From his review of Michael Anton’s new book, The Stakes: America at the Point of No Return in the Clairmont Review of Books, The Election to End All Elections:
They (the Ruling Class) do not believe they have to worry about controlling their own violent troops because they are sure that they have nothing to fear from conservatives. That is because conservatives have continued to believe that the United States’s institutions and those who run them retain legitimacy. Conservative complaisance made possible a half-century of Progressive rule’s abuse.
When the belief in that legitimacy goes away, they’re going to get a hell of a shock.
As always with Prof. Codevilla, read the whole thing.
…is this one:
If Hunter “gave” his father half of everything he got paid, Burisma, the Chicoms, the Russian oligarch’s wife, what are the tax implications for his father, not to mention the foreign influence questions? That should be the real story. And when was the last time Joe Biden got audited by the IRS?
From his recent piece Year Zero at NRO, but do read the whole thing:
Gun sales are at record levels. I supposed the revolutionaries never investigated the original idea of a police force and the concept of the government’s legal monopoly on violence? It was not just to protect the law-abiding from the criminal, but to protect the criminal from the outraged vigilante.
Only police can stop blood feuds such as the ones we see in Chicago or like the medieval ones of Iceland’s Njáls saga, or the postbellum slaughtering of the Hatfields and McCoys. We are already seeing a counterrevolution — as the Left goes ballistic that anyone would appear on his lawn pointing a semiautomatic rifle to protect mere “brick and mortar.”
Without a functioning police force, do we really believe that the stockbroker is going to walk home in the evening in New York City without a firearm, or that the suburbanite in Minneapolis in an expansive home will not have a semiautomatic rifle, or that the couple who drives to Los Angeles with the kids to visit Disneyland will not have a 9mm automatic in their car console? The Left has energized the Second Amendment in a way the NRA never could, and for the next decade, there will be more guns in pockets, cars, and homes than at any time in history.
Just over 17 years ago I wrote a two-part post, Is the Government Responsible for Your Protection?
In it, I discussed a couple of cases that proved that there is no “Duty to protect” on the part of the government — municipal, county, state or federal. The second example was of Linda Riss, a New York City resident who was stalked by a jilted lover. She tried to get police protection, but could not. Until an attacker hired by her ex threw lye in her face, scarring and blinding her. THEN she got round-the-clock protection. She sued the NYPD – and lost.
The dissenting judge in the case wrote this:
Linda has turned to the courts of this State for redress, asking that the city be held liable in damages for its negligent failure to protect her from harm. With compelling logic, she can point out that, if a stranger, who had absolutely no obligation to aid her, had offered her assistance, and thereafter Burton Pugach was able to injure her as a result of the negligence of the volunteer, the courts would certainly require him to pay damages. (Restatement, 2d, Torts, § 323.) Why then should the city, whose duties are imposed by law and include the prevention of crime (New York City Charter, § 435) and, consequently, extend far beyond that of the Good Samaritan, not be responsible? If a private detective acts carelessly, no one would deny that a jury could find such conduct unacceptable. Why then is the city not required to live up to at least the same minimal standards of professional competence which would be demanded of a private detective?
Linda’s reasoning seems so eminently sensible that surely it must come as a shock to her and to every citizen to hear the city argue and to learn that this court decides that the city has no duty to provide police protection to any given individual. What makes the city’s position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense (former Penal Law, § 1897). Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.” (My emphasis)
As I wrote at that time, this is the practical result of “gun control.” Denial of the means to defend yourself, while not providing any other layer of real protection.
This situation has raised its head again in many places, but New York in particular. Read the New York Post piece Worse than War: My Night Besieged by Looters and Thugs in New York. Excerpt:
Every minute brought some new shock and a fresh surge of adrenaline: more and more of those roving gangs, some sticking around for minutes. Squad cars racing down in convoy, sirens blaring. The smashing of windows (a hair salon on the block, I learned in the morning, had been smashed in). The screeching of tires. The shouting of men: “Stop, you motherf–ker!”
Why won’t the men in blue stay in front of our house?
At two in the morning, it couldn’t be denied that one particular roving gang was roving no more; its members were obviously staking out our building. Now cackling, now going ominously silent. Should I race upstairs and bring a kitchen knife? How would this scenario play out? Would they just smash our lobby and leave? What could stop them if they wanted to take the elevators up to our homes?
Not a damned thing. It’s a meme, but it’s a fact:
See also Joe Huffman’s Quote of the Day.
This is the sudden exposure to the fact that the police HAVE no “Duty to Protect.” Now someone needs to introduce people to the Killhouse Rules:
I am a pessimist by nature, shocking admission, I know. But being a pessimist I am very seldom disappointed, and occasionally pleasantly surprised.
I do not expect to be pleasantly surprised by the fallout from this:
Forget About Seeing Any Justice For Obamagate
Allow me to disabuse you of your naïve delusion that we still live in a country with a justice system and break it to you that no one is going to jail for what was done to Flynn, or for the unmasking business, or for the Russia hoax or, for that matter, for any of the corrupt Dem/foreigner collaborations exemplified by the payoffs received by stripperphile and Bolivian folk medicine enthusiast Hoover Biden.
To quote David Burge, aka Iowahawk: “We live in a nation of laws in the same way people on ‘Hoarders’ live in houses of cat food boxes.”
Another Frontpage piece that’s worth your time. Written by a Brit who is on the receiving end of #Wokeness, her concluding paragraphs are informative:
The New Puritans are coming for America too. You may think you already have them, but what you have in America is just the warmup act.
The only reason America maintains some semblance of your First Amendment is because of your Second.
Your right to bear arms is what separates you from us; it will maintain your right to speech when the time comes. And it explains why the future Socialist party (the former Democrats) are working so hard to take your guns away. Compliant acceptance is the power base of the Puritanical mob
When the mob comes, they are not coming for your voice. They are coming for everything you have.