Category: Goobermint

When even lefties don’t think much of your plan…….

Don’t overdo New Mexico’s red flag laws like other states’

It seems odd that a measure that’s supposed to fight gun crime appears to affect the very people who are the least likely to commit such acts, that is law-abiding citizens who are concealed carry holders.

On Dec. 11, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham joined other state officials for an update on the ongoing public health orders that restrict concealed carry from parks and playgrounds and promote ostensible gun safety measures.

“Let me just state unequivocally, the public health order has been in effect three months and it’s working,” the governor said at the news conference. According to Lujan Grisham, 219 guns were seized, 2,490 arrests were made, 87 juveniles involved in gun-related crimes have been detained, 13 guns were seized from one repeat violent offender arrested and 439 guns turned in at a gun buyback event by Stat.

First, the governor couldn’t be more wrong about the approach. It’s not a health epidemic, it’s a crime epidemic. And guns are the tools used by criminals.

In fact, what the governor touts as a successful mandate is nothing more than officials just doing the job of cracking down on crime. One doesn’t need to have a public health order restricting legal firearms to seize illegal guns, make arrests, host buybacks and have “warrant roundups” for felons and firearms. One doesn’t need a public health order to punish criminal wrongdoing beyond a slap on the wrist. One doesn’t need a public health order to test the wastewater at schools for drugs.

Still, the governor talks of more, newer laws.

There’s talk about novel assault rifle legislation being pushed at the upcoming 2024 legislative session, where rifles would be limited to 10 rounds, or perhaps an assault weapons ban. Limiting rifles sounds good but rifles are rarely used in crimes or even in mass shootings, statistics show.

Then there’s red flag laws, such as New Mexico’s 2020 Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act or ERPO. A total of 19 states and the District of Columbia have these laws. Lujan Grisham and other state officials want them toughened up.

The main reason is that red flag laws haven’t had a really broad impact in New Mexico since passage. Two years after the ERPO legislation was passed, only nine petitions were filed statewide. By comparison, there were 109 in Colorado in its first year, also 2020. California started out with 85 in 2016, according to that state’s Governor’s Office, but now has racked up more than 3,000 red flag actions.

Even though New Mexico’s ERPO petitions started jumping — 48 being filed since 2022 — they are a drop in the bucket compared to states like Florida, which has seen more about 10,000 red flag court seizures since 2018.

But research hasn’t really shown a correlation between lowering gun violence — the problem New Mexico is trying to solve — and using red flag laws. In fact, there’s no proof red flag laws actually work to reduce crime, though they are a promising tool for stopping mass shootings.

The New York Times reported in January that a recent six-state study of more than 6,700 ERPO cases found that nearly 10% involved threats to kill at least three people. That’s a pretty wide dragnet to land just 10%, but with mass shootings, stopping one can be considered a victory. The Times points out why such laws work so well for mass shooters. Nearly half of individuals who engaged in mass shootings (48%) leaked their plans in advance to others, including family members, friends, and colleagues, as well as strangers and law enforcement officers.

But the study also found that most individuals who perpetrated mass shootings had a prior criminal record (64.5%) and a history of violence (62.8%), including domestic violence (27.9%).

That doesn’t match up with what we were told about the reason for red flag laws. Proponents said they fill a gap where people without criminal records can’t be touched. Some law enforcement officials had found it difficult to seize guns if a gun owner was not a felon or convicted of domestic violence. But in some cases, such laws aren’t needed at all. For example, it’s already a crime to threaten to use a gun on someone.

Law-abiding citizens have long feared red flag laws were susceptible to mission creep, meaning they could devolve into a situation where anyone can just report another, perhaps for political purposes, disrupting the life of a totally innocent person. Right now, the law allows family members to contact law enforcement, who petition the court. Guns can be seized for a year. One idea being floated for the 2024 legislative session is to add to the list of who can report and petition for a person to be subjected to gun seizure, exactly the move that concerns law-abiding gun owners.

The Editorial Board stands firmly against expanding the parties that can report, though we think updates to the Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act, such as making sure law enforcement officers are well trained in the law, are a good idea. This law in particular must be kept free of abuse. It’s a slippery slope that could lead to ruined lives. As eager as we are to catch bad guys, some protections are needed. Those protections already exist in the U.S. Constitution. They’re known as due process and they’re precisely the thing critics say is lacking from ERPOs.

We don’t want the optics of New Mexico ordering thousands of gun seizures per year or devolving into a state of suspicion among neighbors and residents. We need to stay focused on the kinds of crimes that actually plague our metro areas and use solutions to target those crimes, not simply follow the solutions other states have for their own problems.

Every institution has been corrupted, but they get upset if you call them corrupt.

‘Liberty and Justice For All’ – A Tattered Cliche?

One set of laws for Donald Trump and his supporters, and another set for the harassers.

Throughout history, the tyrannical abuse of governmental power has been a fearsome thing to behold. Wise men instituted laws in an effort to tame that abuse. The Constitution of the United States, for example, was framed in large part as a prophylactic against the coercive power of the state. The Framers witnessed the “long train of abuses and usurpations” perpetrated by the British crown and resolved to respond. The Constitution dealt with many other things, to be sure, but concern about tyrannical abuse of power by the government and its minions is patent from the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence straight through the Constitution and its Amendments. The idea was that we Americans would live in a polity governed by “laws, not men.” That is to say, laws would be legitimately formulated, clearly defined, and administered impartially, so far as was humanly possible. How are we doing on that score?

Not so well.

The terms “administrative state” and “deep state” entered parlance only about seven years ago. The realities those phrases name long predate their currency, but Donald Trump was the lens through which worry about those legitimacy-devouring, essentially tyrannical phenomena crystallized. During the 2016 campaign, Trump’s chief strategist Steven Bannon raised eyebrows when he said that “deconstructing the administrative state” was a high priority. In the event, Trump’s success on that task was only a patchwork affair, but he did make an effort.

What prompts these thoughts is the spectacle, partly risible, partly terrifying, of the federal government’s ongoing vendetta against a single individual it cannot countenance. That individual, of course, is Donald Trump. And while the focus of its vendetta is against Trump the man—or, more precisely, Trump the presidential candidate—its animus has spilled over to embrace anyone tainted by association with the Trump phenomenon. Into this category fall the hundreds of people who had the misfortune to visit the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Opinions differ about the state of popular sentiment when it comes to the current disposition of the United States government. I have by degrees joined the camp that has grave doubts about its legitimacy. I do not, for example, believe that the hallowed ideal of “liberty and justice for all” is these days much more than a tattered cliché, a pious nostrum without substance.

One of the great poster children for this erosion of public support—and, consequently, of political legitimacy—is the FBI. At a time when its operations are so patently partisan, it is hard to maintain confidence in its beneficence. Consider the news about Charles McGonigal, former head of Counterintelligence for the FBI, boss of  FBI love bird Peter “Mr. Insurance Policy” Strzok, and vigorous investigator of the Trump Russia Collusion hoax. Wouldn’t you know it: the chap who went after George Papadopoulos and others in Trump’s circle was just fined and sentenced to four years in prison for—wait for it—colluding with Russia.

You might argue that McGonigal’s comeuppance shows that “the system works,” that the FBI can effectively police itself, etc. I would counter that it is yet another reminder that the deep-state, anti-Trump forces operate primarily by what the Freudians call projection, by being guilty of what they accuse others of. There is a hilarious video collage making the rounds of various pundits and politicians warning that the world, or at least our democratic republic, will come to a sudden and ignominious end if, heaven forfend, Donald Trump should be elected again in 2024. Trump will assassinate generals, you see, shoot visitors to the White House, suspend the Constitution, and kill democracy. It is an inadvertently amusing compilation but also a deeply depressing one since it underscores the sad and debilitating effects of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Trump represents a threat to democracy, ergo he must be prevented from running “by any means necessary,” otherwise so many people might vote for that he would win. That’s the logic. Odd isn’t it? Person X wins in a free and open election. But you don’t like the person. So you declare the election “undemocratic.”

It is here that we must distinguish between “democracy,” which is what would be upheld if Trump were allowed to run, and “Our Democracy™,” that strange, oligarchical confect that can be maintained only by suppressing common, or garden variety democracy.

It is in this context, I believe that we must understand the unhinged legal campaigns unleashed against Trump in four separate jurisdictions.

I say “legal campaigns,” but really they are partisan political assaults masquerading under cover of legal procedures.

That is, they look like legal procedures from the outside; they employ all the paraphernalia of legal procedures. There are courts, lawyers, subpoena, judges.  But  the German Judge Roland Freisler (1893-1945) employed all that machinery, too. He presided over trials.  But he always got the results he wanted.

And this brings me to the activities of Special Counsel Jack Smith, the anti-Trump fanatic and DOJ pit bull who has been charged with taking Trump down in Washington, D.C., where Trump is accused of trying to overturn the 2020 election by “obstructing an official proceeding,” etc., and in Florida, where he is accused of illegally possessing classified documents.

Smith understands that by far his best chance of getting Trump is in Washington—not, I hasten to add, because he has much of a case there but because he has an Obama-appointed anti-Trump judge Tanya Chutkan and a Democratic jury pool that can be counted on to convict Trump on anything he accused of. Andy McCarthy has published a thoroughgoing anatomy of the the legal niceties of the case. He is no friend to Trump, deprecates what he calls his “loathsome behavior,” but does say that he thinks Trump is “being denied due process.” He further acknowledges that the effort to use Section 1512(c) of the federal penal law against Trump will be a “tough case” that is likely to signal “trouble for Smith.”

It’s the opposite in Florida, where the judge is a Trump-appointed jurist and the jury pool is likely to be sympathetic to Trump. In my view, Trump’s possession of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago is no different from Biden’s possession of classified documents in his garage behind his Corvette. Rather, Trump’s case was less egregious than Biden’s. For one thing, Biden was never president.  He had many more documents, in many more, less secure places. And remember: all modern presidents seem to have possession of classified documents after they leave office, but not all former presidents are Donald Trump.

Trump’s lawyers have appealed the Washington case and, in response, Smith has asked the Supreme Court to bypass the usual appeal process and take the case on an expedited schedule. Why? Because the Washington trial was set to begin on March 4, a day before “Super Tuesday,” at which Trump is likely to seal the GOP nomination. Smith hoped that an early trial would harm Trump with voters. So far, legal attacks agains Trump have had the opposite effect, increasing his standing in the polls. That is because voters understand that the legal challenges are legal in name only. At bottom, they are instances of bare-knuckle political warfare.

On Friday, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial whose slug got to the nub of the issue. “The special counsel,” it read, “tries to drag the Justices into his political timetable for the Jan. 6 trial of Donald Trump.” That’s it exactly. Smith wants the Court to decide now, today, so he can pursue his vendetta against Trump on the time table the election calendar has set. Most observers believe that the Court will be more circumspect. The writers of that editorial caution that “The wiser decision would have been to lay out the facts of what the special counsel found and let the voters decide. They chose to prosecute, and the damage has begun to unfold.”

I was talking to a friend about about Smith’s case. He responded “It sounds like the judiciary/prosecution is corruptly trying to interfere with an official proceeding, i.e., the election.” That’s pretty much what I think, too, though I don’t expect Jack Smith to be charged for the tort. Remember, there is one law for Donald Trump and his supporters. They can be harassed, prosecuted, and jailed. There is another law for the nomenklatura that does the harassing, prosecuting, and jailing.

Pentagon Falls 41,000 Short of Reduced Military Recruitment Goals

The Pentagon came up short on its recruitment goals.

The Defense Department’s senior officials testified Wednesday about shortfalls in Army, Navy and Air Force recruiting in the fiscal year that ended in September at a hearing of the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee. The Marine Corps and Space Force made their recruiting goals.

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Ashish Vazirani said that during fiscal year 2023, the military services together missed goals by about 41,000 recruits.

“That number understates the challenge before us as the services lowered [their] end-strength goals in recent years, in part because of the difficult recruiting environment,” he said. “The all-volunteer force faces one of its greatest challenges since inception.”

Vazirani cited multiple reasons for the recruitment shortfall, which he called “complex and multifaceted.”

Among the reasons: A strong economy that means more options for young people, a smaller eligible population, Generation Z’s generally low trust in institutions and fewer young people with family members who have served in the military.

In 1995, 40% of young people had a parent who served in the military, Vazirani said. By 2022, 12% had a parent who had served.

“This has led to a disconnect between the military and a large share of society,” he said.

In September, the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued a report on military housing. It detailed sewage backups and inoperable fire systems are among the safety hazards that U.S. service members living in barracks face. The report found such conditions undermine quality of life and military readiness.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office report found that the Pentagon’s assessments of conditions at barracks “are unreliable” and “observed barracks that pose potentially serious health and safety risks – such as broken windows and inoperable fire systems – and that do not meet minimum [U.S. Department of Defense] standards for privacy and configuration.”

Conditions were so bad in some places that service members sometimes took “drastic action, such as getting married, just to leave the barracks,” according to the report. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops live in barracks, which are for the most junior-ranking unmarried service members without children or other dependents.

Now New York demonstrates link between Second Amendment, other liberties

Last Tuesday, we criticized developments in Flagstaff, Arizona, where local officials seem to be allergic to the idea that gun shop owners, gun owners and people who champion the Second Amendment deserve to be afforded equality before the law and before the practices of the government entrusted to serve the interests of all its constituents.

Instead, leaders of Flagstaff were walking away from advertising revenue for displays at the city’s airport because of fears the courts might expect them to allow a gun shop the same opportunity to advertise as any other business.

Unfortunately a similar case has popped up closer to home — the American Civil Liberties Union will represent the National Rifle Association in a lawsuit contesting New York state’s Department of Financial Services is targeting the lobbying group with a campaign of harassment, discouraging banks and insurers from doing business with the NRA to punish the NRA for its advocacy.

“The government can’t blacklist an advocacy group because of its viewpoint,” the ACLU correctly notes, according to an article in The Hill.com, a Washington, D.C.-based newspaper.

As we alluded to about a week ago, many advocates for the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms explicitly cite fears that without an armed populace, the government will trample the broader array of rights individuals are given by God.

We understand many people feel these fears are overblown, perhaps even paranoid.

But we also cannot think of any way advocates could make the case that these fears are not overblown and are in fact quite reasonable better themselves than what the governments of Flagstaff and now New York state are doing.

In Flagstaff and throughout New York state, people who presumably wish the broader public to believe that the debate over the right to own firearms is about public safety and not about liberty are conspiring to deny their skeptics the right to advertise in a forum available to other constituents and to orchestrate punishment for exercising First Amendment rights in tandem with the banking and insurance sectors.

As much as some people may wish we could cordon off the Second Amendment from the more comprehensive need to preserve individual right, it is the very actions of those people who demonstrate that the violation of the Second Amendment will require violations of nearly all of our cherished, God-given liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Lefty Pseudo-Think Tank Attacks Medicare Advantage In Effort to Push Americans Toward Medicare-For-All

The annual open enrollment period for Medicare Advantage passed just about a week ago, and as it did, an interesting thing happened: A benign and very academic- and intellectual-sounding group called the Center for Economic Policy and Research pushed out a negative piece about Medicare Advantage. The report was written back in September before the open enrollment period began (and ended)—but it managed to get a write-up just as the open enrollment period closed—which is curious if the point of the report was to inform consumers before they made their enrollment decision.

Even more curious is who funds the Center for Economic Policy and Research, given what the Center has to say. Although Medicare Advantage is hugely popular with senior citizens and should be with taxpayers, given that it is a big cost-saver over traditional Medicare, the Center for Economic Policy and Research really, really dislikes it. Really, really, really.

And the Center really, really, really likes traditional fee-for-service Medicare—you know, the thing that progressives are trying to establish as the health care system for all Americans in the wake of Obamacare turning out to be a disaster and other efforts at health care reform stalling out. It turns out that the donor list for the Center is a veritable who’s who of big lefty foundations. Here’s a screenshot of their current donor list:

A few names will immediately jump out at conservatives, starting with the National Education Association. That’s the biggest teachers’ union in the country.

Less known, but even more important names are the Tides Foundation and the Bernard & Anne Spitzer Family Charitable Trust.

Tides has, over the years, taken donations from a bevy of lefty donors perhaps most famously including Barbra Streisand; it had over $1.4 billion in assets in 2022. Another big backer has been George Soros, who, coincidentally, has also donated to the Center.

But what is the Bernard & Anne Spitzer Family Charitable Trust? I’m glad you asked. It turns out it’s the family trust established by Eliot Spitzer’s parents (yes, that Eliot Spitzer).

When you consider the donors, it’s unsurprising that the Center would be advocating for a policy position that shuts down a private alternative to Medicare; what progressives want is to push more Americans into Medicare and ultimately, enact Medicare-for-All—or at least a “public option,” which would probably lay the foundation for Medicare-for-All to be enacted—nationwide.

This is not likely to happen while seniors keep choosing Medicare Advantage (and a majority of them do) and while public officials keep backing it because they know that Medicare Advantage is better for taxpayers in a time of high debt and deficits. But that’s what the left wants, so intellectual- and academic-sounding reports going after Medicare Advantage funded by the left will continue to crop up.

What’s perhaps most interesting here is how healthcare providers—think big hospital systems—seem to be lining up with the left on this issue.

During the open enrollment period, there was a massive uptick in articles covering hospital systems’ displeasure with Medicare Advantage because purportedly Medicare Advantage plans pay health care providers, who we have recently learned did not in fact do financially badly at all out of the pandemic, “too little” as compared to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. What this actually means is that providers prefer the option that pays them more—traditional Medicare—even though that payment mechanism is entirely taxpayer-funded, and does little to limit cost (why the providers like it).

Traditional Medicare is what is driving debt and deficits and proving financially unsustainable. Per Money, “Medicare trustees say the Part A program will begin running deficits again in 2025, drawing down the trust fund until it depletes in 2031. After that date, the program would not be bringing in enough money to fully pay out Part A benefits.”

At the same time, Medicare Advantage is offering seniors—and taxpayers—an alternative that preserves healthcare access while affording additional benefits traditional Medicare does not provide—but makes the math work by having healthcare provider networks. That is not what hospital systems want, and it is not what the left wants—even though in vastly more socialized healthcare systems than the US (take the United Kingdom, for example) costs are absolutely minimized by limiting patients’ access to rearms of healthcare providers.

Republicans lately have seemed to be more susceptible to arguments driven by hospitals and by academic, intellectual-sounding arguments from the likes of the Center for Economic Policy and Research, that maybe Medicare Advantage isn’t actually advantageous over traditional fee-for-service Medicare. This is a major reversal from the era when the GOP was committed to fighting Obamacare because, among other things, it cut Medicare Advantage—which amounted to cutting Medicare for a ton of beneficiaries. A little caution might be warranted here, considering the very lefty philosophical and hardened financial interests at play in this debate.

White House Hosts State Lawmakers, Launching ‘Safer States Agenda’

Approximately 100 state lawmakers were invited to the White House Wednesday for the official introduction of the Biden-Harris administration’s Safer States Initiative, which reportedly outlines “key actions states should take” to “reduce gun violence.”

The White House unveiled an eight-page “Safer States Agenda,” which includes the following recommendations:

  1. Establish a State Office of Gun Violence Prevention
  2. Invest in Evidence-informed Solutions to Prevent and Respond to Gun Violence
  3. Strengthen Support for Survivors and Victims of Gun Violence
  4. Reinforce Responsible Gun Ownership
  5. Strengthen Gun Background Checks
  6. Hold the Gun Industry Accountable

Essentially, it is Joe Biden’s gun control scheme repackaged from his 2020 presidential campaign.

There is very little in the plan about holding violent criminals responsible for crimes they commit, with or without firearms. Part of the Biden-Harris proposal is aimed at funding law enforcement efforts to “hold shooters and gun traffickers accountable.”

Continue reading “”

California Is Attempting an Expedited End Run Around the 2A

California is trying to sneak in a ruling that will exclude almost everyone except law enforcement from teaching a concealed carry class.

The California Department of Justice sent out a notification on Monday about some proposed changes in California’s concealed carry instructor qualifications. The changes might mean more than half of the current qualified instructors could no longer teach a concealed carry class in California.

Some instructors have told me they didn’t even get the email, and the deadline to voice any concerns or disapproval is this Friday. The DOJ will make the final decision about the rule change, and they will need no vote from the state legislature to pass it. This is being rushed through and will go into effect on January 1st.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
Without a military leadership that understands the purpose of war, the next time we may not lose thousands, we could lose millions. And we could lose the United States of America.

THIS IS WHY AMERICA FORGOT HOW TO WIN

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin stopped by the Reagan National Defense Forum to deliver an address titled, ‘A Time for American Leadership’. What leadership lessons did he have to offer?

“I learned a thing or two about urban warfare from my time fighting in Iraq and leading the campaign to defeat ISIS,” he told his audience. “Like Hamas, ISIS was deeply embedded in urban areas. And the international coalition against ISIS worked hard to protect civilians and create humanitarian corridors, even during the toughest battles. So the lesson is not that you can win in urban warfare by protecting civilians. The lesson is that you can only win in urban warfare by protecting civilians.”

He then went on to lecture that “we will continue to press Israel to protect civilians” and” that “protecting Palestinian civilians in Gaza is both a moral responsibility and a strategic imperative.”

Gen. Austin headed Central Command from 2013 to 2016. Obama officials blamed Austin for telling Obama that ISIS was “a flash in the pan” (while Austin’s people denied he said that.) Central Command’s intelligence failures against ISIS were so bad that they resulted in an investigation into whether intelligence had been falsified to make it look like we were winning.

By the fall of 2016, after 3 years of fighting, ISIS had only lost a third of its territory in Iraq and Syria. That was in large part because the Obama administration refused to allow the military to properly hammer ISIS. Under Trump, our hands were no longer tied and we hit ISIS hard.

Despite Austin’s claims that victory against ISIS came from protecting civilians allied with the Islamic terror group, the reality was just the opposite. Fussiness over civilian casualties during the Obama administration translated neither to victory nor civilian lives saved. On Austin’s watch, airstrikes against ISIS killed civilians, but that was always inevitable.

It’s impossible to take out Islamic terrorists whose entire operating model is to fight from behind and around civilians without civilian casualties. The choice is between a long grueling war, which Obama and Austin gave us, or a short devastating campaign, which Trump gave us.

What the Obama administration refused to understand in either Iraq or Afghanistan is that the leading cause of civilian deaths are the Islamic terrorists we are fighting. During the Holocaust, Jewish groups pleaded with the FDR administration to bomb concentration camps, despite the inevitable civilian casualties, because it would have stopped the killing. The Allied campaign hit Nazi-controlled territories hard, with little regard for civilian casualties, because only ending the war quickly would stop the killing. If we had fought WWII by today’s rules, we would still be fighting it and for that matter it’s not at all impossible that we would have long since lost it.

Continue reading “”

American Forces Attacked by Iranian Proxies 84 Times in 52 Days and Biden Does Nothing

US military installations in Iraq and Syria have been attacked by Iranian proxies nine times since Friday. According to senior defense officials, this brings to 84 the number of attacks on US forces since October 17, resulting in injuries to 66 American servicemen. The highest profile of those attacks was an attack on the US embassy in Baghdad. It was hit by a volley of 60mm mortar rounds on Thursday, and there were no casualties

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin used the occasion of his phone call with Iraqi President Mohammed Shia al-Sudani to condemn the attacks as “acts of terrorism” that “endanger Iraq’s internal security.”  He also “made clear that attacks against US forces must stop.”

As Austin made clear, it is no secret that Iranian proxy groups are behind the attacks (New Drone Attacks on US Forces in Syria, Iranian Proxies Claim Responsibility).

The same provocations are taking place in the Red Sea by the Iranian-back Houthis in Yemen. A US Reaper drone was shot down over international waters (Yemeni Houthis Shoot Down US Reaper Over Red Sea, the White House Response Is Crickets). Houthi drones targeted a US destroyer.

I’m sure that the usual isolationist fringe will say, “Why do we have troops in those countries? Why are our ships sailing in international waters? Shouldn’t they be on our southern border?” Those may be fair questions, but it is also immaterial and a shameless dodge. The National Command Authority has ordered our military to those locations to carry out American foreign policy. But in an environment where our troops have been attacked on 84 separate occasions in 52 days, we have launched a grand total of six airstrikes in the same time frame.

We allow Iranian proxies to lob rockets and mortar rounds at our troops. We’ve accepted, on average, one American casualty per day since October 17, and It is only a matter of time until Americans get killed. And the reason they do it is that there is zero risk attached to attacking Americans or American ships or aircraft because Joe Biden is so afraid of offending the Iranians that he’d rather see the coffins arrive at Dover AFB than have panties soiled under the man-dresses in Tehran.

Continue reading “”

Biden/Buttigieg DEI Policies Endanger the Country. They Don’t Care.
The FAA is seeking people suffering from “severe intellectual and psychiatric disabilities” to be air traffic controllers.

The country currently is in the throes of an epidemic of mass insanity and irrationality. The manifestations of the disorder are too numerous to cite, but the explosion of the DEI plague being pushed by the government, many businesses, and the intellectual pigmies in most of the media, must be included in any list of the most egregious. As currently advocated and practiced by our leftist “elites,”1 it is incompatible with rationality, common sense, and morality, among other things, and, as the Wall Street Journal, not to mention the Supreme Court, have pointed out, the U.S. Constitution.

There is a brand of this particular wokeness that is relatively unknown to the general public, but that is particularly irrational and dangerous.  It is the Federal Aviation Administration’s relatively young DEI mandates. These Biden/Buttigieg DEI commands now apply to the employment of FAA air traffic controllers in an insidious way, a way that threatens the safety of our skies and of anyone who flies.

WHAT DO AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS DO?

To understand how insidious and dangerous the FAA’s DEI policies are, it is necessary to examine briefly just what air traffic controllers do and the nature of the job. The description that follows includes some detail about their tasks. Bear with me because it shows that being an ATC is not a job for dummies, or even for intellectual giants who cannot make crucial decisions in a short amount of time while under great stress.

First, just to be considered for possible employment, an ATC candidate must first pass a battery of seven tests covering numerical calculations, progressively difficult memory tests, problems involving rapidly changing image relationships, visual computer problems simulating collision avoidance, reading comprehension, logical reasoning, and a personality test. A description of the tests and sample problems are here. Take a stab at some of the sample problems to see how difficult they are and the built-in time limitations and pressures.

By the time they finish their training, ATCs must be experts in a number of areas that affect safety. These include weather, types of aircraft and their characteristics, navigation and the use of multiple types of navigational aids, effective communications with pilots, and radio and radar operations. To ensure pilot and passenger safety, ATCs must be skilled in, among other things, math, including the ability to make quick calculations in a dynamic environment, problem-solving, effective communication, and split-second decision making.

Continue reading “”

Maryland attorney general wants new hearing in gun licensing case

BALTIMORE (AP) — After a federal appeals court struck down Maryland’s handgun licensing law last month, the state attorney general is requesting a new hearing where more judges would consider the case, which could have significant implications for gun rights across the country.

On Nov. 21, a three-judge panel on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond issued a 2-1 ruling that found it was unconstitutionally restrictive for Maryland to require people to obtain a license before purchasing a handgun. The process of obtaining a license can take up to 30 days.

In the majority opinion, the judges said they considered the case in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that “effected a sea change in Second Amendment law.”

The underlying lawsuit was filed in 2016 as a challenge to a Maryland law requiring people to obtain a special license before purchasing a handgun. The law, which was passed in 2013 in the aftermath of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, laid out a series of necessary steps for would-be gun purchasers: completing four hours of safety training that includes firing one live round, submitting fingerprints and passing a background check, being 21 and residing in Maryland.

Several state leaders, including Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, expressed opposition to the recent appeals court ruling and have pledged to fight it.

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown filed a petition Tuesday asking the full 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the case, which would mean 15 judges instead of three.

“The Second Amendment does not prohibit states from enacting common-sense gun laws like Maryland’s handgun licensing law,” Brown said in a statement. “My office will continue to defend laws that are designed to protect Marylanders from gun violence.”

Polymer80’s Injunction Stayed for Supreme Court

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed Polymer80’s injunction issued against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) frames and receiver rule (ATF final rule 2021R-05F) in Polymer80 v. Garland until the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) can decide whether to grant a writ of certiorari in VanDerStok v. Garland.

Polymer80 sued the ATF in a Texas federal court over the ATF rule against what the Biden administration calls “ghost guns” and the ATF refers to as privately manufactured firearms (PMF). The company is the country’s biggest seller of unserialized 80% frames and accounts for the vast majority of the market. After the injunction was issued, it returned to selling complete kits, including the frame, jigs, and drill bits.

The Fifth Circuit’s stay on the injunction was expected after SCOTUS stepped in and stayed injunctions for other companies, such as 80 Percent Arms and Defense Distributed in VanDerStok v. Garland. The stay allowed the ATF to enact the frames rule. The stay will last until a writ of cert is denied, or SCOTUS issues a judgment.

“IT IS ORDERED that Appellants’ opposed motion to stay the injunction pending appeal is GRANTED. In accordance with the stay granted by the Supreme Court in Garland v. VanDerStok, if a petition for a writ of certiorari is not timely sought in VanDerStok, this stay shall terminate automatically as of the date on which the petition was due; and if a petition for a writ of certiorari is timely sought in VanDerStok, this stay shall remain in effect until either (a) the date on which the Supreme Court denies certiorari, at which time the Supreme Court’s stay will terminate automatically, or (b) if the Supreme Court grants certiorari, the date on which the Supreme Court issues its judgment,” the order reads.

In the VanDerStok case, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the progressive members of the Supreme Court in issuing the stay until the government files a writ of certiorari with the court. The other Republican-appointed judges would have let the injunction stand until the final decision.

Continue reading “”

Apple Reveals Governments Use App Notifications to Surveil Users

In a chilling revelation that feels all too familiar, Apple has confirmed that governments are using push notifications for the surveillance of users — an imposition on personal freedoms and a glaring example of state overreach.

This unsettling news was disclosed in response to Senator Ron Wyden’s urgent communication to the Department of Justice. Wyden highlighted that foreign officials have been pressuring technology companies for data to track smartphones via apps that send notifications.

These apps, he noted, put tech companies in a pivotal role to assist in governmental monitoring of app usage.

Senator Wyden urged the Department of Justice to alter or revoke any existing policies that restrict public discourse on the surveillance of push notifications.

In a reaction to this, Apple stated to Reuters that Wyden’s letter presented them with an opportunity to divulge more information about government monitoring of push notifications. The tech giant clarified, “In this case, the federal government prohibited us from sharing any information. Now that this method has become public we are updating our transparency reporting to detail these kinds of requests.”

The letter from Wyden reportedly stemmed from a “tip” about this surveillance activity. An informed source confirmed that both foreign and US agencies have been requesting metadata related to notifications from Apple and Google. This metadata has been allegedly used to link anonymous messaging app users to specific accounts on these platforms.

While the source, speaking to Reuters, did not specify which governments were involved, they characterized them as “democracies allied to the United States” and were uncertain about the duration of these requests.

“In this case, the federal government prohibited us from sharing any information,” Apple said in a statement. “Now that this method has become public we are updating our transparency reporting to detail these kinds of requests.”

Apple, meanwhile, has advised app developers to refrain from including sensitive data in notifications and to encrypt any data before it is incorporated into a notification payload.

However, this relies on the developers’ initiative. Importantly, metadata such as the frequency and origin of notifications remains unencrypted, potentially offering insights into users’ app activities to those who can access this data.

The news, which is hardly unexpected yet nonetheless deeply troubling, underscores the precarious path we seem to be treading, one that veers ominously towards policies that infringe on civil liberties.

The key cog in a functioning democracy, our judicial system, and its informed oversight exists precisely to prevent such oversteps. It endows a suspected individual with the crucial right to mount a robust defense against unwarranted infiltration by the state government. Alarmingly, the situation at hand eerily mirrors scenarios where private entities and individuals are strong-armed into being active partners in such covert operations, all the while being legally bound to cryptic silence.

Quip O’ The Day
“Ooh no, not their performance reviews!!!! The horror!”

 

CRPA Files Suit Against LA Sheriff’s Department To Enforce CCW Policies

Moments ago, CRPA filed suit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s office challenging the “constitutionality of (its) carry permit issuance policies and laws that make it extremely difficult, if not outright impossible or impermissibly time consuming” for such a permit to be obtained.

Ever since the announcement of the Bruen decision, CRPA has fought to bring CCW application and issuance processes in line with the new standard.  Still, certain jurisdictions drag their feet and continue to create unnecessary delays, add onerous fees, and implement other bureaucratic hurdles to stall CCW issuance (as evidenced by the responses to our poll late last week).

Today’s filing is the next step in this ongoing effort. Joining us in this lawsuit are our strategic partners at Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and Gun Owners of California. You can read the filing in its entirety by clicking here.

“CRPA has let it be known that across all of California’s 58 counties, we will be vigilant and relentless in our efforts to ensure that post-Bruen CCW policies and procedures are in place and followed,” stated CRPA President & General Counsel Chuck Michel. “This is all a part of the CRPA’s CCW Reckoning project.  Today’s lawsuit could easily have been avoided if the Constitution was observed and the Bruen decision was followed.”

I sometimes wonder what we’re paying them for.

US intel not aware of Hamas’ plan for Oct. 7 attack on Israel, John Kirby says.

The US would do the “same thing’’ Israel did if it suffered an attack like the Oct. 7 assault, a top Biden administration official said Sunday — while admitting US intelligence was unaware of a battle plan from Hamas that Israel obtained over a year before the attack.

“[Israeli officials] have every right and responsibility to go after the terrorist group that perpetrated these attacks and planet and oh, by the way, has made clear they’re going to do it again and do more,” National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told “Fox News Sunday.”

“We would do the same thing — any nation would,” Kirby said.

Kirby also referred to the recent reported revelation about Israeli security failures in the run-up to the bloody terrorist rampage.

More than a year before the deadly attack, Israeli officials obtained a roughly 40-page blueprint outlining Hamas’ battle plan but dismissed it as unachievable for the terror group, the New York Times reported last week.

Kirby suggested that the US did not learn about the document, dubbed “Jericho Wall,” when its staunch ally Israel did.

“The intelligence community has indicated that that they did not have access to this document,” Kirby told “Meet the Press” on Sunday.

“They have no indications at this time that they had any advance warning of this document or any knowledge of it.”

Continue reading “”

This Sneaky Senator’s Insider Trade Isn’t the Most Corrupt Part of This Story.

When a senator who sits on the Health Committee makes a big bet on a small, home-state medical devices company that just happens to get mucho moolah from the federal government, and then that stock goes up more than 40% in the weeks after said senator’s big bet, it’s the opinion of this mostly humble columnist that there’s some real shady stuff going on.

But it gets worse.

Earlier this month — November 8, to be exact — Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) purchased up to $250,000 in shares of Tactile Systems Technology (TCMD). TCMD shares had been on a real losing streak in 2023, down more than 60% from its 52-week high of $26.11. The price was down nearly another third, to $10.27 from $12.61, in the 48 hours before Smith made her big buy.

Buy the dip, of course. What’s remarkable is just how quickly TCMD recovered over the next three weeks — up 43% since the Minnesota senator plunked down her big bucks on a Minnesota company in an industry that Smith’s committee oversees.

That’s just one trade by one senator.

Financial analyst Quiver Quantitative called it “the most suspicious congressional stock trade I’ve seen in months.”

In May of last year, Quiver built “a trading bot that buys stocks that are being bought by politicians.” In a flat market, Quiver’s congressional bot’s fund is up 20% in just 18 months.

The sliminess is bipartisan. Here’s one example of how Quiver’s bot has performed by following the Tesla trades of one Democrat and two Republicans.

How’s your portfolio doing?

“It’s worth noting,” QQ reminds investors, “that despite the outperformance of the Congress Buys Strategy, it may still be held back by weak disclosure regulations.” Congresscritters, under the 2012 STOCK Act signed by President Barack Obama, have 45 days to disclose their stock transactions — but the penalty for late disclosures is all of $200.

So, yes, you could build a portfolio based on what people like Sen. Smith buy and sell, but you still wouldn’t do as well as they do because you’ll be up to 45 days behind their trades. Or longer if they decide to pony up the $200 for late disclosures.

But it still gets worse.

Quiver claims to have traced 7,912 STOCK Act violations, but “only a few have been investigated.” If any of those investigations have actually gone anywhere, it would be news to me. But Congress writes the laws governing Congress, so what would you expect?

That’s why, as far as I’m concerned, the most scandalous part of any of this is the mainstream media’s absolute silence on the matter.

As Bill Whittle put it to Right Angle viewers years ago, the press is supposed to act as a healthy society’s antibodies — gathering in the bloodstream at the site of any corruption to reveal and destroy it. And yet when a sitting member of the Senate Health Committee, whose “husband is an investor with a focus on medical industry stocks,” is making a killing on a volatile health company’s shares, it results in precisely zero stories in the mainstream media.

That’s despite Quiver’s revelations getting more than two million views on Twitter/X — the preferred social media platform of American journalists.

We know what Congress gets out of all this, so what’s the media’s payout?

The Trace Accidentally Shows How Little Brady Bill Did

It’s been 30 years since the Brady Bill passed. This was the bill that mandated all licensed gun dealers had to conduct background checks on anyone trying to buy a firearm.

It was heralded as a huge step forward. After all, before the law went into effect, felons could walk into gun stores and buy a firearm. They weren’t supposed to–it was illegal for them to do so–but they could just lie and say they weren’t a felon. In most states, that was enough.

So then the law changed. The Brady Bill went into effect and after 30 years, The Trace has decided to look at some numbers as to just how effective it’s been.

Let’s take a look at a few.

2,266,746

The number of federal background checks that resulted in a denial

These denials occurred because an FBI search of the NICS indices turned up a record that legally disqualified the person from owning firearms. This total does not include denials in states where state or local law enforcement handles the background checks. In 2023, the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that federal and state agencies combined had denied a total of 4.4 million firearm background check applications since 1994. [FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics]

3 in 20 (or 1.5 percent)

The proportion of firearm background checks that result in a denial

This estimate from the Bureau of Justice Statistics encompasses denials issued at both the state and federal levels. Between 1998 and 2020, state and federal background checks blocked an average of 509 prohibited gun purchases and permits each day. However, when BJS looked solely at 2019 and 2020 — a period that overlaps with the pandemic gun-buying surge — the average number of denials jumped to 878 per day. [Bureau of Justice Statistics]

1 in 2 (or 51 percent)

The proportion of denials that are the result of felony convictions

Federal law prohibits people from owning firearms if they have been convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors. Since the national background checks system went into place, this prohibitor has been the most common reason applications are denied. Compared to the FBI, state and local agencies deny for felony reasons at a lower rate, but one that still accounts for the largest proportion of denials. State and local agencies deny applications for state prohibitions and mental health reasons at a higher rate than the FBI. [FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics]

Now, more than 2.26 million denials sounds like a lot, but what The Trace isn’t including in their numbers are false denials. They might be denied and counted as someone with a felony, only the person in question isn’t a felon. NICS gets it wrong a fair bit because, well, they’re people. That’s going to happen.

So the number of felons being denied guns is actually lower.

Further, this is over 30 years. When you consider just how many guns are bought and sold annually in the US, the just over 75,000 denials we see on average per year doesn’t sound particularly staggering.

And The Trace notes that only half of them are for felonies.

See, while they’re celebrating how effective the Brady Bill is, what I’m seeing here is that criminals are getting plenty of guns and they’re not getting them from gun stores. They’re not even trying to get them from gun stores.

Why would they? Most know they can’t get one lawfully anyway–many of those who do try to get a gun don’t realize they can’t own a firearm anymore–so they look for alternate way to obtain one.

They bypass the Brady Bill framework entirely so they never show up in the denial numbers.

So hundreds of millions of people have bought guns over the last 30 years, undergoing background checks that make them feel like they’re the criminal, all while doing next to nothing to actually stop criminals from getting guns because the criminals just went a different direction.