Category: Crap For Brains

A not so modest proposal for mandatory training

In the past week or so, we’ve seen a push by anti-Second Amendment folks to call for mandatory training prior to people being able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. And not just to carry a gun, but to simply own one.

Now, we oppose this when it comes to gun rights for obvious reasons. However, it’s very clear that many don’t. As such, I figured I’d offer something of a compromise.

In particular, if gun control folks are going to be insistent on mandatory training, then I’m going to push back with calls for mandatory training before exercising other rights.

To start with, we should require mandatory training before allowing people to vote.

After all, an uninformed electorate could lead to all kinds of problems. I mean…<gestures toward the White House>.

We should require all citizens wishing to vote to undergo a mandatory training course prior to being able to cast a ballot. The course should require some degree of basic civics as to which elected officials can do what they cannot.

It should also include the constitutional limits to the government so that these voters don’t get led astray by promises that won’t pass legal muster. You know, things like free money, forgiveness of college loans, things like that.

Additionally, we should also require mandatory training before anyone can attend a house of worship of any faith.

After all, you wouldn’t want someone to walk into a mosque and do everything wrong, deeply offending our Muslim neighbors, now would you? The mandatory course would include a basic primer on all faiths worshipped in the United States so people can make an informed decision as to where to worship and what to do when they arrive.

The fact that such a course would amount to the coursework for a theology degree is completely irrelevant.

We should also require mandatory training before exercising one’s freedom of speech. After all, some people talk a lot of nonsense. I mean, I saw someone advocating for communism just yesterday. That shouldn’t be allowed!

So clearly, before people speak, they should be required to undergo a mandatory training class. I mean, they might offend someone by advocating for socialism, communism, or some other faulty line of thinking.

And while we’re at it, we need to mandate training for journalists. No, I’m not talking about journalism school–something that’s not actually required for one to become a journalist–but a government-mandated training course one must go through, lest they report inappropriately. I mean, we can’t have journalists giving government officials a hard time like they did President Trump, right?

What? What’s that? You think this is all out of line and unconstitutional?

Well, that may be, but if you’re someone who thinks I should be forced to undergo training before exercising a right protected by the Constitution, then why shouldn’t you be forced to undergo training before exercising some right precious to you?

It’s been said that the Second Amendment is treated as a second-class right. The idea of mandatory training in order to exercise it illustrates this idea perfectly. Especially since we know that many of these other proposals I just made would be shot down in a heartbeat.

After all, how is something a right if you must pass a course first in order to use it? At that point, it becomes a privilege.

If you have an issue with any of those proposals above, then you should at least show some consistency and stand against mandatory training for gun ownership.

Well – they’ve got  crap-for-brains to begin with, so ignoring truth is not ‘second nature’ but first nature for them.

BLUF:
They can look at contrary evidence clear in the face and just pretend it doesn’t exist, reject it out of hand simply because it goes against their preconceived notions that gun control is good.

You’re never going to talk sense into these people. You generally can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

How anti-gunners ignore inconvenient facts

When it comes to a discussion of guns in America, there will always be something of a divide. Those who want to regulate almost anything will always want to regulate guns and those who do not wish to be ruled will argue against such regulations.

It’s really not a difficult dichotomy to comprehend, all things considered.

Currently, with violent crime raging, anti-gun folks are pushing hard and using the violence to justify any and all demands.

Take this bit regarding Iowa.

In 2018, the Center for American Progress and Progress Iowa wrote an issue brief warning that, while gun violence in Iowa remained relatively low compared with other states, efforts in the Legislature to weaken the state’s gun laws threatened the safety of Iowa communities. Unfortunately, Iowa lawmakers did not heed this warning and in 2021 continued to undermine gun safety in the state by repealing two crucial measures that have helped keep gun violence in Iowa at comparatively low levels: 1) the law requiring a permit, and therefore a background check, prior to every handgun sale and 2) the law requiring a permit to carry loaded, concealed handguns in the community.

At the same time, similar to trends in other states, the coronavirus pandemic has been accompanied by an increase in gun deaths in Iowa: According to early data from the Iowa Department of Public Health, gun-related deaths reached an all-time high in 2020, with an estimated 353 people killed. Once again, it is crucial that policymakers in Iowa take the issue of gun violence seriously and resist efforts to further weaken the state’s gun laws.

Now, on the surface, if you knew nothing else about guns or gun control, it would be easy to look at this plea and think that maybe it’s a good idea.

The problem is, it isn’t.

Now, 2020 was a nasty year for violent crime all across the nation. That includes states that have long favored gun control policies such as California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, and so on.

2021 was a slightly different animal, but not by much.

Chicago saw the highest homicide rate it had seen in 25 years. Los Angeles had the highest it had seen in 15 years.

So clearly, it was rough for a lot of places.

However, we also saw violent crime go down in a couple of large cities. Dallas saw a decline. So did Miami.

So what’s the difference between these four cities? The two where homicides went up were in anti-gun states while the two where it went down were in pro-gun states.

Now, I’ll be the first to concede that this is just a data point and far from conclusive evidence. However, if fewer restrictions on guns result in greater violent crime as the anti-Second Amendment types claim, then shouldn’t Dallas and Miami have seen the worst violent crime compared to Chicago and Los Angeles?

What happens is that anti-Second Amendment folks don’t want to look at that. They prefer to ignore inconvenient truths whenever possible.

Gun-controlled states are having issues while non-gun-controlled states are having fewer problems. This isn’t opinion. This is a fact, one based on the actual numbers.

But you’ll never get an anti-Second Amendment type to acknowledge it. Instead, they’ll just pretend those facts don’t exist, all while pushing the next bit of gun control to strike their fancy. They’ll ignore it, all while pretending that those who oppose gun control want to do nothing to address violent crime.

The term is cognitive dissonance. They can look at contrary evidence clear in the face and just pretend it doesn’t exist, reject it out of hand simply because it goes against their preconceived notions that gun control is good.

You’re never going to talk sense into these people. You generally can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

BLUF:
I’ll leave you with a GOP strategist marveling at Biden choosing to expend evaporating political capital on this base-placation exercise.  Which seems destined to fail.  Which, in turn, will only inflame the base’s dissatisfaction.  Galaxy brain stuff.  Americans do not generally view the right and ability to vote as under genuine threat.  They’re more worried about rising prices, various shortages, and other hardships.

Desperate Demagogue: Those Who Oppose My Elections Power Grab Are ‘Domestic Enemies’

One more post on that nasty, mendacious speech delivered by a desperate, shrinking president.  Mitt Romney made some strong points in rebuttal on Tuesday, and we followed up with a few additional arguments yesterday.  But we haven’t tackled this soundbyte yet, which was among the ugliest and laziest lines in the president’s extended expression of performative, impotent rage.  President Unity is really on a roll:

Continue reading “”

‘Just call the police’: The Insufferable White Privilege of Gun Control Advocates

The concept of privilege gets a bad rap in many circles, and understandably so. Many have taken it way too far, using it as a means of bullying their political opponents into submission. But while the excesses of this rhetoric are certainly problematic, I don’t think we should do away with the concept entirely. Behind all the moral grandstanding lies a kernel of truth, one that can provide some valuable insights if applied correctly.

The principle, essentially, is that certain people have unearned advantages, and those advantages can shape how they see the world. Affluence, for instance, can make someone blind to the needs of the poor. Likewise, those with an above average aptitude, intelligence, or physical appearance might find it difficult to relate to those who were not equally endowed with those gifts.

The problem with this blindness is that it can easily lead to hubris, that is, unwarranted self-confidence. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of privilege is thinking we know the best course of action for a given situation when we really don’t.

The classic example of this is the story of a famous French queen who, upon hearing that the peasants had no bread, simply replied, “then let them eat cake.” She was so unfamiliar with their circumstances that the solution she dismissively prescribed was positively laughable. Another example of privilege was when the lockdown elite told us to “just stay home,” seemingly oblivious to the fact that staying home is simply unfeasible for many working class people.

Now, progressives think they’re pretty good at pointing out places where privilege is leading to blindness and hubris (indeed, they often see privilege even where it doesn’t exist). But there’s one occurrence of privilege that always seems to get a pass, and that is the privilege associated with gun control.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
……as violent crime soared in the 1990s, states expanded gun rights in the form of concealed carry, driving violent crime down.
I’m sorry, but unless you have an answer for that, I don’t really care what you have to say
And when it comes to the Rittenhouse case, the only takeaway is that when you’re faced with a violent mob, you need all the firepower you can manage.

There are no gun control lessons out of Rittenhouse trial

Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murder by a jury. Even before that, though, we know he was innocent of all charges because we watched the whole thing unfold on video. We knew he was innocent.

Now, though, Rittenhouse is a free man, but some are using his situation to try and advance gun control.

No, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Yet this isn’t the first op-ed I’ve seen that tried to make that case.

As the country awaits a U.S. Supreme Court decision in a New York state case that may create a federal constitutional right to carry guns outside the home, what lessons can the nation draw from the recent acquittal in Wisconsin of Kyle Rittenhouse and the convictions in the murder of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia?

The obvious first lesson is that no one would be dead, maimed or going to prison if the men in these cases had not possessed firearms or had just left their weapons at home. The man Rittenhouse maimed learned that his self-proclaimed constant gun carrying not only did not protect him or others, but simply added him to the victim count when he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse.

No, we didn’t learn any such lesson.

Continue reading “”

It’s too expensive, that’s why

Americans Aren’t Buying Biden’s Agenda
According to a recent poll, only 22 percent of people believe that the current state of the economy is “good” or “excellent.”

The new year often feels like an opportunity to correct past mistakes—for example, improving one’s diet or quitting smoking. This explains why 25 percent of Americans, and 40 percent of those under 30, make New Year’s resolutions. Based on the latest poll from The Economist and YouGov, the Biden administration should adopt a New Year’s resolution too. In particular, it should reconsider its domestic policy agenda. Americans aren’t buying it.

YouGov is an influential international research data and analytics group headquartered in London. Pollsters asked 1,500 American adults about the state of the economy, the COVID-19 pandemic, inflation and more. Their findings show that people aren’t particularly happy right now.

When asked whether the country is headed in the right direction, only 23 percent of respondents said yes, while 62 percent think we’re on the wrong track. Black Americans seem more content than most, with 38 percent answering yes, as opposed to only 22 percent of Hispanics. There is also a small gender disparity in these opinions: 33 percent of white male college grads believe the country is heading in the right direction, while only 22 percent of white female college grads have the same optimistic view. Meanwhile, only 17 percent of white, non-college grads of all genders are happy with the country’s current direction.

Continue reading “”

As well they should. It all political Kabuki Theater….or worse.

January 6 Opening Day Celebrations Conclude With a Musical Number

Washington State Democrats  demoncraps! Push Bill Reducing Penalties for Drive-By Shootings

Washington state Reps. Tarra Simmons (D) and David Hackney (D) are pushing legislation to remove drive-by shootings from the list of crimes that elevate first degree to murder to a higher degree of murder carrying a mandatory life sentence.

FOX News reports that “drive-by shootings were added to the list of aggravating factors for murder charges in 1995.” At the time, drive-by shootings were one of a number of crimes that would elevate charges and Simmons and Hackney are now working to remove such shootings from the list.

The 1995 language that Simmons and Hackney want to specifically strike from the aggravating factors list says: “The murder was committed during the course of or as a result of a shooting where the discharge of the firearm… is either from a motor vehicle or from the immediate area of a motor vehicle that was used to transport the shooter or the firearm.”

Simmons says she believes the language surrounding drive-by shootings “was targeted at gangs that were predominantly young and Black.”

She added, “I believe in a society that believes in the power of redemption. Murder is murder no matter where the bullet comes from but locking young people up and throwing away the key is not the answer.”

Simmons points to Kimonti Carter as a example of why she wants to remove drive-by shootings from the aggravating factors list. Carter was convicted in a drive-by shooting that left two people dead in 1997. He received a 777-year sentence and Simmons said, “If he had been standing outside of the vehicle at the time, he would’ve faced 240-320 months in prison. Instead, he was sentenced to life in prison with no opportunity for parole because of this law.”

770 KTTH points out that Simmons and Hackney’s pushed to strike drive-by shootings from the aggravating factors list is posited as a pursuit of “racial equity in the criminal legal system.”

On July 22, 2021, KIRO 7 noted a surge of gun violence in Seattle and quoted Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diazwas saying, “We’ve seen more than a 100% increase in drive-by shootings this year alone.”

It’s called ‘sowing to the wind’, as in reaping exactly what you asked for, good and hard.

How Defund the Police backfired.

Over the last two decades, progressives have established a new consensus on crime. Nonviolent felonies like shoplifting and drug possession should be reclassified as misdemeanours. Cities should defund the police and spend the money on nurses, psychologists and social workers instead. Offenders should have minimal involvement with the justice system — and be kept out of jail wherever possible.

But now, rising crime is rapidly undermining the progressive consensus. Homicides rose 30% in 2020, and over two-thirds of America’s largest cities will have had even more homicides in 2021 than in 2020. At least 13 big cities will set all-time records for homicides, including Philadelphia, Austin, and Portland. Meanwhile property crimes in California’s four largest cities rose 7% between 2020 and 2021. Car break-ins in San Francisco declined temporarily in 2020, because Covid emptied the city of tourists, but they have since skyrocketed, reaching 3,000 in November. Many residents have stopped bothering to report crime.

Of course, many crime rates are still below what they were in the Eighties. And progressives are right to say that we shouldn’t panic about rising crime, since past panics contributed to cruel and crude responses, including overly long prison sentences with little in the way of real rehabilitation programmes. That’s why, in the late Nineties, I worked for George Soros’s foundation, among others, advocating for drug decriminalisation, reduced sentences for nonviolent crimes, and alternatives to incarceration.

But today it’s clear that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. In 2000, when I stopped working on criminal justice policy, progressives were advocating mandatory rehabilitation as an alternative to incarceration. Now, progressive prosecutors are simply releasing criminal suspects from custody without requiring rehab or extended probation. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for instance, a man who had run over the mother of his child with his SUV was released on $1,000 bail. Neither he nor his SUV were put under electronic surveillance. Soon after, he killed six people and injured another three dozen — by running them over with his SUV.

Continue reading “”

I hope the ‘a liberal is merely a conservative who hasn’t been mugged carjacked yet’ meme holds true for this one.

Carjacked congresswoman has a long history of embracing gun control

Last Wednesday, Democratic Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon had her luxury SUV stolen at gunpoint by a couple of armed men in Philadelphia. As Cam noted, five people are facing charges after this brazen carjacking that happened in broad daylight at FDR park.

Crime that happens in a dark alley at night is one thing, but this sort of daytime crime becomes common when the State abdicates its basic function in maintaining the rule of law. Philadelphia has done just that, extending its Brotherly Love to violent criminals thanks to far-Left Democrat D.A. Larry Krasner.

Those of us in the Second Amendment community know all too well how criminal-coddling policies that lead to crime spikes are used as a pretext to pass more gun control laws, which turn us – the law-abiding, tax-paying citizens who want to mind our own business – into criminals. That’s a feature, not a bug, of the gun control movement, and that’s what Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon’s campaign website showcases. Here are members of the Gun Grab Lobby who endorsed Scanlon’s congressional bid:

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
I suppose we should be glad that between the existential threat of climate change, which is urgent, and the threat to democracy from the “insurrectionist” right that nearly toppled our Constitution on January 6, some liberals still have the bandwidth to worry about NORAD’s Santa tracker.

Must be a cheerful life.

LIBERALS ARE MISERABLE PEOPLE

They say misery loves company, and that may be why liberals always want to extend their control over everyone and everything—because they are miserable people. Thomas Byrne Edsall covers some of the survey evidence about the misery and unhappiness of liberals in a New York Times article back in October:

Two similarly titled papers with markedly disparate conclusions illustrate the range of disagreement on this subject. “Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?” by Jaime Napier of N.Y.U. in Abu Dhabi and John Jost of N.Y.U., and “Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals, but Why?” by Barry R. Schlenker and John Chambers, both of the University of Florida, and Bonnie Le of the University of Rochester.

Using nationally representative samples from the United States and nine other countries, Napier and Jost note that they

consistently found conservatives (or right-wingers) are happier than liberals (or left-wingers). This ideological gap in happiness is not accounted for by demographic differences or by differences in cognitive style. We did find, however, that the rationalization of inequality — a core component of conservative ideology — helps to explain why conservatives are, on average, happier than liberals.

Napier and Jost contend that their determinations are “consistent with system justification theory, which posits that viewing the status quo (with its attendant degree of inequality) as fair and legitimate serves a palliative function.”

Need I point out that Napier and Jost are far-left? Thus we shouldn’t be surprised that the issue of “inequality” shows up for heavy work here. I suppose it makes some sense, given how the super rich are skewing left these days, and must be unhappy with guilt about this.

But let’s continue with a paper less enslaved (see what I did there?) to leftist ideology:

Continue reading “”

Tracing Spurious Claims

Since leading anti-gun researchers acknowledged no connection between the 2020 surge in firearms sales and violence, unscrupulous anti-gun advocates must cite underwhelming statistics as meaningful evidence.

That’s what The Trace did, in an article written in collaboration with FiveThirtyEight. We’d expect a more sophisticated analysis from FiveThirtyEight, but this is what Nate Silver’s outfit gave the world:

“New Data Suggests a Connection Between Pandemic Gun Sales and Increased Violence.”

Ominous, right? The operative word here is “suggests.” They can’t use anything stronger because this is a very rudimentary analysis – there is no identification of causality. There is no actual statistical test to even indicate an association between the two variables.

Bloomberg’s activist-journalists looked at ATF reports showing the number of firearms traced broken out by the time between retail sale and tracing. They report that the number of firearms traced within a year of retail sale increased significantly from 2019 to 2020. The so-called journalists try to humanize the data by pointing to a pair of examples, developing the strongest emotional levers they could muster. Those cases are, of course, awful but are unlikely to be representative of all such traces.

So, the number of firearms traced within a year increased in a year in which the number of all guns sold increased. That seems proportional. The Trace covers this point, too: the ratio of guns traced within seven months of retail sale to all gun sales has increased annually since 2013. That sounds much more dramatic than the proportion increased from about 0.11% to 0.3% from 2013 through 2020.

That is eleven-one-hundredths of a percent to three-tenths of a percent. Naturally, that means that 99.7% of firearms are not traced within seven months of their acquisition.

Continue reading “”

Biden apparently thinks COVID deaths are amusing

More people have died from COVID on Biden’s watch than did on Trump’s watch.  When a reporter finally asked Biden a question about that on Wednesday, Biden’s sole response was to give one of his patented “aw, gosh” fecal matter–eating grins, laugh, and walk away.  The media seemed just fine with that.

I’m afraid it’s going to take a serious war with a ‘peer opponent’ (read that as Russia and/or China) with massive amounts of American blood spilled, to get these morons, and their idiotic ‘woke’ mentality excised from the military, along with the politicians who thought up this BS.

Vice Chair JCOS Nominee Cool With Gender Advisers

The top brass of the United States Military are all genuinely committed to never winning another war, ever again. This will not surprise those of us who have been alive long enough to remember the incompetent and deadly Afghanistan withdrawal last August. Still, it is jarring to hear a Navy Flag Officer, nominated to be the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, say that “gender advisers” for combat troops are critical to mission success.

“Gender advisers” come from the 2017 Women, Peace and Security Act passed by the House and Senate and signed by President Donald Trump (I am weeping openly just typing that).

This bill expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the United States should be a global leader in promoting the participation of women in conflict prevention, management, and resolution and post-conflict relief and recovery efforts; (2) the political participation and leadership of women in fragile environments, particularly during democratic transitions, is critical to sustaining democratic institutions; and (3) the participation of women in conflict prevention and conflict resolution helps promote more inclusive and democratic societies and is critical to country and regional stability.

(Sec. 5) The President, within one year after enactment of this bill and again four years later, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees and make public a Women, Peace, and Security Strategy, which shall:

be aligned with other nations’ plans to improve the participation of women in peace and security processes, conflict prevention, peace building, and decision-making institutions; and
include goals and evaluation plans to ensure strategy effectiveness.
Such a strategy shall include a specific implementation plan from each relevant federal agency.

The President is urged to promote women’s participation in conflict prevention.

In addition to breaking my heart that Donald Trump signed this Bill into law, then Representative, now Governor, Kristi Noem sponsored the bill in the House. We have long suspected Kristi was a squish. Now, most of think qualified women should be included in all endeavors where they are needed, but why, in the name of homemade sin, does the military need gender advisers? We have women at every level of the U.S. Military. Are they not capable of advising? Are there not men in the U.S. military who value the perspective of women and can advise on the value of that perspective? This excrement is crazy making.

When I want to know whether military excrement is real, I search the Army War College website. Here is the description for the Gender Adviser course at the Army WAR College:

gender advisers

The military is committed to never winning another war, ever again. Can you see Admirals David Farrugut or Chester Nimitz being down with a Gender Adviser? Admiral Christopher Grady is down with the Gender Advisers. He’ll be out there bleating, “Damn the guided missiles. Get me the Gender Advisers.”. Joe Biden’s nominee to be Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said as much in his Senate Armed Services Committee Confirmation hearing. From the Washington Free Beacon:

President Joe Biden’s nominee for the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Senate “gender advisers” for combat troops are critical to the United States’ success, a position some veterans say is nothing more than a left-wing initiative that distracts from the military’s core duties.

The revelation came during a Dec. 8 exchange with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.), who asked how Adm. Christopher Grady intends to implement “women, peace, and security” legislation within the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“The role of a gender adviser is a way to attack a very significant issue, and if confirmed, I look forward to leveraging those advisers who can make me think better and smarter about the issues that you raise,” Grady said. “So I look forward to, if confirmed, understanding that ecosystem and helping advance that cause going forward again.”

Do you think Admiral Grady was always this much of a pussy-footing, tea drinker, or is he saying whatever he has to say to get a job? Whatevs! He will fit right in General Mark “White Rage” Milley. Watch and despair as Grady sucks up openly to Senator Jean Shaheen, Senator sponsor of the Women, Peace and Security Act:

Intercede for us, General Patton. This is exactly what President/General Eisenhower meant by the Military Industrial Complex. Let’s get troops killed. Let’s leave $80 million in equipment for our enemy to use against us, but our gender advisers will put gold stars on our daily reports to the Pentagon. My favorite Twitter response regarding Admiral Grady:

 

This response from a Purple Heart recipient is where I stand:

“When someone nominated to be the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says something like this, it tells me top brass is aligned with radical political elements in the country,” he said. “You have people’s lives on the line. These positions aren’t about how to communicate with Afghan women, we have a diplomatic corps for that.”

As for Gender Advisers help with domestic issues, I can handle that in less than a 40 hour course:

1. Do your job.
2. Be respectful to everyone
3. Keep your hands to yourself.
4. Don’t defecate where you eat.
5. Kill the enemy and have your battle buddy’s back.

Please let me know if I missed anything. I really want a job as a Gender Adviser. Sounds like a sweet gig. And, I would love to see our military win, every time.

Not one thing SloJoe wants would have stropped that

Biden Uses Sandy Hook Anniversary to Call for More Gun Control

Joe Biden put gun control back on the front burner, using the ninth anniversary of the Sandy Hook mass shooting to call for stricter gun control laws, according to CNN.

Calling the shooting—committed by a disturbed young man who murdered his mother and took her legally-purchased firearms to the school in Newtown, Conn.—an “unconscionable act of violence,” Biden said he wants the U.S. Senate to pass three pieces of legislation. One expands background checks, another would prohibit gun ownership by “abusers,” and the third would reportedly create “community violence intervention” programs under the “Build Back Better” program.

CNN’s report portrayed Biden’s wish list as “limited scope” measures. But the president’s gun control agenda is hardly that. It includes a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and original capacity magazines. There would be waiting periods and other hoops through which law-abiding gun owners would have to jump while criminals would continue ignoring the laws and remain fairly well-armed.

This comes as Rasmussen Reports a new daily presidential tracking poll showing Biden’s popularity remains at a low, with only 21 percent of likely voters strongly approving of his job performance. On the other side, 47 percent of likely voters “strongly disapprove” of his job performance.

An unidentified “senior White House official” admitted to reporters that none of the president’s agenda items are enough “to fully solve this problem.” So Biden wants Congress to act.

That may not be likely with the midterm elections on the horizon in 2022. There is lots of speculation Republicans may capture at least one house of Congress, and possibly both the House and Senate, effectively slamming a door on Biden’s agenda.

For the present, CNN noted anti-gun Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy is hopeful “negotiations could resume in the coming weeks to produce some bipartisan reform.” But what does that mean? When CNN talks about “gun reform” and “gun safety,” they’re talking about gun control. Grassroots gun rights activists call that “camo-speak,” because it camouflages what gun control advocates are actually seeking.

The White House “official” said Biden is still looking for a nominee to head the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Earlier this year, Biden had to embarrassingly withdraw the nomination of former ATF agent David Chipman because of his advocacy of gun bans and tighter gun regulation. Gun rights activists from across the country flooded Capitol Hill with opposition to Chipman.

Meanwhile, Biden is under fire for being unable to handle the current crime crisis in major cities, with violent crime and homicides on the rise. According to Fox News, “At least 12 major cities, including New York, have already set historical murder records in 2021. Robberies and assaults are also on the rise, and retailers in major cities across the country are reporting an uptick in organized smash-and-grab crimes during the busy holiday shopping season.”

The Great Reset Crowd’s Overreach Will Come Back to Bite Them

So-called “democracies” around the world have proven during these last two years of COVID-1984 just how authoritarian their leaders really are.  They censor, compel, threaten, intimidate, and dole out physical and emotional punishments in as arbitrary and terrifying a manner as any mad king.  Then the thuggish little tyrants playing Mussolini while raging against fascism run to the video cameras and boast of the joys of “democracy” and the threats of authoritarianism emanating from Russia and China.

No matter how absurd the State’s “politically correct” declarations, disagreement is now routinely labeled fascist.  If you disagree with the lie that boys can be girls, you’re a fascist!  If you think killing the economy to change the weather is insane, you’re a fascist!  Paradoxically, the only way not to be a fascist is to abide by everything the State decrees.  Only by believing and repeating everything our Western “elites” say are you then rewarded with their permission to be “free.”  All they do is lie, call it truth, and wait for applause.  It’s sickening stuff and the kind of shameless rhetorical tripe that only politicians can stomach.

However, this “Great Reset” planned takeover of the world through the subterfuge of a “health emergency” is beginning to sever the globalists’ hypnotic control over the people, and those in power seem blind to what’s surely coming next.

Continue reading “”