Category: Crap For Brains

 

The Pandemic Is NOT Over, Says the White House
If Biden doesn’t represent the Biden administration, who does?

By now, the pattern is familiar: President Biden says something stupid and/or insane and/or contradictory to his administration’s stated policies, and his beleaguered staffers need to run around denying that he meant what he very clearly said. This might be the first time they’ve had to do so twice in one day, though.

First they had to walk back Grandpa Joe’s comments on Taiwan. And now, inevitably:

Twitter avatar for @betsy_kleinBetsy Klein @betsy_klein

President Biden told CBS the “pandemic is over,” but those comments do not constitute a change in the administration’s Covid-19 response policy, an official tells CNN White House says Covid-19 policy unchanged despite Biden’s comments that the ‘pandemic is over’ | CNN PoliticsThe Biden administration is largely downplaying President Joe Biden’s comments declaring the coronavirus pandemic “over,” suggesting his remarks signal a continuation of the White House’s evolving stance toward the pandemic over the past few months.cnn.com

September 19th 2022

Did you get that? The president of the United States doesn’t speak for the White House. Biden is not in charge of the Biden administration.

So… who is?

Who’s running the show? It sure isn’t Kamala. And Jill — excuse me, Doctor Jill — is just barely more lucid than her husband. Who’s the boss of that house? Ron Klain? Susan Rice? Ex-PFC Wintergreen? What the hell is going on?

Joe Biden Delivers a Mess of a 60 Minutes Interview, Leaves His Handlers Scrambling

Joe Biden appeared on 60 Minutes on Sunday evening, and it was an absolute disaster of an interview. As I type this, stories are already coming out about how he blindsided officials in his administration and how his handlers are scrambling to clean up the mess.

In fact, within an hour of the interview premiering, the first clarification had already dropped regarding comments the president made about defending Taiwan from a Chinese attack. That was the second time in the last few months that the administration has had to walk back Biden’s comments on the subject.

Things didn’t get better as the topics changed. When asked about inflation, Biden gave perhaps the worst answer imaginable.

When it comes to bad economic news, there are two ways to handle it as a president. The right way is to admit the truth and then lay out a quantifiable plan for how to improve things. Americans are very forgiving of politicians who speak plainly to them. On the other hand, the wrong way is to simply pretend like everything is actually great and that anyone who doesn’t think so is an idiot. Guess which strategy Biden has chosen?

The dismissive snark about an 8.3 inflation rate that is crushing the poor and middle-class is just astonishing to witness. His skin is so thin you can see straight through it, and while I know Biden doesn’t have to live with any of the consequences of his policies, you’d think he could at least fake it a little. Besides, his excuse doesn’t even make sense. Who cares if the rate only went up “an inch” if the overall rate is still sky-high? Core inflation continues to rise, mainly driven by food and housing (including rent) prices.

Continue reading “”

How Hochul’s gun laws will make churches less safe

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has been on an anti-gun tirade pretty much since she took office. Any hopes she’d be a smidge better than her predecessor on the Second Amendment have been well and truly dashed. The only thing she may be better on is not sexually harassing her female subordinates.

Following New York’s epic smackdown by the Supreme Court, Hochul and the legislature rushed through a measure seeking to try and adhere to the letter of the Bruen decision only as much as they felt they had to.

Yet that law includes a prohibition of guns at any place of worship.

As noted at our sister site PJ Media, that’s going to make those places of worship a lot less safe.

For your consideration:

  • On June 17, 2015, a man walked into the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., where a prayer meeting was being held. He shot and killed nine people, including the pastor, State Senator Clementa Pinckney. The shooter was charged with a hate crime.
  • November 5, 2017 — a man entered the Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church in Texas. He was dressed in black and wearing tactical gear. By the time he finished shooting, 26 were dead and 20 were wounded.
  • On a Sunday morning in December 2019, a man walked through the door of the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, and opened fire during services. Two victims died in the attack. The gunman was killed by two parishioners, one of whom was the security guard.
  • October 27, 2018 — a man came into the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. After shouting “All Jews must die!” he shot and killed 11 people. Six others were wounded. He was known for posting anti-Semitic rants on Gab.
  • One person was killed and three were injured when a man entered Chabad of Poway in California and opened fire with a semiautomatic rifle in April 2019.
  • In January of this year, a man held four people, including the rabbi, hostage at Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas, for 10 hours before being killed by police. The suspect said that he had hidden bombs in undisclosed locations.
  • In May 2022, the New York Post reported a rise in anti-Semitic activity in the city. This included vandalization of synagogues and attacks on individual people.

It should be noted that if you want to go further back, you can find still more places of worship being targeted.

What’s more, many churches and synagogues can’t afford to hire professional armed security, yet there’s no provision in state law for volunteers to step in if the church so desires.

Look, one area where I tend to infuriate my fellow Second Amendment supporters is that I think a property owner has the right to ban guns on their property. I’m fine with laws that give signs the force of law, even. I want to know where I’m not welcome, after all.

But the flip side of that is that I cannot tolerate laws that tell property owners that they can’t make that determination for themselves. That’s precisely what Hochul’s law does since the churches and synagogues are, in fact, property owners in most cases.

Looking at this list, it’s easy to see that places of worship get targeted by maniacs looking to kill as many people as possible.

Hochul and folks like her probably think this law will stop that, but it won’t. I mean, if a law would stop such a thing, then wouldn’t the laws against murder do the trick on their own?

They don’t, though.

Instead, these places of worship cannot allow their congregations to be lawfully armed as a defensive measure. That means these very places become better targets for the deranged.

And when it happens in New York, remember that it was Hochul and her buddies who made that target so attractive.

Bombshell DHS Oversight Report: Biden Resettled ‘Not Fully Vetted’ Afghans in U.S. Who May ‘Pose Risk’ to Americans

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General (IG) has issued a bombshell report that accuses President Joe Biden’s administration of resettling Afghan nationals “who were not fully vetted” across the United States.

Following the U.S. Armed Forces’ withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, Biden opened a “humanitarian parole” pipeline that has resettled more than 86,000 Afghans in American communities, many of whom were not screened or interviewed in person.

Now, a bombshell DHS IG report reveals that the Biden administration “admitted or paroled” thousands of Afghans “who were not fully vetted” before their arrival in the United States and may “pose a risk to national security” as a result.

The report states:

We determined some information used to vet evacuees through U.S. Government databases, such as name, date of birth, identification number, and travel document data, was inaccurate, incomplete, or missing. We also determined CBP admitted or paroled evacuees who were not fully vetted into the United States. [Emphasis added]

We attribute DHS’ challenges to not having: (1) a list of Afghan evacuees who were unable to provide sufficient identification documents; (2) a contingency plan to support similar emergency situations; and (3) standardized policies. As a result, DHS may have admitted or paroled individuals into the United States who pose a risk to national security and the safety of local communities. [Emphasis added]…

In January 2022, we issued DHS a Notice of Findings and Recommendations document notifying the Department of the urgent need to take action to address security risks of evacuees from Afghanistan who were admitted or paroled into the United States without sufficient identification documents to ensure proper screening and vetting. [Emphasis added]

According to DHS IG investigators, Biden’s DHS “did not always have critical data to properly screen, vet, or inspect Afghan evacuees arriving as part” of the massive Afghan resettlement operation.

Specifically, the report details that information in federal databases used to vet Afghans “such as name, DOB, identification number, and travel document data, was inaccurate, incomplete, or missing.”

Two Afghans, in particular, were resettled in American communities by the Biden administration who were later found to be national security threats with ties to terrorism. One of those Afghans has already been deported, while DHS officials said the other is in deportation proceedings.

Across Biden’s DHS, officials were allowed to bring Afghans to the U.S. without providing proper IDs if they were found to have “no derogatory information” connected to their purported identities, the report states. The agency also did not keep a record of Afghans who failed to provide proper IDs but were admitted to the United States anyway.

“According to internal DHS reports, CBP admitted or paroled dozens of evacuees with derogatory information into the country,” the report states.

Although DHS IG Joseph V. Cuffari suggested two remedies to clean up the agency’s vetting procedures, the report states that Biden’s DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas “did not concur” with either suggestion and has defended his department’s improper vetting of Afghans.

The bombshell report comes after a number of alarms have been raised about the Biden administration’s failure to properly vet tens of thousands of Afghans now living in the United States.

In February, a Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General report revealed that Biden’s agencies failed to properly vet Afghans arriving in the United States, and that about 50 Afghans were flagged for “significant security concerns” after their resettlement.

Most of the unvetted Afghans flagged for possible terrorism ties, the report states, have since disappeared into American communities. The report noted that as of September 17, 2021, only three of 31 Afghans flagged with specific “derogatory information” could be located.

Likewise, a recent Project Veritas report alleges that the Biden administration resettled Afghans listed on the federal government’s “Terrorism Watch List” in communities across America.

In August, a federal whistleblower came forward to allege that the Biden administration resettled nearly 400 Afghans in American communities who are listed in federal databases as “potential threats to national security.”

In terms of vetting, the Biden administration has loosened requirements for entry to the United States. In June, DHS announced that Afghans who “provided … limited material support” to terrorist organizations would still qualify for resettlement in American communities.

Refugee resettlement costs American taxpayers nearly $9 billion every five years, according to research, and each refugee costs taxpayers about $133,000 over the course of their lifetime. Within five years, an estimated 16 percent of all refugees admitted will need housing assistance paid for by taxpayers.

Perhaps. Maybe they’re also getting ready for Biden’s puppetmasters to try something.
Either way, this is blatantly political, which in itself is a problem.

‘They Are Getting Ready for Trump’s Second Term’: Former Pentagon Brass Encourage Military to Disobey Orders

In an ominous open letter published on wonky national security site War on the Rocks Tuesday, eight former secretaries of defense and five former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned of what they call an “exceptionally challenging civil-military environment” developing in the United States that apparently concerned them enough to publish their thoughts ahead of November’s consequential midterm elections. Never mind, apparently, that the signatories were at the helm of the U.S. military for the better part of the last two decades during which that “environment” was degraded.

Citing “extreme strain” to “[m]any of the factors that shape civil-military relations” in “recent years,” the letter points to “the winding down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the ramping up of great power conflict” while alluding to the fact that last August’s withdrawal from Afghanistan — and fresh chaos in Iraq — mean that “the U.S. military must simultaneously come to terms with wars that ended without all the goals satisfactorily accomplished while preparing for more daunting competition with near-peer rivals.”

The letter also not-so-subtly refers to “the divisiveness of affective polarization that culminated in the first election in over a century when the peaceful transfer of political power was disrupted and in doubt” as a reason “military professionals confront an extremely adverse environment.”

“Looking ahead, all of these factors could well get worse before they get better,” the former Pentagon officials warn. “In such an environment, it is helpful to review the core principles and best practices by which civilian and military professionals have conducted healthy American civil-military relations in the past — and can continue to do so, if vigilant and mindful.”

What follows are 16 enumerated “best practices” that deal with the chain of command, political pressure, and civilian control of the U.S. military, all signed by former Pentagon brass including Ash Carter, Mark Esper, Bob Gates, Chuck Hagel, Jim Mattis, Leon Panetta, Martin Dempsey, Joseph Dunford, and Peter Pace.

“Military officers swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not an oath of fealty to an individual or to an office,” the letter explains. “All civilians, whether they swear an oath or not, are likewise obligated to support and defend the Constitution as their highest duty.”

Another point discusses the “responsibility of senior military and civilian leaders to ensure that any order they receive from the president is legal” and “to provide the president with their views and advice that includes the implications of an order.”

“The military — active-duty, reserve, and National Guard — have carefully delimited roles in law enforcement,” another “best practice” explains. “Those roles must be taken only insofar as they are consistent with the Constitution and relevant statutes. The military has an obligation to advise on the wisdom of proposed action and civilians should create the opportunity for such deliberation,” the letter explains. “The military is required ultimately to carry out legal directives that result. In most cases, the military should play a supporting rather than a leading role to law enforcement.”

The letter also explains that “[t]here are significant limits on the public role of military personnel in partisan politics, as outlined in longstanding Defense Department policy and regulations. Members of the military accept limits on the public expression of their private views — limits that would be unconstitutional if imposed on other citizens,” the letter notes. “Military and civilian leaders must be diligent about keeping the military separate from partisan political activity.”

Whether the former officials are looking backward at the 2020 election or ahead at the 2024 election, their letter dives into the military’s responsibilities during a presidential election year:

During presidential elections, the military has a dual obligation. First, because the Constitution provides for only one commander-in chief at a time, the military must assist the current commander-in-chief in the exercise of his or her constitutional duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Second, because the voters (not the military) decide who will be commander-in-chief, they must prepare for whomever the voters pick — whether a reelected incumbent or someone new. This dual obligation reinforces the importance of the principles and best practices described above.

The only thing that’s missing from the bulleted manifesto-y letter about the military’s “best practices” is an explanation for why it was written. Is it more (very delayed) fallout from January 6? A response to President Joe Biden’s use of Marine guards as staging for his angry and divisive speech in Philadelphia in which he declared war on Republicans? A warning of things yet to come? 

Speaking with Townhall, Former Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense Amber Smith reiterated that “healthy civil-military relations are incredibly important” for the United States. However, as Smith pointed out, “it’s completely hypocritical for these former Defense Secretaries and [Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] to preach about how important civ-mil relations are while setting the stage for using military leaders and officials to undermine the president,” she said. “They are getting ready for Trump’s second term.”

“Additionally, those who penned this letter are complicit with the deterioration of trust and the breakdown in the relationship between the military and civilians they speak of,” Smith also noted. “They are essentially raising the alarm for an environment they helped create.”

Smith is right. The letter is conveniently revisionist in its glossing over of recent military history while attempting to frame the former officials’ legacies in a positive light. Claiming the disaster that was the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan merely “ended without all the goals satisfactorily accomplished” is a rather appalling way to characterize what was a complete failure on multiple levels — one that further undermined Americans’ trust in military leaders.

What’s more, the signatories were at the helm of the U.S. military for the better part of the last two decades — if there are issues with the civil-military relationship, they had a hand in that. They were also on watch as the armed forces barreled toward recruitment, retention, and fitness level failures through multiple administrations.

Then there’s the matter of the signers’ decision to chime in on politics, invoke the events of January 6, and talk about presidential elections. Among the letter’s signers is General Dempsey who, in 2016, said that “the American people should not wonder where their military leaders draw the line between military advice and political preference” in a statement to The Washington Post that was described by NPR as an instruction for former Pentagon officials to “stay off the political battlefield” even after leaving their posts.

Evidently Dempsey’s earlier admonishment did not apply to his and the other former brass who decided, seemingly without a clear impetus, to publish their open letter this week.

5 questions about New York’s new social media requirements for gun applicants

New gun laws in New York for those seeking a concealed carry license, including a review of social media accounts by law enforcement, was cleared to go into effect by a federal judge last week, but questions about how the state will enforce it and future legal challenges remain.

The new rules, part of the state’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act, followed a Supreme Court ruling in June that prohibits states from requiring residents seeking a gun license to prove a special need to carry a handgun outside the home.

The case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, challenged a provision of New York’s 109-year-old concealed carry law that required applicants to have “proper cause” for the permit — a special need for self-defense. Five other states had similar laws.

New York responded with a number of changes, including requiring concealed carry applicants to share “a list of former and current social media accounts” from the past three years to assess the applicant’s “character and conduct.” The rule comes in the aftermath of mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas, where the gunmen reportedly posted warnings about their violence online.

The new state laws, which also require more classroom and in-person training for concealed carry licenses and the creation of “sensitive places” where guns are not permitted, have already been met with lawsuits. Judge Glenn Suddaby declined to put the law on hold a day before it took effect, saying the New York resident and three gun rights organizations who filed lawsuits didn’t have standing to bring the legal action. But he indicated he believed some parts of the laws were unconstitutional, and legal experts expect other challenges in the future.

While written testimonies are common for gun permits across the country, requiring social media records is an added layer that has not been implemented in other places for the purposes of gun permitting.

“I refuse to surrender my right as Governor to protect New Yorkers from gun violence or any other form of harm. In New York State, we will continue leading the way forward and implementing common sense gun safety legislation,” Gov. Kathy Hochul said of the conceal carry changes in a statement last week.

The social media requirement has raised questions about privacy and what states can request in the permitting process.

Max Markham, vice president of policy and community engagement at the Center for Policing Equity, said he believes the laws as a whole are a “strong legislative package” when it comes to curbing gun violence. But he said the social media requirement is unclear in its scope and implementation, and will need to be better defined in the near future. He added that he expects conservative groups, in particular, will fight the law on constitutional grounds.

Markham said the law includes a process to appeal if a person’s application for a concealed carry permit is rejected, which he believes can help increase accountability and provide space “for individuals who may feel like they’ve been judged incorrectly.”

“I think seeing how it is enforced and ensuring that there is some degree of equity will be really key,” he said.

What is the scope of the law?

The wording of the requirement suggests applicants only need to share their public content with officials, and that the purpose of the search is to corroborate written testimony from character witnesses, according to David Greene, civil liberties director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Greene believes the social media rules are intended to look for stated intent to commit crimes with a gun. But Greene said there’s a host of information unrelated to a search for criminality that can be gleaned from accessing someone’s social media history.

“[It] can say a lot about someone’s political affiliations, about the community organizations they belong to, about religious groups they’re active in … and their familial relationships,” he said.

Greene said that context – which is hard to gather from a quick social media scan – is relevant to what people share on the platforms, and it can be difficult to get that from a profile alone .

While New York’s new gun law includes welcome changes, such as requiring more firearm training, the social media requirements are a “poor” part and have “serious” privacy concerns, said Adam Scott Wandt, an associate professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

“I question whether or not that part of the law will subject the state to lawsuits that will eventually find the law unconstitutional. And I also have serious privacy concerns with the state requiring somebody to submit social media accounts for review based upon unclear criteria as to what constitutes ‘good character’ and moral and what doesn’t. It’s messy,” Wandt said.

The New York City Bar Association Committee on Technology, Privacy and Cyber, which Wandt co-chairs, did not have time to offer input or feedback on the laws, either, he said..

Hochul’s office did not answer a question from the PBS NewsHour about outside expert review on the new set of laws.

Is social media monitoring for licenses used elsewhere in government?

Social media monitoring to get an official government license is a rare official policy but at least one other agency has adopted the practice.

Greene said visa applicants have been required to share their social media accounts since 2019. The requirements, originally created under the Trump administration, have been continued by Joe Biden. Users are required to provide social media accounts used in the last five years from a list of 20 platforms. Applicants do have the option to select “none” if they have not used any of the social media sites.

According to the State Department, the collection and review of social media information is intended to “enhance the screening and vetting of applications for visas and other immigraiton benefits, so as to increase the safety and security of the American people.”

Wandt said that he is also concerned about social media reporting requirements being expanded to other professional licensing administered by the government, potentially forcing some people seeking these licenses to sacrifice privacy for their work, he said.

Wandt said there were also questions about how he social media information gleaned from firearm applications will be used or stored by law enforcement.

“Do these things go into a database when the NYPD pulls me over? Is there a database now that they’ll be able to look at and see my social media because I applied for a handgun? I think there are more questions than answers at this point,” he said.

Hochul’s office did not respond to a question from the NewsHour about what happens to the records of an applicant’s social media account after a permit is processed.

Which law enforcement agencies will conduct these searches?

Who will grant gun licenses in New York under the new law is dependent on the jurisdiction. In New York City, the NY Police Department issues gun licenses and will check social media accounts. Across the state, there may be some sheriff’s departments who conduct the checks, but in many cases, a county authority, such as a judge, issues the license. However, in those cases, responsibility for ensuring requirements for a gun license are met will still fall to the sheriffs.

“Troopers remain committed to this mission, and we are dedicated to stopping the criminals who traffic illegal guns and endanger our communities,” State Police Superintendent Kevin P. Bruen said in a statement.

NY Sheriff’s Association Executive Director Peter Kehoe said there is worry by sheriffs that the task of searching through social media accounts would be too difficult. He said there is a risk that law enforcement will miss something in the social media account of someone issued with a gun license who then goes on to commit a crime, putting that responsibility and accountability on the sheriffs.

READ MORE: Gun applicants in NY will have to hand over social media accounts

“It falls on the sheriff because he missed something when he was given an impossible task,” he said.

Kehoe adds that the definition of “character and conduct” under the new statute is too vague.

“The statute says that they have to give us social media accounts and we have to use those to determine whether or not the individual has the right temperament and judgment to be entrusted with a weapon,” Kehoe said.

“What we think shows good judgment might not be the next guy’s estimate of good judgment and it’s all gonna be based on the eyes and ears of the person who’s reviewing it,” Kehoe said.

However, Kehoe denied that political biases would play a role in vetting.

“They’re going to be looking at these accounts. And if they see something concerning, they’re gonna put that in their background report to the judge then it’s gonna be up to the judge to decide, I guess, whether or not that particular concern is disqualifying for the person to have a license.”

In a statement to the NewsHour, Hochul’s office said the law doesn’t change the nature of licensing, it simply adds a new requirement for applicants.

“Local law enforcement and licensing officials have always been responsible for evaluating information provided by prospective applicants to determine whether a permit should be issued. The law doesn’t change that,” the statement said.

“It simply requires them to consider social media activity and other new information as part of their review process for concealed carry applications.”

Is there any training being provided for those doing this vetting?

The section of the law that requires applicants to disclose their social media accounts does not detail what training is required for those doing the vetting. Kehoe said law enforcement has not been given additional funding to do training for law enforcement, or to conduct checks of social media accounts. Kehoe expects “millions” of applicants under New York’s new gun licensing rules, many of whom will have more than one social media account.

“Just on a very practical level, we don’t think we can do this.”

Applicants will only be required to provide social media accounts used in the past three years, however, Kehoe said law enforcement may be required to look farther back into those accounts.

“The statute didn’t provide any resources for us to do this and it’s just not going to be possible to get it done without additional manpower,” Kehoe said.

Markham hopes the state will provide bias training for officials combing through social media, reflecting a wider push for law enforcement agencies to minimize possible unequal treatment of minority communities.

Hochul’s office did not respond to a question about whether additional training or resources would be provided to law enforcement in support of the new requirements.

Can monitoring social media work?

The social media search may catch some people who shouldn’t have access to firearms but many more, including those who might be most dangerous and inhabit the darkest parts of the internet, will slip through the cracks, Wandt said.

“Putting all the constitutional and moral issues aside, I stand by my experience and research that shows me that the truly dangerous, disturbed people have multiple social media accounts, usually not under their real name, and I highly doubt that they will be reported on a application for a carry permit,” Wandt said.

Greene said asking whether it will work is the wrong question, since he believes such policies can be inherently harmful, especially if other government institutions, such as general law enforcement, adopt similar policies.

“I do think there’s something dangerous about institutionalizing and normalizing having people provide their social media accounts to the government,” he said.

Gun control fans won’t like lessons of New Zealand

When the Christchurch massacre took place, New Zealand acted. They responded to what happened the same way American anti-gunners would have us react. They banned AR-15s and went on a rampage of stomping on the gun rights of folks there.

Of course, New Zealand doesn’t have a Second Amendment. There’s no protection of gun rights. In fact, gun rights aren’t even acknowledged as rights there, which is a bit of an issue as well.

However, right now, the biggest issue is how the country tripped over itself passing gun control, yet absolutely none of it worked.

Gun control laws disarm victims, not criminals. That’s common sense to everyone but the politicians who promise peace, rainbows and dancing unicorns if only you’ll give up your firearms.

New Zealand’s gun control advocates — including Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern– remain slow on the uptake of that fundamental principle of life. In multiple gun confiscation drives, the Kiwi government grabbed most of the good guys’ guns. And now, a year after the final confiscation push, gun-related violence has reached new, record levels.

Try to suppress your shock and surprise.

Is it really that bad? Are the good folks over at The Truth About Guns spinning things a bit to make a point?

Actually, no, they’re not.

Rates of injury and death caused by firearms are tracking higher than ever before.

Data released by police under the Official Information Act shows 10 murder or manslaughter deaths in 2022, up until 31 July. There were 11 in total in 2021.

Injuries are also running at a record rate, on track to exceed 300 firearm-related injuries for the first time. In 2021, there were 298 gun-related injuries recorded by police, the highest ever.

Now, the numbers aren’t overly impressive, but we have to remember that New Zealand has a total population of just over 5 million people. If you put all of them together in one city, it would only be the second-largest city in the US by population.

Yet those 5 million are spread out over 103,000 square miles, which is enough to drive down the violent crime rates all by itself.

That said, comparing their numbers to ours is silly. Other countries aren’t the United States and vice versa. When looking at the impact of gun control, one thing you have to look at are the trends from before and after its passage.

Prior to Christchurch, New Zealand’s homicide rate was pretty low. In fact, the 49 people killed in that massacre were enough to produce a nearly 254 percent increase in the homicide rate that year, which is kind of telling all on its own.

Yet since then, we’re clearly seeing homicides increase as well as violent crime as a whole. That’s likely because criminals no longer have much reason to fear ordinary citizens. They can kill as they want with impunity because no one is there to stop them.

Oh, sure, the police may come looking for them, but few criminals believe they’ll be caught. They tend to think that if no one is there to prevent a crime, no one will know who did it. That’s not quite true, as we know, but that’s how they tend to think.

New Zealand gave those criminals a gift.

What’s more, American gun grabbers want to give our own criminals the same gift. However, the carnage here would be orders of magnitude worse by virtue of this country simply being more violent. Take away good guys’ guns and watch how the bodies pile up.

If it’s happening in New Zealand, there’s not a shred of doubt that it would happen here.

And this is what gun control got them.

Even if you dismiss gun control as causing this issue, you cannot ignore that it did nothing to prevent it, which is par for the course and why it’s so infuriating that people still push it.

BLUF
The enemy always gets a vote – and Biden just announced that his enemy is tens of millions of us patriotic citizens. So, in the great AR-15 vs. F-15 hypothetical – and pray it stays hypothetical despite the stupidity of our ruling caste – the smart money is on the numbers. But the truly smart course of action is to not to even go down this road, to re-embrace our Constitution and to stop trying to be butch in order to get some Twitter love from the pinkos. Maybe this ridiculous stooge masquerading as our president should stop running his fool mouth threatening to slaughter other Americans.

F-15 vs. AR-15? Bet on the Guys With the Guns

Father of the Year and alleged President Joe Biden is busy trying to rile up his base of weirdos, adjunct professors, gender studies grads, government timeservers, sexually unsatisfied wine women and their sexually unsatisfying life partners. That’s why Dork Brandon pulled one of my favorites out of his Big Duffel Bag O’ Hack Cliches, the old “Your puny guns are no match against the awesome power of the US military which I will use to kill you for dissenting!” narrative.

Okay, fine. Let’s go over this again for the knuckleheads who think that they prevail if they step outside the “use your words” paradigm they grew up with in their sissy private schools. You lose if you idiots provoke a real civil conflict – not the kind of low-intensity urban conflict of the Seventies where you cheered on the Weathermen and Cinque’s SLA, and not the kind where a bunch of mutants riot under the protection of leftist municipal governments in leftist municipalities, but a real one. One where the people you want to crush under your Birkenstocks fight back. With AR-15s.

I discuss this in great detail in my new non-fiction book We’ll Be Back: The Fall and Rise of America, and not from the perspective of half-wit daughter-showering goofs but from the real down and dirty of how this terrible course of events would actually unspool. And it would go poorly for a largely unarmed, untrained, urban-centered population of smug geebos whose primary weapon system is a snarky tweet.

The doddering moron shared his tactical insights with his audience at a rally in Pennsylvania for Heart Attack Shrek. He said, thinking he was super-clever, “For those brave right-wing Americans… if you want to fight against the country, you need an F-15. You need something little more than a gun.”

Hmmmm, but do they? Really?

Grandpa Badfinger’s premise is that all you tens of millions of semi-fascists out there with your AR-15s would have no shot stopping the woke military, which would eagerly crush you with their potent force package of F-15s and esoteric pronouns. It is a flawed premise on more grounds than one column can cover (hence my book), but we need to focus and that means we will need to overlook some important questions. These important questions include:

– Why do you imagine your sorry band of socialist creeps who treat the Constitution like Jerry Nadler treats his boxers constitutes “the country?”

– The useless senior officer corps aside, why do you believe the normals who make up the vast majority of America’s combat forces will gleefully butcher their friends and family for the amusement of a bunch of Chardonnay-swilling blue checks?

– Have you ever heard of Afghanistan?

Let’s focus on his key sound bite. Gun vs. Jets…who ya got?

I’m putting my money on the guns. You dumb progressives can go for the jets and the points.

Continue reading “”

FAKE WOKENESS: Two New Junk Science ‘Studies’ Suggest Racism, Fears of Blacks Drive Opposition To Gun Control.

Remember the RAND study that found only 123 of 27,900 gun control studies actually used the scientific method to come to their conclusions? Well, gun control advocates have trotted out two fresh, steaming new “studies” and the flies are already swarming. The University of Wisconsin has promoted a new finding that whites own guns and oppose gun control because of racism and a fear of blacks.

And within days of squeezing out that specimen of woke clownishness, the American Psychological Association published their own “study” that — you guessed it — whites who support gun rights are racist.

Interestingly the same study showed that when whites support gun control they’re racist too! So you’re racist. I’m racist. We’re all racists! To the uber-woke racists at the APA, if you’re white, you must be a racist.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, gun owners and gun rights supporters — whatever their color — are some of the most open-minded, tolerant and welcoming people in our communities. Contrary to what the racial hucksters, the Grievance Industry and critical race theory practitioners are selling, most Americans aren’t racist. And frankly, most Americans oppose racist gun control laws, too.

Most normal people rightfully reject claims of inherent racism in whites (or anyone else), or any of the other woke, social justice nonsense peddled by the gun-hating left in America.

In fact, plenty of black gun owners would dismiss this Wisconsin Badger junk science (or the APA’s trash “science”) as nothing but poppycock.

The folks over at The Federalist have the deets on these new “studies” . . .

White people own guns — and oppose gun-control legislation — because they are racist and fear black people. Two new studies advance this dangerous narrative building among our academic elites. While such rhetoric is perhaps unsurprising among political pundits or celebrities, otherwise serious academics are now ascribing racist motives to gun ownership and opposition to gun control. These studies are not only based on a slew of bigoted assumptions, but also bad science.

The University of Wisconsin recently promoted a new study contending that in U.S. counties where black people were enslaved in 1860, gun ownership is higher today. In fact, gun ownership, they say, is correlated to the number of slaves formerly in each county. To support this more-slaves-means-more-guns theory, the authors construct a historical narrative that whites feared newly freed slaves, bought guns for self-defense, and then this fear somehow trickled down over 160 years.

But interestingly enough, just last month, National Public Radio ran a story on how black people are the fastest growing group of gun owners. If gun ownership is a product of white people being racist, then this is quite curious.

The University of Wisconsin study suffers from a series of flaws, even apart from its poisonous premise that white people believe or feel certain things because they are white. You’d never say the same about other races, and we shouldn’t give a pass to academics who traffic in the same type of racism…  

A few days after the release of the slavery-predicts-gun-ownership study, the American Psychological Association (APA) released another study contending that whites support gun rights because they are racist, and when whites oppose gun rights, that’s also racist.

Rest assured, gun control advocates will try to use these junk studies — like thousands that came before them — to paint patriotic, gun-loving Americans of all colors and persuasions as racists no matter their race, sex or religion.

And why not? Using pseudo-scientific hokum to support claims that gun control laws prevent criminal misuse of guns is actually less scientifically accurate than claiming drinking milk causes car accidents. But they have no fear of anyone in the media debunking the junk science on which they base their calls for civilian disarmament.

Plus most politicians and low-information types will probably believe it…so they keep pushing the politicized garbage to further their disarmament narrative. And so it goes.

BLUF
Back in the United States, American Farm Bureau Federation Chief Economist Dr. Roger Cryan estimates that a Sri Lankan-style move would cut domestic grain crop production by about 50 percent within two to four years of implementation, leading to massive price hikes and acute shortages of basic commodities……

Should California – or the nation –  take the path of most destruction and implement restrictions or even fertilizer bans, the social and economic impacts would be catastrophic and could hearken back to the conditions during the Great Depression of the 1930s – except this time there wouldn’t be any bread lines because there wouldn’t be any bread.

From Sri Lanka to Salinas

Ah, Sri Lanka.

In 2020: a beautiful, agriculturally self-sufficient island nation full of tea and tourists and holder of the highest “Environmental, Social, and Governance” (ESG) investor rating in the world.

And then, as part of the larger “green” effort spurred on by international Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), woke capital, and, seemingly, a desire to sit at the big table at the various and sundry global initiative conferences, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa banned the use of manufactured fertilizer in order to create a more climate-friendly sustainable farming sector.  In April, 2021, the country went all-organic overnight.

What could possibly go wrong?

By the end of last year, Sri Lanka became unable to feed itself, prices for food (especially rice) and fuel and other daily basics skyrocketed, the tea crop – and the hundreds of millions it earns in international trade – was decimated.  The nation defaulted on its foreign debt, had rolling power blackouts, the tourists are staying away in droves, and Sri Lanka,  already wracked by corruption and COVID, spiraled out of control.

The public’s response?  Even though the fertilizer ban had already been partially rolled back, just last month Rajapaksa’s presidential palace was stormed by thousands of everyday Sri Lankans and he had to flee the country – last word was that he was holed up in Singapore.

(Side note to Nancy Pelosi and Liz Cheney – this is what an actual insurrection looks like:)

It seems Kermit was right – it ain’t easy being green.

But, considering the state’s claim to be the global leader in fighting climate change, can California – with its extremely powerful “climate lobby” that was able to ban the future sales of new gas-powered vehicles, a concept that would have been unthinkable a very few years ago –  be far behind?

California’s commitment to confronting climate change cannot be underestimated., as proven by the 86 different climate partnerships, or “bilateral and multilateral agreements with national and subnational leaders” the state as entered into.  (The list can be found here:  https://www.energy.ca.gov/about/campaigns/international-cooperation/climate-change-partnerships .)

Additionally, a quick tour of state department websites finds numerous examples of “green,” “sustainability,” and “climate” pages and plans; even the state’s prisons get into the act with its climate change plan: https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/green/cdcr-green/climate-change-adaptation/ .

It should be stressed that California is not above shooting itself in the foot when it comes to climate issues. Thursday, the legislature passed a bill mandating 3,200-foot “buffer zones” around all – new and existing – oil and gas wells, a move which would practically eliminate the industry – and its 13,000 jobs – in the state.

Continue reading “”

Never Forget. SloJoe may be a senile dolt, but that speech was precisely what the demoncraps think about you.
As Joe Huffman says ‘Prepare Accordingly’

BLUF
So he just wants us to pretend he didn’t say it and ignore everything he said last night? What kind of ridiculous administration is this? They can’t even do evil oppressive government right, they’re that messed up.

But you know what a failure this all was when he immediately has to backtrack from it the next morning.

You Know It Backfired Badly: Biden Now Desperately Trying to Backpedal His Despicable Speech

Joe Biden is getting all kinds of backlash from the despicable speech he delivered last night at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, attacking millions of Americans who want to “Make America Great Again” and supporting President Donald Trump.

We covered some of the hot takes, with many people comparing his unprecedented attacks to Communist or Nazi-like tactics, Biden acting like the fascist he was accusing others of being. They also hit on the visuals with the improper use of the Marines and the evil blood-red backdrop.

Among the hot take was Trump who chastised Biden for essentially threatening Americans and saying if Biden doesn’t want to make America great again he shouldn’t be representing America. Trump also called going after Americans like that insane.

Even CNN bashed Biden for the use of the Marines in such a speech. On the other hand, CNN also reportedly softened the look of the visuals so it didn’t look as bad.

But now Biden seems to be trying to walk it back a bit. Or maybe he just can’t even remember what he said the night before. Now he’s trying to say he was only talking about people who called for “violence.” That of course was a lie, that is not what he said during the speech or the whole prior week. It means he knows now that he screwed up and went too far.

“I don’t consider any Trump supporter to be a threat,” Biden said to Fox’s Peter Doocy. “I do think anyone who calls for the use of violence and fails to condemn violence when its used, refuse to acknowledge an election when it’s been won… That is a threat to democracy.” Oh, so you mean like the Democratic reaction to when Trump won in 2016, when they tried to suborn electors, boycotted his inaugural, when Democrats refused to accept he won, and leftists rioted in the streets on Jan. 20, 2017? When have the Democrats ever called out any of that? Biden didn’t condemn any of that, indeed, he encouraged the perception that Trump was not a legitimate president.

Continue reading “”

I Am a ‘Clear and Present Danger’ to the Biden Regime (And So Are You)

“Clear and present danger” aren’t words any president should use lightly because that’s when the big guns used to come out against the First Amendment — and might again.

Set aside for a few minutes the vaguely Nurembergesque optics of Thursday night’s historically divisive speech by Presidentish Joe Biden so we can concentrate on the content.

“MAGA Republicans have made their choice. They embrace anger,” Biden angrily declared. “They thrive on chaos. They live not in the light of truth but in the shadow lies together.”

“That’s why respected conservatives, like Federal Circuit Court Judge Michael Luttig, has called Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans, quote, a ‘clear and present danger’ to our democracy.”

Ben Shapiro called it “the most demagogic, outrageous, and divisive speech” he’s ever seen from an American president because Biden “essentially declared all those who oppose him and his agenda enemies of the republic.”

Biden’s speech came just two days after he not-so-implicitly threatened [VIP link] millions of law-abiding Americans with military action. “For those brave right-wing Americans,” he sneered, “if you want to fight against the country, you need an F-15. You need something little more than a gun.”

Ricochet’s Jon Gabriel said that Biden’s word choice was as “deliberate as it was divisive,” reminding readers that the C&PD doctrine was “created by the Woodrow Wilson-era Supreme Court to curtail the free speech of Americans.”

Biden, warned Gabriel, “floated a legal pretext to silence Republicans heading into the midterm elections.”

Already, social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have been revealed as willing stooges for government end-runs around the First Amendment, as our own Stacey Lennox noted just today:

On the heels of shocking comments by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg about the FBI’s role in censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story, initial e-mails related to a lawsuit filed by Schmitt and Landry show even more evidence that the Biden administration is using Big Tech to do what it is not, allowed to do according to the Constitution.

Lennox wrote that “Further disclosures could demonstrate that Big Tech and the government are conspiring to censor information related to any number of issues.”

But back to Thursday night’s demagoguery.

MSNBC’s Eugene Robinson approvingly described Biden’s speech as an “urgent, wartime address.”

Well, with whom is Biden at war? Biden has met the enemy, and he is us.

Many on the Right, including my friend and colleague Stephen Kruiser, believe that Biden’s speech was a display of weakness, “the panic and flop sweat of every Washington power player inside the Beltway.” I don’t necessarily disagree, but let’s at least consider that it might have been something else: A display of dangerously hubristic overconfidence in the administration’s own power.

Their power not to govern but to rule.

What else is there to call it when the Biden regime goes from surreptitiously silencing critics via social media back channels to openly floating a Wilson-era pretext for jailing us?

If this scheming mediocrity believes he can use his signature to transfer up to a trillion dollars from blue-collar Americans into the wallets of lawyers, doctors, and Trans Deconstructive Lit Theory majors and call it “debt relief,” why wouldn’t he think he can use the coercive power of the state to silence his critics?

I’ve been writing for PJ Media for over 15 years, but this is the first time I ever felt like the company, all of these voices, might not be here tomorrow.

I don’t know if the Swamp cabal running the White House will get away with it, but I’m sure as hell not going to be quiet about it ….

Forget “democracy” — our republic might depend upon it.

Just to point out for those who may not know.

DoD Instruction 1334.1, “Wearing of the Uniform,”

1.2. POLICY.
a. The wearing of the uniform by Service members of Active and Reserve Components, retired Service members, cadets, midshipmen, auxiliary members, and members of organizations authorized to wear a military uniform by the respective service, is prohibited under any of the following circumstances:

(2) During or in connection with furthering political activities, private employment, or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship by DoD or the Military Service concerned for the activity or interest may be drawn.

Now, the Marines in attendance at that political activity were almost assuredly under direct orders to attend that ‘speech’, but that doesn’t excuse them, or their commanders, from what they did (for they should know better), nor the politicians who abused the public trust, and the non-politization of the military, by inferring that the military would, or will ‘back up’ Biden’s rant by having them on stage. The only time uniformed military service members are permitted to attend a political activity is  as a member of a joint Armed Forces color guard at the opening ceremonies of the national conventions of the Republican, Democratic, or other political parties
(DOD Directive 1344.10 -§ 4.1.2.15)

What Biden and his handlers have done is make a direct threat to his political opposition by showing that he feels he has the power to use the military for partisan political purposes.

Banana Republic, we have arrived.