Category: Crap For Brains

I’ll say that using the First Amendment to protect a lie is a threat to the whole Bill of Rights.
The – well known to be leftist hacks-  editors of The Atlantic see the ability of their political enemies to defend their rights as a problem for the advancement of their agenda…..and it is.

The Second Amendment Has Become a Threat to the First

Many Americans fervently believe that the Second Amendment protects their right to bear arms everywhere, including at public protests. Many Americans also believe that the First Amendment protects their right to speak freely and participate in political protest. What most people do not realize is that the Second Amendment has become, in recent years, a threat to the First Amendment. People cannot freely exercise their speech rights when they fear for their lives.

This is not hyperbole. Since January 2020, millions of Americans have assembled in public places to protest police brutality, systemic racism, and coronavirus protocols, among other things. A significant number of those protesters were confronted by counterprotesters visibly bearing firearms. In some of these cases, violence erupted. According to a new study by Everytown for Gun Safety and the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), one in six armed protests that took place from January 2020 through June 2021 turned violent or destructive, and one in 62 turned deadly.

These kind of data fill a void in ongoing debates about the compatibility of free speech and firearms at protest events. For example, is the phenomenon of armed protests new? Is it frequent? The open display of firearms at public protests, including long rifles and what are sometimes called “assault-style rifles,” is a relatively new phenomenon. Although many states allow firearms in public places, until recently few Americans have openly toted firearms to political demonstrations. The Everytown/ACLED study examined thousands of protests, showing a marked uptick in protests at which people were visibly armed following the police murder of George Floyd. It found that at least 560 events involved an armed protester or counterprotester. Loose state firearms laws are part of the explanation for this phenomenon. The incidence of armed protests was three times higher in states with expansive open-carry laws, the study noted.

Such research makes much clearer the implications of open carry for public safety, public protest, and constitutional democracy. Some have argued that open carry will make protests safer. In fact, tragedies were far less frequent at protests that did not involve firearms, the Everytown/ACLED research revealed: One in 37 turned violent or destructive, and only one in 2,963 unarmed gatherings turned fatal.

In short, the visible presence of firearms increases the risk of violence and death when exercising one’s First Amendment rights. The increased risk of violence from open carry is enough to have a meaningful “chilling effect” on citizens’ willingness to participate in political protests. Research thus far has focused on open display of firearms, but further study is needed to evaluate the public safety concerns that may still be present when protesters or counterprotesters bring concealed firearms to demonstrations. In addition, concealed carry may not have the same chilling effect; it’s possible that without weapons visible, protesters will not be deterred. But at the same time, merely knowing that people might be armed could keep people away from public protests.

Diana Palmer, one of the authors of this article, conducted a study on the impact of open carry of firearms on the exercise of protest rights, and confirmed what common intuition suggests but included some surprises. The study found that participants were far less likely to attend a protest, carry a sign, vocalize their views, or bring children to protests if they knew firearms would be present.

Participants were asked about their willingness to participate in protests in two groups. In the control group, firearms were not mentioned in the questions. In the experimental group, they were. The questions did not specify whether the participants were visibly carrying firearms or not. The participants in the experimental group were much less willing to participate in expressive activities than participants in the control group to whom firearms were not mentioned.

That hesitation was present regardless of respondents’ political ideology. It was experienced by gun owners and nonowners alike. Survey respondents’ explanations as to why they would refrain from participating in protests where arms are present revealed the significant chilling effects of guns at protests. Among other things, respondents indicated:

I feel like I would be antagonizing [firearms carriers] and that could lead to me being injured.

If they started shooting, I would be concerned they would target me for what I said.

I’ll let the people with the guns do the talking.

Nothing is important enough to be shot over.

Some open-carry proponents insist that they bring firearms to protests to defend themselves against potential violence or to ensure that the First Amendment rights of all participants are respected. However, the Everytown/ACLED study concluded that 77 percent of armed protests during the observed period were “driven by far-right mobilization and reactions to left-wing activism.” The study also found that 84 percent of armed protesters at Black Lives Matter protests were counterprotesters from extremist groups such as the “boogaloo boys,” the Proud Boys, and other right-wing groups. Rather than being motivated by self-defense or civil-rights concerns, the decision to carry a gun tends to follow far-right political ideology.

Whatever the motives of firearms carriers might be, the clear social perception of would-be participants is that armed protests are unsafe. That finding is crucial to understanding the potentially devastating effect that bringing guns to protests can have on the exercise of First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court will soon decide whether there is a Second Amendment right to carry firearms and other weapons in public places, a question it has yet to weigh in on. A pending case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, involves restrictions on concealed-carry permits. To decide it, the Court will need to determine whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home. As the studies show, the answer has profound implications not just for public safety but also for constitutional democracy. As courts and legislatures consider gun regulations, they ought to bear in mind not just the physical dangers of armed protests but also the social harms associated with them. For many—perhaps an increasing number of—Americans, participation in armed public protests may simply not be worth the risk. Even if public protest survives, only those willing to risk their life, or who are inclined and able to carry weapons in defense of their own right to protest, may want to participate. Rather than serving as a democratizing means of expression, protest may become an armed contest and the exclusive preserve of the non-peaceable. Most concerning is that public protest as we know it may cease to exist at all. That would deprive Americans of participating in one of the greatest traditions of this country: expressing their views, engaging in public life, and advocating for democratic change.

One More Time™:
When the people who say its a crisis, start living their lives like it’s a real crisis, I’ll think about considering that it may be a crisis.

Joe Biden Forgets Mask, Coughs into His Hand, then Shakes Hands with Democrats

President Joe Biden again forgot to put his mask back on after a speech in New Jersey on Monday and even coughed into his hand before greeting Democrats with handshakes as the coronavirus pandemic continues.

The president arrived at his event wearing a mask but after removing it to speak, he walked away from the podium without it.

Coughing into his hand, Biden exited the stage without his mask and began shaking hands with several New Jersey Democrat officials before an aide rushed up to give him another mask.

All other New Jersey officials were wearing masks as they greeted the president.

Biden continues to promote mask wearing across the country, even though he frequently forgets to put his mask on after a speech.

Last week, Biden was caught exiting a Washington, DC. restaurant without a mask, even though the mayor continues to keeo a mask mandate in place.

The White House defended the president’s mistake as a “moment” that should not distract from his overall support for masks.

“We know masks work. They are uncomfortable sometimes, and they get tired of wearing them. I understand. I really do,” Biden said in September. “And I wear them in the White House.”

 

The Brit MP got stabbied by a moslem jihadi import, but **Giffords** tries to use this BS article to push for more gun control over here.

**Not Giffords herself, her handlers.  Anyone with one more functioning synapse one can listen to her speak for more than 5 words and can tell she’s nothing more than a cabbage head ChattyCathy pull the string doll, which makes the odds she can write such an article as this highly unlikely.

Opinion: Gabby Giffords: The stabbing of a British MP is another example of how violence eats away at democracy

As the stabbing of Amess makes all too clear, the problem of politicized violence is endemic around the world. But in the United States, this problem is exacerbated by our tragically lax gun laws……………

This is getting out of hand. At some point, when a child/spouse/elderly parent is denied care, I can see a family member deciding that who made that idiotic decision pays for it more dearly than they can possibly imagine.

Covid Unvaxxed Teen Boy Denied Medical Treatment

A teen boy in Indiana was refused treatment for multiple infections because he was not vaccinated against Covid 19. In the video made by the teen’s mother, it’s not just the denial of treatment but the borderline violent behavior of a medical personnel that is shocking.

Let us stipulate that states mandate vaccines for students attending government schools. Measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria and tetanus vaccine requirements are a good thing, in my opinion. There should also be exceptions, even with those vaccines. The death rate, before vaccines, for measles was quite high. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC):

In 1912, measles became a nationally notifiable disease in the United States, requiring U.S. healthcare providers and laboratories to report all diagnosed cases. In the first decade of reporting, an average of 6,000 measles-related deaths were reported each year.

In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year, among reported cases, an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 1,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.

On the other hand, the death rate from Covid for teens 15-19 is .00049, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. When one takes into account the lack of reliable data regarding long term effects of the mRNA jabs, we could understand parents who thought 100 or more times before jabbing their teens. There is also the fear of myocarditis:

Federal health officials have verified 226 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis in people ages 30 and younger who have received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and are investigating about 250 more reports.

While rare, the rates for ages 16-24 following a second dose are above what is expected, prompting an emergency meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) next week.

Teens and children are not good spreaders of the Covid. The have a very, very low death rate. So, parents could be forgiven for casting a gimlet eye at a vaccine that could put their teen out of commission for three to six months and whose long term effects have not begun to be studied.

When our children are sick, mothers (fathers, too) turn into vicious beasts with killing claws. Don’t get in our way, because we will cut you. You may not even know when we will take our revenge on you or how. Case in point is the Indiana teen boy who was denied treatment for multiple infections. I got this story from Defiant America.

The mother, in this case, brings her teen boy in to be checked because he is not feeling well. The young man looks athletic. What we don’t see before the mother starts filming is that the Nurse Practitioner has already diagnosed the teen with sinusitis, an ear infection and bronchitis. Then, because the teen has not been vaccinated for Covid, the Nurse Practitioner refuses to prescribe antibiotics. That is when the mother starts filming. This is short. Don’t miss a second:

Now go back and watch that again.

Having had a teenage son, I know that my son would be saying, “Mom, Mom”, too. I feel for the kid. But that Nurse Practitioner is one sick twisted Nurse Practitioner Karen Ratched. How inhuman can one person be? Don’t answer that. I know. The hatefilled Leftists have been “othering” the unvaccinated for months. This is the logical outcome of this othering. This woman has already diagnosed the young man. She is refusing to prescribe antibiotics. That is some sick shite.

Let’s watch it one more time:

When NP Ratched tried to grab the Mom’s phone, I gasped. That’s some crust. Power drunk Ratched there. I understand why the mother didn’t bite off Ratched’s hand, her son’s prescriptions were more important. Yes, Ratched go call security.

In case you are interested, this power mad woman works at the RediMed in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

We used to believe in our medical professionals. We used to have faith in them. We believed their Hippocratic Oath. Everything has been politicized.

Nurse Practitioner Ratched let down her patient and her profession. Her license should be cancelled.

They’re stupid enough to believe they will be immune to any consequences if things ever go kinetic.

Democrats aim to make anyone who disagrees with them an enemy of the state.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-The Moon) made the Democratic position clear Thursday: If you’re not with us, you’re terrorists.

During his opening statement for the Attorney General Merrick Garland hearing, Nadler said there was no difference between the rioters who stormed the Capitol on January 6 and parents who are angry about what is being taught in schools.

“This growth in extremist ideology is echoed in an epidemic of violence and intimidation directed at our health care professionals, teachers, essential workers, school board members and election workers,” Nadler said.

Nadler, a partisan loon who spent the past four years stirring up every conspiracy theory against President Trump, claimed there was a “broader pattern” here, including “the growing threats of violence against public servants.”

Yes, it is terrible when a sitting senator is harassed and followed into a bathroom . . . Oh he wasn’t talking about Krysten Sinema? The incident President Biden said was just “part of the process”? Huh.

We’re sure he was inspired by the climate change activists who stormed the Department of the Interior last Thursday, breaking down the front door and attempting to occupy the building. He was calling on AOC and others to denounce them. No?

How about the fact that the letter the National School Boards Association sent to Garland asking for the FBI for help, as reported by columnist Christopher Rufo, “cites only a single example of actual violence against a school official.” That the letter is in fact hyperventilating bunk, describing shouting as “violence” and people who disagree with school boards as “domestic terrorists.”

Turns out the White House knew about the letter before it was made public. Did the president order Garland to get the FBI involved?

It seems like the Biden administration is guilty of what they always accuse Republicans of: Politicizing the Department of Justice, and stifling free speech through intimidation.

Continue reading “”

When dishonesty is their stock in trade, it’s only logical to conclude these people want to disarm you because they want to do something they know they would likely be shot for.

Everytown Lies Their Tongues Off With Claim on Child and Teen Deaths

Everytown is one of the largest deep-pocketed anti-Bill of Rights organizations out there. They do serious lobbying and litigation. Their “reporting” arm is The Trace, a publication whose bias should be obvious from who is buttering their bread.

Everytown has a documented history of lying to advance their cause. Those of us on the pro-Rights side are jaded by their behavior, but if you thought that their boldness and daring in peddling falsehoods had peaked, you would be wrong.

Back in August, Everytown posted the following tweet:

 

“Firearms are the leading cause of death for children and teens in America ages 0-19. Our kids shouldn’t have to die like this.”

Really? Firearms are the leading cause of death for children and teens in America? That sounded off, so I went straight to the motherlode of statistics: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC has a page where you can get detailed information on Leading Causes of Death and Injury.

Trying to get a quick answer, I checked out their “Ten Leading Causes of Death and Injury” infographic images. For both 2018 and 2017, the top cause of death is “unintentional injury,” not firearms, as Everytown claimed above. So, I dug in further to see if Everytown’s claim was buried somewhere, and it was all just a misunderstanding. For both 2018 and 2017, the top categories of “unintentional injury” were dominated by traffic accidents, drowning, and suffocation. So, again, I decided to give Everytown the benefit of the doubt and dug into an even smaller subset of “violence-related injury deaths.” And yet again, for both 2018 and 2017, I found that the top causes were dominated by traffic accidents, drowning, and suffocation. Firearms were clearly not the “leading cause of death” as Everytown claimed.

But what if the infographic images were not providing the accurate picture because the range of years covered (2017-18) was too narrow?

So, to be sure, I ran a custom report on the “Ten Leading Causes of Death.” This report includes all the data available from 2001–2019. Once again, I didn’t see firearms as the leading cause in the report data. Drilling down, the same pattern of traffic accidents, drowning, and suffocation persisted. For the 15-24 age range, poisoning made a cameo; diving into that revealed that drug overdoses are listed as poisoning and were the leading cause of death in the poisoning category.

What if the above report was inaccurate because the age groups were too broad? After all, the CDC’s 15+ range went from 15-year-olds all the way to 24-year-olds.

So, I ran another custom report, this one covering data from 1999–2019. (Note that this custom report was not available for 2001–2019.) Under the “Advanced Options,” I was able to set a custom age range from “<1” to 19, which was the age range that Everytown claimed in their tweet. Yet again over this 20-year period, unintentional injury deaths (184,060) – the top cause – were almost 3.5 times higher than homicides (53,628), and almost twice as high than homicides and suicides (44,595) combined. Homicides and suicides included all means, not just those committed using firearms. Again, this report didn’t substantiate Everytown’s claim. Out of curiosity, I limited the age range from “<1” to 17, because 18- and 19-year-olds are voting-age adults; homicides and suicides dropped even lower with these criteria.

I still wasn’t giving up on Everytown; what if I messed up somehow and Everytown was actually correct. So, I ran a final report with the data the CDC has going back to the 1981–1998 period. And yet again, unintentional injury deaths (257,110) vastly outnumbered homicides (60,768) and suicides (38,215); note that the homicide and suicide numbers include all means, firearms, cutting instruments, blunt objects… you name it.

Based on the CDC’s reports and readily available infographics, I was not able to substantiate Everytown’s claim. If Everytown has any data that’s not conjured out of thin air, they need to come clean and disclose it. Until then, their deliberate misinformation needs to be stopped by those of us on the pro-Rights side, using free speech and facts, not by calling for censoring or silencing them.

Very likely another Parkland Springs type shooting has been averted.
Maybe these fools in Florida will start treating these kids as the dangerous criminals they are instead of coddling them.

Teen killed by police while pointing ‘military-style rifle’ at drivers in Tarpon Springs

TARPON SPRINGS, Fla. – Police in Tarpon Springs say a suspect, killed Saturday [?] for waving a “military-style rifle” at cars and officers, was actually a high school student with an Airsoft pellet gun.

17-year-old Alexander King was shot and killed by officers at the intersection of Pinellas Avenue and Tarpon Avenue shortly before 9:30 p.m. Sunday.

Investigators say police responded after multiple 911 calls about a “white male wearing dark clothing pointing a military-style rifle” at passers-by.

According to Chief Jeff Young, when the officers arrived, the suspect lifted the weapon, charged it, and pointed at the officers.

Video of the incident recorded by a bystander appears to show King yelling “shoot me” toward officers.

Taking cover behind a nearby vehicle, officers said they were forced to open fire. King was hit multiple times and was later pronounced dead at the hospital.

King, a junior at Tarpon Springs High School, had 22 prior run-ins with police, 11 with other Pinellas County law enforcement agencies and 11 with the Tarpon Springs Police Department, including a felony arrest for battery on a school board employee in 2017 and one for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon in 2018.

Continue reading “”

Update: He deleted the post and is trying to apologize. If you’ll read it you’ll see that while he calls what he wrote ‘rude’, he doesn’t specify what and he also doesn’t repudiate anything.
In other words, he hasn’t changed what he thinks of people.

“cleanse our gene pool”?
I did NAZI that coming.

He left his email. Maybe let him know how we hold him in contempt. I did. I told him that that – right there, if for nothing else – made me hope it blows back on him so bad he goes bankrupt.

This is by the owner of NAA – North American Arms

September 2021 Soapbox – I believe in Vaccinations; So Should You.

Just when you thought the end of this life-threatening COVID pandemic was in sight, it’s become painfully clear that it is not.  In fact, we’re heading in the wrong direction.  What makes this realization even more painful is that, not withstanding our missteps regarding wearing masks, social distancing, economic shutdowns and the like, the end could have been in sight.  If only more of us had embraced the simple protocol of getting vaccinated, we’d be well on our way to leaving this scourge in our wake.  Instead, we’re back, smack in the middle of it and “life as we knew it” is still a distant dream.

I continue to believe in vaccinations.  I believe they are far and away the most effective means of protecting oneself from contracting the COVID virus, AND is the key to eliminating the ongoing threat of the virus – and its increasingly more threatening variants – worldwide.  I also believe that, if a vaccinated person DOES contract the virus, he/she/(they) will suffer far fewer and less severe symptoms that those who are not vaccinated.  Is there any doubt?

Over the past few months, my thoughts about those who don’t believe in the value of vaccinations has transitioned from disinterest to sympathy to incredulity to contempt.  I believe that those who don’t take advantage of the opportunities to become vaccinated are ignorant, misguided &/or selfish, or any combination of the three.  Despite all the unarguable reasons in favor of getting vaccinated, there remains a surprisingly large number of people who stubbornly refuse to do so.  Why?  There seems to be a variety of excuses that are proffered, almost none of which hold any validity.  I offer some of the more popular ones, in no particular order.

“I don’t believe the vaccines are safe”.  How much data, gathered over what period of time, will it take to put this false narrative to bed?

“I don’t believe the vaccines are effective”.  While there have been some, few instances of people contracting COVID after having been vaccinated, the effects they suffer are, almost without exception, an order of magnitude less severe than they would have been otherwise.

“I have already contracted the disease and so I already have some level of immunity and see no benefit from vaccination”.  Right on the first count, wrong on the second; you can be certain that your immunity will only be bolstered with a vaccination.

“I am afraid of suffering side effects from the vaccination”.   While some have reported this to be the case, there are stunningly few and the effects are modest/weak and very short-lived.

“My circumstance puts me at a heightened risk from being vaccinated”.  I don’t know what circumstance that is; it most certainly does not apply to those attempting to become pregnant, for example.

“I have a history of adverse allergic reactions”.  Maybe.  That alone has a taint of legitimacy.

“I claim a religious exemption”.  For the life of me, I can’t understand the basis of such a thing.  What religion would advocate against something that will protect your life and that of others?  Certainly none that I’ve ever heard of.  Go ask the Pope.

“I can’t afford it”.  Bullshit; it’s free.

“I don’t know where to find it”.  Are you living under a rock?

“I’m a freedom-loving American and I simply don’t want to”.  Ahhh, here we go.  This is far and away the most frequent – and lamest – excuse.  Even Donald Trump, the poster-child for the selfish exercise of frequently nonsensical individual freedoms (“I’m not wearing a mask because I don’t want to”.) has been vaccinated and has encouraged other people to do so as well (NB he’s also previously contracted the disease, above).  As a member of a society, you have an obligation not to threaten the health and well-being of others, particularly when doing so comes at no risk or expense to you.

I’ll admit I enjoy no small measure of schadenfreude reading stories of those stubborn people who find themselves stricken and on death’s door, suffering from their earlier foolish decision not to get vaccinated.  I look at it almost as a Darwinian effect, helping cleanse our gene pool.  Excuse my lack of sympathy.  Too bad.  Completely avoidable.  Didn’t have to happen.

I know that this is one of my more controversial and likely to be one of my least popular rants.  I take this personally.  There are individuals in my own family who are the subject of my (heretofore silent) disdain, as well as several other friends, as well as people on my team at NAA, people who I otherwise respect and whose company enjoy.  Not so much so now.

I acknowledge that it’s your decision to make but, I’ll admit, I don’t have much regard for those who lack any sense or moral obligation to the greater community – and to there own friends and loved one whose health and safety they so cavalierly threaten.

Please get vaccinated.  The life you save may well be your own – or mine. Please feel welcome to share your reactions with me at Sandy@NorthAmericanArms.com

BMJ Urges Doctors to Cut Back on Treatment Because Climate Change

Doctors should think less about the health of their patients and more about the health of the planet, an editorial in the BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) has urged.

The editorial, published as part of a special edition dedicated to the forthcoming COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland, says that medical treatment contributes significantly to “greenhouse gas emissions” and that this carbon footprint can be reduced if only “health professionals” can learn to reduce “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment”.

Healthcare contributes 4-5 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. In the NHS, 62 per cent of these emissions are from its supply chains and 24 per cent from delivery of care. Health professionals can be institutional leaders who drive decarbonisation in hospitals through reducing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in healthcare, eliminating waste, streamlining services, and better managing suppliers and procurement. All of these efforts will bring us closer to making healthcare more sustainable.

One of the bigger problems, a separate piece argues, is all those pesky suspected cancer patients who tiresomely insist on getting as early a diagnosis as possible. They need to learn to wait, argues one Rammya Mathew:

The pressure to diagnose cancers earlier and earlier is another major contributor to modern medicine’s carbon footprint. Over successive years we’ve been told to continually lower our threshold for suspecting cancer, and we’re encouraged to investigate sooner and more extensively. In primary care, most patients with mildly elevated or even high normal platelet counts now undergo a barrage of investigations in case thrombocytosis is an early indicator of underlying cancer. What does the yield of these tests have to be to make this an acceptable approach? And shouldn’t we be considering the environmental impact of putting so many patients on a conveyor belt of investigations, as part of cost-benefit calculations?

But hey, why stop at letting the occasional undiagnosed cancer patient die? What we should really be doing is forcing everyone to go vegan and make everyone travel by bicycle…

Adopting the largely plant based planetary health diet and taking most journeys using a combination of walking, cycling, and public transport would substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve our health.

Animal sourced foods (meat, dairy, fish) generally use much more land and water and create more greenhouse gases than plant sourced food. Sustainable and healthy diets consist largely of diverse plant foods with low amounts of animal source foods, unsaturated rather than saturated fats, and limited amounts of refined grains, highly processed foods, and added sugars. The nature and scale of change required depends on existing dietary patterns and nutritional status of local populations. For example, to meet the planetary health diet recommendations, average meat consumption in Africa can slightly increase (2 per cent), whereas in North America and Europe it needs to fall by 79 per cent and 68 per cent, respectively.

Sustainable land travel will involve substantially fewer journeys by car and more journeys taken by foot, bicycle, and public transport, ensuring that all transport is carbon neutral and powered by renewable energy. This requires a transformation of the energy sector and transport infrastructure, prioritising active and public transport over road building. Estimates of the nature and scale of change needed vary. In the UK, for example, a central net zero pathway includes car mileage per driver falling by 10 per cent by 2050, whereas other analysis calls for a reduction between 20 per cent and 60 per cent by 2030, depending on the speed of transition to electric vehicles.

Old fashioned types who imagine doctors should be concentrating on healthcare rather than engaging in environmental activism may be puzzled by this. But they shouldn’t be. The Climate Industrial Complex — and the sinister billionaire backers behind it, such as the World Economic Forum — has run a hugely successful gaslighting operation in which schools, universities, the entertainment industry, big business, and the mainstream media now broadcast nothing but environmental scare stories. Any stories providing evidence that the global warming scare has been massively overblown are ruthlessly suppressed.

Hence, for example, the recent announcement by Google that it will demonetise media that “contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change”. (Spoiler: there is no such thing as “consensus” in science. There is definitely no “consensus” on climate change, neither on the causes nor the solutions. If there were a consensus Google would not need to indulge in censoring dissident voices because everyone would agree on the subject already).

People are saying that SloJoe has lost his mind,
but that would mean he had a mind to lose in the first place.

Crap-For-Brains Econut believes her dog is a vegetarian.
By the way….it does not go as planned….
There was never any other way this was going to end

Remember; Morons like this vote.

I wonder why gun grabbers were pushing RFID in ‘smart guns’………..

Military Units Track Guns Using Tech That Could Aid Foes

Determined to keep track of their guns, some U.S. military units have turned to a technology that could let enemies detect troops on the battlefield, The Associated Press has found.

The rollout on Army and Air Force bases continues even though the Department of Defense itself describes putting the technology in firearms as a “significant” security risk.

The Marines have rejected radio frequency identification technology in weapons for that very reason, and the Navy said this week that it was halting its own dalliance.

Continue reading “”

Just another confirmation that the editors at the Washington Post are clueless morons.

 

Stephen Gutowski Profile picture
 Twitter logo
Nobody on The Washington Post’s editorial board noticed the irony of putting these two paragraphs back-to-back? Does on the opinion side of D.C.’s biggest paper even know what the gun laws there are? washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
Image
WaPo’s editorial board says solution to the accidental shooting it highlights is to pass an assault weapons ban, universal background checks, and a safe storage law. But, the place it happened ALREADEY HAS all of those laws. 
Here is DC’s assault weapons ban: code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/cod…
Here is DC’s law that requires all sales, and even transfers, only occur between people who have a registration certificate which requires a background check and more: code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/cod…
Here is DC’s safe storage law. Anyone who stores a gun in a way that minor is likely to gain access to it could face up to 5 years depending on the circumstances: code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/cod…

Milley confirms he told China he would call ahead of US attack, claims Esper ordered calls based on intel

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley confirmed that he told his Chinese counterpart that he would “call” to warn of any potential U.S. attacks on Beijing, maintaining he had that conversation at the direction of then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper after assessing intelligence suggesting heightened Chinese concerns about escalation between the two “great” powers.

Milley addressed allegations that he held “secret” calls with his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army, in October 2020 and days after the Capitol riot in January 2021, which were included in “Peril,” a book co-authored by Washington Post correspondents Bob Woodward and Robert Costa.

Milley has faced calls to resign since the revelations were made public earlier this month. The book “Peril” by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa claims that Milley contacted Li after he had reviewed intelligence that suggested Chinese officials believed the United States was planning an attack on China amid military exercises in the South China Sea. The book claims Milley contacted Li a second time to reassure him that the U.S. would not make any type of advances or attack China in any form.

On Wednesday, during a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee focused on the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan, Milley responded to questions about the allegations.

Continue reading “”

May be just me, but it appears everybody is pointing their fingers at everybody else trying to throw them ‘under the bus’.

Comment O’ The Day:
As soon as Nancy Pelosi contacted General Milley about nuclear weapon procedures, he should have politely referred her to the Secretary of Defense and immediately reported the call to his boss,[actually that’s the President, and then to ] the SecDef. 

Because of civilian control over the military, the decision to employ WMDs is a political decision… the military carries out the orders. Therefore, Pelosi as a civilian should only be talking to DoD civilians about defense procedures.

She was WAY out of line making the call, and Milley was derelict in answering her questions.

Milley Details Nancy Pelosi’s Attempt to Take Over the Chain-of-Command

During his opening statement in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday morning, General Mark Milley denied inappropriate phone calls with the Chinese military and tried to reassure Americans he is dedicated to civilian control of the military.

“I am specifically directed to communicate with the Chinese. These military to military communications at the highest level are critical to the security of the United States,” Milley said. “My loyalty to this Nation, its people, and the Constitution hasn’t changed, and will never change, as long as I have a breath to give. My loyalty is absolute, and I will not turn my back on the fallen.”

“I firmly believe in civilian control of the military,” he continued.

Milley also stressed that he does not believe President Donald Trump planned to attack the Chinese in the final days of his presidency.

In his remarks, Milley also addressed a phone call from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on January 8, 2021, in which she pressed him about the process to launch a nuclear weapon. Milley says he informed her that while launching such a weapon requires multiple people in the chain of command, the president is the sole authority to launch an attack.

“Speaker of the House Pelosi called me to inquire about the president’s ability to launch nuclear weapons. I sought to assure her that nuclear launch is governed by a very specific and deliberate process. She was concerned and made various personal references characterizing the president [President Trump]. I explained to her the president is the sole nuclear launch authority and he doesn’t launch them alone and that I am not qualified to determine the mental health of the President of the United States,” Milley said. “There are processes, protocols and procedures in place and I repeatedly assured her there was no chance of an illegal, unauthorized or accidental launch. By presidential directive, and Secretary of Defense directive, the chairman is part of the process to ensure the president is fully informed when determining the use of the world’s deadliest weapons. By law, I’m not in the chain of command and I know that. However, by presidential directive and DOD instruction, I am in the chain of communication to fulfill my legal, statutory role as the president’s primary military advisor.”

Milley said after the call from Pelosi, he convened a meeting with his staff to go through the process and procedures. He also told Acting Secretary of Defense Mark Miller about Pelosi’s call.

“At no time was I trying to change or influence the process, usurp authority or insert myself in the chain-of-command,” Milley said.