising. As my old friend, fellow selectman and “Overseer of the Poor,” the late Stub Eastman, said: “We have the poor, and the poor have us.”

Some things never change, and recent promises by 2020 Democrats won’t have any effect either.

Gospels Not Gospel Anymore?

President Evo Morales gift to Pope Francis

It was worse than I thought. The Roman Catholic Church was being undermined by Marxists further back than I ever imagined. I knew there were Jesuits and other priests holding official positions in the Marxist Sandinista government of Nicaragua during the 1970s, but I thought they were anomalous. Now I’m learning that a majority of Jesuits believe Marxism and Christianity have more commonalities than differences.

For decades, Marxist Catholic priests and bishops stayed in the closet, just as Marxist Democrats in the US government did, but Marxists in Catholic Church came out first — during the 1970s near as I can tell. They were led by Jesuits who had for centuries been the most conservative of priestly orders. By the seventies they’d become the furthest left. Marxists in the Democrat Party are mostly closeted, though Bernie Sanders opened the door by declaring himself socialist. The support he received last year indicates like-minded Democrats are in the majority.

Sanders came close to the presidency in 2016. Had he won, he’d have replaced the deeply-closeted Barack Obama. He lost the nomination, however, to Hillary Clinton, who chose as her running mate Virginia Senator Tim Kaine. He was nearly elected vice-president — a heartbeat away from the presidency. Kaine was educated by Jesuits. He’s also a true-believer in Marxist “Liberation Theology” under which Jesuits justify making revolution alongside Marxist guerrillas in the jungles of Central America and elsewhere.

One Jesuit, James Francis Carney, SJ was born and raised in Chicago and killed while fighting with Marxist revolutionaries in Honduras. “We Christian-Marxists have to fight side-by-side in Central America with the Marxists who do not believe in God,” Carney wrote, “in order to form a new socialist society . . . To be a Christian is to be a revolutionary.” If you google Carney's name, you’ll find nothing but adulatory posts about him from other Jesuits and Catholics in general. Tim Kaine sought out and spent an evening with Father James Carney in Central America before he was killed.

I’m nearly done with a book called The Jesuits, by the late Malachi Martin, a former Jesuit. It was published in 1986, and I wish I’d gotten my hands on it sooner. Martin makes a strong case that Jesuits moved away from the traditional Christian view that the individual human soul is where the battle between good and evil is fought. Now, he says, there exists within the order a “tendency to disassociate the concept of evil from the individual man and woman and to place it instead within a societal framework.”

Evil in that “societal framework” is capitalism — as practiced in Central America and elsewhere under the leadership of the United States. That’s what Jesuits fight now. On page 57 of The Jesuits, Martin describes the nexus of Liberation Theology and Marxist-Leninism, in part, thusly: “Hell became the capitalist system. The American president, leader of the greatest capitalist country, became the Great Satan.” In 2013, the conservative Pope Benedict XVI resigned and was replaced by Pope Francis, the first Jesuit pope.

Martin sometimes called Jesuits the pope’s “rapid deployment force.” That’s apt, as he explained when describing former soldier St. Ignatius of Loyola’s purpose in founding the Society of Jesus, as the Jesuits are called officially, back in the 1500s. They were like soldiers, only they were fighting intellectually and morally, not physically. Each member had to undergo a rigorous educational training regimen so as to be ready to match up with the sharpest theologians, scientists, philosophers, politicians and government officials the world over. For centuries they engaged in intellectual combat with anti-Christian leaders in Enlightenment Europe and more than held their own.

For more than four hundred years, Jesuits took the usual vows other priests did as well as an additional vow of total obedience to the pope himself, whoever he might be and whatever he might order. Under conservative Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Jesuits chafed against their orders. What will happen under Pope Francis — one of their own?

Recent remarks from Father Arturo Sosa Abascal, the new Jesuit Superior-General, are making big waves. He claims we cannot know what Jesus actually said because there were no tape recorders two thousand years ago. He claims the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John cannot be taken literally, and that: “Doctrine is a word that I don’t like very much. It brings with it the image of the hardness of stone,” he said. “Instead, the human reality is much more nuanced. It is never black or white. It is in continual development.”

What he said about the gospels is much like what Democrats claim about our Constitution: There are no absolutes. They can mean whatever you want them to mean.

The New Race Hustlers

Two young black men are darlings of Democrats these days: Ta Nehisi Coates and Deray McKesson. Both grew up in Baltimore and both support Black Lives Matter. Both are educated and well-spoken as long as you don’t listen too closely to what they’re saying. McKesson is a founder of Black Lives Matter and Coates wrote the book Between The World And Me that, “has become the intellectual and emotional voice of the Black Lives Matter movement,” according to Robert Cherry writing in the New York Post last week. Both are moving to take over from the two alleged Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Like them, McKesson and Coates preach that black men are victims of white supremacy and white racist cops are looking to shoot them down.

Both want to keep race an issue in American politics. With the cooperation of the Mainstream Media and millions of liberals suffering from white guilt, they’re succeeding. Other Americans, however, are sick of hearing about it. Coates exacerbates that race fatigue by pushing reparations for descendants of former slaves, claiming it’s the best way to counter the ostensible pervasiveness of white supremacy. When US Senator Bernie Sanders was asked in a debate if he supported reparations, however, he said no, because it would never get through Congress and because it would be divisive.

3-minute podcast of my Sanders interview

When I got the opportunity last January, I asked Sanders why he thought it would be divisive but he dodged the question. He instead lamented black poverty and black unemployment, but I followed up by asking if he believed paying reparations was a good idea on its face. After he dodged again, Conway Sun publisher Mark Guerringue asked if he supported the principle of reparations. Then Sanders put the question back on us: “Does anybody else support the principle of it? Do you support the principle of it?”

“No,” said Guerringue.

“No candidate does,” I responded.

“It’s a big word,” said Sanders. “What does it mean?”

A fair question. Newsweek tried to answer it in 2015 putting out cost estimates for reparations ranging from $36 billion to $10 trillion and citing obvious problems like who would get it and in what form? As Jackson and Sharpton fade away, Coates and McKesson keep stoking guilt in liberal white America — a major Democrat constituency. Both men are at the core of Democrat efforts to portray the problems of black America as “the lingering effects of slavery” and not the legacy of disastrous Democrat policies.

Sharpton and Jackson

Some older black Americans have a different view. Economist Thomas Sowell believed the Democrat view as a young man, but rejected it later in life. In his 2014 article: A Legacy of Liberalism, Sowell contends: “The current problems facing blacks in America owe more to the Great Society than to slavery. Nearly a hundred years of the supposed ‘legacy of slavery’ found most black children being raised in two-parent families in 1960. But thirty years after the liberal welfare state found the great majority of black children being raised by a single parent… The murder rate among blacks in 1960 was one-half of what it became 20 years later, after a legacy of liberals’ law-enforcement policies.”

San Francisco 49er's quarterback Colin Kaepernick recently refused to stand for the National Anthem. “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” he said. after becoming engaged to Black Lives Matter activist Nessa Diab and converting to Islam.

Meanwhile, Burgess Owens — another black former NFL player, just released a book titled: “Liberalism or How to Turn Good Men into Whiners, Weenies and Wimps.” Owens quotes Frederick Douglass’s response to a question asked of him: “What shall we do with the Negro?” Douglass answered: 

“I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, of they are rotten to the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him the chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!”

Frederick Douglass

Douglass’s opinion echoes the thinking of black Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley. He must have had Douglass in mind when naming his recent book. He was making a plea to liberal Democrats when he picked the title: “Please Stop Helping Us.”

Don't Blame Trump

I’m with Trump on this one. He’s not my choice for the Republican nominee, but I don’t like what I’m seeing from either the left and the right as both blame him for what happened in Chicago last Friday night.

Cop wounded by "non-violent" Chicago leftists

Assorted young leftists outside the hall where Trump was so speak carried “Bernie” signs and used foul language as they argued with Trump supporters going into the rally. Leftist women angrily shouted “F*** you and your White Male Privilege!” Others wore black and white neck scarves called “keffiyehs” just like the ones Yasser Arafat always wore, and, I assume, to proclaim their solidarity with Palestinian terrorists like him. Still others carried “Black Lives Matter!” signs and all were yelling “Racist!” and “Fascist!” The irony of calling Trump fascist while acting like fascists themselves was evidently lost on them. Remember, the Black Lives Matter movement was created with a $30 million donation from radical left billionaire George Soros in Ferguson, Missouri to further the lie that Michael Brown supposedly put up his hands and said, “Don’t shoot!” to the cop he had just brutalized. They were, of course, dutifully putting up their hands and yelling “Don’t shoot!” at Chicago cops.

Thanks a lot George

Other leftists organizing to disrupt the Trump rally included A.N.S.W.E.R Chicago (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), a front for the Communist Party that is too far left even for David Corn of Nation Magazine. Also there was La Raza (The Race), a far-left group that believes our southwestern states rightfully belong to Mexico. Though it calls itself “The Race,” it calls America a racist country. Then there was the far-left Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, which advocates for open borders and mass immigration of so-called “refugees” who can go right on welfare upon arrival. Also participating was the Soros-funded Occupy! movement with their Guy Fawkes masks.

As if that were not enough, also present was moveon.org — another Soros-funded group affiliated with Media Matters — the leftist organization which dictates to the mainstream media what stories they should play up and what stories they should ignore. Cameras were rolling while aging domestic terrorist Bill Ayers gave an interview, he being a retired professor of education at the University of Illinois Chicago where the Trump rally was to be held. Ayers tweeted “We shut Trump down! Beautiful gathering of anti racist youth.” Hmm. “Anti Racist”? That’s rich. The rally was cancelled by the Trump campaign after leftists packed the hall inside and threaten to shut it down.

Bill Ayers being interviewed outside Trump rally last weekend

The next night, in Dayton, Ohio, a leftist named Thomas Dimassimo ran over barriers to lunge at Trump from behind while he was on an outdoor podium. Dimassimo grabbed Trump’s leg, before Secret Service guys arrested him. After he was released, Dimassimo said in a CNN puff piece that he wanted to grab Trump’s microphone and take over his podium as that network joined the chorus blaming Trump. CNN neglected to mention how Dimassimo publicly supports black racist terrorist Eric Sheppard who was arrested recently in Tampa after threatening to kill white people.

Dimassimo's friend Eric Sheppard in the middle

The mainstream media uniformly blamed Trump, claiming he condones violence. Although I’ve been a Ted Cruz supporter for the entire campaign, I don’t like that he joined in. I watched the Sunday morning political shows, all of which interviewed Trump and his rivals — and all of them dumped on Trump. I make it a point to watch both “Meet The Press” and “Fox News Sunday” each week so I can get an idea of how the left and right, respectively, are spinning the news. Last Sunday I could see they both used the same playbook. I think Trump held his own under the pressure.

National Council of "The Race" disrupted Trump Rally

Trump supporters don’t disrupt Sanders rallies, but it’s evidently okay for Sanders supporters to disrupt Trump’s. Some people shout questions to Hillary at her rallies about things she has done as First Lady and Secretary of State. They’re escorted from the hall, but there are no mass demonstrations to silence her. That’s what the left does, especially on college campuses. They shout down anyone with a different opinion than the leftist tripe they hear from their professors, and are often encouraged to do so by faculty and administration.

Dimassimo tweets after assaulting Trump

Conservatives like Ben Shapiro and David Horowitz are routinely shouted down from their podiums by “tolerant” leftists. They preach diversity, but only that of sexual orientation or skin color. Diversity of opinion is verboten. Even former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was disinvited from giving the commencement address at Rutgers because she isn’t politically-correct  enough to pass muster with the Rutgers faculty.

Leftists inside Trump Rally

As I said, I hope Donald Trump does not become the Republican nominee, but it’s just plain wrong to blame him for what leftist thugs did to him in Chicago last week. They’re much more dangerous than he is.