Category: Goobermint

Joe Biden Boasts He Has Bypassed Congress for Gun Control More than Any Other President

On August 17, 2023, President Joe Biden boasted about the number of times he has used executive action to institute gun control that Congress did not pass.

He tweeted:

On April 8, 2021, Breitbart News reported Biden used executive gun controls that included restrictions on “ghost guns,” a push for red flag laws, recategorization of AR-15 pistols, and DOJ-led research into gun trafficking.

These controls led to an ATF-issued rule classifying “partially complete pistol frames” as firearms. That rule means a background check is now required in order to purchase certain gun parts kits.

The  same executive controls also led to an ATF-issued rule categorizing AR-pistols with stabilizer braces as short-barrel rifles. This new categorization means owners of said pistols with stabilizer braces are required to the register the firearms under the auspices of the National Firearms Act (1934).

On July 21, 2022, the White House recounted that Biden had issued 21 executive actions related to gun control and gun violence up to that point in his presidency.

On May 14, 2023, Breitbart News noted that Biden issued yet another executive order on gun control, this one directing Attorney General Merrick Garland to act where Congress has not acted and take the United States “as close as possible” to universal background checks.

Another executive gun control is anticipated late this year or early next year, in the form of an ATF-issued rule to redefine the meaning of gun dealer so as to broaden it, and thereby broaden the number of gun sales in which a background check will be required. The goal of the ATF rule will be to get as close as possible to a universal background check scenario in America.

At this point in our national politics, it’s believable.

Gingrich Makes Bombshell Allegation About Latest Trump Indictment.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich revealed on Thursday that a reliable source told him that a request was made from Washington, D.C., to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis that she had to bring charges against former President Donald Trump because they needed a distraction from the “screw up” with recently appointed Special Counsel David Weiss.

“I am told—this is hearsay—but I am told by a reliable source, that Friday evening, somebody from Washington called the district attorney in Atlanta and said, ‘You have to indict on Monday. We have to cover up all of the mistakes we just made with Weiss,’” Gingrich told Charlie Kirk in an interview. “And she said, apparently, ‘My jurors aren’t coming back till Tuesday,’ and they said, ‘You didn’t hear me. You have to indict on Monday,’ And she said, ‘Well, they’re not gonna get here before noon.’ They said, ‘That doesn’t matter.’ She says, ‘This means it’s going to be eight or nine or 10 o’clock at night.’ They said, ‘It doesn’t matter.”

“Who made that phone call?” asked Kirk.

“We don’t know,” Gingrich said. “And that’s why I’m telling you upfront, this is hearsay, but it’s from a person who has remarkably good sources.”

“I totally believe it, though,” Kirk replied. “Because that would explain why they leaked and they messed up on the clerk document. Why she was exhausted and why they had the 11 pm press conference.”

DA Willis held a late-night press conference to announce that a grand jury had indicted former President Donald Trump and 18 associates on multiple charges, including violating the Georgia RICO Act, solicitation of oath violation, and various conspiracy and false statement offenses. The charges had been suspiciously leaked online before the grand jury’s decision.

While Gingrich was adamant in pointing out the story is merely hearsay, it not only fits with the circumstances surrounding the indictment, but with the past indictments as well. As we’ve previously reported here at PJ Media, each of Trump’s prior federal indictments immediately followed bad news days for Joe Biden.

This even raises the question as to whether Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment of Trump was ordered by Washington for similar reasons. On the same day that Trump was indicted in April, Kathy Chung, a former aide to Biden, testified before the House Oversight Committee, contradicting the White House’s account of Biden’s handling of classified documents. Chung testified that the documents Biden kept were not stored in a secured closet at the Penn Biden Center.

It may be hearsay, but everything fits.

Okay, this tells us that they know SloJoe is such a liability that if he can’t be stopped, he’s going to lose.

Jake Tapper Stuns CNN’s Audience: “Trump Was Right and Joe Biden Was Wrong”

CNN’s Jake Tapper came clean and admitted that Trump was right and Joe Biden was wrong about Hunter Biden’s shady dealings in China.

TAPPER: Let’s turn to the Biden administration because Jeff you have some new reporting that President Biden might have a blind spot, according to people around him when it comes to his son Hunter Biden’s legal troubles and concerns about how this might impact his desire to be reelected. What do you got? What are you hearing?

ZELENY: Well, look, this is something that the President was hoping to put behind him. They were hoping that the plea agreement would go through, et cetera. Now there is very likely to be a trial unfolding at the same time as a presidential campaign. Even worse, a second special counsel’s investigation on top of the one that’s already investigating the President for classified documents.

So the point talking to a bunch of advisors is that this is something that is not discussed around the President in his orbit because they do not think voters care about it.

They think voters care about the economy, other matters. They’re probably right about that. However, we know that this is going to be a central piece of the Republican debate and Republican talking points next week and beyond, the Hunter Biden situation.

So what do swing voters think of Hunter Biden? As of now, they’ve never sort of drawn a correlation or blamed the President for his son’s conduct. They feel sympathy for him, et cetera.

But is there a blind spot directly around him and the campaign by not talking about this? It’s verboten. You can’t talk about Hunter Biden. We’ll see.

This is definitely going to be a topic on the debate stage this week.

TAPPER: Yes. And Kristen, Glenn Kessler from “The Washington Post” had a fact check about Joe Biden from earlier this month noting that Hunter Biden admitted in court in July that he was, in fact, paid substantial sums from Chinese companies.

Kessler wrote, Hunter Biden reported nearly $2.4 million income in 2017 and 2.2 million income in 2018, most of which came from Chinese or Ukrainian interests.

But this — and this directly goes against what Joe Biden said in the debate in 2020 with Donald Trump.

RINOs Surprised? Biden Administration Stabs Gun Control Partners in the Back

Moderate members of both political parties are criticizing the Biden Administration for its recent move to defund longstanding scholastic archery and hunter education programs under a recently passed gun control law.

The programs, which have no demonstrable connection to crime or violence, are the latest innocent victims of the misnamed Bi-Partisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA).

The episode reinforces two critically important lessons that any pro-gun legislator should remember. One: there is no such thing as harmless gun control. Two: Moderates who join forces with anti-gun extremists will eventually be embarrassed by the partnership.

We have already explained how the infamously anti-gun Biden Administration is abusing authorities established under the BSCA to implement de facto waiting periods on certain firearm purchases, fund unconstitutional firearm seizure schemes, and curtail private firearm transfers. These steps have caused supporters of the law who are not reflexively hostile to the Second Amendment to complain the administration is misinterpreting its provisions. But if anti-gunners can interpret the individual right to keep and bear arms out of the Second Amendment itself, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the far more ambiguous language of the BSCA could be twisted to nefarious ends.

The latest issue arises out of an obscure provision of the BSCA that amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). That act is the “primary source of federal aid for elementary and secondary education” and is meant ““to strengthen and improve educational quality and educational opportunities in the Nation’s elementary and secondary schools.”

Continue reading “”

The court ruled that since the law hadn’t actually been enforced yet, the plaintiffs didn’t have ‘standing’, as they weren’t yet subject to harm.

New Jersey Can Sue Gun Companies As A ‘Public Nuisance,’ Appeals Court Rules

The state of New Jersey can sue firearms manufacturers under a new state public nuisance law designed to target the industry, a federal appellate court ruled on Thursday.

New Jersey, in July of 2022, enacted new statutory law that allows the attorney general to sue gun manufacturers for being a “public nuisance” if they have “endangered the safety and health of New Jersey residents through the sale, manufacture, distribution, and marketing of lethal, but nonetheless legal, gun-related products,” according to the law. The state was then sued by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) in November of 2022 in a “pre-enforcement action,” to stop them from bringing a suit under the law, which was on Thursday dismissed for a lack of ripeness — meaning that it hasn’t matured to the point where a genuine dispute exists — according to the court’s ruling dismissing the suit.

“Pre-enforcement challenges are unusual. To bring one, the plaintiff must show that the stakes are high and close at hand … Yet this suit falls far short of even the ‘normal’ pre-enforcement challenge. A brand-new civil tort statute, without more, does not justify a federal court’s intervention,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, for a unanimous three-judge bench. “[W]e see little evidence that enforcement is looming … the Foundation has jumped the gun,” Bibas noted.

New Jersey’s law was passed in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, where the court in a 6-3 ruling struck down a New York law that required pistol permit applicants to prove that a “proper cause exists” for having such a permit. The Supreme Court ruled that the law violated the Second Amendment.

“The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas for the majority in the case. The ruling was widely criticized by Democrats and left-wing groups, who argued that it would increase gun violence and prompted the passage of laws by Democratic-led states to curtail firearm access.

“A gun industry member shall not, by conduct either unlawful in itself or unreasonable under all the circumstances, knowingly or recklessly create, maintain, or contribute to a public nuisance in this State through the sale, manufacturing, distribution, importing, or marketing of a gun-related product,” reads the New Jersey statute, which was challenged by the NSSF. The law also specifies that “[t]he Attorney General shall not be required to demonstrate any special injury” to prevail in a legal challenge on these grounds.

The law had previously been blocked by U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi of New Jersey for purportedly violating federal law, which currently immunizes gun manufacturers from lawsuits when their guns are used to commit crimes.

The law adapts a model — creating a civil cause of action for private citizens to sue — that had been adopted by some conservative states, notably Texas, to enforce abortion restrictions prior to the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. Democratic-led states, such as California, then vowed to use the same model to target gun manufacturers.

“During oral arguments, the panel appeared to have concerns with the law, as did the district court that enjoined enforcement,” said Lawrence Keane, the NSSF’s senior vice president and general counsel. “Should New Jersey’s attorney general attempt to enforce the law, we will immediately refile our complaint.”

“I am thrilled,” said Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy of New Jersey.

BLUF
America needs only look to the recent past to see how the federal government handles a “public health crisis.”…  The tendency of the government to assume police-state authorities is enough to warn Americans when their elected officials want to invoke a “public health crisis.”

VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS PROPOSES PUBLIC HEALTH GUN CONTROL REMEDY

Vice President Kamala Harris believes gun control is a public health issue, giving Americans more reasons to be wary of gun control efforts.

The problem is, crime isn’t a disease, as much as gun control advocates want to treat it as such. Criminal activity is a behavior and science has yet to bring about a medical remedy that prevents an individual from committing crimes. That’s not stopping Vice President Harris from tossing out debunked data, purposefully confusing suicides with criminal firearm misuse and conveniently glossing over the Biden administration’s failures to address the real problem of crime.

“I — as Vice President of the United States, I am acutely aware of the fact that gun violence is the leading cause of death of the children of America,” Vice President Harris told Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund’s Annual Gun Sense University Conference in Chicago last week. “It’s — it’s the number one cause of death — not some disease — well, although this is a form of a disease, to be sure.  Gun violence is the leading cause of death of our children.”

Continue reading “”

Biden Administration Argues Texas and Florida Anti-Censorship Laws Are a First Amendment Violation

Presented as an effort to safeguard speech rights, the Biden administration has called on the Supreme Court to dismantle controversial segments of the anti-censorship social media laws ratified in Florida and Texas.

We obtained a copy of the filing for you here.

(President Biden is also using the argument that banning his administration from asking platforms to remove speech is a First Amendment violation.)

The laws in question restrict the autonomy of leading social media platforms by preventing them from censoring citizens speech and discriminating on the basis of political viewpoint.

Both Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Texas Governor Greg Abbott staunchly support these laws as a means of protecting voices from being suppressed. Governor DeSantis, at the law signing in May 2021, criticized Big Tech’s bias for Silicon Valley ideology and emphasized the need for accountability.

The Texas law, featuring a provision prohibiting discrimination based on viewpoints, incorporates several exceptions, permitting platforms to ban content promoting violence, criminal behavior, child exploitation, and harassment of sexual-abuse survivors and more. The law presses social media platforms to adopt user complaint procedures, disclose content and data management practices, and publish a comprehensive biannual transparency report.

The legislation only applies to platforms attracting over 50 million monthly users.

The Florida law has a similar scope and, in addition, mandates a detailed justification for each content moderation. The legislation also forbids the banning of political contenders or “journalistic enterprises.”

US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar perceives this as an encroachment on First Amendment rights. She contended in a recent court filing that such laws infringe the liberty of tech giants in selecting, editing, and arranging user-generated content. Essentially, she claimed these actions are all protected under the First Amendment.

Endorsing two industry trade groups that have formally contested the laws, she implored the Supreme Court to scrutinize both measures.

Federal appeals courts, however, are divided over the issue. The 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has primarily blocked Florida’s legislation, deeming it potentially unconstitutional. Conversely, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit backed the Texas law but held it back to permit an appeal to reach the Supreme Court.

Certainly, both states, as well as the trade groups, are petitioning the Supreme Court to adjudicate on a range of issues concerning the two cases. An announcement of the court’s decision is expected as early as September.

While Prelogar largely aligns with the social media companies, she refrained from endorsing their protest against the “general-disclosure provisions” that require the publishing of content-management policies and production of transparency reports. These issues, she argued, are not the main subject of the lawsuits and high court review would be premature.

Biden Promises Maui Fire Survivors $700 Per Household — Less Than What is Spent on Ukraine

President Joe Biden announced Monday that survivors of the Maui fires would receive “a one-time $700 payment per household,” after he faced criticism for telling a reporter he had “no comment” on the rising death toll.

His account posted: “We’re laser-focused on getting aid to survivors, including Critical Needs Assistance: a one-time $700 payment per household offering relief during an unimaginably difficult time.”

The one-time payment of $700 per household is less than the estimated cost to each American household for the Ukraine War, according to a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.

Richard Stern, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget, calculated that the congressionally-approved aid to Ukraine of $113 billion amounts to roughly $900 per American household.

“The formal aid packages alone amount to a staggering $113 billion — roughly $900 per American household and almost 12 times the spending cuts promised by House leadership in the annual spending bills,” Stern said in an email to The Daily Signal, Heritage’s news outlet.

Furthermore, he said the $113 billion would cost more than $300 in interest costs per household over the decade.

On Thursday, as the Maui fires continued burning, Biden asked Congress for an additional $20 billion more in aid for Ukraine.

“As the war in Ukraine becomes a prolonged conflict, Americans are rightly growing skeptical of sending more taxpayer dollars and equipment from our depleted armory,” Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts told The Daily Signal.

“Washington has failed to address their concerns, explain our nation’s strategy in the war, or enact basic oversight for our aid,” Roberts said. “If Congress can’t fix those fundamental issues, they have no business sending more money into the fog of war.”

BLUF
Well, I generally believe that when government officials don’t want us to know something, it’s because they fear we would think or act in ways they wouldn’t like if we knew it.

It’s democracy in the dark without Nashville shooter manifesto’s release.

“Democracy Dies in Darkness” is the (sometimes ironic) slogan of The Washington Post.

But it’s also a fair description of what’s happening in Tennessee, as the state Legislature is being called to a special session even as local and federal officials withhold information that might be critical to its decision-making.

Gov. Bill Lee ordered the special session to begin Aug. 21 in response to a March 27 mass shooting in which three adults and three children at the Covenant School, a Christian school in Nashville’s Green Hills neighborhood, were killed.

The Nashville Tennessean article refers only to “a shooter.”

The shooter was a female-to-male transgender shooter named Audrey Hale, aged 28, who left a manifesto before being killed by police.

Hale had chosen to identify as a man, using the pronouns he/him.

The manifesto included detailed plans put together over months to shoot up the school, according to reports just after the shooting from police who had seen it.

Unfortunately, they’re the only ones who have seen it.

Local and federal authorities with access to the manifesto have refused to make its contents public.

Though Hale sent an Instagram message to a friend just before the shooting, saying, “One day this will make more sense. I’ve left more than enough evidence behind,” we haven’t seen that evidence.

Vivek Ramaswamy, running third in the GOP presidential primary, recently called for the manifesto’s release. He characterizes the government position as “stonewalled silence.”

Well, I generally believe that when government officials don’t want us to know something, it’s because they fear we would think or act in ways they wouldn’t like if we knew it.

They seldom keep things secret that would make them look good.

Instead it’s usually something that would reflect badly on them or someone they’re protecting.

What could that be in this case? I don’t know, and they seem determined to keep it that way.

But beyond that, the Legislature is in a curious position.

Lawmakers are being asked to debate and vote on legislative proposals being made only because of the March shooting, even as some of the most important facts are kept secret.

Gov. Lee’s office says he’s called for the release of the manifesto, and it’s the Metro Nashville Police and the FBI keeping the lid on.

Continue reading “”

Illinois’ latest gun law is an affront to more than just the Second Amendment

Illinois’ new “Firearms Industry Responsibility Act” isn’t just an attack on our right to keep and bear arms. It’s an assault on our freedom of speech as well. On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co Mark Oliva of the National Shooting Sports Foundation sits down with me to discuss the group’s newly-filed lawsuit challenging HB 218, as well as the impending ATF rule on private sales and transfers of firearms.

The NSSF’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for Southern Illinois, challenges the validity of Illinois’ new gun control law on multiple counts, starting with the argument that HB 218 is preempted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act. But the NSSF is also raising a First Amendment challenge, asserting that the law discriminates against speech based on its content or viewpoint and arguing that such discrimination should be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts.

The topics and views that Illinois has singled out in HB 218 do not fall into any “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech” unprotected by the First Amendment. To be sure, the First Amendment does not preclude imposing liability for false, deceptive, or otherwise “misleading” commercial speech.

But HB 218 does not even purport to target only speech that is false or misleading. It authorizes the imposition of liability for speech about a product—a product expressly protected by the Constitution, no less— even when that speech is truthful and not misleading. Indeed, the words “false,” “misleading,” and “deceptive” appear nowhere in the relevant provisions.

A manufacturer that places online advertisements containing entirely accurate specifications of its products and subsequently sells that product to a distributor, could be liable under HB 218, even if that product is fully lawful in every state in which it is sold, if a Illinois court later deems the product to have been marketed (1) in a way that “contribute[d] to a condition in Illinois that endangers the safety or health of the public,” or (2) encouraged non-servicemembers to use it for “a military-related purpose”.

“They’re trying to squelch the First Amendment rights of firearm manufacturers and retailers,” Oliva explained to me. “If they can eliminate the discussion of safe and responsible firearm ownership to the next generation, they can diminish the desire for ownership and people exercising their Second Amendment rights. So they’re trying to play the long game of eliminating the Second Amendment by eliminating and curtailing the First Amendment. And it’s important to remember that commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment. It is a right for these companies to be able to advertise a constitutionally-protected product.”

In its suit, the NSSF says that the speech code established by HB 218 is so vague that it’s “virtually impossible for regulated parties to tell what speech is and is not permitted, leaving them with no realistic choice but to err on the side of refraining from exercising their First Amendment rights.”

By its terms, HB 218 renders unlawful any marketing of a firearm-related product that “create[s], maintain[s], or contribute[s] to a condition in Illinois that endangers the safety or health of the public” if it is deemed “unreasonable under all circumstances.” This restriction “will provoke uncertainty among speakers,” as such indeterminable and subjective abstractions do not articulate at all—let alone articulate with “narrow specificity”—what kind(s) of speech may later be deemed to have unreasonably contributed to a “condition … that endangers the safety or health of the public.”

Those restrictions are problematic enough, but HB 218 further prohibits marketing “in a manner that reasonably appears to support, recommend, or encourage individuals” who are not in the military “to use a firearm-related product for a military-related purpose.” The problem with this broad prohibition is that Illinois provides no guidance on what qualifies as a “military-related” purpose, leaving industry members to guess whether their marketing materials will later be deemed unlawful.

HB 218 goes on, moreover, to prohibit an industry member from “advertis[ing], market[ing], promot[ing], design[ing], or sell[ing] any firearm related product in a manner that reasonably appears to support, recommend, or encourage persons under 18 years of age to unlawfully purchase or possess or use a firearm-related product.”

A state of course may prohibit speech directly concerning unlawful conduct. But, unless this provision covers nothing more than advertisements that tell minors to buy guns (despite being minors), it is not at all clear what it means. Does any advertisement that shows minors lawfully using firearms (e.g., with a parent while hunting, or at a Boy Scouts shooting event) fall on the wrong side of the line?

What about marketing in a way targeted toward young men, who share many characteristics with those just a few years younger—but are lawfully able to purchase firearms (and serve in the armed forces)? The questions vastly outnumber the answers. And while no statute must preempt all potential complications, when it comes to a prohibition on speech, the lack of clarity is destined to create a massive chilling problem.

If HB 218 is so narrow that it only prohibits advertisements that entice juveniles into breaking the law, then this particular provision is never going to come into play in practice. If, on the other hand, the bill is written broadly enough to target manufacturers like Wee1 Tactical and its JR-15 rimfire rifle, then it’s going to make it virtually impossible to not only market but produce firearms designed for youth shooting. As Oliva says, that’s nothing more than abridging the First Amendment rights of gun makers to curb the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, and a sign of the contempt that Illinois lawmakers have for all of our individual rights.

Check out the entire conversation with Mark Oliva in the video window below, including his initial thoughts on the yet-to-be-introduced ATF rule that seeks to impose a near-universal background check system on gun sales and the dangers it poses to lawful gun owners across the country. Be sure to tune in tomorrow as well, when we’ll be talking with Jim Wallace of the Gun Owners Action League about how gun owners are pushing back on the “Lawful Citizens Imprisonment Act” and what’s happening behind the scenes at the statehouse in Boston.

Economic Expert: ‘Transitory’ Inflation Enters 31st Month, and It’s Not Going Away.

“Our income is falling even as the thieves who took away our prosperity continue to masquerade as people we can trust to solve the problems that they created,” Jeffrey Tucker observes soberly about America’s economic and monetary situation.

Tucker, Brownstone Institute founder and president, wrote an op-ed that was published Friday in The Epoch Times. He noted that the inflation problem continues and the dollar is likely to lose half its value by the 2030s. Basically, Biden’s economic policies and the Federal Reserve created a crisis, and it’s not getting any better.

“The Consumer Price Index came out this morning and it showed no improvement over last month,” Tucker wrote. “It is still rocking at 3.2 percent with new strength in food and medicine. The sticky index is frustratingly high too at 5.4 percent.”

As we face the 31st month of “transitory” inflation, we’ve also have almost that long a period in the Federal Reserve’s “war on inflation by raising rates higher and faster than in the whole history of the institution,” Tucker continued. “That said, in real terms, federal funds rates are still barely above zero. That’s because inflation is still rocking and eating away the dollar’s purchasing power.”

The purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is declining at a somewhat less rapid rate than it was as of a year ago, Tucker noted. But the dollar is still declining, not hitting the Fed’s target. “Prices are nowhere near going back to 2019 levels but instead it all keeps getting worse,” he wrote. “We have now lost 16 cents from its value at the start of Trump’s last year of his presidency. The mad money printing has taken a terrible toll. All of the value of the transfer payments from 2020 and 2021 have completely vanished.”

According to Tucker, “the Fed has done everything it knows to do in order to bring this under control,” although the Fed also created the problem to begin with by “enabling” a Congressionally-authorized spending spree. And the “clean-up” after the “fire” didn’t go particularly well; we all know that from our own experience. Tucker gave a technical explanation of velocity, or “a measure of the pace at which money is spent,” and how the pace of spending now is fueling inflation and is not likely to improve soon. But velocity isn’t under the Fed’s control, either.

Tucker insisted, “If velocity continues to increase like this, we are looking at years of price increases at 3 percent and higher. And that is presuming no sudden surprises.” Unfortunately, he noted, Americans seem to be getting used to the inflation pain. It hurts, but we’re starting to accept it as normal. That’s how “transitory inflation” turns into a permanent state of affairs, Tucker stated:

At the current pace of decline, we can expect the 2020 dollar to keep falling in value, so that it will be worth half its value by the time we reach the 2030s. Keep in mind that this is a tax that wrecks the standard of living of the middle class and the poor while enriching the people and institutions that can afford to endure the storm…

This is exactly what has happened to gas prices. In the long sweep, it has only increased in price but right now it feels not so bad. This is entirely in your head. The reality is that you are being pillaged.

Gas prices could eventually reach their old highs but by this time, you will have been so bruised and bloodied that you will be no longer screaming in pain. In short, our masters are trying to acculturate us to suffering so that we will no longer have the strength to protest.

One thing Tucker does not address is how the dollar is weakening internationally even as the Chinese yuan rises, and multiple countries start to turn from the U.S. dollar as standard world reserve currency. Could that “de-dollarization” pushed by Communist China also spell serious trouble for the future value of the dollar? Probably.

Ultimately, however, the conclusion is the same: it’s ordinary Americans who suffer most from inflation and the dollar’s loss of value.

 Lilly and Scowcroft Were Wrong in 1989. Let’s Not Be Wrong in 2023
A Lifeline to China is a Mistake.

Brent Scowcroft was a great American, as was Lawrence Eagleburger. Both served our country well throughout their lives. Except once.

June 4th, 1989, the Communist Party of China unleashed a slaughter and then round-up of activists and students who had bravely demanded a more democratic China. Less than 6 weeks later, while bodies of students were still in Beijing morgues, Scowcroft and Eagleburger, encouraged by James Lilly, and of course with the full backing of then President George H. Bush, undertook a secret mission to Beijing to let the butchers know, “we’ve got your back”.

Alternative historical timelines are somewhat useless, however, judgments about the actions of government officials are open to scrutiny, and I am more than willing to argue that the olive branch along with the tarp, to cover the bodies of the Tiananmen students, delivered by Mr. Eagleburger and Mr. Scowcroft, was a mistake. China was on the ropes, the Soviet Union was going down fast, and what could have been the end of the Communist Party, or at least a serious shake-up, was an opportunity missed for reasons that really don’t add up, other than then President Bush, and policy hands like Ambassador James Lilly, thought stability in China was preferred over change. A move where the only recorded beneficiary was the Carlyle Group.

We are now at that crossroads again, and once again, we have the engagement crowd telling us that it’s much better for us for to let the Party of Xi escape, with our assistance, rather than face the music of the last nine years of economic mismanagement.

Whether it’s slithering Hank Greenberg, Kissinger, or even our newest US China policy maker, Australian Ambassador to the US Kevin Rudd, the bail out China brigade is out in full force.

I disagree.

Unless the engagement fellows have figured out a way to increase the Chinese birth rate, solve the problems of communism, and found some path for the Communist Party to allow an investment that is not a gift, then we are wasting our time.

Xi put them in this mess, and it’s his mess to sort. The idea that we need some type of Marshall Plan to help the Communist Party save itself, so they don’t turn into bad guys and invade the rest of Asia is sadly lacking an understanding of exactly what totalitarians have done throughout history.

I’m not advocating to isolate, or to even cut off trade with China, but if they want to trade, then they can trade like adults, and not always based on the premise that the United States and the European Union are their supplicants.

It’s been the common thread from the China hands for the last 30 years that China is a place that only changes on its own, and we, the West, can only watch and encourage them to go in the better direction. Sounds right to me. Xi made the mud, let him, on his own, clean it up.

There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them.
– Ayn Rand

Oh England…………

Girl arrested over ‘lesbian nana’ comment will face no further action, police say

Police officer to whom the ‘lesbian nana’ comment was directed by teenager arrested for homophobic public order offence - TikTok/@nikitasnow84

Police officer to whom the ‘lesbian nana’ comment was directed by teenager arrested for homophobic public order offence – TikTok/@nikitasnow84© Provided by The Telegraph

A16-year-old girl arrested in Leeds after being accused of making a homophobic remark to a police officer will face no further action, West Yorkshire Police said.

A video uploaded to TikTok by her mother showed the autistic teenager being detained by seven officers outside her home in Leeds in the early hours of Monday Aug 7.

The force also said it will “take on board any lessons to be learned” after the footage of the arrest sparked criticism on social media.

The mother posted on TikTok: “This is what police do when dealing with autistic children. My daughter told me the police officer looked like her nana, who is a lesbian.

“The officer took it the wrong way and said it was a homophobic comment [it wasn’t].

“The officer then entered my home. My daughter was having panic attacks from being touched by them and they still continued to manhandle her.”

‘Releases girl from her bail’

A statement released by police on Friday said: “In relation to an incident in Leeds on Monday, where a 16-year-old girl was arrested on suspicion of a homophobic public order offence, West Yorkshire Police has now reviewed the evidence and made the decision to take no further action.

“This concludes the criminal investigation and immediately releases the girl from her bail. Her family has been updated.

“West Yorkshire Police’s Professional Standards Directorate is continuing to carry out a review of the circumstances after receiving a complaint in relation to the incident.”

Assistant Chief Constable Oz Khan said: “We recognise the significant level of public concern that this incident has generated, and we have moved swiftly to fully review the evidence in the criminal investigation which has led to the decision to take no further action.

“Without pre-empting the outcome of the ongoing review of the circumstances by our Professional Standards Directorate, we would like to reassure people that we will take on board any lessons to be learned from this incident.

“We do appreciate the understandable sensitivities around incidents involving young people and neurodiversity and we are genuinely committed to developing how we respond to these often very challenging situations.”

Gov. Lee sets parameters for special session on the Second Amendment, public safety

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WTVF) — Gov. Bill Lee’s office released the topics of legislation for a special session that would take on public safety in tandem with Second Amendment rights.

The document lists 18 different topics from mental health resources to juvenile justice reform.

This special session on Aug. 21 follows The Covenant School shooting back in March that claimed lives — including three children.

Critics had hoped the session would focus on guns and what they call sensible gun reform. The governor, however, intends to focus on the state’s broken mental health and juvenile justice systems.

Near the end of the regular session, Gov. Bill Lee proposed a bill that would have allowed extreme risk orders of protection or so-called red flag laws. The bill would have made it easier for a judge to take away someone’s guns if they are deemed a threat to themselves or others. But the Republican supermajority killed the bill.

Here are the parameters of the special session this August:

  • mental health resources providers, commitments or services;
  • school safety plans or policies;
  • offenses of committing mass violence or threatening to commit acts of mass violence;
  • reports from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation regarding human trafficking;
  • identification of individuals arrested for felonies;
  • law enforcement’s access to information about individuals who are subject to mental health commitment;
  • information about victims of violent offenses;
  • stalking offenses;
  • measures encouraging the safe storage of firearms, which do include the creation of penalties for failing to safely store firearms;
  • temporary mental health orders of protections, which must be initiated by law enforcement, must require a due process hearing, must require the respondent to undergo an assessment for suicidal or homicidal ideation, must require that an order of protection be reevaluated at least 180 days and must not permit ex parte orders;
  • the transfer of juvenile defendants age 16 and older to courts with criminal jurisdiction, which must include appeal rights for the juveniles and the prosecuting authorities;
  • limiting the circumstances in which juvenile records may be expunged;
  • blended sentencing for juveniles;
  • offenses related to inducing or coercing a minor to commit an offense;
  • the structure of operations of state and local courts
  • making appropriations sufficient to provide funding for any legislation

Another in the ‘You Can’t Make This Up’ category.
I advise a different sort of ‘loud noise maker’, something along the lines of that lady’s .357.

Police in Democrat-Run Oakland Urge Residents to Use Airhorns if Targeted by Criminals

Police in Democrat-run Oakland, California, are urging residents to use airhorns as a way of sounding an alarm when criminals strike amid a surge in crime.

Crime has risen to a point where police are not only advising the purchase of airhorns but also the placement of “security bars to…doors and windows,” CNN noted.

Burglaries in the city are up 41 percent “and robberies by more than 20 percent.”

Mayor-elect Sheng Thao speaks during a press conference at City Hall in downtown Oakland, California, on November 23, 2022. (Jane Tyska/Digital First Media/East Bay Times via Getty Images)

Oakland resident Toni Bird indicated that she followed the advice of police and now has three airhorns.

Bird said, “The types of crime that we’re seeing feel much more violent and the consequences feel much more severe. And it feels like the people that are being targeted are people who are vulnerable.”

On Sunday, July 30, 2023, a 75-year-old Oakland woman was home alone and armed with more than an airhorn when two alleged armed intruders entered her home.

The woman had a .357 Magnum revolver, which she used to fire one shot at the alleged intruders, KTVU reported. The alleged intruders fired multiple shots then fled the scene.

The woman was not injured and her daughter described her as “Superwoman.”