That’s two

At the core of progressive ideology is the tenet that the People need the State’s permission in order to act. That’s a perversion of Founding Principles, transforming “from the consent of the governed” into “with the consent of the government.”

When the Supreme Court announced its decision yesterday in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the conservative majority struck back at decades of liberal orthodoxy. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned the majority opinion and it’s damned quotable:

“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”

“We… hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.”

The decision doesn’t end the war, but it’s an important battle won.

The three dissenting justices also had their say, of course. Their opinion drew from the poisoned progressive well — trademark desperation and emotion trying to justify government standing between the People and the exercise of natural rights. An excerpt:

“Many States have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence just described by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds. The Court today severely burdens States’ efforts to do so.”

Let’s look at that last sentence again:

“The Court today severely burdens States’ efforts to do so.”

That’s the thing about living in an exceptional country, one with a Constitution intended to limit government, not the People. Attempts to infringe on birthrights guaranteed by that Constitution are supposed to be burdensome.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurring opinion for the majority, skewered the anti-Liberty justices by pointing out the obvious:

“Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.”

So yes, it was a good day for rights guaranteed by a proper interpretation of the Second Amendment. We know that because the governor-by-default of of New York has called it “frightful.” Geraldo says it’s “reprehensible” and Whoopi calls it “stupid.” Mental midget Chuckles Harris opines that it “defies the Constitution.”

Those hysterical reactions and countless others only validate the correctness of the Court’s 6-3 decision. Consider the source.

Meanwhile, Congress is considering a whole new wave of infringements — notably federal “incentives” for states to enact so-called “red-flag laws.”

Wait, did I say “incentives”? My apologies — in truth it’s institutional extortion. Think 55mph, seat belts, helmets and drinking age.

A bunch of RINO Senators who support this blackmail are quick to assure us that they “believe in the Second Amendment.” But have you heard them say anything about believing in due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth?

Of course not. We still have much work to do.


Sharp eyes may have noticed that the ratty gold bowtie on our Silverado’s grille is back. The carbon-fiber overlay I applied had started to develop bubbles before the truck went in for detailing, and I guess the rub-a-dub-dub took it off completely.

Well, at least I tried to do it the cheap’n’easy way. I surfed eBay for a replacement emblem — 25 bucks, plus $8 for a set of plastic trim tools I’d need to remove the original.

I made the swap yesterday over morning coffee. Getting the old bowtie off took a little more persuasion than I expected, but it wasn’t at all difficult.

Across the driveway sits Ernie, idle but not forgotten. The bus has been plugged into 30A electric since we returned. We’ve been in and out of it almost daily as we handle our business here at The Ranch.

We’ve also managed to collect a few items that should be addressed before we hit the road again — nothing major, just stuff that needs to be looked at and, if possible, fixed.

Prior to embarking on last year’s “shakedown” we called out a local mobile RV tech, making use of his services a second time just before we left on our odyssey. He’s a smart guy and his rates are reasonable, so we brought him to Second Chance Ranch again yesterday. As before, he took care of things quickly and efficiently.

Deb and I had dinner with friends at Squeek’s, the perfect end to a solid day.


I opened today’s post with SCOTUS and that’s how I’ll close it. This morning the Court officially overturned Roe v. Wade (along with subsequent Casey), negating the recklessly contrived “constitutional right” to murder children. It doesn’t outlaw abortion, leaving that decision to individual states.

State-sanctioned infanticide will remain legal in the People’s Republic of California, for sure, as well as in New York and other liberal states — The Culture of Death will continue in places dominated by Democrats and other progressives. It’s been suggested, however, that almost half of the states will move quickly to prohibit murdering kids.

Arkansas will be one of those states. So will Ohio, I expect, at least to some degree.

“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the People and their elected representatives.”

Associate Samuel Alito, writing for the majority

From a legal perspective, today’s decision dismisses an invented “right” and restores Tenth Amendment principles to the matter — both good things. And it allows the People to affirm the sanctity of Life.

What now? The Left will thrash, that’s what, and it’ll be violent. In Congress that rage will take the form of legislative action requiring (at the federal level) states to permit the murder of infants.

I’ll leave you with a few lines from remarks delivered this afternoon by the current occupant of the Oval Office:

“It’s a sad day for the court and for the country. This decision is a culmination of a deliberate effort over decades to upset the balance of our law. It’s a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the Supreme Court.”

There it is — according to Doctor Dementia and his cabal, when the Supreme Court of the United States reverses an unconstitutional decision it’s “a sad day” that “upset[s] the balance of our law.” Affirming the sanctity of Life and fighting for 50 years to save innocent children from State-sanctioned murder is “an extreme ideology.”

You think about that.


One year ago today, we hitched a free limo ride from the Amarillo KOA to the The Big Texan Steak Ranch for a memorable dinner.


Take care of yourselves, Patriots. Stay calm. Stay sharp. Stay free.

#WiseUp #LibertyOrDeath

#LetsGoBrandon