The Europeans Keep Rejecting Liberty

The Europeans Keep Rejecting Liberty



Modern continental Europe keeps trying to solve its political problem — and then to impose its solution on everyone within reach.  Recognizing this historical process can help us understand European anti-Americanism, strongest perhaps in Germany.  America created the Europeans' political predicament, and we keep preventing them from adopting the solutions they come up with.
America created the Europeans' political problem by the magnificent example of the American Revolution and the astonishing, world-changing success of America.  In an interesting version of the story of the emperor's new clothes, rule by hereditary monarchs, hereditary aristocracies, and established churches was suddenly revealed to be absurd and indefensible.
The only problem was that continental Europe was for the most part incapable of self-rule.  The attempts, for example, by Germany, Italy, and France to achieve reasonably stable regimes of rule by their own people would be comical but for the terrible human consequences of their repeated failures.
With the exception of the Netherlands and a few other European countries that, like Britain, have achieved rule by their own people, the modern history of continental Europe is the story of people trying various experiments in an ongoing effort to relieve themselves of the burden of self-rule.
For a while, it seemed certain that fascism was going to be the European solution.  The Germans and the Italians took the lead, but there were at the same time homegrown fascist movements throughout Europe, even in Britain.  The French earned from Homer Simpson the sobriquet "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" because of their feeble resistance to the Nazi invaders and their swift adoption of a policy of collaboration with their Nazi rulers.  If it weren't for America's military intervention, the Nazis would likely have defeated Britain, and fascist Europe would have reached from Ireland's western shore to Moscow and beyond.
The crushing military defeat of fascist Germany and fascist Japan took the fascist solution off the table.  What were the Europeans to do?  Next up: communism.
WWII resulted in only the western portion of Europe not being swallowed up by the Soviets.  Once again, as with fascism, there were homegrown communist movements and sympathizers everywhere in Europe outside the Soviet-ruled zone.  Communist Europe would likely have had that same western border in Ireland considered above — except once again for the United States.  America kept a military presence in Europe after the war, preventing the Soviets from snapping up what remained of Europe not already under their control.
The Americans did not simply prevent a Soviet takeover of Europe.  The American example destroyed communism's claim to legitimacy as surely as America's example had destroyed the European monarchs' claim to rule.  The collapse of the Soviet Union robbed the Europeans of a communist future.
The Americans had done it to them again.
What now is next to be tried?  Islam.  Bernard Lewis, the great scholar of Islam and no enemy of Western civilization, predicted an Islamic Europe some time ago, and an Islamic Europe is now coming on much faster than when he made that prediction.  Muhammad is the most common name given to baby boys in cities throughout Europe, even in Britain.
Once again, as in WWI and WWII, the Germans are taking the lead.  Because Germany dominates the European Union, the open border policy imposed on Europe by Angela Merkel is responsible for a massive Muslim invasion of Europe — and this time the invaders don't need to brush past feeble military resistance or even use weapons.  The invaders only need to show up and apply for welfare, leaving them with plenty of free time to plot the takeover of the West.  An earlier generation of the French at least had feebly resisted the Nazi invasion before surrendering.
However, there are developments that raise the possibility that Europeans will yet save themselves by a sensible nationalism.  There is, for example, Brexit, the important precursor to President Trump's election in 2016.  The people of Britain voted to reclaim British national sovereignty and to restore the integrity of Britain's borders.  In addition, there are nationalist stirrings in Germany that may turn out to be part of a broader European rejection of a future under the rule of Islam.
Perhaps the prospect of an Islamic Europe can yet rally Europeans to the defense of Western civilization.  If nations in Europe can muster the spirited belief that their nations are worth defending, they may yet hold off the moral and intellectual corruption of radical Islam.  It is very much the hope of lovers of liberty everywhere that they do so.
Robert Curry serves on the Board of Directors of the Claremont Institute.  He is the author of Common Sense Nation: Unlocking the Forgotten Power of the American Idea and Reclaiming Common Sense: Finding Truth in a Post-Truth World, due out on September 24.  Both are from Encounter Books.

Federal Judge Warns Government Lawyers in Hillary Clinton Email Case: ‘No FOIA Exemption for Political Expedience’

Federal Judge Warns Government Lawyers in Hillary Clinton Email Case: ‘No FOIA Exemption for Political Expedience’


September 6, 2019 Updated: September 6, 2019
WASHINGTON—U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth upbraided government attorneys in the Hillary Clinton email case, warning them that “there is no FOIA exemption for political expedience, nor is there one for bureaucratic incompetence.”
Lamberth’s comment came in his Aug. 22 decision approving Judicial Watch’s request for expanded discovery in the non-profit’s lawsuit on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email system to conduct official business, and efforts by her, senior aides on her staff, and other federal officials to conceal the system.
Judicial Watch released the transcript of Lamberth’s decision Friday. Lamberth was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and he has since presided over numerous important cases involving the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The existence of the non-secured private Clinton email system became known due to Judicial Watch’s Sept. 10, 2014, FOIA lawsuit seeking emails to and from her and her key aides.
When details of the private Clinton email system became known, it turned out that there were more than 55,000 messages to and from her and her aides, and that her attorneys had deleted more than 30,000 they deemed to be about personal matters, not official duties.
Dozens of classified documents were transmitted over the system, which FBI investigators said could have been compromised by foreign interests.
Then-FBI Director James Comey criticized Clinton in an unprecedented July 2016 national statement but said he would not recommend prosecuting her because she didn’t “intend” to break the law.
In his latest decision, Lamberth criticized government lawyers for claiming there was no justification for “re-opening” the discovery he approved in December 2018, including Judicial Watch depositions of Clinton, Cheryl Mills, her former Chief of Staff, and a host of other aides and present and former federal officials.
Most of those depositions have since been done, but Clinton and Mills have opposed the process. Lamberth gave them 30 days to explain why they think they should not be deposed.
“First, let me clarify the government’s misunderstanding. We’re not reopening discovery here. Discovery never closed. Back in January, I said, ‘the government will — the court will hold a post-discovery hearing to ascertain the adequacy of State’s searches; to determine if Judicial Watch needs to depose additional witnesses, including Hillary Clinton or her former Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills; and to schedule dispositive motions.’ So June 19th was a checkpoint, not a finish line,” Lamberth told the court.
“Now we know more, but we have even more questions than answers. So I won’t hold it against Judicial Watch for expanding their initial discovery request now,” Lamberth continued.
Lamberth reminded those present that government lawyers tried “in late 2014 and early 2015” to settle the Judicial Watch litigation without telling the court or the non-profit critically important and relevant information about the Clinton emails.
The judge then pointed to numerous grounds for continuing and expanding Judicial Watch’s discovery and depositions:
  • In “the middle of 2013,” the State Department’s Office of Information and Program Services (OIPS) launched an inquiry into Clinton’s email practices.
  • In August 2013, the OIPS directed department officials to stop telling FOIA requestors that no Clinton email records could be located.
  • Officials knew “by the summer of 2014 [that] a large volume of Clinton’s emails had never been searched, potentially violating FOIA and record management obligations.”
  • After Clinton left the State Department in 2013 to run for president, Lamberth said, “it turns out State had a standing meeting every Wednesday afternoon during the summer of 2014 to discuss Clinton-related FOIA inquiries.”
Those regularly attending the Wednesday meeting included Clinton’s successor, former Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), his chief of staff and deputy chief of staff, and other senior department executives, including Patrick Kennedy, who continued the under secretary for management position he held under Clinton.
  • Lamberth said he looks forward to hearing the official responsible for State Department responses to FOIA requests explain “more about what went on in those weekly 2014 meetings.”
  • The judge directed “the Justice Department attorney who led the settlement negotiations [between Judicial Watch and the State Department] to divulge when he learned Clinton’s emails were missing. He must answer.”
  • He agreed with Judicial Watch “that it’s worth deposing the State Department records officer who personally reviewed archiving procedures with Secretary Clinton and her departing staff to see what they discussed.”
  • Lamberth said Judicial Watch is justified in seeking “more information about how Secretary Clinton ultimately determined which emails were public records and which were private.”
  • Finally, Lamberth said he agreed with “Judicial Watch that it should talk to three never-before-deposed State officials who raised concerns about Clinton’s private email use all the way back to 2009. There is no FOIA exemption for political expedience, nor is there one for bureaucratic incompetence.”
“It is beyond disturbing that the State and Justice Departments would continue to try to protect Hillary Clinton and cover up her email scandal,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement accompanying release of the Aug. 22 transcript.
Contact Mark Tapscott at mark.tapscott@epochtimes.nyc

Pentagon chief suggests European allies replace funds diverted to border wall

Pentagon chief suggests European allies replace funds diverted to border wall



LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said that European nations should consider funding projects in their countries after the Pentagon diverted money to pay for a border wall with Mexico.
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper holds his first news conference at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, U.S., August 28, 2019. REUTERS/Leah Millis
The Pentagon said on Wednesday it would pull funding from 127 Defense Department projects abroad and at home, including schools and daycare centers for military families, as it diverts $3.6 billion to pay for President Donald Trump’s wall along the U.S. border.
Trump has made immigration a signature issue of his presidency. He declared a national emergency over the issue earlier this year in an effort to redirect funding from Congress to build a wall along the U.S. southern border, which he originally said would be paid for by Mexico.
“The message that I’ve been carrying, since when I was acting secretary to today, has been about the increase in burden sharing,” Esper told reporters in London late on Thursday.
“So part of the message will be ‘Look, if you’re really concerned then maybe you should look to cover those projects for us’ because that’s going to build infrastructure in many cases in their countries,” he added.
“Part of the message is burden sharing, ‘Maybe pick up that tab.’”
Some of the projects affected are in Europe, like $21.6 million for port operation facilities in Spain and $59 million for munitions storage in Slovakia.
The defunded projects also include schools for the children of military personnel in Germany and the United Kingdom.
The fund diversion has been heavily criticized by U.S. lawmakers, who say it puts national security at risk and circumvents Congress.
Esper will meet his British and French counterparts in the coming days.
The Trump administration has repeatedly called on NATO countries to pay at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product for defense.
The Pentagon has been increasing its attention toward Europe in recent years, concerned about a resurgent Russia.
Earlier this week Vice President Mike Pence said allies should “remain vigilant” about Moscow’s election meddling and work toward independence from Russian energy supplies.
Reporting by Idrees Ali; Editing by Chris Sanders, Mary Milliken and Dan Grebler

WHY REPUBLICANS SHOULDN’T CAVE TO DEMOCRATS ON GUNS

Why Republicans Shouldn’t Cave To Democrats On Guns
By Mark Overstreet SEPTEMBER 5, 2019
It’s not only to prevent a Democrat landslide in 2020. It’s because Democrats will settle for nothing less than gun confiscation.
It has been said that Republicans are the “party of stupid” and Democrats the party of something worse. In their reaction to Democrats’ demand for gun control several weeks ago, President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appeared ready to prove the comparison about the GOP.
Soon after the multiple-victim murders in Dayton and El Paso—the former by a Democrat and self-described leftist supporter of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the latter allegedly by someone who, for the sake of the environment, theorized “if we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can be more sustainable”—Trump and McConnell said they were considering two elements of Democrats’ decades-old civilian disarmament agenda: “universal” background checks and a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, including those for handguns.
If Trump and McConnell, encouraged by Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham, who supports susceptible-to-abuse “red flag” gun confiscation laws; Rick Scott, who as governor of Florida signed legislation prohibiting young adults from buying firearms; and Pat Toomey, co-sponsor of a version of “universal” checks, cave to Democrats on guns, they might alienate enough voters to assure that Democrats re-take the White House and Senate, and hold the House of Representatives in the 2020 elections.
However, there are more important reasons Republicans should reject Democrats’ demands on guns.

UNIVERSAL CHECKS ARE REALLY ABOUT GUN CONFISCATION

By way of background, firearm dealers are required to run a background check on anyone to whom they sell guns. “Universal” checks would impose the same requirement on everyone else.
Whenever there is a multiple-victim murder with a gun, Democrats don’t wait for law enforcement agencies to determine how the perpetrator acquired the gun. They immediately demand “universal” checks, to trick the public into thinking that the perpetrator could not pass a background check, therefore bought the gun from someone who is not a dealer, therefore the crime would have been prevented if the seller had been required to conduct a check.
The deception, promoted by the gun control-supporting media, is intended to manipulate the public into supporting the scheme, and prevent the public from instead blaming such crimes on societal factors associated with the leftist voting base.
However, almost all mass murders with guns are committed by people who pass background checks to get guns. As Professor James Alan Fox, the nation’s leading criminologist in the study of murder, has explained, “Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization. They would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally.”
Furthermore, “universal” checks would not be universal, because most other criminals—who commit the vast majority of murders with guns—get guns by methods to which a background check requirement is irrelevant. The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics has repeatedly found in surveys of state prison inmates imprisoned for gun crimes that most—90 percent, in the most recent survey—got guns by stealing them, by buying stolen or illegally trafficked guns on the black market, or from acquaintances such as “straw purchasers”—people who can pass a background check, who illegally buy guns for people who cannot pass checks, and who would still be able to do so if a “universal” checks requirement were imposed.
The surveys, which go back to 1991, also undercut Democrats’ phony alarm about the so-called “gun show loophole” by consistently finding that less than 1 percent of criminals imprisoned for gun crimes get guns at shows—all from dealers who, as noted, are already required to run checks.

THE REAL REASON DEMOCRATS WANT ‘UNIVERSAL’ CHECKS

To understand why Democrats want “universal” checks, some additional background is in order.
Democrats’ intent with the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) was to restrict firearms particularly useful for defensive purposes. Told by the Department of Justice that a ban would be unconstitutional, they settled for requiring the registration of fully-automatic firearms, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and sound suppressors, and almost imposed the same requirement on handguns and semi-automatic firearms that held more than 12 rounds of ammunition.
In 1968, Democrats imposed the Gun Control Act (GCA), which included provisions restricting guns the executive branch at any time deems not “particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes,” meaning those suitable for or adaptable to defensive purposes. Signing the GCA into law, President Lyndon B. Johnson complained that it didn’t require the registration of all guns and the licensing of all gun owners.
In 1976, the handgun-prohibition activist group National Council to Control Handguns admitted that it envisioned registration as the second step in a three-step plan to ban and confiscate handguns. It said, “The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition . . . totally illegal.”
In 1989, California ordered owners of “assault weapons” to register them with the state government, but only about 2 percent of owners complied. Compliance was similarly small after New Jersey ordered “assault weapon” registration in 1990. Democrats focused on civilian disarmament took notice.
In 1993, a Democrat-majority Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Brady Bill, which included a provision requiring the background check system to be established within five years. The late Neal Knox, a no-compromise opponent of gun control who some years earlier had been the director of NRA’s political division, said that gun owners would eventually “rue the day” the system was imposed.
Soon after, Democrats set about proving Knox right. First, they began demanding checks on non-dealer gun sales at gun shows. Next, they began demanding checks on non-dealer sales everywhere (“universal” checks). Then, in 2009 and 2013, respectively, the late-Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)—hailing from the very states where “assault weapon” owners had refused to register their guns—introduced legislation to allow the FBI to retain records on people who pass checks to acquire guns.
In 2013, a Department of Justice report said “universal background checks . . . depends on . . . requiring gun registration” and without “a nationwide registration and licensing program,” gun confiscation “cannot be effective.” If “universal” checks were imposed, all that would be required for the system to become a registry would be for check-related records kept by the FBI to include the make, model, and serial number of any gun sold, given as a gift, or inherited. Such a registry could then be used to enforce a gun confiscation law, such as the one Joe Biden and other Democrats are threatening to impose if elected president.

THE ‘ASSAULT WEAPON BAN’ DIDN’T REDUCE CRIME, BUT IT WOULDN’T MATTER IF IT HAD

On August 9, 12, and 20, respectively, former president Bill Clinton in Time magazine, Biden in The New York Times, and gun-prohibition advocate Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) via Twitter claimed that the “ban,” in effect from 1994 to 2004, reduced crime. Other writers have disagreed.
On the one hand, the disagreement is irrelevant. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual right protected by the Bill of Rights and, as the Supreme Court said in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”
In Heller, the court also observed that people have “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” including “all instruments that constitute bearable arms.” Although the court erred in emphasizing arms “in common use,” the 10-million-plus guns and tens of millions of magazines that Democrats want to ban certainly meet that standard. Moreover, a ban directed at guns and magazines that are useful for the purpose contemplated in the Second Amendment is patently unconstitutional.
On the other hand, it’s easy to show why Clinton, Biden, and Feinstein are wrong. All that’s required is to compare the year-to-year trend in the U.S. murder rate, as reported by the FBI, to the number of just one of the “banned” guns Americans own, the AR-15, based upon firearm production data reported by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Before beginning, it’s important to explain why, in this instance, the word “ban” is presented in quotation marks. Contrary to Democrats’ claim that the “ban” reduced the number of “banned” guns and magazines in Americans’ hands, the “ban” didn’t require anyone to turn over any guns or magazines to the government, it allowed “banned” guns already in existence to continue to be acquired, it allowed “banned” magazines to continue to be imported and acquired, and—most important of all—it allowed “banned” guns to continue being made and acquired in slightly modified form.
For example, the “ban” banned the manufacture of the first AR-15 shown below, but allowed the continued manufacture and sale of the second one. At least 730,000 such AR-15s were manufactured and sold while the “ban” was in effect.
Now, the data. First, as illustrated in the graph immediately below, the annual murder rate (murders per 100,000 population) began declining in 1991, three years before the “ban” was imposed. Furthermore, while the “ban” was in effect (1994-2004), the murder rate continued declining while Americans bought the 730,000 AR-15s noted above, along with an unknown number of other similarly modified rifles, as well as countless “banned” rifle and handgun magazines.
Second, as shown in the next graph, all of the other crimes tracked by the FBI declined at the same time: rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Something was causing crime to decline, but it wasn’t anything to do with guns.
Finally, as illustrated in the next graph, since the “ban” expired in 2004, Americans have bought another 10 million AR-15s, and through the first half of 2018 (the most recent data) the annual murder rate has averaged 18 percent lower than when the “ban” was in effect. It’s worth noting that rifles, of which those like the AR-15 are a subset, are used in 2-3 percent of murders, while 27 percent of murders are committed without firearms of any type.

REDUCING VIOLENCE ISN’T WHY DEMOCRATS WANT TO BAN AND CONFISCATE GUNS

No one should believe Democrats when they say they want to ban and confiscate guns because they oppose “violence.” After all, the old Democrat Party was the party of the Ku Klux Klan and the new Democrats’ underlying ideology is leftism, the adherents of which around the world over the last 200-plus years have murdered “enemies of the revolution” as a matter of course.
Leftists in this country might say that what their brethren have done in other countries doesn’t mean they would do the same thing here. However, the FBI reported in “Terrorism 2002-2005” that the most serious domestic terrorist threats in this country during the preceding 30-plus years were “leftist-oriented extremist groups, that generally professed a revolutionary socialist doctrine and viewed themselves as protectors of the people against the adverse effects of capital­ism and U.S. foreign policies.”
The FBI noted that in the 1950s, leftists attempted to assassinate President Harry S. Truman and “opened fire on a session of the U.S. House of Representatives,” and in the 1970s bombed Senate and State Department buildings in Washington, D.C.
More recently, there have been the Bernie Sanders supporter who tried to kill Republican members of Congress playing softball, the murders in Dayton by a Warren supporter, the murders in El Paso allegedly by an environmentalist fanatic, numerous violent attacks by members of Antifa, the felony assault upon Sen. Rand Paul, the attack upon a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office with a Molotov cocktail and, as Chrissy Clark detailed for The Federalist on August 14, several attacks upon Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices around the country.
Then there are the supporters of a Democrat state senator pretending to assassinate President Trump, the various leftwing entertainers who have portrayed Trump’s assassination onstage and in music videos, threatened to suffocate Trump to death, posed for photographers holding a facsimile of the president’s guillotined head, and talked about blowing up the White House. And the college professor in Iowa who said “I am Antifa” and that he wanted to hit Trump with a baseball bat and to kill all Christians.
And then there is the Washington Post columnist who encouraged fellow travelers to “burn down the Republican Party” and to leave no “survivors,” and the people who publicly celebrated the death of Republican philanthropist David Koch, and Democrats’ limitless support for support for abortions, which in the U.S. outnumber firearm-related murders by at least 50 to 1.
Democrats are going after guns for two reasons. First, since the advent of the big-government Democrat Party under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, they have increasingly opposed people having arms with which they might most easily defend themselves against government overreach.
After imposing the NFA and GCA, primarily to restrict guns particularly useful for defensive purposes, Democrats in the late 1970s and 1980s supported campaigns to get handguns banned. In 1986, when most members of the House of Representatives were not present, Democrats snuck into the otherwise favorable Firearms Owners’ Protection Act an amendment banning newly manufactured fully-automatic firearms. In 1989, they began campaigning to ban various semi-automatic firearms. Democrats also signed amicus briefs supporting the District of Columbia’s handgun ban in Heller.
Second, midway through the Obama administration, “progressives” decided to use “guns” as a core issue around which to rally their voter base.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO ‘WEAPONS OF WAR’

Democrats, who have disparaging names for everything they don’t like, call rifles like the AR-15 “weapons of war.” However, if the rifles are what Democrats say they are, they are quintessentially what the Second Amendment prohibits the government from banning.The amendment was adopted to protect the right to keep and bear arms for defense against tyranny.
After all, the amendment was adopted to protect the right to keep and bear arms for defense against tyranny. The statements of the Founding Fathers leave no doubt on this point. Here are some examples.
In The Federalist No. 28, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.”
In The Federalist, No. 29, Hamilton added that an army “can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens.”
In The Federalist, No. 46, James Madison, who later introduced the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, wrote that tyranny would be opposed by “citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties.”

AND THEN THERE IS THE SUPREME COURT

Democrats claim that the Supreme Court never considered the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to arms before Heller. To the contrary, the court did so in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), U.S. v. Miller (1939), and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990). Heller was only the first case in which the court was asked specifically to state whose right the amendment protects.‘If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights.’
In U.S. v. Miller, cited by Heller, the court further recognized that the amendment protects the right to arms that have a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” including those that are “part of the ordinary military equipment” and any others the use of which “could contribute to the common defense.”
For that proposition, the court cited the decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court in Aymette v. State (1840), that “the arms, the right to keep which is secured are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority.”
U.S. v. Miller also cited U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution” (1833), which noted that “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms . . . offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
President Trump, McConnell, and other Republicans should stand up to Democrats and explain to the American people why they are doing so. Showing courage and commitment to their promises might help them in the 2020 elections and, more importantly, help avert what the Second Amendment was designed to prevent.
(Mark Overstreet is a firearm instructor and author in central Texas. He retired in 2016 as the senior research coordinator of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, after 25 years with the organization. He is also retired from the Army Reserve, after 23 years including duty as a combat cameraman in Iraq. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the NRA or the Department of Defense. He can be reached at Mark@PanoplyTactical.com.)

Article source : https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/05/republicans-shouldnt-cave-democrats-guns/

China Is on Track to Have Four Total Aircraft Carriers in the Next Two Years

China Is on Track to Have Four Total Aircraft Carriers in the Next Two Years

Quick and alarming.

The second ship, Type 002 (previously referred to as Type 001A) resembles Liaoning but with a handful of improvements, including an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar the carrier’s island and a larger flight deck.
SPONSORED CONTENT
The People’s Liberation Army Navy—more commonly known outside of China as the Chinese Navy—is modernizing at a breakneck pace. Chinese shipbuilders have built more than one hundred warships in the past decade, a build rate outstripping the mighty U.S. Navy. Most importantly, China now has two aircraft carriers—Liaoning and a second ship under sea trials—and a third and possibly fourth ship under construction. With such a massive force under construction it’s worth asking: where does PLA naval aviation go from here?
For most of its modern history China has been the target of aircraft carriers, not an owner of one. The Imperial Japanese Navy’s carriers conducted strikes on the Chinese mainland in support of ground campaigns in the 1930s, strikes that went a long way toward honing the service’s legendary naval aviation record. U.S. naval power protected nationalist Chinese forces at the end of the Chinese Civil War, and U.S. Navy carriers conducted airstrikes on Chinese “volunteers” during the Korean War. In 1996 during the Third Taiwan Crisis, the United States deployed a carrier battle group near Taiwan as a sign of support against Chinese military actions. It could be fairly said that aircraft carriers made a significant impression on China.
(This first appeared in September 2018.)
Today, China has two aircraft carriers: the ex-Soviet carrier Liaoning, and a second unnamed ship, Type 002, currently undergoing sea trials. Liaoning is expected to function strictly as a training carrier, establishing training, techniques, and procedures for Chinese sailors in one of the most dangerous aspects of naval warfare: naval aviation. Despite this, Liaoning’s three transits of the Taiwan Strait and visit to Hong Kong show the PLAN considers it perfectly capable of showing the flag.
0
SECONDS

Do You Know What Happened Today In History?

Sep
6
1847
 
Henry David Thoreau leaves Walden Pond and moves in with Ralph Waldo Emerson and his family in Concord, Massachusetts.
 
The Victoria, the only surviving ship of Ferdinand Magellan's expedition, returns to SanlĂșcar de Barrameda in Spain, becoming the first ship to circumnavigate the world.
The second ship, Type 002 (previously referred to as Type 001A) resembles Liaoning but with a handful of improvements, including an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar the carrier’s island and a larger flight deck. Experts believe Type 002 will carry slightly more fighters than her older sibling, up to thirty J-15 jets in all. Type 002 will be the first combat-capable carrier, although the lack of a catapult means its aircraft must sacrifice range and striking power in order to take off from the flight deck.
A third ship of yet another class is under construction at the Jiangnan Shipyard at Shanghai, with credible reports of a fourth ship of the same class under construction at Dalian. This new class, designated Type 003, is the first Chinese carrier constructed using a modern, modular construction method. The modules, known as “superlifts” each weigh hundreds of tons, are assembled on land and then hoisted onto the ship in drydock. Large American and British warships, including carriers such as the USS Gerald R. Ford and HMS Queen Elizabeth are assembled using the superlift method.
Although there are few hard details on Type 003, we do know some things. The new carrier will forgo the ski ramp method for CATOBAR, or Catapult-Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery. The use of catapults will allow the carrier to launch heavier aircraft with great fuel and weapons loads, making the carrier more effective as a power projection platform. China has reportedly conducted “thousands” of test launches of a new electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS). Not only does an EMALs launch system enable the launch of heavier combat jets, it can also launch propeller-driven aircraft similar to the U.S. Navy’s E-2D Hawkeye airborne early warning and control aircraft and the C-2 Greyhound cargo transport. The ability to tune EMALs power levels also makes it easier to launch smaller, lighter unmanned aerial vehicles from catapults.
We don’t currently know the size and displacement of the Type 003s, and likely won’t be able to even make an educated guess for another year. They will probably be incrementally larger than Type 002 with an incrementally larger air wing and overall combat capability, though one still falling short of American supercarriers. The new carriers are expected to be conventionally powered and fortunately, China’s EMALS system will not reportedly require nuclear power.
 
 
At the same time, Chinese designers are believed to be hard at work on a fourth class of carrier, Type 004. According to Popular Science, a leak by the shipbuilder claims the new class, “will displace between ninety thousand and one hundred thousand tons and have electromagnetically assisted launch system (EMALS) catapults for getting aircrafts off the deck. It'll likely carry a large air wing of J-15 fighters, J-31 stealth fighters, KJ-600 airborne early warning and control aircraft, anti-submarine warfare helicopters, and stealth attack drones.” Such specifications will make them the equal of U.S. carriers, at least on paper.
Meanwhile, the PLAN is looking forward a next-generation carrier aircraft. The PLAN has twenty-four J-15 multirole fighters, with at least two aircraft lost and two damaged during accidents attributed to the J-15 itself. That’s not enough aircraft to equip two carriers, land-based training units and carriers currently under construction. A future aircraft could be a carrier-based version of the Chengdu J-20 or the J-31/FC-31, China’s two new fifth-generation fighters. An interim solution could be the so-called J-17, an improved J-15 roughly comparable to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the EA-18G Growler.
The People’s Liberation Army Navy carrier fleet is a rapidly growing force shaping up to be a powerful, flexible tool of statecraft and war. Beijing could realistically have four aircraft carriers by 2022—a remarkable feat of military construction. All of this lead to a number of unsolved questions. To what end is Beijing building this force? How many carriers will the PLAN ultimately build? Is China growing a carrier force meant to protect its interests or expand them? We simply don’t know—but we will certainly find out.
Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national-security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter: @KyleMizokami.

-----------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------
------------------------------------

---------------------------Rules are Still In Development-----------------------




====================================================================================================================================================
Rules are Still In Development




----->

Search This Blog