Category: Crap For Brains

Former Trump Official Slices Fauci Apart Over Hydroxychloroquine Fiasco

Donald Trump scored a major win over the liberal media. It’s a moral victory as he’s no longer president, but he can add another notch to the handle of the club that has beaten the media establishment bloody for years. Its face must be a bloody crater by this point. Hydroxychloroquine has finally been proven as an effective treatment for COVID. Russian collusion was a hoax. The Russian bounty story in Afghanistan was another whopper. Lafayette Square was not cleared for a photo op. And Hunter Biden’s laptop is real.

The hydroxychloroquine one is significant since it was weaponized heavily against the Trump administration. The president was trying to save lives and all the media did was attack him. It’s why they’re the opposition press. And Dr. Anthony Fauci’s refusal to endorse the treatment caused thousands of unnecessary deaths. That’s the allegation that Peter Navarro, Trump’s director for now-defunct Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, said he had around 60 million tablets of this stuff that could have been used to treat some 5-6 million patients. Fauci refused to budge. Navarro did not hold back, calling Fauci an “SOB,” saying that he kept to his line that hydroxychloroquine’s effectiveness was based on anecdotal evidence. Not true. Navarro slapped scores of studies noting its effectiveness.

The former Trump official went into further detail on Larry O’Connor’s show:

Navarro goes on to accuse Fauci and the liberal media of being complicit in tens of thousands of negligent homicides as this treatment has been confirmed to be effective. It’s another reason to hate Fauci. It’s another example showing how bad he is at his job. The man was wrong about testing, the vaccine (he thought we didn’t need one), and masks. He admits in emails that the masks we all wore for a year did nothing to curb the spread. Only Fauci can explain why he did what he did on COVID. He lied. He was biased. He is the poster child for the death of medical expertise. They got political. They wanted Trump gone, but now the population, except for woke liberals, have rightfully turned their backs on these political clowns. They’re not doctors. They’re DNC operatives. With COVID over, you can mute Fauci on your televisions.

The most stupid puppet ever to hold office.

We yield our rights to goobermint?

Leeme see….

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America…..

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

May be just me, but SloJoe has it so wrong, he qualifies as what the patriots back then rebeled against.

Biden Gets Lost Reading the Notes Written for Him by Someone Else, Babbles Incoherently to Stall for Time.

Elder abuse.

A curious tic Biden has, which Benny Johnson pointed out: He’s always saying he would “get in trouble” with staffers if he answers a question.

He means his handlers. That’s not my supposition, it’s what he clearly means when he says “I’d get into trouble if I answered another question” or “I’d get in trouble with Jake Sullivan if I answered that.”

He’s upfront admitting he’s being run by other people, that he’s not the real president and that he is at least aware enough to know he’s not the real president.

Continue reading “”

Remember to keep telling yourself: President Kamala Harris

A Visibly Confused, Tired-Looking Joe Biden Mixes Up Libya, Syria Three Times In Speech On Russia

Feinstein Introduces Federal Extreme Risk Protective Order Bill

The matter of Fourth Amendment protections for firearm owners has yet to fully have its day in court. The promising outcome from Caniglia v. Strom on May 17, 2021 does point to gun owners having protection from firearm seizure when a warrant is absent. The Caniglia case was reported nearly a month ago by Cam Edwards, and in his correct estimation, it can have effects going forward concerning due process for those trapped up in such situations, and how the high court views them:

It’s encouraging to see the Supreme Court unanimously agree that Edward Caniglia’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when his firearms were seized without a warrant, but I suspect that a challenge to a state’s red flag laws would result in a much more divided opinion.

While this case didn’t directly involve a Second Amendment challenge, it’s also good to see that even the progressive wing of the Court concluded that the seizure of Caniglia’s legally-owned firearms infringed on his constitutional rights. It may not indicate a sea change from the liberal justices, but at least in this case they declined to treat the Second (and Fourth) Amendment as a second-class right.

While I agree with Edwards’s suspicion that “red flag” laws might yield a more divided opinion, this case will in my opinion have an impact on litigation against all of the unconstitutional seizure policies. In a concurring opinion, Justice Alito conceded the Caniglia case does not address “red flag” laws directly, but I’m sure the case will be cited in case documents filed in lower courts.

Continue reading “”

Just to point out the intellectual level of some people who believe they’re making a salient point about a subject that anyone can easily determine they are totally clueless about

Letter: What does any of this have to do with the Second Amendment?
Portsmouth Herald

June 10 – To the Editor:

In the news the past month or so:

A 57-year old retired NYC police officer is shot accidentally by a friend trying to break up a dispute outside a pizza parlor.

A 6-year old boy, a passenger in his mother’s car, is shot in a road rage incident.

Another young boy, retrieving his bike from the sidewalk near his home, is shot by a neighbor.

Several dozen are killed or wounded over a weekend in gang-related shootouts in Chicago.

An 18-year old from Ohio is found carrying an AK-47 in a NYC subway.

A woman in Texas shoots a beauty shop owner in a dispute about the cost of her pedicure.

A 5-year old boy is accidentally shot by his mother who was aiming at a dog.

Eight people are killed in Atlanta, followed by shootings in a supermarket in Colorado, an office building in California, a FedEx office in Indianapolis, a rail yard in San Jose. A total of 39 people.

Somebody….anybody….Please! Can anyone tell me what any of this has to do with the Second Amendment?

Anthony McManus

Dover

I wouldn’t necessarily call criminal being criminals as a ‘failure’ of gun control. This just confirms that these laws aren’t for controlling guns, but controlling the average law abiding citizen.

Gun Control Failures Don’t Mean You Need More Gun Control

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, then there’s no doubt about how insane gun control really is.

Over and over again, proponents of it continue to take everything as an excuse that more gun control is needed. Study says that gun control reduced crime? Then it’s proof we need more gun control. Study shows gun control doesn’t work? Then clearly the problem is that we need more gun control.

It’s not any better when you have a total failure of gun control happen in real life, either.

A month after Gov. J.B. Pritzker took office in 2019, giving Democrats complete control in Springfield, flaws in Illinois’ gun laws were exposed when a convicted felon whose state firearm owner’s identification card had been revoked opened fire in an Aurora warehouse, killing five co-workers and wounding a sixth along with five police officers.

The case became a rallying point for gun safety advocates, who’ve pushed for mandatory fingerprinting for FOID card applications, universal background checks for gun buyers, and a system that ensures people whose FOID cards are revoked hand over their weapons to authorities.

More than two years later, however, Pritzker and the Democratic-controlled legislature haven’t enacted those policies or any other major gun safety measures, even as they successfully pushed progressive measures that range from legalizing marijuana to abolishing cash bail.

“These are complicated issues,” Pritzker said of gun control last week in an interview with the Chicago Tribune.

“We have Democrats from downstate, from areas where people are deeply concerned about protecting their gun rights,” he said. “And then we’ve got people who live in other parts of the state who believe, as I do, that we need to have a greater focus on gun safety, but it’s a complicated challenge in order to get enough votes put together.”

And all of that ignores the simple fact that while the Aurora shooter was a convicted felon, he went through every hoop the state of Illinois cared to present. He got a FOID. He filled out the ATF’s Form 4473. He didn’t lie about any of his personal information–though he did lie about being a convicted felon, to be clear, but not his name, address, or other such data–and still was able to buy a gun.

Gun control failed at every single level.

That’s kind of like what happens every single day in Chicago. There, despite all the gun control laws on the books in Illinois, criminals are able to obtain firearms easily enough. Meanwhile, citizens trying to obey the law are dealing with a screwed-up system.

At what point do people look at these failures and recognize that doubling down on a failed strategy isn’t going to make anyone’s life any better? The gun control we see day in and day out in Illinois doesn’t work, and yet people are asking why isn’t there more of the very thing that has been amply illustrated to not accomplish a blasted thing.

Honestly, it makes no sense to me. It just doesn’t.

What a strategy fails to work, a reasonable person would try something new. In Illinois and far too many other states, they’re enamored with the idea of gun control that they can’t admit that it just isn’t working.

These states are like that friend in a toxic relationship who is convinced that they just need to do one more thing to make the relationship work. We all know how those kinds of things work out, don’t we?

Illinois isn’t likely to turn out the least bit better, either.

 

 

Comment O’ The Day:
“I could be down for this. Maybe it would keep those afraid of any firearm from moving away from the coasts.”

BLUF:
Virginia is concerned about a “bad” America.
The one to which she refers — one in which houses host guns — was previously known to both Republicans and Democrats as just “America.”

LA Times Writer Wants Gun Ownership Reported on Real Estate Listings, but for the Opposite Reason as You

When you’re considering moving to a new area, what are the pluses that matter most? Low crime? Good schools? Trash pickup?

A writer for The Los Angeles Times has another metric that may be worth consideration.

On Tuesday, opinion columnist Virginia Heffernan took to Twitter with an idea:

“Real-estate listings should include prevalence of gun-ownership in a 50-mile radius…”

She’d also like info on the “number of annual mass shootings in the region.”

“Time to change what a ‘bad neighborhood’ is,” she announced.

What if someone owns a modern sporting rifle, also known as the best-selling hunting rifle in America?

She believes that’d constitute a bad place for children:

“[A]nd introduce a meaningful tax on guns and gun violence. No one should say, ‘This is a great place to raise kids’ about neighborhoods where even one person has an assault rifle.”

Stop all the racializing:

“The metric would be simple. Example: Staten Island (pop 474k) has 4x the gun ownership per capita of the Bronx (pop 1.4m). If that reads as safer or more [free] to some people, Staten Island is for them. If not, maybe time for the Bronx. Take race, class, politics out of the real-estate equation.”

 

There’d definitely be a lot of items to track.

In 2018, Switzerland’s Small Arms Survey reported there were nearly 400,000,000 guns in the United States.

That was, obviously, two years before 2020’s gun-buying surge.

As for “assault rifles,” the AR-15’s certainly been vilified courtesy of impressive, dedicated effort by some on the Left side of the aisle.

Meanwhile, of course, ownership of any firearm doesn’t equal impending murder, and the lightweight modern rifle isn’t employed in most gun crimes.

The vast majority of such are, as you know, committed with handguns.

Continue reading “”

Gun Owners of America Blast John Cornyn

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America sent out an email blast yesterday accusing Texas Senator John Cornyn of attempting to sell out gun owners:

We have an emergency on our hands.

While preparing to fight back against the ATF’s unconstitutional regulation of pistol braces, we learned some disturbing news…

Senator John Cornyn — a Republican who should be pro-2A — is quietly making a deal with the rabid anti-gunner, Chris Murphy, to pass universal background checks.

We need EVERY gun owner in America to take action right now to prevent what would be Armageddon for the Second Amendment.

The language seems overwrought in that direct mail we’re-all-going-to-die-unless-you-donate way. Is there some truth to it? Apparently so:

After years of failed attempts to pass a firearms background check bill, two senators think they have a path to agreement — at least on one key component of a deal.

Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, have been quietly negotiating a way to bolster background check rules by making a small but consequential tweak to current law, which they say would close an unintended loophole in the system that has led to preventable mass shootings.

House-passed legislation to require background checks on nearly all gun purchases has stalled in the Senate. But Murphy and Cornyn, who have been negotiating behind closed doors with little fanfare, believe they may have a formula that can attract broad support from both parties.

Bipartisan, of course, means that the Stupid Party and the Evil Party get together to do something stupid and evil. Or, in this case, Republicans go squishy in the face of Democrat demands.

Continue reading “”

A Middle Class Rebellion Against Progressives Is Gaining Steam.

A specter is haunting America, a great revolt that threatens to dwarf the noxious rebellion led by Trump. The echoes of another potentially larger pushback can already be heard in progressive America. But it’s not towards socialism, as many suggest. It’s the opposite: a new middle-class rebellion against the excesses of the Left.

This new middle-class rebellion isn’t rejecting everything that progressives stand for; the Left’s critique of neo-liberal excess is resonating, as is the need for improved access to health care. But the current focus on “systemic racism,” coupled with a newfound and heavily enforced cultural conformism and the obsessive focus on a never-ending litany of impending “climate emergences” are less likely to pass muster with most of the middle class, no matter how popular they are with the media, academics, and others in the progressive corner.

And this new middle-class rebellion is being bolstered by a wide-ranging intellectual rebellion by traditional liberals against the Left’s dogmatism and intolerance. Indeed, what we’re about to see has the potential to reprise the great shift among old liberals that had them embracing Reagan in reaction to the Left’s excesses of that generation.

In a way, this should not be surprising. After all, the progressive base is limited: According to a survey conducted by the non-partisan group More in Common, progressives constitute barely eight percent of the electorate. The report also found that fully 80 percent of all Americans believe that “political correctness is a problem,” including large majorities of millennials and racial minorities.

Party line journalists may see President Biden as the new champion of the middle class, but every time he adopts central tenets of the new Left, he undermines his pitch.

Continue reading “”

Pentagon OKs Chinese Drones Previously Banned over Espionage Concerns

After years of citing potential spying by China via sophisticated drones, the Pentagon has approved the U.S. military to acquire two Chinese-made “Government Edition” drones.

A recent Pentagon report seen by the Hill found “no malicious code or intent” in two drone models manufactured by Da Jiang Innovations (DJI), a Chinese company, and one of the world’s foremost drone makers. The May 6 report, released on Tuesday, concludes that DJI’s drones are “recommended for use by government entities and forces working with U.S. services.”

“This U.S. government report is the strongest confirmation to date of what we, and independent security validations, have been saying for years — DJI drones are safe and secure for government and enterprise operations,” DJI spokesperson Adam Lisberg told the Hill.

Almost 80 percent of all drones used in the United States and Canada are made by DJI.

The Department of Defense green-lighting controversial drones comes after escalating concerns at the federal level around the security of DJI and Chinese drones more broadly.

DJI was added to the Commerce Department’s “entity list” — i.e., the list of bodies considered a “national security concern” — late last year, effectively blacklisting the company.

Continue reading “”

I have no idea what, but
WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!™©®

He’s no more ‘On the Mark’ than most two year olds are in the bathroom.

On the Mark: Gun violence can no longer be ignored
Team 12 Anchor Mark Curtis discusses gun control after recent shootings in San Jose.

The comments are always predictable.

“Bad guys will always find a way to get their guns.”

“The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a bigger gun.”

In the wake of the latest mass shooting in San Jose, this pandemic of gun violence can no longer be ignored.

Now, let me be clear, I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in the rights of Americans to own a gun. But not if they are violent, or mentally ill, or have been convicted of a violent crime.

I wish I had the answer…but I don’t.

All I know is, doing nothing can no longer be acceptable.

Today’s Logical Fallacy is… “We Have to Do Something!”

A very dangerous contemporary fallacy, this one arises when tragedies and crises triggers the response: “We have to do something!” – regardless of whether or not that “something” is an overreaction, ineffective, or even makes things works. The logic, or lack thereof, usually flows like this:

1. We must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, we must do this.

Humans are empathetic, and when a tragedy strikes, our emotional response pushes us to do anything we can do prevent it from happening again. However, just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should, and just because the situation seems to warrant an immediate response doesn’t mean it actually needs one.

Sometimes the situation does call for action, but action should be carefully considered before it is undertaken. Doing something because it is “better than nothing” will often result in unintended consequences that often do more harm than good.

Wasn’t Climate Change!™ going to kill us all in 10 years?
What about every single chair behind the desk in the Oval Office, right now.

Biden says every single hospital bed in America will be filled with Alzheimer’s patients in 15 years

 

Hello Texans. Ring up your Stunned Tater Cornyn and tell the RINO where he gets off.

A quiet bipartisan effort on gun background checks may have a path to a deal
Democrat Chris Murphy and Republican John Cornyn believe they may have landed on a new way to beef up background checks while attracting bipartisan support.

WASHINGTON — After years of failed attempts to pass a firearms background check bill, two senators think they have a path to agreement — at least on one key component of a deal.

Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, have been quietly negotiating a way to bolster background check rules by making a small but consequential tweak to current law, which they say would close an unintended loophole in the system that has led to preventable mass shootings.

House-passed legislation to require background checks on nearly all gun purchases has stalled in the Senate. But Murphy and Cornyn, who have been negotiating behind closed doors with little fanfare, believe they may have a formula that can attract broad support from both parties.

Specifically, they want to clarify who is required to register as a federal firearms licensee, or FFL, and thus conduct FBI checks on a buyer before selling a gun. The senators say an ambiguity in the law has enabled unlicensed sellers to transfer weapons to dangerous people who skirt the background check system.

Continue reading “”

Charges against woman involved in gun-waving incident during George Floyd rally are amended

A special prosecutor said Tuesday he has amended the charges against a St. Louis woman who waved a gun at racial injustice protesters last summer, and he’ll decide soon if he’ll amend charges against her husband.

Mark and Patricia McCloskey were indicted by a grand jury in October on felony charges of unlawful use of a weapon and evidence tampering. Special Prosecutor Richard Callahan said in a statement that he filed a new indictment on Monday that would give jurors the alternative of convicting Patricia McCloskey of misdemeanor harassment instead of the weapons charge. Under that alternative, the evidence tampering count would be dropped.

The move essentially gives a jury the option of convicting Patricia McCloskey of the lesser misdemeanor charge if it sees evidence of a crime that doesn’t reach the level of the felony charges.

Continue reading “”

License Required: The Alarming New Mantra from Gun Prohibitionists

ANALYSIS: Gun control proponents have latched onto a new mantra in their effort to reduce the number of guns—and gun owners—on the U.S. landscape, reluctantly recognizing that so-called “universal background checks” are not the solution to violent crime involving firearms, nor have they prevented criminals from getting guns.

The latter fact is underscored in a recent online GUNS magazine report covering incidents in several states where suspects have been charged with “felon in possession” of firearms. The “dirty little secret” is that criminals don’t obey gun control laws, a fact that seems elusive to gun control proponents.

So there’s a new strategy gathering momentum among anti-gunners, and according to Vox, this strategy comes from perennial gun control extremist Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), who proposed on the 2020 campaign trail to require a license before purchasing a firearm.

Continue reading “”

enemies; foreign and domestic

The four people in the conversation are Alfred “Shivy” Brooks, candidate for city council in Atlanta, Dr. Kate Slater, Assistant Dean of Graduate Student Affairs at Brandeis University, Louiza “Weeze” Doran, and Los Angeles high school teacher Will Rausch.

The entire conversation is available on YouTube.

If ‘gun control’ laws really worked, this wouldn’t happen.

Tremonton man pleads no contest in gun trafficking case

A Tremonton man who was restricted from owning firearms due to a previous violent felony conviction in the 1980s has pleaded no contest to 11 misdemeanor charges after he was caught selling guns online in a January 2020 Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) sting operation.

Richard Lewis Andrew Christiansen, 67, who had been convicted in the 1980s of a felony for sending threatening communications through the mail in another state, reached a plea agreement with prosecutors in April of this year that had him plead “no contest” to five counts of Class A misdemeanor attempted transfer of a firearm by a restricted person, five counts of Class A misdemeanor attempted unlawful solicitation for a firearm transfer, and one count of Class B misdemeanor providing false information on a concealed weapons application.

In exchange for the “no contest” pleas, Box Elder County prosecutors dismissed 18 third-degree felony counts of possession of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person, and six third-degree felony counts of transaction of a firearm or dangerous weapon in violation of law.

Christiansen is scheduled to be sentenced on May 24 by 1st District Judge Spencer Walsh. He faces up to a $1,000 fine and up to 180 days in jail on the Class B misdemeanor charge, and up to a $2,400 fine and 364 days in jail for each Class B misdemeanor charge.

According to court documents, the BCI first became aware of Christiansen when he was denied a gun purchase after he answered that he was a convicted felon on a required form.

“In May 2014, Defendant attempted to purchase a firearm but was denied because he marked that he was a convicted felon on the application form,” reads the statement of probable cause. But in an application for a concealed carry permit from March 12, 2018, Christiansen answered “no” to the question asking about felony convictions.

An oversight at BCI led the agency to issue Christiansen the carry permit, which was discovered nearly two years later.

In January of 2020, agents from the BCI conducted an undercover operation targeting Christiansen and were able to purchase two guns and ammunition from him using an online auction site. Christiansen was taken into custody after meeting with the undercover agent to complete the gun sale. A search warrant executed on Christiansen’s Tremonton home turned up 23 additional guns, which Christiansen “admitted he owned.”

Christensen was able to post a $10,000 bail bond, and made an initial appearance before 1st District Judge Brandon Maynard on June 22 of 2020. A preliminary hearing held on Nov. 2 found there was enough evidence to support the charges, and Christensen was bound over for trial.

At a pre-trial conference on April 14 of this year the plea arrangement was reached, dropping the felony charges.

“Since that felony conviction back in the 80s he’s really had no other criminal involvements and has become a good, productive member of society. Due to him leading an otherwise good life and the oversight by BCI, I decided to offer a plea to misdemeanors,” said Box Elder County prosecutor Blair Wardle, when asked about the plea arrangement.

Just because politicians have an “R” after their name doesn’t mean they’re automatically less tyrant minded than their demoncrap counterparts.

Senator Marco Rubio admits he’s a Second Amendment ‘butter’
The senior Senator from Florida tells a reader he supports the Second Amendment, but

At 5-feet 10-inches, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) is the same height as Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), but that’s not all the two have in common.

Neither Rubio nor Feinstein support the Second Amendment.

While Feinstein is open an upfront about her anti-rights passion, Rubio is riding the fence. Several bills he’s introduced clearly infringe upon the Second Amendment, but he still tries to hide his anti-rights zealotry in communications with constituents.

A reader recently reached out to Rubio after reading this story: Sen. Rubio’s red-flag bill would allow ‘temporary’ firearm confiscation and delay due process.

“I emailed him a while ago about his Red-flag bill he sponsored after you taught me about it and telling him it violated several amendments and to my dismay this was the response I received,” she said in an email. I am not publishing her name.

She noted that Rubio’s reply was “vague” and that he was “not specifically addressing the issues about his bill’s violation of due process and our other amendments as opposed to him saying that our communities lack the law enforcement resources.”

Politicians have form letters for irate constituents. I have no doubt our reader received one of Rubio’s letters designed to appease an angry Second Amendment supporter. I’m guessing his staff sends out a lot of them, especially since he introduced the federal red-flag bill.

“I hold the fundamental belief that the Second Amendment should not be altered,” Rubio’s email states. “While I have always supported the right of law-abiding Americans to bear arms to protect themselves and their families, I am committed to working with my colleagues in the Senate to create a more effective system to prevent senseless gun violence, without unnecessarily infringing on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

Two things leap out of that statement. First, “senseless gun violence” is a Bloomberg talking point, which is used by Demanding Moms, Everytown and the Trace.

Second, Rubio hopes to create a more effective system “without unnecessarily infringing on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

I guess that means the Senator is willing to infringe upon our Second Amendment rights, but only when he believes it’s necessary.

Bunkum, that is.

Continue reading “”