{"id":102532,"date":"2022-06-05T19:14:28","date_gmt":"2022-06-05T23:14:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=102532"},"modified":"2022-06-05T19:14:34","modified_gmt":"2022-06-05T23:14:34","slug":"the-daily-gouge-archive-friday-june-3rd-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=102532","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Gouge Archive, Friday, June 3rd, 2022"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s Friday, June 3rd, 2022…and for those wondering what career they\u00a0should<\/em><\/span> have pursued, wonder no longer, as these items from the Nickel and George Lawlor respectively clearly indicate either a lifeguard…<\/strong><\/p>\n

LA lifeguard’s pay tops $500,000, investigation discovers<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

…or school superintendent:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Arizona School Superintendent Given a $1.7 Million Bonus<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The first, though in our opinion utterly unjustifiable, is the result of massive amounts of overtime.\u00a0 As for the second, two thoughts immediately come to mind: (1). What could the superintendent of a school district comprised of eight elementary schools POSSIBLY DO to MERIT $1.7 million<\/em><\/span> in additional compensation over and above<\/em><\/span> her $189,000 annual salary?!?; and, (2). This is what happens when your federal tax dollars are allocated without any checks or balances as to how they’re spent.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Now, here’s The Gouge<\/em>!<\/strong><\/p>\n

First up, in a must-read<\/em><\/span> commentary we feel deserves to be featured in full, NRO<\/em>‘s Charlie Cooke urges opponents of the 2nd Amendment to at least…<\/strong><\/p>\n

Stop Lying about the Historical Understanding of Gun Rights<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/h1>\n

It has never been \u2018mainstream\u2019 to interpret the Second Amendment as guaranteeing anything other than an individual right to bear arms<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“I<\/strong><\/span><\/span>f<\/span>\u00a0it will please the court, I will happily fall onto both my knees, throw my arms up into the air, shake my head plaintively, and plead with America\u2019s journalists, in the name of all that is good and right, to\u00a0stop doing this<\/a><\/em><\/span>:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The interpretation that the Second Amendment extends to individuals\u2019 rights to own guns only became mainstream in 2008<\/span>, when the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark gun case,\u00a0District of Columbia vs. Heller,\u00a0that Americans have a constitutional right to own guns in their homes<\/span>, knocking down the District\u2019s handgun ban.<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This claim was made yesterday in the\u00a0Washington Post<\/em>, by a staff writer named Amber Phillips, under the tag \u201cAnalysis.\u201d It is, of course, a ridiculous, contemptuous, malicious lie<\/em><\/span>, a myth<\/em><\/span>, or, if you prefer<\/span><\/em> to use a phrase that has become popular of late,\u00a0disinformation<\/em><\/span>.<\/span> It has never<\/em><\/span> \u2014 at any point<\/em><\/span> in the history of the United States \u2014 been \u201cmainstream<\/em><\/span>\u201d to interpret the Second Amendment as anything other than<\/em><\/span> a protection of \u201cindividuals\u2019 rights to own guns<\/em><\/span>.\u201d The decision in\u00a0Heller<\/em>\u00a0was, indeed, \u201clandmark.\u201d<\/span> But it was so only<\/em><\/span> because it represented the first time that the Supreme Court had been asked a direct question<\/em><\/span> about the meaning of the amendment that, for more than two centuries up to then, had not needed<\/em><\/span> to be asked.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Three months\u00a0before\u00a0<\/a>Heller<\/a>\u00a0was decided<\/a><\/em><\/span>, 73 percent of Americans believed that \u201cthe Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns,\u201d with just 20 percent contending that it \u201conly guarantees members of state militias such as National Guard units the right to own guns.\u201d<\/span> That 73 percent supermajority<\/em><\/span> (we might<\/em><\/span> call it the \u201cmainstream\u201d) included a majority of non-gun-owners<\/em><\/span> \u2014 which, well, of\u00a0course<\/span><\/em>\u00a0it did, given that the alternative interpretation represents a preposterous conspiracy theory. To be within that 20 percent minority, one must ignore all<\/em><\/span> of the history before<\/em><\/span> the Second Amendment\u2019s passage; all<\/em><\/span> of the contemporary commentary<\/em><\/span> as to its meaning; James Madison\u2019s intention<\/em><\/span> to insert it into the Constitution next to the other individual rights<\/em><\/span> in Article I, Section 9, rather<\/em><\/span> than next to the militia clause<\/em><\/span> in Article I, Section 8, clause 16; the 45 state-level rights<\/em><\/span> to keep and bear arms, many of which predated<\/em><\/span> the Second Amendment; the meaning of \u201cthe people\u201d everywhere else in the Bill of Rights<\/em><\/span>; the fact<\/em><\/span> that it would make no sense at all<\/em><\/span> to give an individual a \u201cright\u201d to join a state-run institution from which the federal government could bar him; and all<\/em><\/span> evidence of what the United States was actually\u00a0like<\/em><\/span>\u00a0prior to 2008.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Writing in 1989, the progressive law professor Sanford Levinson\u00a0explained<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/span>\u00a0in the\u00a0Yale Law Journal<\/em>\u00a0that the theory that Amber Phillips is now laundering \u201cis derived from a mixture of sheer opposition to the idea of private ownership of guns<\/em><\/span> and the perhaps subconscious fear that altogether plausible, perhaps even \u2018winning,\u2019 interpretations of the Second Amendment would present real hurdles to those of us supporting prohibitory regulation.\u201d Or, as\u00a0Adam Liptak put it<\/a><\/em><\/span>\u00a0in the\u00a0New York Times<\/em>\u00a0in 2007, the theory that Phillips has shared is based on \u201creceived wisdom and political preferences rather than<\/em><\/span> a serious consideration of the amendment\u2019s text, history and place in the structure of the Constitution<\/em><\/span>.\u201d<\/span> Once one undertakes that \u201cserious consideration,\u201d one recognizes immediately<\/em><\/span> that the \u201ccollective right\u201d claim is<\/em><\/span>, and always has been<\/em><\/span>, a cynical, dishonest, outcome-driven farce<\/em><\/span>. There is a good reason why\u00a0even Barack Obama<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/span>\u00a0responded to the\u00a0Heller<\/em>\u00a0decision by confirming that he had \u201calways believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms\u201d: The alternative\u00a0is a joke<\/a><\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Phillips\u2019s attempt to rewrite history<\/em><\/span> isn\u2019t new, of course. Back in 2000, the historian \u2014\u00a0\u201chistorian\u201d \u2014 Michael Bellesiles wrote a ridiculous book called\u00a0Arming America<\/em>, in which he claimed that American \u201cgun culture\u201d was invented<\/em><\/span> in the mid 19th century, and that prior to that, gun ownership in the United States had been rare.<\/span> For this contribution to the canon, Bellesiles won the Bancroft Prize . . . and then lost it<\/em><\/span>, after his argument was\u00a0exposed as a ridiculous fraud<\/a><\/em><\/span>. Clayton Cramer, one of the men who brought the hoax to light,\u00a0noted<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/span>\u00a0that the reason so many<\/em><\/span> \u201chistorians\u201d had \u201cswallowed\u00a0Arming America<\/em>\u2019s preposterous claims so readily<\/span><\/em> is that it fit into their political worldview so well<\/span><\/em>. . . .\u00a0Arming America<\/em>\u00a0said things, and created a system of thought so comfortable<\/span><\/em> for the vast majority<\/em><\/span> of historians, that they didn\u2019t even pause to consider the possibility<\/em><\/span> that something wasn\u2019t right.\u201d (For the same reason the FBI eagerly swallowed Hillary’s Russia-collusion narrative hook, line and sinker!<\/em>)<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Neither, it seems, has Amber Phillips.<\/span> \u201cHow did we get here?\u201d she asks, before proposing that \u201chistorians attribute it to a relatively recent political push by gun rights groups to reinterpret the Constitution<\/span><\/em>\u201d and blaming the \u201cappointment of judges and funding of scholars who would interpret the Second Amendment more broadly.\u201d One must ask to what Phillips\u2019s \u201crelatively recently\u201d modifier applies?<\/span> Does it pertain to the 1982 Senate report<\/em><\/span> that concluded that it was \u201cinescapable<\/em><\/span> that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner<\/em><\/span>\u201d? Is that<\/em><\/span> when this started?<\/span> If not, how about in 1960<\/em><\/span>, when Hubert Humphrey \u2014 the man who invented the Peace Corps and Medicare, and was a tireless opponent of nuclear-weapons testing \u2014 insisted casually<\/em><\/span> that \u201cone of the chief guarantees of freedom<\/em><\/span> under any government<\/em><\/span>, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms<\/em><\/span>,\u201d and submitted that \u201cthe right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee<\/em><\/span> against arbitrary government, one more safeguard<\/em><\/span> against the tyranny which now<\/em><\/span> appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible<\/em><\/span>\u201d?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Perhaps Phillips\u2019s \u201cgun rights groups\u201d went back in time a little earlier, to 1880<\/em><\/span>, when the most famous legal scholar of the era, Thomas Cooley, observed that the meaning of the Second Amendment was \u201cthat the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right<\/em><\/span> to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose<\/em><\/span>\u201d?<\/span> Or to 1868<\/em><\/span>, when, during the debate over the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard listed the \u201cright to keep and bear arms\u201d among the \u201cprivileges and immunities\u201d that would now<\/em><\/span> be extended to freed blacks? Perhaps they helped draft the 1857<\/em><\/span>\u00a0Dred Scott<\/em>\u00a0decision, in which the disgraceful Justice Taney warned that if black Americans were to be regarded as citizens, they would enjoy \u201cthe full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went<\/em><\/span>\u201d?<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Am I still underestimating it? Did this dastardly plot to read the English language plainly start even earlier?<\/span> Was St. George Tucker on the Federalist Society payroll when he wrote in 1803<\/em><\/span> that \u201cthe right of the people<\/em><\/span> to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed<\/em><\/span>; . . . and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree<\/em><\/span>, as is the case in the British government\u201d? Did it begin in 1791<\/em><\/span>, when Representative Roger Sherman described the Second Amendment as protecting \u201cthe privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights<\/em><\/span>, to bear arms<\/em><\/span>, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property<\/em><\/span>, by whomsoever made\u201d?<\/span> Or 1789<\/em><\/span>, when the Philadelphia lawyer Tench Coxe observed of the unamended Constitution that \u201cthe unlimited power of the sword<\/em><\/span> is not<\/em><\/span> in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people<\/em><\/span>,\u201d and of the Second Amendment specifically<\/em><\/span> that \u201cthe people are confirmed<\/em><\/span> by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms<\/em><\/span>\u201d?\u00a0Surely<\/em><\/span>, the scheme cannot<\/em><\/span> have reached as far back as 1776<\/em><\/span>, 15 years before<\/em><\/span> the Second Amendment was ratified and 232<\/em><\/span> years before\u00a0Heller<\/em>, when Pennsylvania became the first state to affirm in law that \u201cthe people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state<\/em><\/span>\u201d?<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

I could go on, but I won\u2019t, because it\u2019s not necessary. Instead, I will reiterate my plea to the press: Please, stop it<\/em><\/span>.<\/span> You\u2019re not fooling the American public. You\u2019re not fooling the courts.<\/span> You\u2019re just making fools of yourselves, and of the handful of motivated reasoners whom you\u2019re misinforming. Democracy, Darkness \u2014 you know the rest.<\/span><\/strong><\/span>“<\/p>\n

They can’t<\/em> <\/span>stop lying, ‘cuz lies<\/em><\/span> are the only arguments they’ve got<\/em><\/span>!!!\u00a0 Case in point, as\u00a0<\/strong>46* also attempts to alter history by constantly repeating proven prevarications regarding the 2nd Amendment<\/em><\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 He’s going on TV<\/em><\/span><\/a><\/span> as we write to spread more lies and half-truths.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Speaking of liars,\u00a0there isn’t a bigger demagogue on Capitol Hill than Connecticut’s Chris Murphy<\/em><\/span><\/a>:<\/strong><\/p>\n

“…I don\u2019t believe our mass shooting problem is first and foremost a mental health problem,” said Murphy.\u00a0“We have no more mental illness in the United States than any other nation.<\/span> It\u2019s just in this country if you\u2019re having homicidal thoughts, you can easily get your hands on a weapon of mass destruction as opposed to every other high-income nation in the world<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span>“<\/p>\n

So, according to Murphy, mental illness isn’t the problem; Rather the issue is homicidal thoughts…which we guess in Murphyworld are sane and normal…combined with the availability of AR-15s, which are, again, in Murphyworld, now weapons of mass destruction.<\/strong><\/p>\n

How then, would Murphy explain the fact Switzerland, which requires every able-bodied male of military age to keep a fully-automatic rifle in their possession, hasn’t experienced a mass shooting since 2001?\u00a0 And that<\/em><\/span> by a gunman not of sound mind<\/em><\/span>!<\/strong><\/p>\n

As Kevin Williamson noted in this past Wednesday’s edition, Progressives KNOW how to mitigate the problem, they just aren’t interested in doing so<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 It’s like the Arab world and the “Palestinian refugees”, none of whom were ever forced from Israel: The Arabs certainly have the room and resources to relocate every single supposed refugee, but their continued suffering serves a political purpose, just like the victims of American gun violence.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Since we mentioned Kevin Williamson, we highly recommend his latest<\/em><\/span><\/a>, which is a follow-on to the one linked above:<\/strong><\/p>\n

“…As I have argued before, the Democrats\u2019 position vis-\u00e0-vis firearms is not<\/em><\/span> a matter of ballistics but one of aesthetics<\/em><\/span>. There isn\u2019t anything especially dangerous about the 5.56mm semi-automatic rifles that give suburban progressives the willies.<\/span> They fire a round that is less powerful than that of a typical deer rifle, and they have the same rate of fire \u2014 one round for one pull of the trigger \u2014 as a revolver and most other common firearms. They can be fitted with magazines that hold 30 rounds \u2014 or 50 rounds, or 100 rounds \u2014 but that is true of any firearm with a detachable box magazine, which is a feature of the great majority of modern rifles and handguns.<\/span> You can tell<\/em><\/span> that this is a matter of aesthetics from the fact that the old 1990s ban on so-called assault weapons took a largely aesthetic approach<\/em><\/span> \u2014 among other things, it put firearms on the naughty list merely for having a lug on which to mount a bayonet<\/em><\/span>. The 1990s were pretty wild<\/em><\/span>, but there weren\u2019t<\/em><\/span> a lot of bayonet murders<\/em><\/span>.<\/span> Folding stocks and bayonet lugs didn\u2019t have any<\/em><\/span> practical effect on crime in the 1990s; they just offended some refined progressive sensibilities<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

President Biden fixates on the 9mm handgun, and he also says that all you need to defend yourself and your family is a shotgun.<\/span> A shotgun is very effective<\/em><\/span> for that purpose, because a single shot<\/em><\/span> from a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with 00 (\u201cdouble aught\u201d) buckshot inflicts damage equivalent to being shot\u00a0nine times<\/span><\/em>\u00a0with a 9mm handgun. President Biden\u2019s position is, in short, \u201cYou shouldn\u2019t have<\/em><\/span> that dangerous weapon, because it is dangerous<\/em><\/span>, and instead<\/em><\/span>, you should have this much more<\/span><\/em> dangerous weapon.\u201d<\/span> It is<\/em><\/span> incoherent, but Joe Biden has always been<\/em><\/span> incoherent \u2014 this is not <\/em>exclusively<\/em><\/span> an effect of his senescence.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Bans on this or that common firearm are nonstarters politically and dead-on-arrival constitutionally.<\/span> They shouldn\u2019t really even be part of the conversation.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

What is<\/em><\/span> on the table are \u201ctime and place\u201d regulations, which are a good deal less controversial and which can<\/em><\/span> \u2014 and should<\/em><\/span> \u2014 be managed at the local level<\/em><\/span>.<\/span>\u00a0The Second Amendment protects a fundamental right to keep and bear arms, and that fundamental right belongs to every American irrespective of his place of residence. But we federalists appreciate that even the fundamental rights may be implemented with some variation among and within the states.<\/span> There isn\u2019t any reason that the local gun regulations in Manhattan have to be identical to those in Brewster County, Texas, or Niobrara County, Wyo. The same principle under which we exclude carrying firearms onto commercial flights might as easily apply to city subways, nightlife districts such as the French Quarter or Sixth Street, etc.<\/span> Indeed, even in gun-friendly states such as Texas, there are many places where a firearm may not<\/em><\/span> be carried, some of them determined by legislation and some of them privately determined under Texas\u2019s firearms-trespass law, which has the fortuitous statutory designation of Section 30.06 (\u201cthirty aught six\u201d).<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

There may be room for prudent changes to time-and-place restrictions, but these are not going to have much effect<\/em><\/span> on either ordinary violent crime or<\/em><\/span> homicidal spectaculars such as the ones recently carried out in Buffalo and Uvalde<\/strong><\/span>…”<\/p>\n

\u00a0Why?\u00a0 Because criminals, by definition<\/em><\/span>…<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

…DON’T OBEY THE LAW!!!\u00a0 And that includes<\/em><\/span>\u00a0any ban on bringing weapons on school property.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Next, the Morning Jolt<\/em> makes a compelling case…<\/strong><\/p>\n

Joe Biden Is Too Old to Be President<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/h1>\n

The Wrong Man for a Tough Job<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“The next president should not be in his seventies . . . or<\/em><\/span> his eighties.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

I realize that is age-ist, but the presidency is one of the hardest jobs in the world, and executing the duties of the presidency well requires someone who is in good physical and mental health, ideally with a lot of vigor and an ability to handle off-the-charts stress and a relentless workload.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Joe Biden was not the most verbally or mentally disciplined guy back when he was vice president<\/em><\/span>, and his advancing age is worsening his problems.\u00a0 The president really can\u2019t speak off-script anymore without blurting out something that undermines the case he was trying to make.<\/span> Republicans may not mind having a president who is so ineffective, but over the long term, it isn\u2019t good for the country to have a commander in chief who can\u2019t handle portions of the job.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

…<\/span>Speaking of septuagenarians who want to be victorious on Election Night in November 2024, Donald Trump is now contending that \u201csomething stinks in Georgia<\/a><\/em><\/span>\u201d and that Brian Kemp\u2019s victory in the GOP gubernatorial primary is not legitimate.<\/span> Trump links to a conspiratorial rant by Emerald Robinson. It is the ultimate proof that Trump does not base his claims of election fraud on facts or evidence, but it is his knee-jerk excuse for any election that doesn\u2019t go his way.<\/span> (Recall that in February 2016, after Ted Cruz won the Iowa Caucuses,\u00a0Trump tweeted<\/a><\/em><\/span>, \u201cTed Cruz didn\u2019t win Iowa, he illegally stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong any [sic] why he got more votes than anticipated.<\/span> Bad!\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The country has real<\/em><\/span> problems, and it will still<\/em><\/span> have real problems on January 20, 2025.<\/span> This is why the country needs a real<\/em><\/span> president, and not<\/em><\/span> an old man having mood swings and making excuses.<\/strong><\/span>“<\/p>\n

Case in point<\/em><\/span><\/a>, courtesy of the Morning Jolt<\/em>, second item in the column.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Here’s the juice: On his brightest<\/em><\/span> day, Biden was still<\/em><\/span> a pretty dim bulb, and time has only further lessened his mental luminescence.\u00a0 He’s not only far too old, but far too stupid.\u00a0 Seriously, presidential candidates should have to pass a college-level general knowledge and history test.\u00a0 That would keep both<\/em><\/span> Biden and Trump on the sidelines in 2024; Probably Kommielaa and Moochie as well.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Moving on, courtesy of George Lawlor, the Washington Examiner <\/em>reports…<\/strong><\/p>\n

The CBO confirms Bidenflation is real<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“T<\/strong><\/span><\/span>he Congressional Budget Office\u00a0has just confirmed<\/a><\/em><\/span>\u00a0that President Joe Biden is blameworthy<\/em><\/span> for the record-high inflation that is punishing workers. Further, this nonpartisan source says that Biden’s preferred fix, raising taxes, will only make the economy worse<\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The CBO’s annual\u00a0economic outlook<\/u>\u00a0adds further force to the arguments against Biden made by other Democrats, such as former\u00a0President Barack Obama\u2019s National Economic Council director, Larry Summers, and Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Jason Furman<\/a><\/em><\/span>. The CBO squarely blames Biden<\/em><\/span>\u2019s 2021 COVID stimulus bill for today\u2019s high inflation, albeit for slightly different reasons.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Like Summers and Furman, the CBO noted that the stimulus checks sent to every family significantly boosted demand, causing inflationary pressure on its own.<\/span>\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

By paying<\/em><\/span> workers not to work<\/em><\/span>, Biden\u2019s COVID stimulus artificially \u201cslowed the recovery of labor force participation.\u201d As noted by Texas Rep. Kevin Brady, the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, this lack of workers strained supply chains, thus providing a second source<\/em><\/span> of upward pressure on prices.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The CBO predicts that this Biden-caused inflation will persist into next year, tempered only by the Federal Reserve’s willingness to raise interest rates, which will, in turn, cause the economy to slow or even contract<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span>…”<\/p>\n

Hells bells, as the incomparable Michael Ramirez illustrates, even Janet Yellen…<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

…felt forced to confess she was wrong<\/em><\/span><\/a>…or, as is far more likely, purposefully lying for purely political purposes.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Then there’s this sextet of items…literally<\/em><\/span> in the case of #6…specially-selected for inquiring Conservative minds:<\/strong><\/p>\n

(1). The Journal<\/em>‘s Kim Strassel highlights how, though the Michael Sussmann trial is over, the stench lingers, as special counsel John Durham did more than expose Hillary Clinton\u2019s dirty political tricks: He exposed the incestuous elite Washington world that enabled those tricks to succeed while reintroducing America to the Beltway swamp<\/em><\/span><\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(2). Elon Musk has reportedly informed Tesla employees they must put in a minimum of 40 hours per week in the office if they wish to work remotely from home<\/em><\/span><\/a>, adding anyone who having a problem with that “should pretend to work somewhere else”.\u00a0 Oh<\/span><\/em>, the inhumanity<\/em><\/span>!!!<\/strong><\/p>\n

(3). At the same time Biden’s DOJ is appealing the ruling overturning his unconstitutional mask mandate, Townhall.com<\/em>‘s Leah Barkoukis reports a new Lancet study destroys the CDC’s justification for EVER having mandatory masking in schools<\/em><\/span><\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Also, Dr. Faux Chi confirms<\/em><\/span><\/a> we were right when we observed in the Wednesday edition<\/em><\/span> this wasn’t about reimposing the mask mandate, but rather to reserve the unconstitutional measure for future employment.\u00a0 Saaayy…later this fall…prior to the mid-terms.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(4). The Washington Free Beacon<\/em>‘s Josh Christenson explains how one man’s case shows why the looting isn’t going to stop any time soon<\/em><\/span><\/a>, or any other manner of criminal activity for that matter.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(5). Jim Geraghty outlines the new Biden message: The economy is doing great, Americans just aren’t noticing it<\/em><\/span><\/a>! Yeah,…<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

…that<\/em><\/span> oughta work!<\/strong><\/p>\n

(6). If you want to lose your last meal, read the Daily Mail<\/em>‘s account of how the smartest man Joe Biden knows chronicled his depraved behavior on his laptop<\/em><\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 Hey, like father…<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

…like son!<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The dog on the bed is a nice touch!<\/strong><\/p>\n

Which brings us, appropriately enough, to The Lighter Side<\/em>:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Then there’s these from Balls Cotton…<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

…Speed…<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

…and the lovely Shannon:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Finally, we’ll call it a week with yet another titillating tale torn from the pages of The Crime Blotter<\/em><\/span>, as we learn an…<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ex-Virginia Tech football player acquitted of murder in beating of gay man who posed as woman during sex act<\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“A former Virginia Tech football player was\u00a0acquitted of murder charges\u00a0Friday in the deadly beating of a man accused of pretending to be a woman during a sexual encounter after the two matched on Tinder.\u00a0A jury in\u00a0Montgomery County Circuit Court\u00a0found 19-year-old Isimemen Etute not guilty of a charge of second-degree murder in the 2021 death of Jerry Smith, 40, of Blacksburg.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

…<\/span>Smith performed oral sex on Etute, who later returned to the apartment to find out if his date was a man or a woman. In taking the stand earlier in the week, Etute had testified that he felt “violated” when he discovered that the Tinder match he believed to be a woman was actually a man.<\/span> Etute had testified that Smith reached for what Etute thought was a gun. Smith did not own a gun, but\u00a0police reported finding a knife\u00a0between the man’s mattress and box spring<\/span><\/strong><\/span>…”<\/p>\n

In other words…<\/strong><\/p>\n