Post-Constitutional America

If you keep up with this blog, you probably keep up with the news. This was a remarkable week in America. A 36 year old allegation of sexual assault, with no extrinsic evidence to support it, has effectively ended the career of a federal judge with an otherwise spotless record as a judge and a gentleman. Whether you believe Dr. Ford or not, it is indisputable that she was not, in any way, constrained by the burden of proof. It fell to Brett Kavanaugh to prove his innocence. We are in a new era in American history - the Post-Constitutional Era.

As is the case with most historical eras, reasonable minds can differ on when the era began. George W. Bush and the Republicans certainly bent the rules after 9/11 with "enhanced interrogation" techniques, mass surveillance, and the invasion of Iraq. Barack Obama and the Democrats took it to a whole new level, expanding mass surveillance, dramatically increasing the power of the administrative state, spying on the Congress, and ultimately on the Trump campaign. Donald Trump has been in power for less than two years, but already he has been the target of an unrelenting, extra-Constitutional effort by the administrative state and Democrats to remove him from office. 

The Post-Constitutional Era we are in marks the end of the Republic. Historians will define the future by who was in power at what time. This is very much the way historians define other totalitarian regimes and monarchies. We define eras in European history as the "Victorian Era," after queen Victoria, for example. We define Soviet politics by the "Stalin Era" or the "Khrushchev Era." African and South American history is defined by "regimes," like the "Castro Regime," the "Chavez Regime," the "Mugabe Regime." 

Like these other totalitarian societies, power may shift from one faction to another or one wing of the government to the other, but power will be the defining characteristic. Also characteristic of this kind of government is a total disregard for any individual rights or the rights of the minority. Mobs of well armed "political parties" sweep into power and mercilessly stamp out the opposition. Hangings, beheadings, shootings, gas chambers and concentration camps are all publicly and routinely employed to deter opposition to the regime. Opposing factions literally hate each other and fight for generations in a futile effort to exterminate the other side. 

But, that can't happen here ... can it?

Well, no, so long as we are a Constitutional Republic. But that is exactly the problem with Post-Constitutional America. Our Constitution guarantees individual rights through the use of due process. At its core, due process is about providing a means by which an aggrieved individual can protect his or her individual rights. Those rights are enshrined in our founding documents as life, liberty, private property, and the right to be generally left alone. The Constitution provides Americans with a structure for resolving differences and espousing views. However, in the past 60 years, one faction of American society has used that very structure to espouse its destruction. They have largely succeeded.

Take for example, the Supreme Court. For 170 years, the Court largely avoided rendering opinions that conflicted with existing precedent or the text of the Constitutional. There were exceptions to be sure, but they were rare. Beginning in the 1950's, largely because of the Civil Rights movement, the Court had no choice but to intervene to guarantee the Constitutional rights of African-Americans. While those decisions were morally correct, the door was opened to the Supreme Court being the sole arbiter of what is or is not right in America. In many decisions that followed, the Court supplanted its wisdom for that of the Legislature and the President because the other two branches of government were not acting quickly enough.

Most Americans born after 1960 know it no other way. We've all been taught that this was always the intent of the Founders, but that's simply not true. The Supreme Court is not the only guarantor of Constitutional rights. Article One of the Constitution created a Legislature - the most important branch of government in the eyes of the Founders. Article Two created the Presidency. It was not until Article Three that our Founders created a Supreme Court, and even then, it was without the power of judicial review. Other federal courts were to be created by the Congress, not the judiciary. 

In modern America, however, a single federal judge can issue and nationwide injunction against the other two branches of government without a trial.  If a single federal judge doesn't like a particular regulation, policy or piece of legislation, poof, it's ensnared in a tediously slow process for years. And that is why these Supreme Court confirmation hearings have come so contentious. Nearly any case can be brought in an ideologically friendly federal court to frustrate the will of the people. Consequently, both conservatives and progressives have recognized the enormous power they wield if they have ideological control of the courts. This was never intended by our Founders.

Likewise, nothing in the Constitution provided the Executive branch with the power to create a permanent bureaucratic state with the power to legislate by fiat. In fact, it wasn't until after World War II that the bureaucracies were given any permanent status. Prior to that, it was common practice for a new President to replace most if not all of the previous administration's bureaucrats with his own supporters. As a result, the administrative state remained unstable and wielded far less power. 

Now, of course, we have permanently placed, Obama era bureaucrats actively working to impede and ultimately impeach the new President. These saboteurs, as has now been well-documented, weaponized the FBI, CIA, DOJ and IRS against grass roots conservatives, President Trump, and his supporters. 

There are three old adages everyone should memorize in order to survive in Post-Constitutional America: (1) Might makes right; (2) What goes around comes around; and (3) Turnabout is fair play.

A society in which individual rights are not protected is a society in which the strong prey on the weak. It is a society in which the majority or an elite minority dictates privileges to the rest of the society. Those rights then may arbitrarily be taken away. The extent to which privileges are granted is wholly dependent on the level of anger between the various factions. In Post-Constitutional America, minorities and those who can't fight back will be dependent on the benevolence of the ruling faction and the strong. Those whose actions have compromised the Constitution, or who attack our founding documents as old, white, and out of fashion, better be really, really sure that they will always be the stronger faction. Otherwise, they will have destroyed the only protection they had.

As they say, what goes around comes around. If you allow a man's reputation to be destroyed by unsubstantiated allegations of sexual assault, it is only a matter of time before your own reputation may be at stake. If you uproot hundreds of years of Constitutional precedent to protect your faction, you better be really, really sure to hold on the power forever. The great pendulum of history will eventually swing back in the other direction.

Finally, those who have used extra-Constitutional means to attack their opponents better be really, really sure that their opponents will not do the same. There is nothing more insulting to the group out of power than a double standard. Double standards become rallying cries. When the rule of law applies to you, but not to some elite political group, you might rally around a cry to "lock her up." If you used the entire national security apparatus to spy on your political enemies, you may find yourself under constant state surveillance in the future. Worse, you may find yourself locked up and all of your friends under constant surveillance. 

This is because it is human nature to believe that turnabout is fair play. It is the origin of the "golden rule." If you do it to him, he may do it back to you. World history is replete with "oops" moments during which some elite faction suddenly found itself out of power. Farm confiscations in South Africa, the Guillotine in France, civil war in Rwanda, Gaddafi, the Romanovs, and Hussein, for example. 

Post-Constitutional America will not be the progressive utopia many Americans think it will be. It will be a regressive dystopia. Weak and entitled Americans possessing a victim's mentality will be truly victimized. Americans who rely on others to protect and defend them will be alone and unprepared. There will be fewer history degrees or psychology degrees, fewer therapists and lawyers. Those with any sort of wealth will only be able to protect that wealth through force or membership in the ruling faction. 

Constitutional government is necessarily deliberative. The Constitution makes change hard, and that is exactly what our Founders intended. Sometimes, that makes social change take too long, but it also ensures that once that change happens, it is hard to reverse. Progress is slow, but permanent. Once a right is recognized, it is very difficult to take it way in a Constitutional Republic. The opposite is also true, however. Once a right is taken away from a particular group -  like, say, the right to due process, - it is eventually destroyed for everyone. Society then becomes unequal, divides into factions, each seeking to impose its will on the other through force. So be careful what you wish for.

The Gaslighting of America

Donald Trump is an anti-Semitic Nazi, racist, misogynistic, narcissist, and a Russian spy.

Peter Stzrok, the FBI, CIA, NSA, John Brennan, James Clapper, Hillary Clinton, the entire Obama Administration, and the mainstream media are all patriots, uncovering a secret plot between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin to surrender America to Russia.

So we've been told.

Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: "The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it." The "big lie" is the foundation of gaslighting. Psychology Today has several articles about gaslighting, I picked one called: 11 Warning Signs of Gaslighting. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201701/11-warning-signs-gaslighting). It is instructive.

Gaslighting is, at its core, a highly abusive form of concealment used by addicts, narcissists, and sociopaths to deflect attention from their own nefarious activities. I've taken several months off from social media and writing to simply observe. I have to confess, the incredible onslaught from the media and the Democrats directed at Donald Trump and his supporters gave me a moment of pause. Am I being a fool for supporting the President? Is it possible that he really is a Russian stooge? Is he the one telling the big lies? After four months of reflection, I have concluded that I, along with the rest of America, have been the victims of gaslighting. The Establishments of both parties, the media, and other leftists have conspired to promote multiple big lies, which they have used to conceal their own misconduct. 

According to Psychology Today, these are the 11 warning signs. I take no credit for these, they all came off their blog site.

1. They tell blatant lies.

You know it's an outright lie. Yet they are telling you this lie with a straight face. Why are they so blatant? Because they're setting up a precedent. Once they tell you a huge lie, you're not sure if anything they say is true. Keeping you unsteady and off-kilter is the goal.

James Clapper testified before Congress that the government had absolutely no program of bulk data gathering on Americans. That was a lie. In fact we now know the NSA does have a program to collect the metadata from every call, text and email placed in the United States.

James Comey said that he had never leaked anything to the media about the so-called Russia Investigation. That was a lie. In actuality, Comey leaked the "private notes" of his conversation with the President about the investigation to his "friend," who then sent it to the New York Times at Comey's instruction. It was not his only leak. His former subordinate, Andrew McCabe testified that Director Comey instructed him to leak certain information about the investigation to the New York Times prior to the election.

The entire Obama administration, including the FBI, DNI James Clapper and CIA Director Brennan, said that they had not conducted any surveillance on Trump or his campaign. That was a lie. In fact, as was announced on Friday, the Obama Administration sought and received multiple FISA warrants to wiretap Carter Page and Paul Manafort, both of whom were a part of the Trump campaign. The FBI and CIA also used foreign agents in foreign countries to conduct undercover meetings with George Papadopoulus, another member of the campaign, in an effort to catch him saying anything that might compromise Donald Trump or his campaign.

The FBI's Director of Counterintelligence, Peter Stzrok, testified before Congress that he was in no way motivated by deep political animus to exonerate Clinton and investigate Trump prior to the election. This is notwithstanding the fact that his own text messages reveal his desire to impeach Trump for collusion even though there was, in his words, "no there there."

They have all told bold faced lies in an effort to keep the American people off kilter and uncertain as to what is really happening in government.

2. They deny they ever said something, even though you have proof. 

You know they said they would do something; you know you heard it. But they out and out deny it. It makes you start questioning your reality—maybe they never said that thing. And the more they do this, the more you question your reality and start accepting theirs. 

As demonstrated above, each of these players continue to deny the obvious. Worse, each of these players now deny that they ever were supportive or Putin or Russia. Hillary Clinton was "always tough on Russia," despite hours of archived news clips and Youtube videos showing her coddling Vladimir Putin. Ditto for President Obama who withdrew missile defense from Eastern Europe at Putin's request in exchange for nothing.

These people continue to deny their own recorded statements about Russia and the Russian investigation.

3. They use what is near and dear to you as ammunition. 

They know how important your kids are to you, and they know how important your identity is to you. So those may be one of the first things they attack. If you have kids, they tell you that you should not have had those children. They will tell you'd be a worthy person if only you didn't have a long list of negative traits. They attack the foundation of your being. 

Here is where we begin to see real evil. Every Trump supporter "separates children from their parents" at the border because they are horrible human beings. Trump supporters are "Nazis," undeserving of respect. We are bigots, unsophisticated, stupid, mean spirited, and (according to the head of the FBI's counterintelligence department) "smelly."

According to the gaslighters, if Trump and his supporters have their way, America will be destroyed. The Constitution will be burned. All non-whites will be rounded up and gassed in concentration camps in a new Holocaust. Children will be brutalized by the police. Women will be forced to have children they don't want or will die obtaining illegal abortions. All Hispanics will be deported. 

To these sociopaths, and to be sure, Brennan, Clapper, Clinton, Comey, and Strzok are sociopaths, all Trump supporters are "deplorable." We are unworthy of representation and impossible to love. These gaslighters continue to attack the very identities of 65 million Americans, and it seems to be working. Trump supporters are a "silent" group for this very reason. Many have begun to doubt whether they are worthy enough to have or voice an opinion.

4. They wear you down over time.

This is one of the insidious things about gaslighting—it is done gradually, over time. A lie here, a lie there, a snide comment every so often...and then it starts ramping up. Even the brightest, most self-aware people can be sucked into gaslighting—it is that effective. It's the "frog in the frying pan" analogy: The heat is turned up slowly, so the frog never realizes what's happening to it.

The frogs in the frying pan. That's what we Americans have become. Think of where we started and where we are now with this whole Establishment vs. Trump treason game. 

Here are a few posts I wrote more than a year ago, when the Democrats and the intelligence agencies were still denying that they had done anything to investigate Trump or his campaign:

http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2017/03/where-democracy-goes-to-die.html

http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2017/04/give-democrats-and-leakers-one-last.html

http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-treason-game.html

Yes, I was speculating, but I turned out to be right. At the time, my liberal friends were apoplectic that I wouldn't just take the government's denial at face value. The government denied there was any investigation, but there was obviously an investigation. Then they denied that there was a FISA warrant, which we now know was also false. Then they denied that the FISA warrant was in any way connected to the campaign. They claimed it was merely "routine surveillance of foreign agents." Now we know that wasn't true either. There is nothing routine about surveilling your opponent's campaign officials. Then they told us that candidate Trump wasn't the target of the (previously denied) "counterintelligence operation." Now we know that each of these FISA warrants was based on opposition research papers created by the Clinton campaign and directly related to Trump's alleged improprieties.  

They continue to deny that they were actively conspiring with each other and the media to use the entire national security apparatus of the United States to help Hillary Clinton get elected and "stop Trump," notwithstanding clear evidence of investigatory bias and misconduct on the part of the FBI. If Peter Stzrok had already concluded (as he did) that there was "no there there" with regard to so-called "Russian collusion," then why did he later want to join the Mueller team and work to "impeach Trump"? He obviously didn't care what the actual evidence showed. He just wanted to destroy the Trump Presidency, even if he had to lie to do it.

Between the ever changing lies, the suffocating media coverage of all of these supposed Trump outrages, and the Establishment's continued refusal to put an end to this farce, we have been worn out. This is their goal, to wear us down so we acquiesce to their abuse.

5. Their actions do not match their words.

When dealing with a person or entity that gaslights, look at what they are doing rather than what they are saying. What they are saying means nothing; it is just talk. What they are doing is the issue. 

We are made to believe that Donald Trump is a secret Russian agent with deep ties to Vladimir Putin. Yet it is Bill Clinton who took $500,000.00 in speaking fees for pro government speeches in Russia. The Clinton Foundation made millions of dollars off of the "Uranium One" deal, in which 25% of America's uranium supply was sold to a company with close ties to the Russian Government. It was Barack Obama who withdrew America's missile shield from Eastern Europe, and President Trump who put some of it back. 

It was John Podesta's brother who was an unregistered foreign agent for Russia who is now, cynically, getting immunity from Robert Mueller to testify against Paul Manafort who is accused of ... wait for it ... being an unregistered foreign agent for Russia. John Podesta was Hillary Clinton's chief of staff during the campaign, but the Special Counsel sees no conflict here...

In point of fact, you can look at everything the Democrats and their co-conspirators are accusing Trump of doing and find that they have done or are doing the the same thing. 

6. They throw in positive reinforcement to confuse you. 

This person or entity that is cutting you down, telling you that you don't have value, is now praising you for something you did. This adds an additional sense of uneasiness. You think, "Well maybe they aren't so bad." Yes, they are. This is a calculated attempt to keep you off-kilter—and again, to question your reality. Also look at what you were praised for; it is probably something that served the gaslighter. 

Every once in awhile, President Trump (and by extension his supporters) get a little praise. The New York Times, who has been one of the leaders in the gaslight movement, recently wrote a glowing piece on the Trump economy. When Trump attacked Syria, he received near universal praise for reasserting America's role as the world's policeman. Occasionally the President is praised as having a "good week" or a "good press conference," but in reality the Times and the rest of them hate Donald Trump and his supporters. 

7. They know confusion weakens people. 

Gaslighters know that people like having a sense of stability and normalcy. Their goal is to uproot this and make you constantly question everything. And humans' natural tendency is to look to the person or entity that will help you feel more stable—and that happens to be the gaslight. 

The Democrats, the media and the Republican Establishment want to appear to be the stable, safe choice for the country. They have created this Russia nonsense to sow confusion and suspicion amongst the electorate. They cannot accept the results of the last election because they were, in fact, rejected by a population that they have victimized for years. Unrestrained government, unrestrained police power, and unrestrained corruption have been the hallmarks of Establishment government for decades. They have to hide it, so now these gaslighters have decided to really pour it on, making us feel stupid for ever rejecting them as our natural superiors.

8. They project.

They are a drug user or a cheater, yet they are constantly accusing you of that. This is done so often that you start trying to defend yourself, and are distracted from the gaslighter's own behavior. 

This is the most obvious clue. Here they are accusing President Trump of collusion with Russia when the evidence conclusively demonstrates that it is the political establishment that has profited from a twisted relationship with Vladimir Putin. President Bush looked into Putin's eyes and "saw his soul." Some time after that, Putin invaded Georgia. Hillary Clinton presented Russia with a giant red and yellow toy button with the word "reset" on it. Putting aside the fact that it looked more like a nuclear button, Clinton also wanted to have a close relationship with Putin. She advocated for a "strong Russia," and a "stable government." This is after Putin's 2008 invasion of Georgia. Putin, for his part, took her words to heart and promptly invaded Crimea and the Ukraine. 

It is the Clintons and their political allies who have profited financially from their relationships with various Russian oligarchs, not President Trump. And with regard to the allegations of election fraud, it is the Republican Establishment and the Democrats who conspired with the government to steal an election, not Trump. Whether by accident or design, they have projected their own serious misconduct onto the President in order to distract from their own bad behavior.

9. They try to align people against you.

Gaslighters are masters at manipulating and finding the people they know will stand by them no matter what—and they use these people against you. They will make comments such as, "This person knows that you're not right," or "This person knows you're useless too." Keep in mind it does not mean that these people actually said these things. A gaslighter is a constant liar. When the gaslighter uses this tactic it makes you feel like you don't know who to trust or turn to—and that leads you right back to the gaslighter. And that's exactly what they want: Isolation gives them more control.

This is where the media has really shown its true identity as a destructive force in America. The gaslighters have recruited almost the entire mainstream media to tell us that we are bad people, that we are useless, that we are deplorable. Turn on any news channel (other than FoxNews) and you will see nothing but 24 hour coverage that is highly insulting to Trump and his supporters. Their commentary is more than just "negative." It is abusive. 

If you support Trump you are a ___________. Fill in the blank with any abusive word you want, it has been used to describe you by someone on MSNBC, CNN, the print media, or network news.

The same is true of the entertainment industry. Movies and sitcoms routinely depict Trump supporters as fools and cavemen. You cannot watch an awards show without hearing "F-Trump" yelled throughout. Movie and television stars have been recruited by the left to spew hatred at middle America all in an effort to convince us that we are worthless and should just submit to the gaslighters.

10. They tell you or others that you are crazy.

This is one of the most effective tools of the gaslighter, because it's dismissive. The gaslighter knows if they question your sanity, people will not believe you when you tell them the gaslighter is abusive or out-of-control. It's a master technique.

Likewise, anyone left in America who is undecided or open to the possibility that the President is not a bad guy has been inundated with allegations that Trump and his supporters are, literally, "crazy." Trump is a narcissist, who has dementia, or early onset Alzheimers disease. Trump supporters are categorized as fools, uneducated, pathological. 

All of this is an attempt to convince the undecided voters that a vote for Trump is a vote for a raving lunatic (and a spy).

11. They tell you everyone else is a liar.

By telling you that everyone else (your family, the media) is a liar, it again makes you question your reality. You've never known someone with the audacity to do this, so they must be telling the truth, right? No. It's a manipulation technique. It makes people turn to the gaslighter for the "correct" information—which isn't correct information at all.

This last one is perhaps the most obvious. These gaslighters in government and the media have been telling you that everyone else is a liar. President Trump is a liar. His cabinet officials are all liars. Every word out of his mouth and the mouths of his supporters is a lie. FoxNews is a network of liars. They tell us that if we want the "correct information" we have to go to CNN, or Adam Schiff, or Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton. Or better still, if we want the truth we should look to the FBI, or other professional liars like former CIA spook, John Brennan.

It's absolutely nuts. The evidence shows that these people have lied to us over and over again, yet we are being directed to them for the "truth." And so the gaslighting of America continues. It is time to wake up and realize that we are in an abusive relationship with the Democrats, the Establishment, the Deep State and the media. We have every right to reject them and leave. The longer we allow the gaslighting to continue, the harder it will be to stop the abuse.

It Is Time To Raise The Age Of Majority To 21

The nation watched today as thousands of children marched on Washington to protest the Second Amendment. These children were mostly polite and eloquent in expressing their views that all guns should be banned. Since they are children, and since our schools have utterly failed to teach real history, very few understand why we have a Second Amendment. Here is a hint, it is not for hunting.

One of the appealing proposals they make, however, is raising the age to purchase a rifle to 21. The current age is 18, although one must be 21 to own a handgun. It occurred to me as I was watching these speeches that perhaps we really have reached a turning point in our nation. Our children do not mature nearly as soon as they did just two generations ago. Very few have a job, and most will live with their parents until they are 30. We do not encourage risk taking, and we reward only the most docile, compliant children in the class. Current high school students will not marry until they are 30 either, but they will almost all have had sex with multiple partners before they are 21. 

Most boys between 18 and 21 in our nation are not physically fit for military service. Even fewer know how to hunt, handle a firearm, handle a knife, fix an engine, stop a fight, plow a field, dance with a lady, or keep their opinions to themselves in front of their bosses. It makes little sense that we would allow the vast majority of these boys to purchase an AR-15, so I will support the age increase.

However, it is unfair to ask these children to give up their Constitutional right to own a firearm, but then require them to register for the draft and, potentially, fight and die for their country. If they are not responsible enough to own a gun, then it is deranged to treat them as mentally and emotionally mature enough to fight a war. They simply are not emotionally or mentally developed enough to be either effective or able to understand the sacrifices they are being asked to make.

Likewise, teenage drivers kill far more children per year than firearms. If a budding adult is incapable of handling a 7.8 pound rifle responsibly, I cannot see how, as a society, we should allow them to handle a three ton vehicle. If we really want to curb teen deaths, we must raise the driving age to 21. I do not trust this generation with an 8800 pound truck any more than I do with an AR-15. They are distracted by social media, music and friends, and not emotionally mature enough to understand the responsibility that comes along with driving such a potentially deadly weapon.

Along those same lines, I cannot understand why we would allow the current generations of children to marry before their 21st birthday. It requires enormous emotional maturity to responsibly handle marriage and, more importantly, children. Couples married under 25 are twice as likely to divorce, leaving behind broken homes with broken children. By allowing children to marry children we perpetuate this cycle of broken homes that, in some cases, result in more school shootings, drug users, and teenage drunk driving accidents.

National wealth and abundance has created a society in which we infantilize our children well into their 20s. As a result, they really probably are not capable of owning a gun, driving a car, serving in the military, or getting married. They cannot form the capacity to contract, for example, for a student loan.  Our current generations of children simply cannot be trusted to be emotionally mature until at least 30. It is our own fault as fawning parents, but that doesn't change the fact. As a result, I propose raising the age of majority to 21. 

Allied Generals Are Still Fighting The Last Cold War

While the Congress, and Democrats in particular, continue to assail Russia from the comfort of Mother America's bosom, Europe is facing an entirely new threat. Russia is already fighting a kinetic war on European soil using illegal weapons and pre-cold war tactics. The Russian attack on ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, using an illegal and highly toxic nerve agent, signifies to the world that Russia is not playing by the old rules. 

For those who need some background, Mr. Skripal worked as a British spy in Russia until he was discovered in 2004. He was jailed and later traded back to the U.K. as part of an old fashioned "spy swap," like you'd see in a Cold War movie. This Bridge of Spies kind of transfer of prisoners had been the norm between the Allies and Russia for more than 50 years. Spies of any value were rarely put on public trial, or even acknowledged as spies. They were either shot or debriefed and traded for something of equal value.

Mr. Skripal was serving as a spy more than a decade after the Berlin Wall fell. Russia and NATO were no longer sworn enemies, but rather cautious acquaintances, still deciding whether to be good neighbors. Vladimir Putin was not yet in power and America was still dealing with the effects of 9/11. 

Now, fourteen years later, Mr. Putin apparently decided to kill this irrelevant, 65 year old man and his daughter. Every Western intelligence agency reported yesterday that this was an attack, by Russia, on British soil, using a banned weapon. These agencies reported that the attack was almost certainly approved by Vladimir Putin, something he has only partially denied. This marks a new chapter in East-West relations, and the implications should be unnerving to everyone. 

First, the Russian government and its military simply do not fear significant retaliation. Like casting a blind eye to the chemical weapons attacks in Syria, Russia has once again shown that it does not consider any weapon to be too brutal to use. Russia could have used any weapon. Why not a gun? Why not kill him with an axe or a knife? Why did it have to be a nerve agent? It was to make a point. No law will restrict Russia from pursuing its own interests, using whatever means it deems necessary to effect that interest, and it will strike wherever and whenever it chooses.

It is difficult to imagine a more brazen approach. A chemical weapons attack on an American citizen in New York, for example, would almost certainly earn the perpetrator a twenty year war with the United States - that is, if it turned out that a Middle Eastern country were the perpetrator. Britain's response so far has been to expel 23 known Russian agents from the U.K. This tepid reaction shows one thing for certain, we are far more afraid of Russia than Russia is of the West.

Mr. Putin is testing the West's resolve again, just as he did in Georgia, Crimea and the Ukraine. This is yet another probing action, designed to illicit a measurable response that the former spy-master can then use to plan his next move. His next move may be to invade the rest of Ukraine, move into another Eastern European country, or sanction the use of chemical weapons to wipe out any further resistance in Syria. We just don't know, but we need to be on guard. 

We also know from this attack that Mr. Putin is not afraid to use kinetic, terrorist like force on a Western ally. Chemical weapons, like the nerve agent used in this attack, have been banned for almost a century. State actors using chemical weapons risk global condemnation as well as military retaliation. American military doctrine has been entirely focused on the "mass destruction" part of "weapons of mass destruction." Russia, however, has been focused almost exclusively on the limited use of these weapons. In a publication released two years ago, Russia announced its plans to use nuclear weapons in a "limited" capacity in the event of a war against NATO in Eastern Europe. NATO yawned, secure in the belief that no such war could ever really happen.

Of course, no war can really ever happen...until it does. Russia has demonstrated that it is not only willing to use weapons of mass destruction, but that it knows how to use them in a "limited" capacity - like an assassination. Meanwhile, NATO generals are still fighting the last war.

The United States and its allies have spent the last 25 years preparing for and fighting wars in the Middle East. Russia was an afterthought, as was China. Even when Russia invaded Soviet Georgia, the Bush administration, bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, chose to do nothing. When Russia annexed Crimea, the Obama administration belittled the invasion as "contrary to Russia's interests," as if we dictate to Russia what its interests are. When Russia invaded the Ukraine, again, nothing, notwithstanding that we had guaranteed the Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for its agreement to give up its nuclear arsenal. My guess is that they regret that decision now.

Western leaders, including NATO, have consistently underestimated Putin and Russia, disregarding them as "thugs," and "foolish." All the while, Putin has humiliated the West. Contrary to what our leadership may think, Russia is not a "regional power," with a small economy and a decaying military.

Russia has a land mass larger than all of Europe. It has a population greater than Germany and France combined. Its conventional military assets double those of NATO if you were to exclude the United States. Russia has strategic resources in oil, gas, coal and ore that exceed anything in the rest of Europe, and it has strategic alliances with our global rivals that provide it with anything it cannot make on its own. Russia has an enormous, albeit dormant, industrial base. Russia can grow its own food.

Most importantly, however, the Russian people are hardened. There is a reason Vladimir Putin is so popular in Russia. The average Russian enjoys far more wealth than a decade ago, which isn't saying much. But, as the EU debates how many refugees should be allowed to take advantage of state benefits, Russians have been singularly focused on rebuilding their nation. Scarcity is not now, nor has it ever been, a foreign concept to the average Russian. We think that Apple, Facebook and Google make us superior, but we had a similar misconception about Western industry leading up to both World Wars. We have a tendency in the West to overestimate our importance to the world and we have consistently underestimated the resolve of our adversaries. The next war may start in cyberspace, and Apple may give us an advantage but, like all wars, it will end on the ground with guns and men.

It is far too late to rely on deterrence. We have appeased Putin's Russia since the invasion of Georgia and, regardless, Putin's actions demonstrate an utter disregard for Western power. Hitler was not stopped at Munich and the result was conflagration. By the time he invaded Poland, the West had nothing left to threaten him with. The same is true of Russia. We need to prepare for war because it is coming, without regard to our deep desire to avoid it. And it will not be a cold war. It will not be the last war. It will not be the wars we've fought in the Middle East for the last seventeen years. It is a war that has already started, and a war that we are already losing.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. That warning holds true today. The blueprint for the next World War has been perfectly laid out as if it were 1914 or 1936. As horrifying as that may be, it also should serve as a warning to our adversaries. The United States has, since its inception, annihilated every great power it has fought. The birth of our nation marked the beginning of the end of the British Empire. Our entry in to World War I marked the end of the German monarchy. Our entry in to World War II marked the end of the Nazi juggernaut and imperial Japan. Our resurgence during the Regan administration marked the end of the Cold War. As Admiral Yamamoto lamented after Pearl Harbor: "I fear we have awoken a sleeping giant." It is a lasting warning to our enemies. We are slow to anger but, when provoked, we are an unstoppable force.

That said, the last two World Wars started because the great powers were overconfident and underestimated their adversaries. Who on Earth can say that history is not now repeating itself?

How To Stop School Shootings

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I am a fervent Second Amendment supporter and a gun owner. I believe that Americans should own guns, particularly AR-15 assault rifles, to protect themselves and their families from evil. I also believe that an armed society is a free society. 

We have yet another tragic school shooting. Once again, the FBI and local law enforcement knew this 19 year old was a threat and failed to take action to stop his rampage. This is yet another reason my wife and I carry firearms. The government WILL NOT PROTECT YOU.

The recriminations are the same. Liberals want to ban guns, conservatives want to do nothing. This is not a difficult problem to solve, notwithstanding the histrionic babble from both sides.

Children Are More Important Than Money

First, as I've said for years, we protect our money better than we protect our children. There is no excuse, none, for a 19 year old without any military training to be able to enter a school building with an AR-15 and kill 17 people. None. It. Should. Never. Happen. Schools are soft targets and have always been soft targets. Banks are not. Banks are hard to rob and, unlike 50 years ago, you don't hear much about bank robberies anymore do you...

That's because banks protect something our government really cares about on a bi-partisan basis - money. They are hardened. They have vaults, guards, cameras, armed citizens, off duty police, bullet resistant countermeasures, and trained staff. 

Another place you don't see mass shootings? Airports. Yes, there is the occasional attack by highly trained Jihadis, who are quickly dispatched by an army of military personnel and policemen. Airports are hardened because we see the threat.

There is no reason our schools should not be hard targets. We will likely see a $1.4 Trillion dollar infrastructure bill passed by the Congress in the next six months. Let's spend that money on our children. Our schools should be fortresses. There should be armed, but polite and well trained guards at every entry point and soft spot of a school. The staff should receive routine military-based training and be required to show that they are competent to work together to repel an assault. There should be walking patrols around the school grounds and the ingress and egress points of a school should be bulletproof, locked and incapable of breach by any weapon lighter than an RPG. There should be hardened safe rooms on every floor and children should be taught to move to them as they do in the event of a fire or a tornado. School room doors should be nearly impenetrable. If someone wants to attack a school, there should be very few targets for him to kill.

No one should be allowed into a school without prior clearance. Cameras should be monitored by professionals using modern technology to quickly identify threats and then coordinate with armed security to neutralize that threat. These are our children. They are more important than dollar bills.

Does this sound extreme to you? Does this sound like a waste of money? Does this sound "impossible"?

I want you to think about this. One or two teenagers with handguns and rifles can kill dozens of children in less than ten minutes. Imagine what ten well trained Jihadis with fully automatic assault rifles and grenades could do in a few hours. It is time to end this willful ignorance before hundreds, maybe a thousand of our children are slaughtered like sheep in a bloody terrorist attack. Every day we show how weakly we protect our most precious citizens, the more likely it is they will be violently attacked. Next time it may not be a crazed teenager.

Realistic Expanded Background Checks

Use the phrase "gun control" and you will accomplish nothing. You are part of the problem and not the solution. "Gun control" is a trigger for conservatives because historically "gun control" has always meant "gun confiscation." You will not solve this problem, politically or practically, by calling for "gun control."

However, there are many people who should not have guns. The mentally ill teen who posts menacing social media messages about being a professional school shooter, for example, probably should not have a gun. I am willing to make it harder for law abiding Americans to have access to the most destructive weapons, so long as liberals agree to give up this fantasy that the elimination of guns solves gun violence.

We should have a three tiered system for gun ownership. It should be federalized, national, and the states should no longer have any role in the process. 

Tier one: Revolvers, bolt action and lever action rifles, single shot rifles, and pump action shotguns. If you want to own one of these, you pass the current federal background check process.

Tier two: semi-automatic handguns, rifles and shotguns. You pass an enhanced background check system that includes a review of your social media posts, your mental health records, and of course your criminal background. If there is an issue, you submit to a telephone or in person interview with someone in the BATFE, FBI or DHS. However, once you pass this background check, you get a license that lasts five years. The license allows you to purchase as many such weapons as you want, and you may carry those weapons nearly anywhere in the United States without a separate "concealed carry" permit. 

Tier three:  Fully automatic weapons. You should pass a rigorous background check that includes a personal interview, review of social media postings for a period of ten years and an in home visit by law enforcement. You must be able to pass a character and fitness exam similar to what you have to do to become a lawyer. You then get a five year license and can purchase some limited number of weapons.

Weapons should no longer be transferable outside of this process. However, these licenses are automatically renewable upon paper application and the burden is on the government to show cause why your license should not be renewed.

If you lie during any part of the background check process, you spend ten years in jail. If you are denied a license, or if your license is delayed by longer than 90 days, you may appeal to a federal court to require the government to show cause why you should be denied the license. If you win, you should be awarded no less than $50,000.00 and your attorney's fees for having to go through the trouble of vindicating your rights. Moreover, whether the license is denied or approved, the BATFE, FBI or DHS official making the decision must identify his or herself on the application and can be held personally liable for that decision.

Yes, there is potential for abuse, particularly among liberal bureaucrats who think no one should own guns. One can imagine the Obama Administration giving unconstitutional orders to deny all applications. To mitigate this risk, the law should have a ten year sunset clause. If there is abuse, the NRA, along with the enormous number of highly motivated gun owners can vote them out and dismantle the process. It should automatically expire, not automatically renew.

Guns are not going away. Evil is not going away. The natural, unalienable right to protect yourself and your family is not going away. My guns are not going away, and you are not going to take them from me. So, why don't we all stop living in fantasy land and get real about protecting ourselves and our children.