Month: June 2021

At least 60 people were shot in Chicago between 3 p.m. Friday and 6 a.m. Monday, including an 11-year old girl.

The mounting tragedies are just the latest in a double-digit increase in the city’s gun violence over last year, according to The Chicago Tribune.

This, despite last year’s alarming increase in homicides and shootings across Chicago.

The news also serves as a poignant reminder that unconstitutional restrictions on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens do next to nothing to prevent criminal behavior.

Indeed, it’s almost as if criminals purchase and use guns regardless of the law. Who would have thought?

Perhaps nowhere is this more clear than on the bloodied streets of Chicago, where gang violence is running rampant and deadly despite some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

“Much of the violence we see in Chicago is about the gang cultures, revenge, retaliation and street justice,” police Superintendent David Brown said at a Monday news conference, the Tribune reported.

And those gangs clearly have guns, no matter what the law says.

According to The Chicago Tribune, the city had an all-out ban on all firearms not registered with Chicago police from 1982 until 2010, when the law was struck down by a judge.

The report also notes that the city’s gun laws only fall short of those in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco in terms of restrictiveness.

Chicago, New York and Los Angeles are America’s three largest cities, and are all witnessing a horrific increase in shootings and homicides following the destabilizing unrest of last year’s George Floyd riots, according to The Wall Street Journal.

In a commentary piece printed by The Chicago Tribune in April, Jens Ludwig, director of the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab, documented a 55 percent increase in homicides across the city last year over 2019, and a 110 percent increase in gun carrying. Of those caught illegally carrying, nearly 68 percent were between the ages of 18 and 30.

But truly, how could this be? How could murders be increasing and how could children be getting caught in the crossfire if Chicago has such tough gun laws? After all, Illinois requires that all residents obtain a Firearms Owner Identification Card to purchase firearms or ammunition, according to the NRA-ILA.

Alas, when it comes to the ineffectiveness of such laws, the proof is in the pudding.

The hyper-restrictive gun laws in cities like Chicago and New York do not prevent criminals from engaging in crime. This weekend’s rampant violence is proof enough of that, to say nothing of the last year of skyrocketing crime.

Such laws do, however, prevent decent, law-abiding people from practicing their constitutional right to bear arms, and Americans ought to be prepared for the left’s coming attempts to capitalize on the gun tragedies in order to push more unconstitutional legislation.

The fact is that most of the common-sense legislation that actually works in curbing gun violence was already implemented long ago, and all that is being pushed now under the guise of “preventing gun violence” are blatant power grabs that serve only to disenfranchise law-abiding citizens and embolden criminals.

America’s cities deserve better, and they will only get it when Americans stop accepting garbage laws and start investing in good old-fashioned police work.

SummaryMore Biographical InformationRecent PostsContact

Andrew Thornebrooke is a writer specializing in foreign policy and national security. He is the executive editor of The Rearguard and a MA candidate in military history at Norwich University.

Andrew Thornebrooke is an American writer working at the crossroads of communications and policy advocacy. He is an expert in intranational conflict and national security.

He is the founder of The Rearguard, a weekly column dedicated to exploring issues of culture, defense, and security within the context of a receding Western Civilization.

Andrew is a MA candidate in military history at Norwich University where his research focuses on non-state military actors, partisanship, and the philosophy of war. A McNair Scholar and public speaker, he has presented research at several institutions including Cornell, Fordham, and the CUNY Graduate Center.

His bylines appear in numerous outlets including The Free-Lance Star, Independent Journal Review, InsideSources, The Lowell Sun, and The Western Journal.

Nationality

American

Topics of Expertise

Defense; Military Affairs; National Security

Former President Donald Trump announced Monday that he plans to travel to Alaska to campaign against Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s re-election.

One of the reasons Trump pointed to for this decision was Murkowski’s choice to confirm Biden administration appointees, who then shut down oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.

“Senator Lisa Murkowski has cost the great people of Alaska billions and billions of dollars by voting for Radical Left Biden appointees, which in turn led to the revocation of ANWR drilling, which Alaskans have been fighting to see happen for six decades,” the 45th president said in a statement.

“Not only did Murkowski kill the biggest economic stimulant for the State, but also one of the biggest energy producing sites in the world,” he continued.

“She’s the best friend Washington Democrats ever had — and Alaska’s reward for that betrayal is an empowered Left coming after their wealth and jobs,” Trump said.

“I think she will be met very harshly by the Alaska voters in 15 months, and I will be there to campaign against her!” he promised.

After decades of attempts to open ANWR to drilling, a remote coastal strip of land known as the 1002 Area was green-lit as part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Murkowski celebrated the provision’s passage, which she helped orchestrate getting included in the tax bill.

“This is a watershed moment for Alaska and all of America,” the senator said in a news release at the time.

“Alaskans can now look forward to our best opportunity to refill the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, thousands of jobs that will pay better wages, and potentially $60 billion in royalties for our state alone,” Murkowski added.

However, last week Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland issued an order halting all oil exploration activities, citing “alleged legal deficiencies” and an “insufficient analysis” of the environmental impact.

Both Murkowski and fellow Alaskan Sen. Dan Sullivan were among four Republicans who voted to confirm Haaland in March, though her opposition to drilling in ANWR was well documented.

Alaska Public Media headlined in December 2020: “Biden’s pick for Interior secretary is a passionate foe of drilling in Arctic Refuge.”

“I’m here to support my family in Alaska. To protect the Arctic Refuge. To protect the animals and the trees and everything that lives there,” Haaland said as a congresswoman-elect at an anti-drilling rally in front of the U.S. Capitol in 2018.

“Because not everything should be based on how much money we can make,” she added.

Haaland, who is Native American, meant “family” in the broad sense that the rally was organized by a group of Alaska Natives, according to APR.

Later in 2018, Haaland co-sponsored a bill that would have blocked the Bureau of Land Management (which of course falls under the Department of the Interior) from holding a lease sale in ANWR as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act required.

Murkowski responded to Haaland’s order shutting down ANWR drilling saying, “The Biden administration’s actions are not unexpected but are outrageous nonetheless.”

“The oil and gas leasing program established by the Trump Administration meets the legal mandates required by Congress including imposing a framework with a range of environmental safeguards that are successfully guiding production elsewhere in northern Alaska,” she added.

“This action serves no purpose other than to obstruct Alaska’s economy and put our energy security at great risk. Alaskans are committed to developing our resources responsibly and have demonstrated our ability to do so safely to the world.”

Alaska’s Resource Development Council reported, “The oil industry accounts for one-quarter of Alaska jobs and about one-half of the overall economy when the spending of state revenues from oil production is considered. In other words, without oil, Alaska’s economy would be half its size.”

“In 2018, the industry accounted for more than 77,600 direct and indirect jobs and $4.8 billion in Alaska wages.”

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in April that oil production in the Last Frontier reached its lowest level in more than 40 years in 2020.

The downward trend has been continuing since the late ’80s and opening ANWR, which likely holds over 10 billion barrels of untapped oil reserves, offered an opportunity to reverse the trend.

Trump likely has other reasons for opposing Murkowski’s re-election.

The three-term senator was among seven Republicans, including Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Mitt Romney of Utah, who joined with Senate Democrats earlier this year to vote to convict Trump of inciting the incursion into the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Additionally, Murkowski voted against the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and she did not vote to confirm Trump’s Supreme Court pick, Brett Kavanaugh.

SummaryMore Biographical InformationRecent PostsContact

Randy DeSoto has written more than 1,000 articles for The Western Journal since he joined the company in 2015. He is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.”

Randy DeSoto is the senior staff writer for The Western Journal. He wrote and was the assistant producer of the documentary film “I Want Your Money” about the perils of Big Government, comparing the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. Randy is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths,” which addresses how leaders have appealed to beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence at defining moments in our nation’s history. He has been published in several political sites and newspapers.

Randy graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point with a BS in political science and Regent University School of Law with a juris doctorate.

Birthplace

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Nationality

American

Honors/Awards

Graduated dean’s list from West Point

Education

United States Military Academy at West Point, Regent University School of Law

Books Written

We Hold These Truths

Professional Memberships

Virginia and Pennsylvania state bars

Location

Phoenix, Arizona

Languages Spoken

English

Topics of Expertise

Politics, Entertainment, Faith

Democrats should be getting the message they’ve gone too far when the party’s own members are quitting.

That’s the lesson from a school board controversy in Palm Beach County, Florida, where the phrase “white advantage” in an “equity statement” by the board stirred up fury among some of the school district’s parents.

When board members listened to the parents and got rid of the phrase, the local Democratic Party took aim at the board — and two of the board members struck back by quitting in very public ways.

The saga began on May 5 when, according to The Palm Beach Post, the Palm Beach County School Board passed the statement, which was your standard five-paragraph pledge of fealty to critical race theory.

The declaration read that the school system “is committed to dismantling structures rooted in white advantage and transforming our system by hearing and elevating underrepresented voices, sharing power, recognizing and eliminating bias, and redistributing resources to provide equitable outcomes.”

At a board meeting May 19, there was backlash from parents, the Post reported.

“Your statement is dividing us, and it incites racism,” said Jessica Martinez, a mother of two students, according to the newspaper. “Being a parent of both a Hispanic and a Caucasian student, this equity statement leads me to believe you’re viewing my children’s academics by the color of their skin or their ethnic background.”

Another parent, Amanda Silvestri, meanwhile, said she “will not allow my children to continue their education in a school district that promotes racism.”

“Equity, as you are calling it, is a political view and it is racist,” she told the board, according to the Post. “You mention ‘dismantling white advantage,’ which is an opinion. None of this despicable, political, racist nonsense should be pushed on innocent children and has absolutely no business being taught in schools.”

Three weeks after the statement was adopted, on May 26 — after another acrimonious meeting — the board decided to revoke the statement in a 4-3 vote due to the divisiveness of the “white advantage” language, the Post reported.

The new statement isn’t exactly weak porridge. From the School District of Palm Beach County’s website: “Achieving racial equity requires proactive and continuous investment in historically marginalized groups who have endured centuries of systemic oppression. The School District of Palm Beach County is committed to transforming our system by hearing and elevating under-represented voices, sharing power, recognizing and eliminating bias, and distributing resources to provide equitable outcomes.”

It wasn’t that the dissenting voices necessarily disagreed with critical race theory-tastic bent of the original statement, mind you. However, they were also elected to serve the school board where parents were both divided and distrustful because the board claimed it was “committed to dismantling structures rooted in white advantage.”

“We can clearly see after today’s meeting if we don’t do something to take away the words that caused all this distrust, we’re not going to be able to go forward,” school board chair Frank Barbieri said after the May 26 vote, according to the Palm Beach Post.

Board member Karen Brill, who recommended the phrase be removed, said the language in the equity statement “have to be words people understand.”

“You need to understand that it is dividing the community, it is polarizing,” Brill said, according to the Post. “Those are the words that are a trigger, and I want this community to embrace the work that we are doing.”

The four members who voted to nix the original statement — Barbieri, Brill, Marcia Andrews and Barbara McQuinn — were all registered Democrats, although school board races are nonpartisan. While Brill may have wanted the community to embrace the board’s work, don’t expect the Palm Beach County Democratic Party to embrace the board’s vote.

On Thursday, the county’s Democratic executive committee voted resoundingly to censure the four. The statement of censure, put forward by state Rep. Omari Hardy, said the decision to amend the statement “runs counter to our Democratic values,” according to the Post.

“These four board members, all of whom are registered Democrats, have lost the trust and confidence of many activists and leaders of color whose enthusiastic support for the Democratic Party has been — and will continue to be — critical to [the] party’s success in Palm Beach County and in Florida more broadly,” the resolution stated.

Hilariously, it also said that “we — as individuals and as a body — expect all elected officials who are registered Democrats to have the courage required to actively combat systemic racism, even when doing so may be politically disadvantageous.” Not the courage of their own convictions, the courage of the Palm Beach County Democratic Party.

Of the roughly 200 committee members present, 81 percent voted to censure the four, with 14 percent opposing it and 5 percent abstaining, the Post reported.

“There must be consequences for quailing to the racist mob instead of sticking with people of color who give their heart and soul to not just the party but the party’s causes,” Hardy told the Post in an interview last week (apparently unembarrassed over setting a racially motivated mob against members of his own political party).

Hardy just so happens to be running for Congress for the seat left vacant by Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings, who died in April. This could perhaps explain why this sounds like cynical preening aimed at the most rabid parts of his party’s base.

And if there’s any doubt about how leftist he actually is, check out this Twitter video, and get it in his own words:

In response to the censure vote, Barbieri and McQuinn left the party.

“I do not answer to the Democratic Party simply because there is a ‘D’ after my name,” Barbieri told the Post via text.

“Since the Democratic Executive Committee members by their vote apparently believe I answer to them simply because of that ‘D,’ I will make it less stressful for them when I don’t dance to their drumbeat. I am replacing the ‘D’ with an ‘I’ and will continue to do what I’ve always done — make my decisions independently of partisan politics.”

McQuinn, a former Republican who switched to Democrat this year, according to the Post, took the same approach.

“Just changed to independent,” she told the Post by text. “Words can’t describe how disgusted I am with bipartisanship!”

“I believe school board is not party specific because our students live in homes of all parties,” the text added. “We are supposed to do what’s best for students to [the] best of our ability.”

Not to the Palm Beach County Democratic Party — or the Democratic Party nationally, for that matter.

So what if this divided parents in Palm Beach County and was best replaced by a statement that was nearly materially identical? It didn’t reckon with “white advantage” enough. There was no anti-white racism anymore.

This ceased to be about the students the moment it became about drawing a line in the sand for the new Democrat wokeness — and the school board members decided to back away from that line.

All four school board members who voted to change this deserve to be commended.

But Barbieri and McQuinn deserve extra credit. Calling out bullies deserves that.

Vice President Kamala Harris projected weakness and flouted science in Mexico City on Tuesday when she met with Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

USA Today reported the pair met to discuss the relationship between the two countries. Harris declared Mexico and the U.S. are “embarking on a new era” during the visit, which occurred after the vice president left Central America in an apparent attempt to address the immigration quagmire her administration has created.

Harris stopped in Guatemala on Sunday to view the place of origin for many of the people her administration has indirectly encouraged to come into the porous U.S. border with Mexico, although she told potential migrants not to travel to the U.S. on Tuesday.

At the Palacio Nacional in Mexico, Harris touted the close relationship she says she has with the country’s neighbor to the south. But while López Obrador embraced science in the post-vaccine era of the coronavirus pandemic, Harris, who has been vaccinated, embarrassed this country by wearing a theatrical garment over her face during a photo op.

Peter Velz, the director of press operations for Harris, also shared an image of the two leaders standing side by side.

“Mexican President López Obrador welcomed the @VP to the National Palace, which doubles as his residence, and showed her ‘The History of Mexico’ by Diego Rivera,” Velz wrote. “The fresco painter was born in Mexico City and lived in San Francisco, where VP Harris served as District Attorney.”

Velz didn’t explain why Harris was wearing a mask six months after she was vaccinated for the coronavirus. Perhaps he didn’t need to.

Harris and other high-profile Democrats routinely flout science by keeping up with the ongoing mask charade. These people simply can’t quit the pandemic — not even when the need to project a sense of pride and confidence while visiting another country supersedes the need to play political games domestically.

Harris’ theatrics made both her and the country appear weak and afraid during a time when she needed to stand side by side with López Obrador by appearing, at the very least, as a peer.

She allowed him to tower over her.

Harris needed to project confidence and strength, but she chose to appear as an anonymous woman standing next to a confident world leader who not only showed his face, but also didn’t undermine the apparent efficacy of vaccinations. López Obrador, who himself was vaccinated in April, according to Reuters, has no need to virtue signal virus mitigation efforts after becoming immune to the virus.

It’s difficult to argue that Harris did not display to the Mexican people that she is out of her league. By virtue of that, it’s difficult to see a reason why people in that country considering entering the U.S. from Mexico have any reason to listen to her.

Why would any person listen to someone who so flagrantly violates social mores and undermines common sense?

Harris visited Central America and Mexico this week, and the most memorable moment of those diplomatic missions was that she dared not show her face to the people of Mexico.

There is another consequential place where Harris has also not shown her face: the border. In her fifth month as VP, Harris hasn’t gone anywhere near the U.S. border with Mexico. Since becoming the Biden administration’s border czar, she has not approached any of the facilities that she and her boss have transformed into an epicenter of human suffering.

Harris is apparently concerned about virtue signaling to her party’s unhinged base, more than she is about anything else.