Category: Bureaucraps

Should firearms background check system be abolished?

To some people, firearm background checks are accepted and considered a way to prevent bad guys from getting guns. They’re completely wrong, and here’s why.

The background check system, otherwise known as the “government hijacking of a God-given right and selling it back to you as a government-issued privilege,” is unconstitutional and dangerous to law-abiding citizens.

As we inch our way toward state-to-state reciprocity with constitutional carry in our major cities, we recognize that many states not only require a government-issued permission slip to carry a gun but also make it almost impossible to obtain that permit. Even if you can make it through the rat maze of training, fees, background checks, storage requirements, magazine capacity limitations, and a list of other constitution-violating requirements, most of society is off limits to you and your firearm because many state gun laws have deemed public and even private places, gun free zones.

The idea of undergoing and passing background checks as a prerequisite to exercising the 2nd Amendment should have never been a thought even in the darkest corners of the most communist minds of the most radical left-wing ideologues, not only because it violates the rights of American citizens, but also because it puts undeserving Americans in legal jeopardy and in physical danger.

According to the Government Accountability Office, in 2017, the NICS background check system denied 112,090 people the right to purchase a firearm. Of those 112,090 denials, only 12,710 were investigated. We have to ask ourselves: If over 112,000 people were denied but only 12,710 Investigations took place, wouldn’t that be clear evidence that the system is failing and falsely denying good people their right to keep and bear?

It gets worse. That same year, and from that group of 112,090 denials, there were only 12 prosecutions for the crime of attempting to purchase a firearm. Now the anti-gun crowd says, “See, we stopped 12 mass shootings!” Well, there are problems with that argument.

First of all, do we have no regard for the 112,078 people who were caught up in the poorly run background check system? What happens to those people? Well, the anti-gun crowd couldn’t care less about the people who are falsely denied their 2nd Amendment rights. As well as being falsely labeled a criminal and refused the ability to purchase a gun, good folks who are denied must also jump through hoops, make appeals, and wait.

Then, they have to wait some more because we know how efficient government agencies operate. By some estimates, approximately 80% of the NICS denials are never even appealed, often because the person denied is unable to navigate the appeals process or is unable to afford a lawyer to help them. In the meantime, good people are rendered unarmed and helpless by an unconstitutional process that should never have existed in the first place.

What about the 12 prosecutions in 2017? Were they mass murderers? And if they were, why weren’t they in jail? The background check system is created under the guise of stopping violent criminals from purchasing firearms, but if a person has done something so heinous that they lose their rights, wouldn’t that crime be enough to keep them in jail? And if not, why not? Why are they able to walk among us? It would seem the problem has less to do with guns and more to do with a criminal justice system that works to keep a violent element on our streets. The background check system, however, has been much more effective at preventing law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms than criminals, and we can see that by simply looking at the numbers.

Now, you might remember the anti-gun crowd cheering in the media that the number of firearm purchase denials reached the highest number yet in the year 2021. That year, there were approximately 300,000 background check denials. This was great news to the gun grabbers because all they really care about is disarming their political opposition, but did the percentage of false denials change?

With a huge increase in firearm purchases after the left-wing riots of 2020, the FBI claims that its denial rate is 99.8% accurate. Mysteriously, the Government Accountability Office has still not posted their findings for 2022, but you’re supposed to believe that the FBI went from a .01% success rate to a 99.8% success rate, and you are now safe from false denials. John Lott from the Crime Prevention Research Center has claimed that the exact opposite is true, and approximately 99% of firearm purchase denials are false positives, meaning good people are being denied their rights for no reason.

After watching the NICS system deny thousands of good people over the years, you’re supposed to believe that now, magically, the firearm background check system is functioning as it should. Well, we’re not buying it for a minute. We know the system is falsely denying good people their right to own firearms, and the system needs to be abolished.

Our Founding Fathers didn’t say, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed… as long as you go through a background check system designed by people who don’t want you to have a gun.”

 

ATF’s own documents show it is corrupt and ripe for replacement
Every Friday the ATF sends out press releases …

Every Friday afternoon the ATF sends out press releases from its 25 Field Divisions—big cities like Los Angeles, Miami, New York and 22 more. Users have to sign up to receive the emails, which usually describe the arrests the ATF claims it made during the week.

By far the vast majority of the actions described in the press releases—the arrests and the investigations—were not the result of any work by the ATF. The arrests were made by local cops who found a stolen gun or noticed that their suspect was a convicted felon and should not have possessed a firearm.

The ATF is usually brought into these investigations only after the arrest, once the real police have lodged their suspect in a county jail.

Still, according to the ATF’s own weekly emails, the agency takes credit for everything the local cops have done—every single lead or arrest—even though their special agents never left the building and never arrested or even met the bad guys.

The following are some of the press releases from 10 of the ATF’s 25 Field Divisions, which were sent around 3 p.m. on Friday, March 7, 2025. Five of the ATF Field Divisions did not send out any press releases.

As you will see, only two involve ATF-led operations.

Continue reading “”

If they’re being told to break recordkeeping laws it’s because the records reveal they broke worse laws.

WHAT? USAID Senior Staffer Instructs Remaining Staff to Convene for an ‘All Day’ Document Destruction

After Secretary of State Marco Rubio took to X on Monday to declare that 83 percent of the USAID programs would be cancelled and contracts rescinded, a curious memo from a USAID senior staffer obtained by POLITICO instructed remaining staffers to convene at the former agency on Tuesday for destruction of “classified safes and personnel documents.”

Rubio said:

After a 6 week review we are officially cancelling 83% of the programs at USAID.

The 5200 contracts that are now cancelled spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States.

In consultation with Congress, we intend for the remaining 18% of programs we are keeping (approximately 1000) to now be administered more effectively under the State Department.

Thank you to DOGE and our hardworking staff who worked very long hours to achieve this overdue and historic reform.

And now, according to Politico:

A senior official at USAID instructed the agency’s remaining staff to convene at the agency’s now-former headquarters in Washington on Tuesday for an “all day” group effort to destroy documents stored there, many of which contain sensitive information.

The materials earmarked for destruction include contents of the agency’s “classified safes and personnel documents” at the Ronald Reagan Building, said an email sent by USAID’s acting executive director, Erica Carr, and obtained by POLITICO.

“Shred as many documents first, and reserve the burn bags for when the shredder becomes unavailable or needs a break,” the email said. Carr instructed staff to label the burn bags with the words “SECRET” and “USAID/B/IO/” (agency shorthand for “bureau or independent office”) in dark Sharpie.

The email didn’t provide any reason for the document destruction. The building is being emptied out after mass layoffs, which may have disrupted routine document destruction timetables. Customs and Border Protection is planning to move into the USAID facility, having rented 390,000 square feet of office space in the building last month.

ProPublica journalist Brett Murphy also claims to be in receipt of this memo, citing it is from, “the agency’s acting executive secretary.”

Continue reading “”

Still too many.

Rubio cancels 83% of USAID contracts after six-week review

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that his agency had canceled 83% of the U.S. Agency for International Development‘s contracts following a multiple-week review.

USAID was one of the first agencies targeted by the Department of Government Efficiency and Elon Musk for cuts under the Trump administration, with all foreign aid out of the agency paused initially. The Trump administration fired thousands of employees and contractors at USAID and put Rubio as the agency’s acting administrator during the reforms.

Rubio announced early on Monday that 5,200 contracts would be canceled because the programs did not serve U.S. interests, claiming the move would save “tens of billions of dollars” in a post on X.

“After a 6 week review we are officially cancelling 83% of the programs at USAID.”

Senators Send Letter Urging Repeal of Biden-era Rule Damaging the Firearms Industry

On March 5th U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and U.S. Representative Mark Green (R-TN-07) sent a letter to Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick urging him to rescind an interim final rule (IFR) that the Biden Administration promulgated in an effort to hamstring the domestic firearms industry.

In October 2023, President Biden ordered a 90 day “pause” on firearm exports licenses issued by the Department of Commerce.

This order was in lock-step with other actions taken by the Biden Administration to hinder the U.S. domestic firearms industry in any way possible. And unsurprisingly, at the end of this “pause” the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued an IFR in April 2024. This IFR placed much tighter restrictions on semi-automatic firearms exports, listed dozens of countries as “high risk” countries which would be subject to a “presumption of denial” for export permits, removed a “presumption of approval” for licenses to many countries that had helped to expedite the process previously, and a number of other restrictions. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, an organization that represents firearms manufacturers, stated that this decision would cost the industry nearly $500 million annually.

Continue reading “”

Impact of Trump ‘Gender Ideology’ Order on Firearm Transactions to Be Determined

“Trans star of hit HBO series says renewed passport now says male after Trump order,” Fox News reported in late February. “Hunter Schafer, a transgender actor and star of the HBO series ‘Euphoria,’ revealed that her new passport was issued with a male gender marker because of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump.”

The Executive Order Schafer referred to, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” signed by Trump on Feb. 20, asserts:

“It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.”

OK, but this is AmmoLand Shooting Sports News, and while all peaceable human beings are encouraged here to recognize and claim their right to keep and bear arms, it’s fair to wonder what any of this has to do with that. Trump’s order offers a tangentially related clue:

“Agencies shall remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology, and shall cease issuing such statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications or other messages.”

Gun owners will recall that in 2020, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive revised the ATF Form 4473 “Firearm Transaction Record,” required when purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer. Among other changes,  ATF added a box under “Sex” for prospective gun purchasers to check if they self-identify as “non-binary.”

What this means is the Form 4473 will need to be revised again if ATF is to comply with the executive order. As Orchid Advisors reported on AmmoLand in 2019:

“[A] 60-day notice seeking public comment … is required in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”). In essence, the PRA requires government agencies to seek approval every three years for continued use of forms utilized by government agencies and to seek public comment on the form or its new revision, if applicable.”

As far as form changes go, it’s hardly a big one, although some on either side of the issue would argue the sociological implications actually are a big deal. In 2019, the “libertarian” CATO Institute took issue with “ATF’s rigid and unreasoned stated policy” of insisting on selecting “male” or “female” for transfers before the “non-binary” option was added in. They presumably will make the same arguments if it’s revised back out.

As long as “gun rights advocates” are picking things to get upset about, I’d suggest that’s a bit of a red herring argument, and the true outrage ought to be reserved for a prior restraint that presumes a delegated federal override of “shall not be infringed.” Imagine explaining the 4473 to Tench Coxe or Samuel Adams, and what their reaction would be if you told them that before the national government would allow them to own a gun, they’d have to – among other things and under penalty of perjury – disclose who they were, where they lived, what they were buying, and what was or is now between their legs.

No, Mr. Secretary, generals do not have civil service protection or tenure. They serve at the pleasure of the president.
And if you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas.

Five of the ten living former Secretaries of Defense ratcheted up the warfare against President Trump when they signed what they called an “Appeal to Congress.” The gist of their complaint is that they want to veto the President’s choice of his principal military advisor and other senior officers who serve at the pleasure of the President. They like their guys, and they don’t like the President’s choices. The conclusion that the five signers seek to foist on the American public is in their third paragraph: “We, like many Americans — including many troops — are therefore left to conclude that these leaders are being fired for purely partisan reasons.”

Their “Appeal” is nonsense, but dangerous nonsense. It combines historical ignorance with their own partisan attempt to attack President Trump in a way that would weaken civilian control. If their “Appeal” were granted, it also would further the politicization of the military by plunging Congress into disputes relating to military matters that the Constitution entrusts to the President.

Five Resistors’ “Appeal to Congress”

“The Army is a dangerous instrument to play with.”

I shall begin at the end — with the rebellious former secretaries’ conclusion: They sum up by charging the members of Congress to “do their jobs” by “urging them to take George Washington’s warning to heart.”

I wonder how many of the signers knew the historical background and significance of George Washington’s advice which they quote to close their Appeal: “The Army is a dangerous instrument to play with.” When he wrote that in February 1783, Washington was warning Hamilton against trying to use the military to further political ends and undercut civilian control of the military. It was one of Washington’s many affirmations of the necessity for civilian control of the military.

And if the President — any president — does not have the sole power to relieve senior military officials, and if he is required to report to both the House and the Senate to “justify each firing” as the Appeal advocates, then the president no longer has full control of his senior military officers or of the Army.

Washington’s warning fully supports civilian control over the military, including — especially — over those whom the signers refer to as “senior U.S. military leaders.” And our Constitution reposes that civilian control in only one man — the President. By trying to usurp this presidential control of the military, these former secretaries are attempting to weaken the bedrock principal that the military must be controlled by its civilian masters.

Thus, General Washington’s warning most certainly does not support these rebellious signers’ efforts to hamper civilian control over the military. Just the opposite; Washington refutes them.

Aside from this example of historical ignorance, there are many other reasons to repudiate the rebellious signers’ “Appeal.” Let us consider some of them.

Continue reading “”

After ATF Abuse, a New Bill in Congress Would Finally Give the Tiahrt Amendment Teeth.

The Tiahrt amendment — AKA the Tiahrt “rider” — became law in 2003. Among other things, it prohibits ATF from releasing law firearm data to anyone outside of law enforcement. There’s only one problem with the Tiahrt amendment …it has no teeth. In other words, there’s no penalty for ATF violating the law, which they did as part of Biden’s war on guns.

When not proclaiming the gun industry an enemy of the people, semi-sentient Joe campaigned on repealing Tiahrt. Fortunately, he failed in that effort, but it didn’t stop his weaponized ATF from blithely ignoring the law and releasing trace data last year as part of a media and gun control industry effort to name and shame gun dealers that had lawfully sold guns used in crimes, smearing them as enabling “gun violence.”

Now, however, there’s an effort afoot in Congress to give anti-gun un-elected bureaucrats pause before violating the Tiahrt amendment. Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana has introduced a bill that would fine violators, enable gun dealers to sue them as well, and remove sovereign immunity from the firearm regulatory agency if they decide to ignore the law again in the future.

The NSSF is cheering on the move . . .

Continue reading “”

US Forest Service Closes Majority of Pike National Forest to Target Shooting, Sparking Legal Objections

Colorado – The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has finalized a sweeping ban on dispersed recreational shooting – where forest visitors set up targets and practice shooting in an undesignated, undeveloped location – across 73% of the 1.1 million-acre Pike National Forest, a move that has drawn significant opposition from Second Amendment advocates.

The decision, part of the agency’s Integrated Management of Target Shooting Project, aims to address what officials call “unacceptable risks to public safety” as the forest sees increased use from hikers, cyclists, and off-roaders.

Under the new policy, over 800,000 acres will be off-limits to dispersed target shooting, while six designated shooting ranges will be developed with noise abatement features and safety measures. The closures will be implemented in phases, with areas near Rampart Range Road, previously subject to emergency orders, among the first to be restricted. The agency insists that the plan balances public safety, resource management, and recreational shooting opportunities.

“This decision marks the transition from one era of recreational shooting into the next,” said Douglas County Board of Commissioners Chair George Teal, who supports the ban.

The move has also been praised by the Southern Shooting Partnership, a coalition of government and utility agencies that have worked for years to address shooting-related conflicts in the region.

However, gun rights advocates argue that the ban is a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

The Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms has filed an official objection, challenging the Forest Service’s authority to restrict firearms-related activities on such a massive scale.

“By restricting the people’s right to engage in dispersed target shooting within the Pike National Forest, the USFS is attempting to regulate arms-bearing conduct in violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the foundation’s objection states.

Continue reading “”

So, That’s Why We Know So Little About Trump’s Assassin

The observation was well-warranted: We know more about Luigi Mangione, the alleged UnitedHealthcare CEO killer, than we do about Thomas Matthew Crooks, who tried to assassinate President Donald J. Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, last July. Crooks was shot and killed during the attempt, but not after a slew of security breaches and all-around ineptitude from the Secret Service was exposed.

It was one of the few times where Democrats and Republicans found the Secret Service’s initial reasoning and demeanor after the attempt to be wholly unacceptable. Well, there seems to be a reason why Crooks has evaporated into the ether: the FBI is allegedly suppressing all information about the Trump assassin, which reportedly contains a possible lead on an accomplice.

Continue reading “”

Second Amendment Roundup: Supreme Court Should Hold its Decision in VanDerStok
The new Administration should notify the Court of its change in position on ATF regulations.

As of now, of the nine cases argued in the Supreme Court’s October calendar, five have been decided.  Still pending is Garland v. VanDerStok, which was argued on October 8.  Before rendering a decision, the Court should give the Trump Administration an opportunity to express its views of the case with the Court.  It’s a challenge to the Final Rule of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) redefining and expanding the definitions of “firearm” and “firearm frame or receiver” that criminalizes conduct not made unlawful by Congress, with Second Amendment implications.

The new Administration is sure to hold views adverse to those presented by the Biden Administration. Indeed, the Plaintiffs’ arguments in the case are similar to those made by DOJ in defense of the previous, longstanding regulatory definition of “firearm” before the Biden Administration upended that definition in the Rule.

On February 7, the President issued the Executive Order Protecting Second Amendment Rights directing the Attorney General to examine all regulations and other actions of executive departments to assess any ongoing infringements on Second Amendment rights and to propose a plan of action to the President to protect those rights.  That includes rules promulgated by ATF and the positions taken by the United States in ongoing litigation that could affect the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Prompted by the Executive Order, Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) and 29 other U.S. Senators wrote to ATF Deputy Director Marvin Richardson requesting that ATF immediately rescind several regulations promulgated by the Biden Administration, including the “so-called ‘ghost gun’ rule, which cracks down on law-abiding hobbyists who are exercising their Second Amendment rights to privately build firearms—a longstanding tradition that traces back to the Colonial Era.”  That’s the rule at issue here.

If the Supreme Court is on the verge of issuing an opinion in VanDerStok, it should delay to give Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris an opportunity to review the matter and advise the Court of the new Administration’s position.  That office must be overwhelmed by the deluge of cases in which the district courts are enjoining actions of the President, such as the DOGE efforts to weed out fraud and abuse from the executive branch and the effort to exclude birth-right citizenship to unlawful aliens and temporary visitors.

The SG’s Office should act quickly to ensure that the Court is advised of the Administration’s views on VanDerStock.  If it doesn’t make this a top priority, it risks a decision that is uninformed by the Executive Branch’s position on a constitutional right exercised by millions of Americans.

The Department of Justice has already taken steps to ask courts to put cases on hold to give counsel an opportunity to advise the courts on the government’s position consistent with the Executive Order.  In Colon v. BATFE (11th Cir.), a challenge to ATF’s pistol brace regulation, DOJ filed a motion to postpone the oral argument scheduled for March 5 and to hold the appeal in abeyance.  Similarly, in Kansas v. U.S. Attorney General (D. Kansas), involving ATF’s “engaged in the business rule,” the DOJ submitted a brief requesting that the Court stay the case, including all deadlines on pending motions, in light of the Executive Order.

In VanDerStok, the Department of Justice should promptly file a letter to notify the Court that the position of the United States has been reconsidered and that the government’s previously stated views no longer represent the United States’ position.  It recently filed such a letter in United States v. Skrmetti, advising the Court that the new Administration would not have intervened to challenge Tennessee’s ban on gender-altering medical “experimentation” on minors.  The letter did not seek further “likely duplicative briefing from the same parties about the same court of appeals judgment in the underlying suit.”

Here, it is unlikely that the Court would accept any further briefing from the United States, which in any event would likely duplicate the excellent briefing from the respondents and their amici.  I commented on two of such amici briefs here and here (which I coauthored).  Whatever alternative the Acting Solicitor General chooses, she should notify the Court quickly of the government’s change in position.

For a comprehensive review of the issue on the merits, see my article “The Meaning of ‘Firearm’ and ‘Frame or Receiver’ in the Federal Gun Control Act: ATF’s 2022 Final Rule in Light of Text, Precedent, and History.”

Chief Justice John Roberts pauses judge’s order for Trump admin to pay foreign aid contractors by midnight

U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts on Wednesday paused a federal judge’s order that required the Trump administration to pay around $2 billion in foreign aid funds to contractors by midnight.

The ruling comes after the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court for an emergency order to block the release of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funding, which the federal judge had required by midnight. Officials had said they would not be able to comply with the judge’s order.

The Trump administration said U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali’s order had created “an untenable payment plan at odds with the President’s obligations under Article II to protect the integrity of the federal fisc and make appropriate judgements(sic) about foreign aid – clear forms of irreparable harm.”

Any response from the groups that are fighting the Trump administration is due before Friday at 12 p.m., meaning the pause could potentially be relatively short-lived.

The Trump administration said it was eliminating more than 90% of USAID’s foreign aid contracts and $60 billion in overall U.S. assistance around the world, putting numbers on its plans to eliminate the majority of U.S. development and humanitarian help abroad.

One more goobermint disaster to lay right at the feet of the demoncraps

National Security NIGHTMARE: How Radical Trans Activists Hijacked America’s Spy Agencies

Everything you suspected might be going on in the Federal Government these past fours years is turning out to be true.

For instance, if you thought radical transgenderism was being pushed on agencies and employees to the detriment of the government’s core mission, it looks like you can take off the tin foil hat. One whistleblower says it’s all true, and it’s probably worse than you imagined.

RedState’s Bonchie reported earlier this week how the National Security Agency’s Intelink messaging program was used by federal employees to engage in debauched conversations about transgender fetishes and transitioning. From Bonchie:

While the mainstream press screams bloody murder over the Trump administration’s trimming back of the bureaucratic state, shocking new details have emerged about how government resources were being misused. A new report from City Journal has obtained chat logs showing NSA representatives, including from the CIA and FBI, used the NSA’s government interlink program to discuss various transgender fetishes and aspects of “transitioning.”…..

On Wednesday, Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and conservative commentator, pulled back the curtain even more by sharing what an NSA whistleblower revealed to him in an interview: “It’s going to get people killed in the field.” And that’s because, as Rufo noted in the interview prologue, the shenanigans at the NSA are high stakes: “The agency is responsible for overseeing America’s digital intelligence-gathering and is, in theory, a key part of our national security apparatus.” The stakes can’t get much higher than that.

 

The whistleblower explained that things started out on a small scale about a decade ago — a meeting here, a potluck there. Couched as “employee resource groups,” staffers were gathered to discuss things like racism, veterans issues and, of course, gay pride. Said the whistleblower: “Then it started to get more and more. Instead of just one day a month, it was one week a month, or the whole month.”

Things got really out of hand.

And then everything became Pride. You would go to a training, and it would be about “privilege” and “how to be a better ally.” A lady would give classes on how to talk “gender-neutral” to people.

You had analysts that didn’t want to do the reporting they were supposed to be doing because they were going to have to report on somebody’s “dead name.”

They were having this crisis of conscience about reporting the adversary’s actual name because they thought it was their “dead name,” and they didn’t want to disrespect the person. It was like a cult that was hellbent on pushing gender ideology.

When asked by Rufo about the role a “clique” of male-to-female transitioners played in spreading the trans propaganda throughout the agency, the whistleblower responded:

There is a very small number of them, but they wield an enormous amount of power. And outside of the sick stuff, you also see a prevalent Marxist philosophy going on with these people in their chat rooms. They hate capitalism. They hate Christians. They’re always espousing socialist and Marxist beliefs.

The new Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, oversees the NSA and has acted quickly to root out the radicals in the agency, giving a Friday deadline for identifying the participants in the smutty chats. They can all expect to get pink slips.

It’s a good start, but, as the whistleblower told Rufo, it won’t be easy to root them all out. “I wish I could say I see it playing out well, with them following the orders and doing it. But after the last four years, I just don’t know.”

Will Absorbing the ATF Into the FBI Rein in Each Agency’s Abuses?
The ATF, charged with regulating firearms, has a history of abuse and incompetence.

By appointing FBI Director Kash Patel as acting head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), President Donald Trump took a step towards reining in a federal agency justifiably viewed by many as a threat to self-defense rights. He also signaled that he may consolidate government bodies that overlap in their responsibilities. Fans of big government and opponents of privately owned firearms won’t like the move, but the idea of combining the agencies is hardly unprecedented. After all, President Bill Clinton had the same idea three decades ago.

Patel Wears Two Hats

“ATF welcomes Acting Director Kash Patel to ATF, who was sworn in and had his first visit to ATF Headquarters in Washington, D.C. today,” the ATF posted on X on February 24. “We are enthusiastic to work together for a safer America!”

Patel takes over from Steven Dettelbach, who resigned just before Trump took office. Dettelbach presided over an ATF seen as even more hostile to gun owners than has historically been the case.

Continue reading “”

CNN: Deep State Bureaucrats Threaten To Sell State Secrets If Trump Isn’t Nice To Them

CNN warns that intelligence employees who get the axe are valuable — and that those same employees will sell national secrets if fired. Which is it?

Brace yourself as the propaganda press tries to stop President Donald Trump from culling corruption from the deep state. Expect “news” stories screaming about ordinary budget and staff cuts that would happen in any bloated private business but under Trump will be described as unfair or even dangerous.

Take, for example, the Feb. 24 number from CNN, “How Trump’s government-cutting moves risk exposing the CIA’s secrets.” The short report required four CNN writers, Katie Bo Lillis (who was involved in a story that led to a defamation trial in which a jury found that CNN was literally fake news), Phil Mattingly, Natasha Bertrand, and Zachary Cohen.

Exposing CIA secrets? That sounds pretty dangerous. Just how much danger are we in?

In the piece, CNN warned, “As the CIA weighs staff cuts, current and former intelligence officials say that mass firings could offer a rich recruitment opportunity for foreign intelligence services — like China or Russia — who may seek to exploit financially vulnerable or resentful former employees.”

The piece goes on.

“… on the CIA’s 7th floor — home to top leadership — some officers are also quietly discussing how mass firings and the buyouts already offered to staff risk creating a group of disgruntled former employees who might be motivated to take what they know to a foreign intelligence service.” (So “quietly,” apparently, that CNN could hear them, as Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway pointed out.)

Is that a threat from the CIA? Is CNN reporting that Trump should keep everyone employed because, if he doesn’t, former CIA agents will spill U.S. secrets to our enemies? Apparently so.

But if that’s the case, these are exactly the employees who should be fired. Those with too little integrity to exit with grace should not be employed in jobs with access to sensitive information. The CIA employees CNN describes should not be trusted with any more secrets.

Within the same piece, CNN ridiculously makes it sound as if valued, model intelligence employees will get the axe — and that those same employees have loose lips and are ripe for the picking. Which is it, CNN?

The media want you to be worried because they are worried. If Trump cleans house, it will destroy their business model. CNN and other propagandists have exploited unethical leaking of deep state sources, treating their whispers as gospel, and amplifying their aims through high-profile “news” stories.

If Trump fires their sources, it will be harder for the media to collude with the intelligence community to craft propaganda to sell to the public. The connection between CNN and the deep state has been too cozy for too long.

Continue reading “”