Burglary suspect fatally shot by North Beach homeowner

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas — A burglary suspect was fatally shot by a homeowner on North Beach.

Police say a man and a woman entered the home on Snug Harbor Driver overnight, forcing the homeowner to shoot at least once.

Police say he and two women was found a few blocks away on Surfside Boulevard.

His name has not been released.

Kiran Rice is charged with burglary of habitation.

Police say she was inside the home with the man when the shots were fired.

Zulma Zepeda-Antunez was arrested on an outstanding warrant.Investigators say she was inside the car with the suspects.

The Nueces County District Attorney will decide if the home owners will face any charges in connection with the shooting.

Why , yes. Yes I do have an answer for you, Karen.
Let me inform your ignorance, as the 9th amendment reads thusly:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This one, conflating the Declaration of Independence’s statement of certain unalienable rights being ‘Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness’ as being in the Bill of Rights, still is so ignorant she can’t even remember to quote them correctly.

This is the willful ignorance, informed only by propaganda, we should be concerned about: That in today’s time of the internet where an answer to “What’s in the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence” can be summoned at the push of a button or two, but she can’t be bothered to look it up.

Does she really care, or is she just too stupid to want to learn?

Letter: All amendments matter, not just the 2nd Amendment

To the Editor:

During this prolonged period of social distancing, I find myself spending far too much time mulling over questions of which I have yet to provide answers. Like a pesky mosquito, my pondering persists.

Perhaps someone much wiser might provide answers that could ease my angst:………….

• Why is the Second Amendment the single go-to amendment for the assault weapon-toting people concerned that gun regulations take away their constitutional rights? Why not take a moment to read a bit from the Ninth Amendment advocating for my constitutional right provided by our government for “…obtaining happiness and safety”? I am finding it difficult to feel any sense of safety knowing someone could be packing heat at my grocery store, movie theater or local bars. Any answer for me?………….

Certain there are answers to my questions but not so certain there will be any change.

Joan Skiba


Dierenbach: Is it time for a new approach to coronavirus?

In New York City, an antibody survey found that 21% of the city’s population had been infected with the coronavirus. This indicates that over one and a half million of New York City’s 7.2 million residents under the age of 65 had been infected. Furthermore, approximately 78% of them had no underlying medical condition that puts them at risk from coronavirus. Around the time of the antibody survey, New York City had recorded only 58 deaths of people under 65 with no underlying condition.

In the U.S., 79% of coronavirus deaths are people 65 and older. In the 23 states releasing long-term care facilities data, 27% of deaths have occurred in such places. The Washington Post reports the share of fatalities in nursing homes may be 50%. In Colorado, the share is 50%.

Yet our reaction isn’t to protect the elderly and those with underlying conditions. No, instead we decide to force over 214 million people under 65 with no underlying condition who are under virtually no threat from coronavirus to restrict their activities, socially distance from each other, and go into lockdown.

Instead of targeting the vulnerable population for assistance and infection avoidance, we shut down our economy. Many of the vulnerable are elderly and out of the workforce, yet we target the workforce and push 33 million people out of their jobs. We destroy countless small businesses, risk food shortages due to the supply disruption, drive oil prices so low that it could devastate thousands of Coloradans and cause political instability and international conflicts to rise, scare people who need medical attention away from emergency room visits, and cause domestic violence to rise.

What we’re doing is unsustainable.

Protests against the lockdowns are erupting across the country. Lockdown supporters call the protesters self-centered murderers who only care about getting haircuts or going to bars. Arbitrary orders create confusion and social unrest. In Michigan, you couldn’t sell seeds, while in Colorado, you can have a gathering of 10 people, but they aren’t allowed to play a game of basketball. The mayor of Los Angeles has threatened longer lockdowns as punishment for disobedience.

In the beginning, the logic behind locking down was sound. Coronavirus is a highly transmissible disease with a significant number of carriers who are asymptomatic and contagious at the same time. The experts said if the virus remained unchecked, it would produce a surge of victims that would overwhelm our healthcare system and result in excess deaths due to lack of care for both coronavirus sufferers and others needing medical attention. News from China and Italy confirmed this possibility.

But “flatten the curve” morphed into “hide until solution;” the solution being a possible vaccine or effective treatment at some undeterminable point in the future. States that never saw a surge went into lockdown and remain there today. New York City, which is well past their peak medical usage, remains on lockdown. Many states that are ostensibly opening up are doing so at an extremely slow pace. Colorado, which is supposedly opening up (but not really), is attempting to keep the coronavirus cases at a level that is so low, herd immunity might not be reached for years.

To combat the virus, every state is pulling the social distancing lever trying to figure out what level of distancing can slow the spread of coronavirus such that they are able to reach their goal of managed herd immunity, or slowing the spread while waiting for a medical solution. Some states pull hard and lockdown tight, while other states try to move forward with a lighter touch. But even the lighter touch states are acting in a way that kills jobs and restricts freedom to an unsustainable degree. For example, Texas has announced it is opening up again, but mandates restaurants only operate at 25% capacity.

A new approach is needed.

This difference in effects of coronavirus between people under 65 with no underlying conditions and those with underlying conditions and/or over 65 should be the primary driver of policy.

Extrapolating the New York City data, if the 214 million plus healthy U.S. citizens under 65 all contracted coronavirus, they would suffer around 10,000 deaths. Two thirds of our population would have immunity and we would be well on our way to herd immunity. By contrast, if 214 million randomly selected Americans were infected at New York State’s estimated infection fatality rate of 0.5%, over 1,000,000 people would die. The actual rate is likely closer to 0.36%, but even at that rate, there could be 770,000 fatalities.

This begs the question: What if the people who won’t die from coronavirus abandon social distancing? And totally abandon it: no masks, have social get-togethers, attend basketball games, start shaking hands again, etc. Is that possible and what would it look like?

The program would look like this: if you are not elderly or vulnerable, you would not practice social distancing among the non-vulnerable. If you get the disease, you get over it and move on.

If you are vulnerable, for at least the next several weeks as we push toward herd immunity, when in public wear a mask, self-quarantine as much as possible, and practice social distancing. A mask would be the sign to everybody that you wish to avoid the disease. The non-vulnerable population would respect your wishes and practice social distancing in your presence. At work, non-vulnerable employees could wear masks when they know they will be close to vulnerable co-workers. In parks and other public situations, the unmasked could be asked to respect those with masks and maintain their distance. Subways or buses could have special cars or sections where people with masks could maintain safe distances.

What this plan would do is speed up the process of achieving herd immunity while protecting the vulnerable to a degree comparable to what we are doing now. We have learned how to do social distancing over the past several weeks; we all understand the methods and reasoning. We can now take that skill and apply it in a targeted fashion to protect the vulnerable, potentially lowering fatalities significantly, perhaps by hundreds of thousands. Instead of waiting a year or more to achieve herd immunity, we could do so in weeks or months.

A first reaction may be that “targeted” social distancing is not social distancing at all since it is not being performed by everybody in society and therefore will not be as effective at protecting the vulnerable. However, that isn’t accurate: targeted social distancing still requires everybody, vulnerable and non-vulnerable, to participate.

Shops and other businesses could have special hours where extreme care would be taken to observe social distancing rules and provide an environment that is as clean as possible. For example, a grocery store could have early morning shopping where carts and commonly touched surfaces are vigorously disinfected and social distancing and mask wearing is strictly enforced, but could operate normally for the remainder of the day. Having the special time in the morning would allow for disinfection, both through active efforts and through the passage of time since the previous day’s crowds.

If the lockdowns ended for most of the population, government assistance could be targeted at the at-risk individuals. For example, a teacher with hypertension who wishes to isolate could be allowed to work from home teaching vulnerable students that are also staying at home. An at-risk store clerk could be given unemployment benefits.  Such targeted assistance would be far less costly and more efficient than the current policy of mass disbursements.

Why delay the inevitable?

Most all of us are going to get coronavirus eventually, so why destroy our economy to delay the inevitable when the delay itself means higher risk for the vulnerable people? The risk for healthy people is miniscule and almost entirely non-existent for children. Healthy people are hiding from a phantom threat at the real cost of prolonging the very real threat to the vulnerable. Every day that goes by with coronavirus prevalent in our society is another day it has an opportunity to rip through a nursing home.

Finally, this isn’t ignoring the danger to others or claiming coronavirus is a hoax. The virus is absolutely deadly to the elderly and those with underlying conditions. This also is not trading lives for jobs. By accelerating the attainment of herd immunity via healthy, younger people, this path saves lives and jobs. It allows the economy to start up again and results in less loss of life than any other approach out there.

This is the healthy acting together and taking on risk to protect the most vulnerable among us in the most efficient and effective way possible. I understand doing nothing to protect yourself from a known virus is frightening, but if you are not part of the vulnerable population, the odds of being killed by coronavirus are incredibly low. This is the best possible solution to a horrific problem. We the healthy should accept the slight risk associated with a possible coronavirus infection, both to protect the vulnerable like our parents and to preserve our quality of life for our children.

Governor Polis relies on the COVID-19 Modeling Group to provide to him estimates of outcomes for various responses to the pandemic. The Group is comprised of public health experts, mathematicians and others. So far, it appears if they have presented various options where everyone in Colorado practices the same level of social distancing. The Group should model a bifurcated social distancing regimen where the vulnerable self-quarantine and remain in lockdown, the non-vulnerable practice social distancing when in the presence of the vulnerable, and the non-vulnerable abandon social distancing among themselves.

As described above, this plan could potentially reduce overall fatalities and economic hardships so please urge the Group and the Governor to at least explore the possibility.

It shouldn’t be surprising that Obama’s tour in office has been called Gangster Government, remember, he’s from Chicago.

It looks like President Obama ordered up phony RussiaGate scandal.

RussiaGate is now a complete dead letter — but ObamaGate is taking its place. Just how far did the then-president go to cripple his successor?

It’s now clear the Obama-Comey FBI and Justice Department never had anything more substantial than the laughable fiction of the Steele dossier to justify the “counterintelligence” investigation of the Trump campaign. Yet incessant leaks from that supposedly confidential probe wound up consuming the Trump administration’s first months in office — followed by the Bob Mueller-led special-counsel investigation that proved nearly the “total witch hunt” that President Trump dubbed it.

Information released as the Justice Department dropped its charges against Gen. Mike Flynn shows that President Barack Obama, in his final days in office, played a key role in fanning the flames of phony scandal. Fully briefed on the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation, he knew the FBI had come up with nothing despite months of work starting in July 2016.

Yet on Jan. 5, 2017, Obama told top officials who’d be staying on in the new administration to keep the crucial facts from Team Trump.

It happened at an Oval Office meeting with Vice President Joe Biden, intel chiefs John Brennan and Jim Clapper and national security adviser Susan Rice, as well as FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.

“From a national-security perspective,” Rice’s memo afterward put it, “President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.”

This even as then-President Obama also directed that as many people as possible across his administration be briefed on the (utterly unsubstantiated) allegations against Team Trump — and as Rice and others took unprecedented steps to “unmask” US citizens like Flynn whose conversations had been caught on federal wiretaps of foreigners.

Indeed, the Obama administration went on a full-scale leak offensive — handing the Washington Post, New York Times and others a nonstop torrent of “anonymous” allegations of Trumpite ties to Moscow. It suggested that the investigations were finding a ton of treasonous dirt on Team Trump — when in fact the investigators had come up dry.

Sadly, Comey’s FBI played along — sandbagging Flynn with the “friendly” interview that later became the pretext for the bogus charges dropped last week, as well as triggering the White House chaos that led to his ouster. This when the FBI had already gone over the general with a fine-tooth comb, and concluded that, no, he’d done nothing like collude with the Russians.

Meanwhile, Comey himself gave Trump an intentionally misleading briefing on the Steele dossier. That was followed by leaks that suggested the dossier was the tip of an iceberg, rather than a pack of innuendo that hadn’t at all checked out under FBI scrutiny.

Pulitzer Prizes were won for blaring utter fiction; the Trump administration was kneecapped out of the gate. Innocents like Flynn were bankrupted along the way.

Say this about Obama: He knows how to play dirty.


On the fifth of May, we lost Chuck Taylor, one of the most famous defensive firearms instructors of our generation, to cancer.

I first met Chuck in the 1970s, when he was head of training at Jeff Cooper’s famous facility, Gunsite. Chuck was still competing then, skillful enough to earn a slot on the US National Team of IPSC, the International Practical Shooting Confederation. He leaves behind a large body of written articles – for some time, he was editor of SWAT magazine – and several books that can be found on Amazon, including the fourth edition of Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery.

Chuck was a decorated Vietnam combat vet with the scars from enemy bullets on his body. A highly accomplished shooter, he was one of the few men I’ve seen perform the supposedly impossible “one second reload” of a .45 pistol. I knew him as a patient coach and excellent diagnostician. I can tell you from one personal experience back in the ‘70s that he was also a good man to have on your side when serious danger reared its head.

Taylor retired last year, and had all too short a time to enjoy that. His ashes will be scattered in a National Forest where he spent a lot of time hunting.

I know people who credit their survival to what they learned from Chuck. We have lost an important source of knowledge.


Five Key Features of a Good Pocket Pistol

Pocket pistols, or sometimes called backup guns (BUG), are all over the place and are generally really popular. I think there are a couple of reasons for this. They are usually pretty cheap, comparatively speaking, running around $350 or less for the most part. They are also really easy to carry. So easy to carry that people usually don’t have to change anything about how they dress or what they do to be able to carry it. We still rely on these guns to save our lives, though, so here are some things to look for next time you are on the hunt for a new blaster gat to stuff in your pocket.

Not all pistol sights are created equal, and that is really true when we start talking about pocket guns. Some of them barely even have “sights.” Looking at the Ruger LCP, and almost everyone else who makes a pocket pistol. For most of the pocket-sized guns that do have sights, they are small, and non-adjustable and cannot be changed. If your particular sample of said gun doesn’t shoot to the sights, oh well, too bad. However, there are some exceptions. Seek out those exceptions, and at least give them some consideration. Just because these guns are small doesn’t mean the things we may need them to do are equally small. Having mostly proper sights that can be seen, are adjustable if needed, or can be changed to something closer to our preference, can be a big deal.

As guns get smaller, the amount of reliability we expect from them also gets smaller. Or at least it seems that way. Getting an itty bitty machine to run reliably is a difficult job, and sometimes the manufacturers miss. However, we really need these guns to work well because they really only have one purpose, and there are no second chances sometimes. Unfortunately, we can’t tell if a gun will be reliable until after we have bought it and invested enough resources of time and ammunition to find out. It is the way the world is, though.

Manageable Trigger
Most triggers on full-size handguns are manageable. They may not all be to our personal taste, but someone who has a decent grasp of skill can make it work in a pinch. Triggers on pocket guns are not always the same. Again, it comes down to the size of the gun, and getting a decent trigger in that package is apparently a tough thing to do because few seem to pull it off. A good trigger is not the lynchpin that holds good shooting together, but it definitely makes it easier.

Holster Support
Guns that are meant to be carried should be carried in holsters. A gun without holster support is not nearly as useful as a gun with it. There are many pocket holsters out there on the market, but as with most things, they are not all good. In fact, there are probably fewer good ones than bad ones. Before buying a new handgun, I always check to see if holsters are available first.

Parts Support
Everything breaks eventually. Guns are no different. Full-size guns require periodic maintenance. Even more so their smaller counterparts. There are many things that can go wrong on a handgun, especially if it is a small one. Having access to the parts to make it right again, instead of having to send it off to the manufacturer and wait for it to come back, is a worthwhile thing to need a gun

Every handgun also requires periodic maintenance. In larger guns, those intervals are into the thousands of rounds before a gun needs a new spring to as reliable as possible. In pocket-sized guns, those intervals can get really small. As few as 500-1000 rounds in some cases. It is critical that end-users be able to acquire those parts to maintain the highest level of reliability possible.

There you have it. Five things to look for in that new micro-sized handgun. What else do you guys look for in guns that are this size? Hit is in the comments to let us know what we missed

Fast and Furious was advertised as a ‘sting’ operation that purportedly flopped, but is now generally recognized as actually a corrupt, politically motivated operation to make more gun control legislation look necessary.

My Spanish is so rusty, I’ll defer to our correspondent in our South America bureau for further elucidation.

Mexico details note to U.S. over Obama-era gun-running row

MEXICO CITY, Mexico’s foreign minister on Monday posted a video online detailing a diplomatic note to the U.S. embassy requesting answers about a gun-running sting under the Obama presidency, keeping a spotlight on the controversial issue.

In the video, Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard cited former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as saying Mexican authorities knew about the 2009-2011 scheme known as ‘Fast and Furious.’

Representatives for Holder did not immediately reply to a request for comment. Nor did the U.S. embassy in Mexico City.

It was the first time Ebrard or President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador had made direct reference by name to a key U.S. figure connected to the program since the issue resurfaced in Mexico a week ago.

In a bid to curb cross-border gun smuggling, the U.S. scheme allowed people to illegally buy arms in the United States and take them to Mexico so that the weapons could be tracked and lead law enforcement officials to crime bosses. Some of those guns were subsequently blamed for the fatal shootings of both Mexican and U.S. citizens.

The current Mexican government has zeroed in on the program to highlight possible corruption under previous Mexican administrations amid a debate over how much they knew about the U.S. operation.

Holder, who served as U.S. Attorney General under Barack Obama between 2009 and 2015, had previously issued a statement via the U.S. embassy in Mexico contending that “Mexican authorities” knew about the program, Ebrard said.

“The (Mexican) government requests that it be provided with all the information available regarding the ‘Fast and Furious’ operation,” Ebrard said in the video posted on Twitter.

Lopez Obrador first brought up the gun-running program last Monday when answering questions about Genaro Garcia Luna, a former Mexican security minister who was arrested in the United States in December on drug trafficking offenses.

Garcia Luna served under former President Felipe Calderon from 2006-12, spearheading a crackdown on drug cartels. Lopez Obrador has used his arrest to argue that corruption was rampant in past Mexican governments.

Some critics of Lopez Obrador contend that he has done U.S. President Donald Trump a favor by raising questions about Garcia Luna as the U.S president prepares to fight a November election against Joe Biden, who was vice president from 2009 to 2017 under Obama.

Lopez Obrador’s supporters say he has focused on the issue to illustrate hypocrisy among his domestic adversaries.

Calderon, a longstanding political rival of Lopez Obrador, said last week there was no agreement between Mexico and the United States to permit illicit entry of arms.

‘Fast and Furious’ followed earlier sting operations that began under Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush.

I think what the perfesser is really worried about homeschooling is the missed opportunities for progressive indoctrination.

Harvard ‘Anti-Homeschooling’ Event ‘Cancelled’ Amid Conservative Backlash

Opponents of a controversial Harvard homeschooling summit claim the event has been canceled, but the Ivy League institution is still tight-lipped as to whether that is indeed the case.

The purpose of the invite-only event, “Homeschooling Summit: Problems, Politics, and Prospects for Reform,”was to “discuss child rights in connection with homeschooling in the United States,” with a focus on “problems of educational deprivation and child maltreatment that too often occur under the guise of homeschooling, in a legal environment of minimal or no oversight.”

With agenda items such as “Concerns with Homeschooling” and “Litigation Strategies for Reform,” the aim of the event was to equip critics of homeschooling and educators against the practice with “strategies for effecting such reform.” The co-organizer and one of the most controversial featured speakers was Elizabeth Bartholet, a professor of law and faculty director of Harvard Law School’s Child Advocacy Program.

Campus Reform previously reported that Bartholet framed homeschooling as “authoritarian” and suggested the government ban it.

In an interview with Harvard Magazine, Bartholet said, “We have an essentially unregulated regime in the area of homeschooling.” Her reasons for wanting to ban homeschooling include the lack of regulations setting standards on which parents are allowed to homeschool, the isolation of children, the absence of teachers who could act as “mandated reporters,” and the threat it creates that will ultimately jeopardize America’s democracy……………

‘What We Are Confronting Now is Really Unprecedented.’ Coronavirus-Related Lawsuits Are About to Flood the Courts.

Nurses and retail workers are suing their bosses for allegedly subjecting them to unsafe conditions during the coronavirus outbreak.

College students are demanding tuition money and consumers want their cash back from concert ticket vendors, gyms and airlines.

Businesses allege insurance companies are trying to sidestep their coverage obligations and some people say they’re being deprived of stimulus checks.

And that’s only the beginning.

Major catastrophes and downturns can unleash a torrent of lawsuits, and the coronavirus pandemic is no exception. At least 917 federal and state lawsuits have been filed in relation to the pandemic, according to a database run by Hunton Andrews Kurth, an international law firm.

That tally is just starting, says Torsten Kracht, a partner running the project. “I can easily foresee litigation directly related to COVID-19 continuing to be filed for the next two, three years at least. It will be litigated for the next decade, likely.”

In the Cane Tuckeeeeee!

Shots fired in self-defense after car crash on North Sunrise

BOWLING GREEN, Ky. (WBKO) – On Friday, May 8, Bowling Green Police responded to shots fired complaint in the area of North Sunrise.

Multiple officers responded to the area to help after receiving multiple calls.

When one officer arrived, he saw two vehicles in the middle of the roadway – a yellow Camaro and a black SUV that had collided in the 1400 block of North Sunrise.

Police spoke with the driver of the Camaro, who explained that when he was at a friend’s house, an unknown vehicle sped through the area and an unknown male got out.

The driver says the unknown male screamed at a female saying, “Where is Cholo? Where is he at?”

The driver of the Camaro explained the man seemed to be waving a silver firearm in the air, and then got back into his car and drove in the direction of Glen Lily.

The driver of the Camaro circled the block a couple of times to possibly see where the other car went. When he headed back to his friend’s house, the car came back around the corner at a high rate of speed.

The Camaro driver said he threw his car in reverse to avoid a collision but that the other car was accelerating towards him and was going to hit him. The cars collided.

The driver of the Camaro said he feared for his life and pulled out his gun and shot the unknown male, using all three rounds in the magazine.

The driver told police the male said, “One shot got me, and you’re lucky.” The subject then fled the scene on foot.

The unknown subject was later found at a nearby house, identified as William Green. He was taken to the Medical Center after being found to indeed have a gunshot wound.

After further investigation, police believe that the driver did shoot Green in self-defense. Officers went to the hospital to receive a statement from Green. It was determined that Green never pulled a handgun but did have a ratchet on him that could have appeared to be a firearm.

Nearby surveillance footage captured the wreck taking place where the black SUV hit the Camaro, though it’s hard to tell about the shooting incident.

Green has been arrested, charged with Assault, 2nd degree and Criminal Mischief, 1st degree.

Homeowner shoots accused robbery suspect, 3 others arrested

LAUREL COUNTY, Ky. (WYMT) — Three people are in jail and a fourth is in the hospital following an attempted robbery in Laurel County.

It happened Friday at a home in the Keavy community.

Deputies with the Laurel County Sheriff’s office tell WYMT the group attempted to rob the homeowner, who ended up shooting one of them.

Deputies charged Nathan M. Myers, 20, of London, with first-degree robbery, Logan Simpson, 19, of Williamsburg, with first-degree robbery and Andrew D. Myers, 23, of London with first-degree robbery.

The suspect who was shot was taken to the UK Medical Center. Police have not released any information about them except that they are getting warrants for their arrest.

I’m sorry, Congresscritters, there is no ‘reform’ possible that will guarantee that another administration as corrupt as Obama’s was will not be able to abuse the power this court has. A-B-O-L-I-S-H  It, now.

FISA reform to hit the Senate floor: Here’s what to know

bipartisan bill passed by the House in March that seeks to reform the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court process will hit the Senate floor Tuesday.

The FISC will face more oversight 

The new legislation requires the attorney general to personally sign off on surveilling government officials.

Attorney General Bill Barr said in March he supported the passage of the FISA bill, saying it “will protect against abuse and misuse in the future.”

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) was created for use by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies to request surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the U.S.

The FBI obtained a FISA warrant to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter, accused by the Steele dossier of having ties to Russia. A Justice Department assessment released by the FISC in January revealed that at least two of the FBI’s surveillance applications to secretly monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page lacked probable cause.

Horowitz’s FISA report revealed there were at least 17 “significant inaccuracies and omissions” in the Page FISA applications.

The June 2017 Page FISA warrant renewal, which was one of two deemed invalid by the DOJ, was approved by then-Acting FBI Director (and now CNN contributor) Andrew McCabe, as well as former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The April 2017 warrant renewal was approved by then-FBI Director James Comey.

The bill will also expand when FISA judges should appoint an outsider to critique the government’s position. Currently, judges are only to do so when addressing a novel and significant question of interpreting surveillance law.

Section 215 extended but reined in 

A controversial portion of the FBI’s surveillance powers, known as Section 215, gave the government broad powers to demand “business records” from companies in the name of national security investigations.

The new legislation allows obtaining business records to continue but bans using a business records order to collect information like cell phone data that in a criminal investigation requires a warrant, which has a higher legal standard.

The National Security Agency (NSA) previously used Section 215 to collect bulk phone data records, which was highly controversial. In recent years, the bulk metadata collection was outlawed and a narrowly tailored program was allowed, but now that program would be officially ended under the legislation.

Some surveillance measures will be reauthorized

The House bill reauthorizes a program dealing with “roving” wiretaps, permitting surveillance on subjects even after they’ve changed phones.

It will also reauthorize a program allowing for the surveillance of “lone wolf” suspects, those who have no connection to a known terrorist group.

Stricter penalties for abusing the FISC process for political purposes

False declarations before FISC or other FISA abuses, including engaging in electronic surveillance without authorization, disclosing or using information obtained by e-surveillance without authorization, will now have a penalty of up to eight years in prison, up from five.

The bill has a section stipulating the penalty also applies to “an employee, officer, or contractor of the United States Government [who] intentionally discloses an application, or classified information contained therein, for an order under any title of this Act to any person not entitled to receive classified information.”

The bill has bipartisan support, but some vocal opposition 

USA Freedom Reauthorization Act passed by a 278-136 vote in House. It brought together the staunchest President Trump supporters like Reps. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and some of his fiercest critics like Reps. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who wanted improvements to protect Americans’ privacy and safeguard against surveillance abuses.

Some senators are undecided on the bill, and others oppose it. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., opposes the bill, but has proposed an amendment. “None of the reforms prevent secret FISA court from abusing the rights of Americans. None of the reforms prevent a President of either party from a politically motivated investigation. Big Disappointment!” Paul tweeted in March. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, called on the president to veto the bill if it passes as it stands. He too has proposed an amendment.

The Senate will debate three amendments to the bill: the Paul amendment advocating for the privacy rights of Americans, the Lee-Leahy amendment focused on Amicus reforms and exculpatory evidence that would strengthen the role of outside advisors and the Daines-Wyden amendment that would prevent law enforcement from obtaining Internet browsing and search data history.

All government exists only with the consent of the governed.

That’s always true.  You might need to back that up with your life, but it remains true.  There are never enough cops to force the issue otherwise and further, not all cops will agree with an order either.

PA is finding this out:

Some local officials don’t agree with the tiered strategy, though. They plan to use their power to proceed with their own reopening plans, despite the fact that Pennsylvania confirmed 1,323 new coronavirus cases in a single day on Friday.

Lebanon County officials and some Republican lawmakers, including state Sen. Dave Arnold and Reps. Russ Diamond, Frank Ryan and Sue Helm, delivered a letter Friday to the Democratic governor informing him of their plans.

“Lebanon County has met the requirement of your original Stay-at-Home Order, which was to flatten the curve of the COVID-19 outbreak and allow hospitals the time to gear up for COVID-19 patients being admitted to the ICU and in need of ventilators,” the letter reads.

The original argument for all of these orders was to prevent overwhelming the health care system.  That’s a contract, and the people have the absolute right to drag any official who moves the goalposts after obtaining agreement out of office by their hair if necessary, or simply to ignore said order as a violation of that agreement and be willing to enforce that refusal by whatever means are necessary.

Governments have fairly-broad public health powers.  But those powers have never extended, because they can’t, to imprisoning — which is what a quarantine is for a person who isn’t sick — when applied to people who aren’t ill.  The government bears the burden of proof in every instance when it wishes to restrict your freedom.  There are no exceptions, ever, to this fact.

It’s time to stop the bull****; the Constitution is not the “10 Suggestions.”  State and local governments also obtain their power only by mutual consent of essentially all of the population.  If even a single-digit percentage of the population disagrees that government is toast should those people decide that they really mean it.

This bull**** show has laid bare the real purpose of all manner of “licensing”; it is not to protect the public at all but rather a cudgel that can be applied when an unrealted insult is perceived by the government.  Threatening to yank a liquor license for something having nothing to do with the laws surrounding the legal age of consumption of alcohol is proof positive that such “licenses” lack any sort of actual merit upon which they were based and issued in the first instance.

Think this doesn’t apply to driving too?  The hell it doesn’t.

It is time to stop pretending folks; that which made America unique is gone, and it up to us, as a body politic, to decide whether we insist that it both return immediately and that those who choose to try to obstruct that will face just punishment, irrespective of whether they agree with said punishment or not (of course they won’t initially — duh!)

There is much hardship coming.  The actions of Congress, the President and Federal Reserve over the last couple of months with regard to monetary and fiscal policy guarantee that.  There is no easy way out of what they’ve put in motion; all choices are hard, but some are a lot harder than others, and the longer we sit back and think it will be all ok the worse its going to get.

It is time to choose, in short, before the choices are forced upon you by others who claim to be your “betters.”

Unbearable Truths About Our Current Political Moment: What happens to a people when it can’t handle the truth?

Sometimes the truth is like mythical kryptonite. It radiates power and yet promises great destruction. And so reality is to be left alone, encased in lead, and kept at bay.

Take the Chinese genesis of the COVID-19 epidemic. We started in February with the usual Chinese deceptions about their role in the birth, transmission, and worldwide spread of the virus.

No one, apparently except Mike Bloomberg and Bill Gates, was surprised by the accustomed politically correct prevarications of the Chinese-purchased World Health Organization, whose transparent lies were passed off as truth—and led to tens of thousands of deaths.

On cue, our own obsequious media accepted Chinese and globalist myths—their shared antipathy for President Trump meant whatever he is for or says, they are against and deny.

But by late March the bits and pieces of the truth had emerged. All that gobbledygook talk of a Chinese wet market, of patient-zero bats, snakes, pangolins and such, were likely ruses to deflect attention from a conveniently nearby level-4 Chinese virology lab.

We are beginning to learn that Chinese scientists were conducting research on—surprise, surprise—coronaviruses in general, and in particular, methods to enhance their lethality, all for the ostensibly exalted humanitarian aim of discovering cures and vaccinations, although how that was to be so was never quite disclosed.

China’s patient zero almost weekly was backdated by communist party officials from late January to mid-November. When the lying is exhausted, we may well learn the virus was known to the Chinese even earlier.

In addition, we learned that China variously threatened to cut off medical supplies in transit to the United States. It stopped all flights in and out of Wuhan on January 23, but called America racist for waiting a week until January 31 to issue a travel ban on China—including, but not limited to, ending direct flights to the United States from Wuhan. Consider the Chinese communist logic: running-dog American capitalists mimicked Beijing in forbidding Chinese from flying—but only after a week-long interlude of bourgeoise debate and puerile reflection.

Were the Chinese embarrassed that they had accused Washington of being racist for belatedly doing exactly what they had done earlier? Of course not. In their eyes, weak decadent Westerners welcome such help in aiding their own self-abnegation and debasement.

Unbearable American Weakness
in the Face of a Growing Chinese Lie

China went on to spin lies that the U.S. military deliberately had created the virus to harm the poor noble Chinese. They seemed intent on peddling to the Trump-hating leftist media the talking points that China as the victimized “other” served as a convenient object of racial hatred by the deplorables and clingers, who, of course, nurse their racism on “conspiracy theories” about viral labs.

China destroyed the original data concerning the discovery of the virus. Brave, gullible and naïve scientists who were willing early on to speak up about the existential danger of an epidemic ended up “disappeared” or were silenced. News censorship stopped critical early foreign knowledge of the Chinese epidemic. On various online metrics, China’s case numbers and fatalities from the virus calcified, as if the country with the most cases magically now had suffered among the least. If it was good to lie about the Wuhan virus’s birth, then all the better to lie about its adolescent spread and mature lethality.

China’s behavior follows years of patent and copyright theft, forced technological appropriation, dumping, currency manipulation, crackdowns on Hong Kong democracy, and sophisticated espionage within the United States. It now threatens sovereign nations in Asia and the Pacific, if they dare blame China for the pandemic. Its military embarks on more aggression in the South China Sea, as rumors swirl of its stealthy violations of nuclear proliferation agreements.

Americans began grumbling that China almost seemed to have made war against the United States, in a peremptory fashion that dwarfed Pearl Harbor. At least it seems so when tallying up the over 80,000 dead, the trillions in destroyed market equity and GDP, and, most importantly, the likely larger human toll from suicides, family and substance abuse, lapsed medical procedures and tests, and wrecked businesses and lives from the lockdown.

So that was an unbearable truth. But what to do?

Cancel U.S. debt held by China? That is likely a terrible idea that would undermine the world’s entire financial system.

Cut off all relations? Embargos, sanctions, social distancing on a transnational scale? Expel all Chinese students? Bring home every American business in China? Seems unlikely.

The truth is that Americans know that to restore deterrence they must do something. But that “something” is equally difficult in the case of a 1.4-billion-person nuclear nation, which has systematically leveraged and compromised many of America’s own corporate, entertainment, media, and academic elite.

The result is that everyone from Michael Bloomberg and Bill Gates to the CNN/MSNBC crowd know the truth that China despises the United States, feels that America is a spent and increasingly toxic society, and is ever more emboldened to humiliate its rival. Yet Beijing wagers that we will not do much, even if we could. It sees that weakness as laxity to be exploited, not at all magnanimity to be appreciated, much less reciprocated. So, for a while longer we know the truth, but apparently it is unbearable and preferably should not be known and just go away. And it probably will.

The Unbearable Democrat Hypocrisy on #MeToo

Consider also Joe Biden. Most Democrats have long known that Biden was a blowhard, a plagiarist, and a serial fabricator. Take Bernie Sanders out of the race, and Biden would have offered little utility, and his candidacy likely would have sputtered to an end.

“Handsy” Joe Biden was also creepy. Most prudent associates in his social and business circles kept their wives, sisters, mothers, and daughters as far away from his breathing, probes, and squeezes as possible.

The truth is not that any complainant, such as Tara Reade, who makes a career-ending accusation—fraught with contradictions and well beyond any fair notion of a statute of limitations—should be believed automatically. She shouldn’t at all ruin a life without compelling evidence.

Nor is the Democratic dilemma just that the progressive write-off of Tara Reade has essentially destroyed the #MeToo movement, and exposed left-wing feminism as a cynical method of obtaining power, unconcerned with gender justice for the oppressed.

The point instead is that Joe Biden’s accuser should be believed—but according to Joe Biden’s prior own standards, statements and sermonizing. Tara Reade, playing a stronger hand than Christine Blasey Ford, has lodged a sexual assault charge against a far more likely suspect offender than Brett Kavanaugh. Biden, in most other circumstances, would be cheering her on to pursue her charges and pursue her truth were it not against himself.

The Democrats know all this, but the truth too is unbearable. In other words, so what?

What is the remedy? Have a long inquiry in which women come out of the woodwork to describe Biden’s squeezing, sniffing, breathing, and whispering with dozens of victimized young and teenage girls? There are many.

Does the donor class abort Biden’s candidacy to avoid hypocrisy and save its feminist credentials—so buffeted by Harvey Weinstein and fallen liberal media superstars?

Or do they appoint investigators, as they did for months in the manner of the Mueller investigation, to examine and to leak to the media Reade’s accusations and supporting testimonies, as Joe Biden daily bleeds out, nicked by a thousand cuts as a sexual pariah?

So, the truth is again intolerable. The fact is that Reade could be privately believable, given what one knows of Joe Biden’s wayward hands and unbridled narcissism. But such a reality certainly is publicly unpalatable.

So watch as Tara Reade disappears into a media decompression chamber, designed to let her vent to mute walls, and thus be contained until she is recalibrated, exhausted and inert and the danger passes.

The Unbearable Truth of Biden’s Cognitive Impairment

There is another unendurable truth: Joe Biden himself is not cognitively able to run a presidential campaign. Even if successful, he is not prepared to serve as president.

Biden proved more exhausted in seclusion at home than in public on the campaign trail. He is neither seen nor heard much anymore.

His planned series of fireside snarky critiques of the president’s handling of the virus imploded when he could speak neither with or without notes, nor with or without the teleprompter, nor with or without friendly media prompts from his progressive interlocutors, nor with or without his wife’s encouragement at his side.

His party pros know that if turned loose on the campaign trail, Biden will give us another spooky squeeze, one more bizarre Corn Pop or hairy legs story, still more biographical myths and plagiarisms, and daily lying dog-faced pony soldier incoherence.

Names, dates, places, things?

They have become shapeless ripples in Biden’s mental river of Lethe, flowing by and changing shape, before finally disappearing in a nothing stream of forgetfulness.

The Democratic Party also knows that Biden cannot schedule a rendezvous with Dr. Bandy X. Lee and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test, given the result would terrify his handlers.

On any given day, at any given moment Biden can say something not just controversial in the manner of Donald Trump, but something that simply cannot be deciphered or translated into any known language.

So, what does one do with kryptonitic truth?


What would one instead suggest? Hand the nomination over to the runner-up and, in theory, most deserving candidate Bernie Sanders—and see the Democrats lose the presidency, the House, and the Supreme Court for a generation?

Or do they keep Joe in the basement, outsource his campaign to future cabinet picks, his vice-presidential candidate and his family? Do they cancel the debates, seek to postpone the election or do it all by mail—and thereby confirm the albatross around their necks?

Or still again, do they have a therapeutic “intervention” and tell Joe to take one for the team, stand aside and allow non-candidate free-riders like Andrew Cuomo, Hillary Clinton, or Michelle Obama to usurp his delegates? Do they simply shaft the runner-up, nutty socialist Bernie Sanders and his legions of true believers?

No, of course, not. The truth is simply too foreboding even to contemplate.

Instead, we will hear that Joe is fine, in the manner that FDR was in great shape in November 1944. He will run not against Trump and his record, but against a fantasy who, they will say, fiddled while an unfettered and non-quarantined America was consumed by viral fires, and yet somehow as Herbert Hoover incarnate also fiddled while America ossified in an amber lockdown.

When the legend of a hale Biden is belied by the fact of his impairment, print the legend—but first get the necessary holograms, photoshopping, and testimonials to get him across the November 3 finish line.

A Final Thought on Obama

Add up Michael Horowitz’s inspector general’s report. Review the wreckage of the Mueller investigation. Collate the evidence that Christopher Steele was an utter fraud and dupe. Remember that Hillary Clinton destroyed her hard drives and communication devices, that the FBI liquidated hundreds of text messages of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, and that Christopher Steele destroyed all his emails and data about “Russian sources.”

Compute in the new discoveries that all the principles who fueled the “collusion” hoax had long ago, when pressed in secret and under congressional oath, confessed they had no evidence for the lies they spread in the media. Recall the pseudo-summaries of Susan Rice to whitewash an Oval Office session. Then, finish off these revelations with the reality that Barack Obama was always privy at best, and at worst orchestrating the effort to destroy a presidential campaign and transition. And where does it all lead?

To the unendurable truth that a sitting president unleashed his intelligence agencies to warp an election, feigned ignorance of his central role, and yet finally was so furious about the winner that he sought to sabotage his successor’s transition and, by association, his presidency.

How could the media, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, the bureaucratic state, academia, and entertainment ever process that reality: that a deity was likely the most corrupt president in a generation?

But luckily, a scapegoat has already been selected

Gov. Cuomo admits he was wrong to order nursing homes to accept coronavirus patients.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo has finally admitted — tacitly and partially, anyway — the mistake that was state health chief Howard Zucker’s order that nursing homes must admit coronavirus-positive patients.

On Sunday, Cuomo announced a new regulation: Such patients must now test negative for the virus before hospitals can return them to nursing homes. Yet the gov also admitted that COVID-19 cases might still go to the facilities via other routes, and didn’t explicitly overrule Zucker’s March 25 mandate that homes must accept people despite their testing status — indeed, couldn’t even require a test pre-admission.

The gov’s people say that a home that simply can’t accommodate coronavirus patients never had to take them — though they are obliged to help those people find a place that will, with help available from the state if needed. That is: Zucker’s mandate was never more than a “don’t discriminate” rule.

But Zucker publicly presented it as “must accept” — and Cuomo’s remarks regularly implied there must be something wrong with a home that couldn’t handle corona patients.

So, while the gov’s people imply that some homes simply misunderstood the rules, the real message to operators was that declaring themselves overwhelmed would put their licenses at risk.

Notably, the chief of one Cobble Hill facility not only had his request for PPE denied, he got turned down cold when he then asked to transfer patients.

Then, too, Zucker’s Department of Health has issued other heartless orders during this crisis — the now-rescinded “don’t even try to resuscitate” mandate to EMTs for cardiac-arrest cases, as well as telling at least one home it was OK to keep staffers on the job after they’d tested positive.

Also telling: The gov has ordered an investigation that’s plainly supposed to pin all the blame on nursing and adult-care facilities: It’s led by state Attorney General Tish James, who got her job with Cuomo’s crucial assistance — and it’s only looking at what homes did wrong.

We’re sure James will uncover plenty of real horrors: Everyone (who cared to know) has long been aware that many New York nursing homes leave a lot to be desired. But that was all the more reason for Zucker & Co. to focus on policing and assisting these facilities from the start — rather than issuing edicts that led to repeated and needless tragedies.

Der GretchenFuhrer is a pain in the posterior for Michiganians

Michigan militia members say they won’t allow police to arrest 77-year-old barber defying Democratic Gov. Whitmer’s shutdown order

Members of the Michigan militia said they won’t allow police to arrest 77-year-old Karl Manke who opened his Owosso barbershop last week in defiance of Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s coronavirus shutdown order, WEYI-TV reported.

“We are here to make sure he doesn’t get arrested,” Daniel Brewer told the station Saturday. “We’re willing to stand in front of that door and block the entrance so the police will have no entry there today.”

The barbershop has been open since last Monday against state order and received a packed lobby of customers his first morning — as well as two citations before Friday, WEYI said in a previous story.

Still dozens of supporters gathered outside Manke’s barbershop Saturday, and 15 customers were waiting in line outside the door for haircuts.

MI: Capitol Commission to Discuss Firearms in the Capitol on Monday!

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)-On Monday, May 11 at 11 am, the Michigan Capitol Commission will meet to discuss the possession of firearms in the Capitol and on Capitol Square.  While the meeting notice does not state the Commission will consider banning firearms specifically, this will likely drive the discussion.  Please contact the members of the Commission and respectfully urge them not to prohibit the exercise of a constitutionally protected right by law-abiding citizens on property open to the public.

Michigan law on this matter is clear.  Local units of government are prohibited from restricting firearm possession in public.  Michigan’s firearm preemption law states in full:

“[a] local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols, other firearms, or pneumatic guns, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.”

Again, please contact members of the Michigan Capitol Commission before the Monday meeting and respectfully urge them to recognize the right of law-abiding gun owners to carry a firearm for self-defense and to oppose any restriction on the carrying of firearms in the Capitol or on Capitol Square.

May 11 meeting  agenda: http://capitol.michigan.gov/Content/Files/AgendaMay112020.pdf

Capitol Commission Contact information  can be found here: http://capitol.michigan.gov/ContactCommission


The Long-Term Failures Of Violence Prevention Programs

As a Second Amendment supporter, I tend to believe that the answers to solving the issue of violence in our inner cities aren’t gun control. Obviously, I’m biased to a significant degree, but my bias is based on observation. After all, look at the 10 safest states and the 10 most dangerous states. You have gun-controlled states in both lists and you have gun-friendly states in both lists as well.

That suggests the issue is a bit more complicated than something that can be solved with a simplistic answer like gun control.

However, it also seems that popular gun violence reduction programs aren’t producing the long-term results proponents hope for.

In 2018, Portland started to rethink how it addresses gun violence. The police bureau sent representatives to Oakland, California, to observe Ceasefire, that city’s gun violence prevention program. Oakland’s program, which targets social services at people most likely to commit violence, is credited with dramatically reducing Bay Area gun violence.

“That is something that we’re using as a foundation to try to build something similar to that here in Portland,” Shearer said in an interview with Guns & America.

Cities across the country — from Baltimore to South Bend, Indiana and Stockton, California — have adopted similar models. And while these programs often have an impact in the year or two after launch, long-term reductions in gun violence can be fleeting.

Ceasefire is based on the idea that even in cities with high homicide rates, the number of people committing acts of violence is actually very low.

“About 70% of all gun violence includes people who are in their 20s to early 30s who has significant criminal justice histories, seven or more arrests, who are part of some sort of crew or clique or gang,” said David Muhammad, executive director of the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, a nonprofit that helps cities implement gun violence reduction programs like Oakland’s.

Typically, Muhammad says, people who commit gun violence have been victims of gun violence themselves, or someone close to them has been a recent victim. Intervene with this small group directly by providing social services or an alternative to violence, the theory goes, and you can have a major impact on gun violence. At least in the short term.

“Ceasefire is about immediately reducing gun violence,” Muhammad said. “And the type of community transformation that is desperately needed is a very long-term prospect.”

Now, this approach actually makes a fair bit of sense. You target people who are most likely to end up committing violent crimes and offer them alternatives to the kind of lifestyle. The idea is to stop violence at its source.

It should work, right? Well, it has and it hasn’t. Maybe.

The problem is that it’s hard to see any long-term results from these programs. It doesn’t help that some communities stop funding the program once violence decreases, thus allowing it to flourish once again.

To me, that suggests the solution isn’t really a solution, but a band-aid. It’s not really getting to the root of the problem, it’s simply hiding the problem like a toupee.

In some cases, though, it doesn’t even do that.

Elsewhere in the country, in city after city, declines in the near term evaporated over time.

In 2014, the first-year South Bend had a program in place, homicides dropped from 78 to 66. The next year, that number ticked back up to 85, down to 81 in 2016 and in 2017 was over 100.

Detroit, where city leaders have credited Ceasefire with reducing violent crime, started rolling out its program to police precincts in 2015. That year it had 295 homicides. Since then homicides have bounced up to 302, down to 261, and back up to 272, according to FBI data. Meanwhile, the city’s population shrank by 1%, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

Those aren’t the other places, either. Stockton, CA has been heralded as a success after the program did wonders there. Then they cut off funding and the number of murders returned. Now, the average number of homicides is pretty much right were it was to begin with.

So what gives?

Clearly, there are a lot of theories, some of which are going to be dismissed by many typical Bearing Arms readers outright. I know I rolled my eyes when I read this:

“The whole approach is, ‘This is a problem person,’” said Aaron Roussell, an associate professor of sociology at Portland State University. “Not ‘We have systematically and intentionally underfunded these communities and we refuse to deal with issues of race and classism that actually keep these places marginalized.’”

But Roussell said the focus on data can distract from deeper societal issues that cause violence in the first place.

“It’s a weird idea that you just want less crime in poor neighborhoods,” he said. “They don’t want to change anything else about the world, but you want to just bring that down. Because it’s basically a series of crimes that made those neighborhoods poor to begin with and we don’t ever deal with that.”

Roussell attributes many of those dips noted before as potentially being cyclical variations rather than evidence they worked.

Like I said, it’s hard not to eye-roll at this kind of thing, but Roussell may actually be onto something. These high-violence neighborhoods are typically places that most folks otherwise don’t care about. They wouldn’t care about them now if folks there would just behave. No one really does seem to care about changing anything else about those neighborhoods. They just want the crime to go away.

And yet, what do we do?

Programs like Ceasefire seek to address these neighborhoods and the individuals most likely to become violent criminals which should, by extension the neighborhoods in question. Yet it’s not working.

Roussell would seem to say that racism and classism are to blame, but I find that a simplistic answer yet again for a complex problem. Or, more specifically, adding a couple of complex issues as the cause for another complex issue is simplistic.

So what’s the answer?

I honestly don’t know. What I do know is that we need to figure it out because people are being killed and that’s being used to justify infringing on the civil liberties of others. That shouldn’t be tolerated by anyone, regardless of what neighborhoods they live in.

Either he’s an utter ignoramus, or a bald faced liar.
I know, I know; Kneel to the mighty power of “and”.

LA County Sheriff: We Need Federal Regulation of ‘Ghost Guns’ Because Only Prohibited Persons Buy Them

You’ll be surprised to learn that at no time during last night’s ’60 Minutes’ report on “ghost guns” was it ever mentioned that non-prohibited persons building guns for their own use has been legal in the United States since before there was a United States.

And that ’60 Minutes’ concluded that, since the ATF waved its magic wand to regulate bump stocks by fiat, it should be just as easy for the agency to do the same thing with “ghost gun” kits.

The only (LAUGH) people that are interested in [buying a “ghost gun” kit] are not enthusiasts into, you know, tinkerin’ around with machines. … They’re not hobbyists. These are people that should never have a firearm. And that’s how they found a way to get one. … We need national laws, or federal, from Congress that covers a total ban on the creation or the selling of these ghost gun kits.

– LA County Sheriff Alex Villanueva in Ghost Guns: The build-it-yourself firearms that skirt most federal gun laws and are virtually untraceable

Consider the mighty power of ‘and‘.

Are Endless Lockdowns the Result of Malice or Stupidity?

In a harrowing article for PJ MediaDennis Prager argues that the COVID-19 global lockdown is “possibly, the worst mistake the world has ever made,” leading to a mortality rate eclipsing anything the virus could have delivered. Widespread famine in Third World Countries and extreme poverty across the globe are now imminent, “all because of the lockdowns, not the virus.” A study released on May 4 by the nonprofit research institute Just Facts confirms Prager’s argument, concluding that “the total loss of life from all societal responses to this disease is likely to be more than 90 times greater than prevented by the lockdowns.”……..

Prager writes: “The lockdown is a mistake; the Holocaust, slavery, communism, fascism, etc., were evils. Massive mistakes are made by arrogant fools; massive evils are committed by evil people.” I suspect the razor applies to many government leaders who simply did everything wrong and then doubled down on their error rather than admit mortal fallibility. They were stupid—and too proud to acknowledge their mistake. They ensured that the remedy would be worse than the disease, but they cannot be blamed for malice aforethought.

The same acquittal would not apply to the denizens of the hard left, whether in government or the media, who are certainly actuated by malice and, quite possibly, by evil. Many government officials—whether national, state or local—may prolong the lockdown to enforce their hold on power, entailing the consequent reduction of a free and prosperous citizenry to a debased condition as wards of the State, a tactic dear to leftist administrations. 

In any event, the motives of our political and media elites are as suspect as their credulity; it is no surprise that they readily adopted the false Coronavirus models and statistical projections of a charlatan like British science guy Neil Ferguson, with the result of near-universal social and economic calamity.