• strict warning: Non-static method view::load_views() should not be called statically in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 864.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::db_objects() should not be called statically in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/includes/view.inc on line 1417.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 744.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 607.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 607.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_node_status::operator_form() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::operator_form(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/modules/node/views_handler_filter_node_status.inc on line 13.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_style_default::options() should be compatible with views_object::options() in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_style_default.inc on line 24.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_validate() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_validate(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_row.inc on line 134.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_submit() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_submit(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_row.inc on line 134.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:a177d87e8695f88924e15032085c81eb' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = '<p>DEMOCRATS: November 29, 2019</p>\n<p><img alt=\"\" src=\"http://conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Harsanyi.gif\" /></p>\n<p>Impeachment is a political process. No sentient being, after all, believes that Adam Schiff or Nancy Pelosi are good-faith guardians of constitutional order. And judging the process strictly on political grounds, it hasn&rsquo;t been a success for Democrats.</p>\n<p> FOR ONE thing, impeachment, if it happens, will effectively end up being a partisan censure of the president. Democrats haven&rsquo;t gotten any closer to convincing a single Senate Republican to remove the president. Certainly not Mitch McConnell, who says there will be a quick trial. Not even Mitt Romney, who, at this point, is aptly troubled but uncommitted.<br />\n It&rsquo;s highly probable that a Senate trial run by Republicans, with new witnesses and evidence, would further corrode the Democrats&rsquo; case. Liberals, of course, will pretend that Senate Republicans are members of a reactionary Trump cult, putting party above country, but if there had been incontrovertible proof of &ldquo;bribery,&rdquo; a number of them would be compelled to act differently. No such evidence was provided. Adding an obstruction article, based on the Mueller Report, would only make the proceedings even more intractably partisan. Yet, the recent push to force Don McGahn to testify suggests Democrats could be headed in that direction.<br />\n In any case, what we can look forward to in a Senate trial is more Ukrainian drama. Far from weakening Trump in 2020, the story might end up dragging Joe Biden into a defensive posture. Journalists perfunctorily refer to anything related to Ukrainians or the Bidens as a &ldquo;conspiracy theory,&rdquo; but it&rsquo;s clear that Hunter Biden was cashing in on his father&rsquo;s influence, and it&rsquo;s still unclear what Joe Biden did about it. Republicans have already requested transcripts of conversations between Biden and then-Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko over the vice president&rsquo;s requests to fire Viktor Shokin. It&rsquo;s going to become a difficult story to ignore.<br />\n So what is the upside? At first, Democrats claimed that polls were irrelevant because impeachment was a moral and patriotic imperative. Once national support spiked, numbers suddenly mattered very much, and the usual suspects couldn&rsquo;t stop talking about them. What most polls now confirm is that while Americans were paying attention to the breathless media coverage, public support for the inquiry is at best stagnant and probably declining.<br />\n The FiveThirtyEight average for support among independents topped out at 47.7% in late October. It sank to 41% during the hearings. Last week&rsquo;s Politico/Morning Consult poll found that voter opposition to the impeachment inquiry is at its highest point since it started asking the question: &ldquo;Today, 47 percent of independents oppose the impeachment inquiry, compared to 37 percent who said the same one week ago.&rdquo; Put another way, more people &mdash; not just independents, but everyone &mdash; viewed the construction of Trump&rsquo;s wall on the Mexican border as a higher priority than impeaching Trump.<br />\n Even the best poll for impeachers, one conducted by CNN, saw no change during the dramatic hearings. The Morning Consult poll &ldquo;didn&rsquo;t do much to move the needle,&rdquo; and still finds support below where it was before the hearings. Will support for impeachment miraculously surge upward in places such as Wisconsin as the election approaches? It seems unlikely.</p>\n<p> IN A deep dive into recent polls for Vanity Fair, Ken Stern summarizes the perspective of independents: &ldquo;Impeachment reflects the agenda of the political establishment and the media,&rdquo; and represents &ldquo;a continuation of the partisan bickering and media excess that began even before his inauguration.&rdquo;<br />\n Democrats and the media have covered every development of the many investigations into Trump, tending into histrionics. That has, in many ways, obscured legitimate criticism of the president. By constantly overpromising and underdelivering, Democrats have guaranteed not only skepticism but apathy from voters outside their own tribe.<br />\n Take Schiff, who once claimed to be privy to hard evidence &mdash; which never materialized &mdash; of a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Russian government. In his closing statement in the impeachment hearings, he argued that Trump&rsquo;s actions toward Ukraine go &ldquo;beyond anything Nixon did.&rdquo; At first Democrats set out to prove a quid pro quo charge, which has since been revised to &ldquo;bribery.&rdquo; The rationale was that it was a criminal concept that Americans could more easily grasp. Indeed, most people understand what constitutes &ldquo;bribery,&rdquo; but Schiff couldn&rsquo;t provide the evidence for it. Instead, he offered a slew of witnesses that depicted a self-serving, volatile and impulsive Trump.<br />\n None of that is a surprise to anyone who&rsquo;s ever heard the president speak.<br />\n If lame-duck Republicans such as Will Hurd, who hasn&rsquo;t been afraid to be critical of the president, saw no &ldquo;compelling, overwhelmingly clear, and unambiguous&rdquo; evidence of &ldquo;bribery or extortion,&rdquo; who are you convincing exactly? To be sure, Hurd may change his mind. It&rsquo;s also possible that vulnerable Democrats will change theirs first. Yesterday, representative Brenda Lawrence, D-Mich., said she favored censuring, not impeaching, Trump: &ldquo;We are so close to an election. I will tell you, sitting here knowing how divided this country is, I don&rsquo;t see the value of taking him out of office.&rdquo;<br />\n Today, she backpedaled. But she may have stumbled onto a solution. If Democrats back out of impeachment, they will be scorned by the base as a bunch of simpering cowards. But the anger of the resistance fighter can never be satiated anyway. With censure, Democrats would be able to continue to condemn Trump without putting their vulnerable members in danger.</p>\n<p> HERE IS a pertinent question someone might want to poll: &ldquo;Based on everything you have seen, read, or heard about the allegations against President Trump and Ukraine, which of the following is the best way for Democrats to proceed? 1) Impeach. 2) Censure. 3) Nothing.&rdquo; I suspect there&rsquo;s a good chance Lawrence&rsquo;s position would be the most popular.</p>\n', created = 1575616777, expire = 1575703177, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:a177d87e8695f88924e15032085c81eb' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:2cab3abee87485f2bbf9af623e298612' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = '<p>ENVIRONMENTALISTS: September 27, 2019</p>\n<p><img alt=\"\" src=\"http://conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Harsanyi.gif\" style=\"width: 300px; height: 116px;\" /></p>\n<p>Sixteen-year-old Swedish climate change activist Greta Thunberg lives in the healthiest, wealthiest, safest and most peaceful era humans have ever known. She is one of the luckiest people ever to have lived.</p>\n<p> IN A JUST world, Thunberg would be at the United Nations thanking capitalist countries for bequeathing her this remarkable inheritance. Instead, she, like millions of other indoctrinated kids her age, act as if they live in a uniquely broken world on the precipice of disaster. This is a tragedy.<br />\n &ldquo;You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words,&rdquo; Thunberg lectured the world. And maybe she&rsquo;s right. We&rsquo;ve failed her by raising a generation of pagans who&rsquo;ve filled the vacuum left by the absence of faith, not with rationality, but with a cultish worship of Mother Earth and the state. Although, to be fair, the Bible-thumping evangelical&rsquo;s moral certitude is nothing but a rickety edifice compared to the moral conviction of a Greta Thunberg.<br />\n It&rsquo;s not, of course, her fault. Adults have spent a year creating a 16-year-old because her soundbites comport with their belief system. It was &ldquo;something about her raw honesty around a message of blunt-force fear (that) turned this girl from invisible to global,&rdquo; says CNN in a news report about a child with a narrow, age-appropriate grasp of the world.<br />\n It should be noted that &ldquo;blunt-force fear&rdquo; is indeed the correct way to describe the concerted misinformation that Thunberg has likely been subjected to since nursery school. There probably isn&rsquo;t a public school in America that hasn&rsquo;t plied the panic-stricken talk of environmental disaster in their auditoriums over and over again. New York City and other school systems offer millions of kids an excused absence so they could participate in political climate marches this week, as if it were a religious or patriotic holiday.<br />\n We&rsquo;ve finally convinced a generation of Americans to be Malthusians. According to Scott Rasmussen&rsquo;s polling, nearly 30% of voters now claim to believe that it&rsquo;s &ldquo;at least somewhat likely&rdquo; that the earth will become uninhabitable and humanity will be wiped out over the next 10-15 years. Half of voters under 35 believe it is likely we are on the edge of extinction. Is there any wonder why our youngest generation has a foreboding sense of doom?<br />\n It&rsquo;s the fault of ideologues who obsess over every weather event as if it were Armageddon, ignoring the massive moral upside of carbon-fueled modernity. It&rsquo;s the fault of the politicians, too cowardly to tell voters that their utopian vision of a world run on solar panels and windmills is fairy tale.<br />\n It&rsquo;s the fault of media that constantly ignores overwhelming evidence that, on balance, climate change isn&rsquo;t undermining human flourishing. By nearly every quantifiable measure, in fact, we are better off because of fossil fuels. Though there is no way to measure the human spirit, I&rsquo;m afraid.<br />\n Thunberg might do well to sail her stern gaze and billowing anger to India or China and wag her finger at the billions of people who no longer want to live in poverty and destitution. Because if climate change is irreversible in the next 10-12 years, as cultists claim, it can be blamed in large part on the historic growth we&rsquo;ve seen in developing nations.</p>\n<p> CHINA&rsquo;S EMISSIONS from aviation and maritime trade alone are twice that of the United States, and more than the entire emissions of most nations in the world. But, sure, let&rsquo;s ban straws as an act of contrition.<br />\n Boomers, of course, have failed on plenty of fronts, but the idea that an entire generation of Americans should have chosen poverty over prosperity to placate the vacuous complaints of privileged future teenagers is absurd. No generation would do it. Until recently, no advanced nation has embraced Luddism. Although these days, Democrats who advocate for bans on fossil fuels and carbon-mitigating technologies such as fracking and nuclear energy are working on it.<br />\n Climate activists could learn something from Thunberg&rsquo;s honesty, though. She argues that &ldquo;money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth&rdquo; have to come to an end. The emission cuts that environmentalists insist are needed to save the earth would mean economic devastation and the end of hundreds of years of economic growth. This is a tradeoff progressives pretend doesn&rsquo;t exist.<br />\n And Thunberg&rsquo;s dream for the future means technocratic regimes will have to displace capitalistic societies. We can see this future in the radical environmentalist plans of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez&rsquo;s Green New Deal, one supported by leading Democratic Party candidates. It&rsquo;s authoritarianism. There is no other way to describe a regulatory regime that dictates exactly what Americans can consume, sell, drive, eat and work on.</p>\n<p> ONE IMAGINES that most Americans, through their actions, will continue to reject these regressive ideas. One reason they should is so that Greta Thunberg&rsquo;s generation won&rsquo;t have to suffer needlessly.</p>\n', created = 1575616777, expire = 1575703177, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:2cab3abee87485f2bbf9af623e298612' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:95a8a5b01e3ab97f31847cea27bd3f11' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = '<p>This week&#39;s Conservative Focus . . . Brett Kavanaugh</p>\n<p><img alt=\"\" src=\"http://conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Harsanyi.gif\" style=\"width: 300px; height: 116px;\" /></p>\n<p>In the end, the Democrats&rsquo; smearing of Brett Kavanaugh is about delegitimizing the Supreme Court &mdash; the only institution that will inhibit the progressive agenda no matter who wins elections.</p>\n<p> IN THE MIND of Democrats, conservative justices aren&rsquo;t merely wrong; they&rsquo;re nefarious, racist and extremist. So it&rsquo;s not surprising that virtually any smear against Kavanaugh is rationalized. In this world, the accused, rather than the accuser, bears the &ldquo;burden of proof.&rdquo; In this world, hucksters like Michael Avenatti are turned into experts, and major news outlets will eagerly repeat and spread slander as news.<br />\n Which is what happened last week when the New York Times ran an excerpt from a new book, &ldquo;The Education of Brett Kavanaugh,&rdquo; in which reporters Robin Pogebrin and Kate Kelly not only rehashed allegations against Kavanaugh, but claimed that he&rsquo;d been in another drunken incident in his college days.<br />\n As it turned out, the reporters had somehow failed to mention that the alleged victim had declined to be interviewed because she didn&rsquo;t recall the incident. Whether dispositive or not, it seems like a noteworthy detail to skip in an excerpt accusing a Supreme Court justice of inappropriate sexual conduct.<br />\n In any event, the Times, caught in a blatantly unprofessional act, was forced to add an editor&rsquo;s note that debunked the most newsworthy aspect of their own article. It was just another in an interminable series of &ldquo;mistakes&rdquo; by supposedly nonpartisan journalists that happen to skew in the same exact partisan direction while creating the same useful perceptions.<br />\n Headlines about &ldquo;new allegations&rdquo; were blasted across the media landscape &mdash; even after the correction. The important thing to them is that journalists can keep framing Kavanaugh as a problematic justice and Democrats can keep using the word &ldquo;illegitimate&rdquo; to describe his seat.<br />\n Although Kavanaugh was nominated and confirmed in the same constitutionally sound manner that every Supreme Court justice in history had been nominated and confirmed, Democratic presidential hopefuls are calling for Kavanaugh&rsquo;s impeachment. Sen. Kamala Harris, who not long ago put unsubstantiated gang rape charges against Kavanaugh in the congressional record, claims he underwent &ldquo;a sham process and his place on the Court is an insult to the pursuit of truth and justice.&rdquo;<br />\n Jeffrey Toobin, CNN&rsquo;s &ldquo;Chief Legal Analyst,&rdquo; noted that &ldquo;40 percent of the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have been credibly accused of sexual misconduct.&rdquo; This is the point of the whole enterprise, right? The implication is, &ldquo;Why would any American respect the court&rsquo;s rulings when it&rsquo;s packed with sexual abusers?&rdquo;</p>\n<p> NOW, I HATE to break the news to Toobin, but notwithstanding the hagiography created by the cultural and political left, the notion that Anita Hill was a &ldquo;credible&rdquo; accuser is, to say the least, highly debatable. To this day, not a single person &mdash; and Clarence Thomas had scores of subordinates working for him during his years in government, before and after his confirmation &mdash; came forward to substantiate that the judge had ever acted in the ways Hill described.<br />\n On the other hand, 12 former female colleagues of both Thomas and Hill signed an affidavit supporting him. Not one person who worked with both came forward to vouch for Hill. And, as with Christine Blasey Ford, the FBI investigated Hill&rsquo;s claims and couldn&rsquo;t find any evidence to back her accusation. After the hearings, agents sent additional affidavits to the Senate accusing Hill of misleading the public by skipping important portions of her story and offering public testimony that contradicted what she had told law enforcement officials.<br />\n Yet, in the liberal imagination, Thomas is guilty, the same way Kavanaugh will be forever considered guilty, although none of Ford&rsquo;s contentions have been corroborated or substantiated. Not a single person at the mysterious party where Kavanaugh supposedly forced himself on her have come forward. Not even her lifelong friend, Leland Keyser, who was pressured by friends and political forces to accuse Kavanaugh, remembers any such incident.<br />\n &ldquo;It just didn&rsquo;t make any sense,&rdquo; Keyser told the New York Times reporters about Ford&rsquo;s allegations. &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t have any confidence in the story,&rdquo; she added.<br />\n Deborah Ramirez, another accuser, hadn&rsquo;t even been able to recall supposedly swatting away Kavanaugh&rsquo;s penis at college party until New Yorker reporters asked her about it &mdash; well, after &ldquo;carefully assessing her memories&rdquo; and landing on the correct answer. Now the Times reports that other third parties &mdash; Ramirez&rsquo;s mother, for instance &mdash; remember hearing about the incident, as well.</p>\n<p> I ASSUME many more people will have miraculous recall as we move forward. What there won&rsquo;t be are any consequences for journalistic malpractice. And Democrats, who have no interest in living with the constraints of the Constitution, probably see little downside in destroying trust in the courts even as they weaponize a serious issue for partisan gain.</p>\n<p> September 20, 2019</p>\n', created = 1575616777, expire = 1575703177, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:95a8a5b01e3ab97f31847cea27bd3f11' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:6cc415d3ccc29bf4a9c8084e662e5654' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = '<p>BRETT KAVANAUGH: September 20, 2019</p>\n<p><img alt=\"\" src=\"http://conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Harsanyi.gif\" /></p>\n<p>In the end, the Democrats&rsquo; smearing of Brett Kavanaugh is about delegitimizing the Supreme Court &mdash; the only institution that will inhibit the progressive agenda no matter who wins elections.</p>\n<p> IN THE MIND of Democrats, conservative justices aren&rsquo;t merely wrong; they&rsquo;re nefarious, racist and extremist. So it&rsquo;s not surprising that virtually any smear against Kavanaugh is rationalized. In this world, the accused, rather than the accuser, bears the &ldquo;burden of proof.&rdquo; In this world, hucksters like Michael Avenatti are turned into experts, and major news outlets will eagerly repeat and spread slander as news.<br />\n Which is what happened last week when the New York Times ran an excerpt from a new book, &ldquo;The Education of Brett Kavanaugh,&rdquo; in which reporters Robin Pogebrin and Kate Kelly not only rehashed allegations against Kavanaugh, but claimed that he&rsquo;d been in another drunken incident in his college days.<br />\n As it turned out, the reporters had somehow failed to mention that the alleged victim had declined to be interviewed because she didn&rsquo;t recall the incident. Whether dispositive or not, it seems like a noteworthy detail to skip in an excerpt accusing a Supreme Court justice of inappropriate sexual conduct.<br />\n In any event, the Times, caught in a blatantly unprofessional act, was forced to add an editor&rsquo;s note that debunked the most newsworthy aspect of their own article. It was just another in an interminable series of &ldquo;mistakes&rdquo; by supposedly nonpartisan journalists that happen to skew in the same exact partisan direction while creating the same useful perceptions.<br />\n Headlines about &ldquo;new allegations&rdquo; were blasted across the media landscape &mdash; even after the correction. The important thing to them is that journalists can keep framing Kavanaugh as a problematic justice and Democrats can keep using the word &ldquo;illegitimate&rdquo; to describe his seat.<br />\n Although Kavanaugh was nominated and confirmed in the same constitutionally sound manner that every Supreme Court justice in history had been nominated and confirmed, Democratic presidential hopefuls are calling for Kavanaugh&rsquo;s impeachment. Sen. Kamala Harris, who not long ago put unsubstantiated gang rape charges against Kavanaugh in the congressional record, claims he underwent &ldquo;a sham process and his place on the Court is an insult to the pursuit of truth and justice.&rdquo;<br />\n Jeffrey Toobin, CNN&rsquo;s &ldquo;Chief Legal Analyst,&rdquo; noted that &ldquo;40 percent of the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have been credibly accused of sexual misconduct.&rdquo; This is the point of the whole enterprise, right? The implication is, &ldquo;Why would any American respect the court&rsquo;s rulings when it&rsquo;s packed with sexual abusers?&rdquo;</p>\n<p> NOW, I HATE to break the news to Toobin, but notwithstanding the hagiography created by the cultural and political left, the notion that Anita Hill was a &ldquo;credible&rdquo; accuser is, to say the least, highly debatable. To this day, not a single person &mdash; and Clarence Thomas had scores of subordinates working for him during his years in government, before and after his confirmation &mdash; came forward to substantiate that the judge had ever acted in the ways Hill described.<br />\n &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; On the other hand, 12 former female colleagues of both Thomas and Hill signed an affidavit supporting him. Not one person who worked with both came forward to vouch for Hill. And, as with Christine Blasey Ford, the FBI investigated Hill&rsquo;s claims and couldn&rsquo;t find any evidence to back her accusation. After the hearings, agents sent additional affidavits to the Senate accusing Hill of misleading the public by skipping important portions of her story and offering public testimony that contradicted what she had told law enforcement officials.<br />\n Yet, in the liberal imagination, Thomas is guilty, the same way Kavanaugh will be forever considered guilty, although none of Ford&rsquo;s contentions have been corroborated or substantiated. Not a single person at the mysterious party where Kavanaugh supposedly forced himself on her have come forward. Not even her lifelong friend, Leland Keyser, who was pressured by friends and political forces to accuse Kavanaugh, remembers any such incident.<br />\n &ldquo;It just didn&rsquo;t make any sense,&rdquo; Keyser told the New York Times reporters about Ford&rsquo;s allegations. &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t have any confidence in the story,&rdquo; she added.<br />\n Deborah Ramirez, another accuser, hadn&rsquo;t even been able to recall supposedly swatting away Kavanaugh&rsquo;s penis at college party until New Yorker reporters asked her about it &mdash; well, after &ldquo;carefully assessing her memories&rdquo; and landing on the correct answer. Now the Times reports that other third parties &mdash; Ramirez&rsquo;s mother, for instance &mdash; remember hearing about the incident, as well.</p>\n<p> I ASSUME many more people will have miraculous recall as we move forward. What there won&rsquo;t be are any consequences for journalistic malpractice. And Democrats, who have no interest in living with the constraints of the Constitution, probably see little downside in destroying trust in the courts even as they weaponize a serious issue for partisan gain.</p>\n', created = 1575616777, expire = 1575703177, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:6cc415d3ccc29bf4a9c8084e662e5654' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:ac6ffca204e98379358118b06d98ccb9' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = '<p>SECOND AMENDMENT: September 6, 2019</p>\n<p><img alt=\"\" src=\"http://conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Harsanyi.gif\" style=\"width: 300px; height: 116px;\" /></p>\n<p>One wishes the media would stop using absurdly lazy phrases like &ldquo;mandatory gun buybacks.&rdquo; Unless the politician they&rsquo;re talking about is in the business of selling firearms, it&rsquo;s impossible for him to &ldquo;buy back&rdquo; anything. No government official &mdash; not Joe Biden, not Beto O&rsquo;Rourke, not any of the candidates who now support &ldquo;buyback&rdquo; programs &mdash; has ever sold firearms.</p>\n<p> WHAT DEMOCRATS propose can be more accurately described as &ldquo;the first American gun confiscation effort since Lexington and Concord,&rdquo; or some variation on that theme. Although tax dollars will be meted out in an effort to incentivize volunteers, the policy is to confiscate AR-15s, the vast majority of which have been legally purchased by Americans who have undergone background checks and never used a gun for a criminal purpose.<br />\n The &ldquo;mandatory gun buyback&rdquo; exemplifies the impracticality and absurdity of do-somethingism. Democrats want to turn millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight for refusing to adhere to a law that retroactively transforms the exercise of a constitutional right into a crime.<br />\n And they do it without any evidence that it would curtail rare mass shootings or save lives.<br />\n While national confiscation would be unprecedented in American history, we already possess hard evidence that bans of assault rifles don&rsquo;t alter gun violence trends. Gun homicides continued to drop steeply after an &ldquo;assault weapons&rdquo; ban expired in 2004.<br />\n It&rsquo;s also worth noting that in 2017, the last year of available FBI data, there was a near-historic low of 7,032 murders with handguns, and 403 by &ldquo;rifles&rdquo; of any kind, not only &ldquo;assault weapons.&rdquo; To put that in perspective, there were 1,591 knife homicides during that same span, 467 people killed with blunt objects, and another 696 with fists and kicking.<br />\n Although a number of Democrats now unequivocally support a &ldquo;buyback,&rdquo; no one has explained how the procedure will unfurl. What will the penalty be for ignoring the &ldquo;buybacks&rdquo;? Fines? Prison terms? Will local police be tasked with opening case files on the 100 million homes of suspected gun owners who are armed with hundreds of millions of firearms, or will it be the FBI?<br />\n Maybe Democrats will propose &ldquo;paying back&rdquo; family members and neighbors who snitch on gun owners? How else will they figure out who owns these AR-15s? There is no national tracking of sales.<br />\n Then again, many Democrats support &ldquo;universal background checks,&rdquo; which would necessitate a national database. So subsequent confiscations would be far easier, I suppose. (I can remember a time not very long ago when liberals accused a person of being a tin-foil-hatted nutter for merely suggesting that anyone had designs on their guns.)<br />\n It&rsquo;s unclear to me if every candidate supports mandatory buybacks. Imprecision, after all, is the hallmark of gun control rhetoric. Of course a noncoercive &ldquo;buyback&rdquo; program wouldn&rsquo;t work either because no patriotic American is going to sell his firearms under market value. If you pay gun owners more than market value, they will surely turn a profit and purchase new weapons.<br />\n The criminal class and deranged would-be mass shooters have absolutely no incentive to participate, anyway. But you knew that.</p>\n<p> THEN THERE is the little matter of constitutionality. I&rsquo;ve noticed an uptick in gun grabbers &mdash; a phrase that&rsquo;s no longer hyperbole &mdash; arguing that Americans don&rsquo;t need AR-15s to hunt, as if it mattered.<br />\n Although ARs are used by hunters, I&rsquo;m certain nothing in the Second Amendment mentions hunting, because the right of self-defense &mdash; an individual concern, as well as a collective one &mdash; has nothing to do with shooting deer and everything to do with protecting Americans from those who endeavor to strip them of their inalienable rights.<br />\n The District of Columbia v. Heller decision found that the Second Amendment protected weapons &ldquo;in common use by law-abiding citizens.&rdquo; The AR-15 clearly meets both criteria. It&rsquo;s one of the most popular guns in America. Its semi-automatic mechanism is the same mechanism found in a majority of other legal firearms in the nation.<br />\n The arguments for a ban on &ldquo;assault weapons&rdquo; &mdash; a purposefully elastic phrase that allows the liberal legislator&rsquo;s imagination to run wild &mdash; is centered on aesthetics, on the false claim that the AR is a &ldquo;weapon of war,&rdquo; and on the firearm tastes of a handful of deranged, sociopathic murderers.<br />\n Democrats and their allies like to mock these sorts of arguments as nothing more than semantics; mostly because they need to conflate and euphemize terms to make their arguments work. It&rsquo;s how they generate favorable polling. I&rsquo;m sure you&rsquo;ve heard about the popularity of gun-control measures. But like &ldquo;Medicare for All,&rdquo; and other vaguely positive sounding policies, once voters learn what specifics entail, those numbers tend to settle along the usual partisan lines.</p>\n<p> IF YOU THINK you&rsquo;re going to have overwhelming support for &ldquo;mandatory gun buybacks&rdquo; when people learn that you&rsquo;re really talking about &ldquo;the confiscation of 20 million guns,&rdquo; you&rsquo;re fooling yourself.</p>\n', created = 1575616777, expire = 1575703177, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:ac6ffca204e98379358118b06d98ccb9' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:a20fca70af3bb1ccf9dc5a65e3ed453f' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = '<p>This week&#39;s conservative focus . . . The Left</p>\n<p><img alt=\"\" src=\"http://conservativechronicle.com/sites/default/files/Harsanyi.gif\" style=\"width: 300px; height: 116px;\" /></p>\n<p>&ldquo;In the late summer of 2009, as the recession-ravaged economy bled half a million jobs a month, the country seemed to lose its mind,&rdquo; The New York Times says, kicking off its 10th anniversary retrospective of the tea party movement. As you can imagine, the rest of the article continues in this vein, portraying conservatives who organized against Obamacare as a bunch of vulgar radicals.</p>\n<p> YET EVEN this kind revisionism wasn&rsquo;t enough for most contemporary leftists, who see everything through the prism of race.<br />\n &ldquo;A fundamental flaw in this analysis is there is no mention of race and how much racism drove the Tea Party movement,&rdquo; ABC&rsquo;s Matthew Dowd claimed. &ldquo;You can&rsquo;t talk about the rage politics and leave out race.&rdquo;<br />\n &nbsp;&ldquo;How do you write a 10 years later piece on the Tea Party and not mention &mdash; not once, not even in passing &mdash; the fact that it was essentially a hysterical grassroots tantrum about the fact that a black guy was president?&rdquo; asked non-biased Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery, calling it journalistic &ldquo;malpractice.&rdquo;<br />\n Well, you get the idea.<br />\n In the first draft of this column, I joked that the New York Times might add a line about tea party &ldquo;racism&rdquo; before the day was over to placate the Twitter mob. They did it before I could even publish. But it doesn&rsquo;t change the fact that there&rsquo;s no evidence that a &ldquo;good deal&rdquo; &mdash; or any substantial deal, for that matter &mdash; of the tea party&rsquo;s popularity was propelled by racism.<br />\n For one thing, the wealthy white leader of Congress at the time was just as unpopular among tea partyers as the black president. And as we&rsquo;ve seen, had Hillary Clinton won the 2008 election, she would have generated no less anger among conservatives.<br />\n No, it was Barack Obama&rsquo;s leftist rhetoric and unprecedented unilateralism &mdash; he had, after all, promised &ldquo;fundamental change&rdquo; &mdash; that ignited what amounts to a renewed Reaganism, a fusing of idealistic constitutionalism and economic libertarianism.<br />\n Tea party protesters not only felt like they were under assault from Democrats but that they had been abandoned by the GOP establishment. If you really wanted to hear them &ldquo;rage,&rdquo; though, you could always bring up the Caucasian former Republican president, George W. Bush, who had &ldquo;abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.&rdquo;<br />\n As with any spontaneous political movement, some bad actors glommed onto protests. The New York Times article, for instance, informs us that &ldquo;one demonstrator at a rally in Maryland hanged a member of Congress in effigy&rdquo; and that a &ldquo;popular bumper sticker was &lsquo;Honk If I&rsquo;m Paying Your Mortgage&rsquo;&rdquo; &mdash; as if we&rsquo;re supposed to be offended by the latter.</p>\n<p> LEFT-WING protesters, no matter how puerile, hateful or bigoted, are typically depicted as righteous agents of change. Conservatives and libertarians, on the other hand, &ldquo;rage.&rdquo; The &ldquo;summer of rage&rdquo; typically refers to the riots that swept a number of American cities in 1967. The tea party protests never turned violent. There were no riots. No broken Starbucks windows. It was the most peaceful &ldquo;rage&rdquo; you&rsquo;re ever going to see.<br />\n A CBS/New York Times poll at time, in fact, found that the average tea party activist was more educated than the average American, and their concerns mirrored the mainstream. Although a majority was more socially conservative than the average voter &mdash; particularly on abortion &mdash; 8 in 10 of them wanted their burgeoning movement to focus on economic issues rather than social ones.<br />\n Hardly the anarchists depicted in the media, a majority of tea partyers wanted to reduce the size of government rather than focus on cutting budget deficits or even lowering taxes, the poll found. A majority, in fact, believed that Social Security and Medicare were worthy taxpayer burdens.<br />\n Not even clamping down on illegal immigration, often the impetus for charges of racism these days, was a big topic among these activists.<br />\n The tea party had three main grievances: Obamacare, government spending and &ldquo;a feeling that their opinions are not represented in Washington.&rdquo; The protests were fueled by Democrats&rsquo; unprecedented action on a health care policy. A decade later, the tea party&rsquo;s suspicion that the health care law was merely an incremental way to move toward socialist policies turned out to be correct, as most of the Democratic Party presidential field can attest.<br />\n One thing is true, though: The majority of tea partiers were white. You know what that means, right? And as those of us who covered the Obama administration remember, no matter how historically detailed or ideologically anchored your position might be, the very act of opposing a black president was going to be depicted as act of bigotry.</p>\n<p> THIS CHEAP and destructive rhetoric now dominates virtually every contemporary debate, most of which have absolutely nothing, even tangentially, to do with race. It&rsquo;s a kind of rhetoric, in fact, that retroactively dominates our debates, as well.</p>\n<p>&nbsp;</p>\n<p>August 30, 2019</p>\n', created = 1575616777, expire = 1575703177, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:a20fca70af3bb1ccf9dc5a65e3ed453f' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:1cd77f7184da2bafaa6a089469bc2384' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = '<div id=\"fb-root\"></div>\n<script>(function(d, s, id) {\n var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];\n if (d.getElementById(id)) return;\n js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;\n js.src = \"//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=452921018151594\";\n fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);\n}(document, \'script\', \'facebook-jssdk\'));</script><div class=\"fb-like-box\" data-href=\"http://www.facebook.com/conservativechronicle\" data-width=\"275\" data-colorscheme=\"light\" data-show-faces=\"true\" data-header=\"true\" data-stream=\"false\" data-show-border=\"true\"></div>\n', created = 1575616777, expire = 1575703177, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:1cd77f7184da2bafaa6a089469bc2384' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 112.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/conserva/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • user warning: Table './conserva_drupal/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '5:26776aa5ca60f6f8eb4e7f92178ff26e' in /home/conserva/public_html/includes/cache.inc on line 27.

David Harsanyi

12/01/2019 - 8:23pm
DEMOCRATS: November 29, 2019 Impeachment is a political process. No sentient being, after all, believes that Adam Schiff or Nancy Pelosi are good-faith guardians of constitutional order. And judging the process strictly on political grounds, it hasn’t been a success for Democrats. FOR ONE thing, impeachment, if it happens, will effectively end up being a partisan censure of the president...
10/01/2019 - 10:01pm
ENVIRONMENTALISTS: September 27, 2019 Sixteen-year-old Swedish climate change activist Greta Thunberg lives in the healthiest, wealthiest, safest and most peaceful era humans have ever known. She is one of the luckiest people ever to have lived. IN A JUST world, Thunberg would be at the United Nations thanking capitalist countries for...
09/25/2019 - 12:17pm
This week's Conservative Focus . . . Brett Kavanaugh In the end, the Democrats’ smearing of Brett Kavanaugh is about delegitimizing the Supreme Court — the only institution that will inhibit the progressive agenda no matter who wins elections. IN THE MIND of Democrats, conservative justices aren’t merely wrong; they’...
09/24/2019 - 9:46pm
BRETT KAVANAUGH: September 20, 2019 In the end, the Democrats’ smearing of Brett Kavanaugh is about delegitimizing the Supreme Court — the only institution that will inhibit the progressive agenda no matter who wins elections. IN THE MIND of Democrats, conservative justices aren’t merely wrong; they’re nefarious, racist...
09/08/2019 - 8:23pm
SECOND AMENDMENT: September 6, 2019 One wishes the media would stop using absurdly lazy phrases like “mandatory gun buybacks.” Unless the politician they’re talking about is in the business of selling firearms, it’s impossible for him to “buy back” anything. No government official — not Joe Biden, not...
09/04/2019 - 1:08pm
This week's conservative focus . . . The Left “In the late summer of 2009, as the recession-ravaged economy bled half a million jobs a month, the country seemed to lose its mind,” The New York Times says, kicking off its 10th anniversary retrospective of the tea party movement. As you can imagine, the rest of the article continues...
Syndicate content