Category: Goobermint

Joe Biden, How Dare You Compare Me To Hitler.

President Joe Biden lashed out at Republicans who have embraced the MAGA philosophy saying they’re semi-fascists.

I don’t think Biden understands what MAGA means. It’s all about putting America first and making the US the most powerful nation on Earth, both economically and militarily. Some examples include taking control of our southern border, making America energy independent, and building our military so we can take out ISIS or any other threat. It also means reducing business regulations so companies are free to run their enterprises without government interference. The result is American companies that are more competitive internationally and at home, generating more income (more tax dollars) and more jobs.

According to Webster, the definition of Fascists “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascists) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” 

MAGA pushes personal freedom and keeps the government out of the lives of Americans. That’s the opposite of Fascism.

One does not have to be a Trump supporter to call for making America great again. Other famous users of the phrase include Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. I wouldn’t call any of them a Fascist (semi or regular).

Biden’s misunderstanding of MAGA isn’t what angers me. It’s his inappropriate use of Fascist (semi-fascist). If you asked 100 Americans to name a Fascist, I suspect that 90-95 of them would answer either the Nazis or Adolf Hitler.

As someone who believes in the MAGA objectives no matter which candidate I support, my anger comes from the fact that I am a Jew with family who suffered through the Holocaust. Those and other references to Hitler and the Holocaust Biden made cheapen the memory of the actual horrors that millions of people suffered through.

It used to be a basic rule of American politics. Never use the Holocaust or any related terms, such as Fascist, Nazis, or Hitler, for political warfare. The Holocaust is a singular event in world history, not just because of its scale and inhuman horror. There have been, and sadly will be, other genocides of other groups. And there have even been other atrocities against the Jewish people. But generally, genocide is waged to suppress a group, keep them out of a country’s politics,  take their land, or some other economic reason. The Holocaust was different– the Jews were targeted by Hitler, and the Fascist  Nazis had no desire to take over the country’s land and held relatively little power–they were just hated. The Nazis took Jews from all over Europe and killed them.

Continue reading “”

Gov. Kathy Hochul seemingly admits denying permits for wrongthink

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul knew that Bruen would go against her state. As a result of that decision, a number of other measures were passed through, measures that looked to adhere to the decision. At least, they would if you squint.

One of those measures is that authorities can scour your social media to see if you have the proper “good moral character” New York seeks to demand from those seeking permits.

However, some recent comments are rather suggestive as to what this is really about.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) used a Wednesday press conference to highlight new state gun controls and emphasized that talking to a would-be gun buyer’s “neighbors online” is now part of a background check.

Hochul’s comments to reporters and others gathered for the conference were wide-ranging, focusing broadly on New York’s Interstate Task Force on Illegal Guns.…

She then discussed social media, saying, “I’ve called upon and am working closely with our Attorney General to identify what’s going on in social media. And those questions are now part of our background checks. Just like in the old days you could talk to someone’s neighbor, now you can talk to their neighbors online to find whether or not this person has been espousing philosophies that indicate they have been radicalized.”

In other words, she wants issuing officials to look at your social media history and determine if you have the wrong opinions on particular issues.

See, this isn’t about whether you’re a criminal or anything like that. This measure is a gauge as to whether you’re the “right sort” for New York to give a permit to. Moral character requirements were originally intended to keep from giving permits to people like alcoholics or such. While that’s not a good reason, it’s at least understandable.

But Hochul’s comment about whether some have been “radicalized” is a problem.

For one thing, just about everything that isn’t in line with progressive ideology has been labeled as extremist to some degree. At least some think the GOP as a whole is extremist. Hell, just not supporting gun control has been seen as radicalization.

So who defines being radicalized in this case? There’s a huge gulf between opinions shifting in a more conservative or libertarian direction and calling for the complete and total overthrow of the United States government or for a jihad against American infidels.

So where is that line?

Frankly, it doesn’t matter. What Hochul has essentially admitted is that this is about WrongThink. It’s about not having approved thoughts and if you have those, you risk losing your right to bear arms. That’s not what rights are about.

Imagine if we were considering denying the right to free speech to communists, for example. Now, communism has killed more people than all the mass shooters in American history combined–probably more than all gun homicides in this country combined, really–but we tolerate their right to speak freely and advocate their heinous ideology because that’s what a free society does. Rights exist for all or they exist for none.

And Hochul would likely be right there, defending their right to free speech, which is fine.

What’s not fine, though, is that she’s openly supporting the suppression of other rights simply because people may not think what she wants them to think.

Biden’s Student Loan ‘Cancelation’ Plan Could Cost Taxpayers Up to $60,000,000,000 Over Next 10 Years

On Wednesday, the White House released the details of its so-called student debt “cancelation” plan. President Joe Biden also gave remarks about the announcement later that day. While the president and White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre failed to give a satisfactory answer about the cost, the Committee for a Responsible Budget (CRFB) has estimated that it will cost between $440 billion and $600 billion over the next 10 years.

Wednesday’s release from CRFB, a non-partisan group, noted that it has come to a rough estimate of $500 billion.

The release also spells trouble for any perceived benefits from the “Inflation Reduction Act,” which the organization had positive things to say about. The CRFB’s reference to a law it had praised makes its concerns even more potent.

From this release, with added emphasis:

The changes announced today will likely cost more than double the amount saved through the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act, completely eliminating any disinflationary benefit from the bill. We will be releasing an inflation estimate of these student debt changes in a subsequent analysis, but the package is likely to increase inflation by more than a year-long extension of the pause, which we previously estimated would add up to 20 basis points to the Personal Consumption Expenditure inflation rate. The proposed loan changes also do nothing to reduce the amount of borrowing moving forward, setting up a future administration to be called on to cancel debt again.

It is extremely troubling to see the Administration reverse the legislative progress made on deficit reduction. It is long past time that student debt repayments resume, and now it is even more important for policymakers to enact changes that reduce deficits through spending reductions and revenue increases in order to put the national debt on a downward sustainable path.

The organization also released a statement from its president, Maya MacGuineas, which emphasized her disappointment with the move. Her statement began:

This announcement is gallingly reckless – with the national debt approaching record levels and inflation surging, it will make both worse. Policymakers have already spent $300 billion on student debt relief—none of it paid for, and this would add another $400 to $600 billion, again, none of it paid for. This action by the White House is completely at odds with their talk of deficit reduction. It could add twice as much to the deficit as was just saved from the Inflation Reduction Act, completely eliminating any deficit reduction and then some. With the stroke of a pen, the President undid a year’s worth of work on the fiscal front.

Many progressive politicians and organization have referenced student loan debt in the context of how it affects lower-income families as well as minorities. The president in his Wednesday remarks made mention of how “the burden is especially heavy on Black and Hispanic borrowers, who on average have less family wealth to pay for it.”

A Thursday post by CRFB also addressed previous student debt proposals, which actually turn out to benefit upper-class families. “The student debt cancellation proposals that have previously been analyzed are regressive because they provide a disproportionate benefit to higher income and wealthier households. The main reason for this is that people who go to college and beyond are much more likely to earn high incomes and have high lifetime wealth compared to people who don’t go to college,” the post read.

A Brookings report is also mentioned, which found that “the top 20 percent of white non-Hispanic households by lifetime wealth hold 25 percent of all student debt and hold more student debt than all Black/African American households combined. This shows that debt cancellation disproportionately benefits white, wealthier households because those are the people most likely to owe and be paying down their debt.”

The post did acknowledge that Biden’s recently announced proposal could be “less regressive” though and that “it’s not clear at this time how the announced Biden cancellation policy affects the racial wealth gaps.”

Biden Tries Again to Legalize Illegal Aliens Without Congressional Authorization

The Department of Homeland Security has finalized a rule that would grant legal status to 600,000 children of illegal aliens. The new directive would formalize the rule adapted in 2012 during the Obama administration and transform it into federal regulation. It would prevent deportations and grant work permits to those who came to the United States as children.

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) has been in legal limbo ever since a Texas judge ruled that the program was illegal in the early months of the Biden administration. The new rule going into effect October 31 would codify most of the eligibility rules: applicants must prove they arrived in the U.S. by age 16 and before June 2007, studied in a U.S. school or served in the military, and lack any serious criminal record.

The Texas case is likely to end up in the Supreme Court, where justices already ruled against Donald Trump’s bid to end the program, largely because of a technicality. But this case is based on far narrower Constitutional grounds; only Congress can declare large swaths of illegal aliens as legal. And that argument has a good chance of winning in the high court as it’s currently constituted.

CBS News:

Congress has long been unable to reach any kind of immigration deal that would garner enough bipartisan support to pass the Senate. Last year, the Senate parliamentarian rejected multiple efforts by Democrats to include immigration changes in their party-line social spending bill. And Republican leaders have expressed little interest in Democrats’ attempts at overhauling immigration policy.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who has long pushed for a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, was quick to applaud the Department of Homeland Security’s issuing the rule. He noted that it provides “some stability to DACA recipients and make[s] it more difficult for a future administration to rescind DACA, which is a lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”

The rule would only apply to DACA renewal requests as the government is blocked from approving any new applications. But the radical immigration advocates want Biden to go long and go big.

Politico:

But some immigrant advocates expressed frustration that the Biden administration did not go further in its final rule, opting to keep the same criteria from when the program was created in 2012.

“This final DACA rule fails to strengthen the program by not expanding it to include the majority of undocumented immigrant youth who are graduating from high school this year and not eligible for the program because of arbitrary cut-off dates,” said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, deputy director of federal advocacy for United We Dream.

“While Congress must pass permanent protections for all, President Biden cannot hide behind the courts or Congress. He can take bold action now,” she added.

The rule is still going to face challenges in court, so Biden isn’t hiding very well. He can’t. Congress has the authority to end this argument. But even those Republicans — like Donald Trump — who support DACA in one form or another realize what a loaded political issue it is and will never risk voting for it.

Most people agree that young children should not suffer from their parent’s immigration crimes. But a blanket amnesty would be uncalled for and would be hard to do anyway.

Yessireebob, these ‘red flag’ laws will be just the thing to stop people bent on murder.

Albany murder suspect had guns seized under Red Flag Law

DELAWARE COUNTY, Ind. — An Albany man faces a murder charge after police say he shot his neighbor over a dispute.

The charge comes after police responded to the 9100 block of North County Road 900 East Tuesday. When they arrived, they found Gary Coply had been shot multiple times and was lying up against his house.

A probable cause affidavit filed in the case against Cy Alley details the person who called 911 said they were taking a walk when they saw Cy Alley shoot Coply multiple times before driving away.

When police found Alley, the document said they found a 12-gauge shotgun shell similar to a spent one found at the crime scene in his pocket.

When detectives interviewed Alley, the document said he told them that he has been having trouble with electricity at his home. Alley assumed Coply had been “hacking into his network.”

Alley went to Coply’s home to confront him and the document said he told detectives he got out of his truck with a 12-gague pump shotgun and shot Coply four times, intending to kill him. He told detectives the shotgun was in the back of his truck.

The petition was granted and court records indicate the Muncie Police Department seized a rifle, a shot gun and a revolver from Alley. They are still in police custody.

Along with the murder charge, the court document says the office is seeking an enhanced penalty for use of a firearm in the commission of a crime.

Gun law grounded in bigotry reveals its roots

It’s telling when your best argument for a new law is to cite discredited laws of the past as part of your rationale.

But that’s just what New York State has resorted to in trying to convince a judge that its plethora of new restrictions making a permit to carry a handgun virtually useless should pass muster.

As the clock ticks down to the Sept. 1 implementation date, the misnamed Concealed Carry Improvement Act will do nothing more than create a new class of law-abiding criminals. And if that phrase sounds oxymoronic, you don’t know New York State – where the second half of that word is often the most operative.

Instead of targeting criminals, the new statute targets law-abiding pistol permit holders, many of whom will become felons simply by ignoring a law that will accomplish nothing except to put their lives at risk and put them in handcuffs.

The fact that in defending the law from a legal challenge, the state’s filing contains a footnote practically disavowing its own arguments tells you all you need to know. But that’s what happens when you try to defend the indefensible restrictions pushed through by Gov. Kathy Hochul and a compliant Democratic Legislature.

Continue reading “”

China in Charge at U.S. Lab.

The Galveston National Laboratory (GNL), part of the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) and funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), focuses on “dangerous pathogens” with the “potential to be used as weapons around the world.”

This same GNL signed agreements with three Chinese labs, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), that gave China the power to destroy “secret files, materials and equipment, without any backups. “The agreements applied to “all cooperation and exchange documents, data, details and materials,” were renewable every five years, and the confidentiality terms remaining in force even after termination.

As The Epoch Times reports, the UTMB now concedes that officials signed “poorly drafted” agreements, and that the signing could violate Texas law. Also in play are violations of a more serious order.

The Galveston National Lab is a 2008 creation of NIAID, the division of the National Institutes of Health headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci since 1984. Dr. Fauci funded dangerous gain-of-function research, which makes viruses more lethal and transmissible, at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, controlled by Communist China and not accountable to American officials.

In addition to some $4 million in U.S. funding, which Fauci laundered through Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, the WIV received a cargo of deadly pathogens courtesy of Dr. Xiangguo Qiu. As Israeli molecular biologist Dr. Dany Shoham documented in China and Viruses: The Case of Dr. Xiangguo Qiu, the Chinese scientist came to head the special pathogens program at Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory (NML) in Winnipeg.

The viruses that were “surreptitiously shipped from the NML to China included Machupo, Junin, Rift Valley Fever, Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever, and Hendra. In 2017-18 alone, Dr. Qiu made at least five trips to the Wuhan lab.

NIAID boss Fauci promotes the theory that the COVID-19 virus arose naturally in the wild. This is pure speculation, not science, which involves observation, testing and replication. Centers for Disease Control director Dr. Robert Redfield found evidence of a laboratory origin for COVID. That resulted in death threats, but no word of any FBI investigation. More recently, evidence for a lab origin has been mounting.

Continue reading “”

The promoters of this state constitutional amendment have missed the boat, purposefully, or not I don’t know.
SCOTUS, in Bruen  ended the tiers of judicial scrutiny for fundamental rights, specifically RKBA and mandated ‘Text, History and Tradition‘ instead. If this state constitutional amendment were passed, it could be opposed on U.S. Constitutional grounds as SCOTUS in McDonald incorporated RKBA, protected by the 2nd amendment, onto the states.
This needs to go back for editing.

Iowa gun rights amendment: What a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote could change

Iowa voters in November will be asked to add language to the Iowa Constitution that states it is a “fundamental individual right” to keep and bear arms, and that any restraint on that right is invalid unless it meets the stringent demands of “strict scrutiny.”

A new coalition of gun safety advocates warns the pro-gun amendment will prohibit reasonable safety measures that Iowans support, such as firearm safety training, universal background checks and a license to carry a gun in public.

Republicans have argued for the measure for years, saying Iowa is one of only six states without protections in its constitution for the right to keep and bear arms.

Democrats and gun-safety advocates contend Republicans are misleading Iowans when they say the amendment is equivalent to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The “strict scrutiny” language, they say, could prohibit reasonable safety measures that many Iowans support and could lead to courts overturning gun restrictions already on the books.

“Inserting gun rights with strict scrutiny into the (Iowa) Constitution would tip the balance of power, elevating access to guns above public health and safety,” said Connie Ryan, executive director of Des Moines-based Interfaith Alliance of Iowa and a member of the Iowans for Responsible Gun Laws coalition. “This is unacceptable and, quite frankly, it is dangerous.”

The Iowa Firearms Coalition, a gun-rights advocacy group, said in a statement that, “U.S. courts have long recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that preexisted the Constitution and which is protected — not granted — by the Second Amendment. Although it is the ultimate guarantor of our other rights, Iowa is one of only six states that do not protect that vital right in their constitutions.”

Continue reading “”

Why a national gun registry would not reduce crime

On Aug. 19th, Louisville, Kentucky Metro Chief of Police Erica Shields flashed her tyrannical instincts on local television.

Chief Shields’ sanctimonious comments perfectly illustrate an attitude that habitually pops up throughout the gun rights debate: It is your responsibility, the anti-gunners believe, to surrender your civil rights and other legal protections to make enforcing the law easier.

Louisville, Kentucky Metro Chief of Police Erica Shields. 

Commenting to a local news channel Shields said that anyone who does not support a new national digital firearms registry is not pro law enforcement, and that all such people “are giving law enforcement the middle finger.”

Her poorly thought-out statement assumes more than a good investigator would dare. The following disclaimer is on the ATF’s website regarding their firearms tracing: “Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller, and sources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general are acquired for use in crime.”

Tracing fireams

The ATF clearly acknowledges that firearms tracing produces mixed results, because firearms both voluntarily and involuntarily change hands – a fact that would confound a digital registry as much as the current system.

The logistical challenges of tying a name and serial number together for every firearm in the country is astronomical.

It’s also unclear what impact ATF traces have on convictions. Do ATF firearm traces substantially help convict murderers? There is very little data to support that assumption, or the legal validity of a trace report in a court of law.

The idea that a comprehensive digital database of gun owners would affect violent crime is nothing but speculation.

However, we do have recent examples of how local law enforcement and federal agents abuse the data they’ve collected on private citizen’s gun purchases.

While we have no fact-based reasons to believe a gun registry would benefit public safety, we can be certain it would create opportunities for more misconduct.

Policing a free society is necessarily difficult. And our justice system is adversarial for very important reasons.

We can’t have both fast and easy solutions, and real justice. We need law enforcement officials who will do the hard work and not cut corners at the expense of our civil rights.

How “sensitive area” battle is shaping up in New York

In the Bruen decision, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said that there were a handful of places where guns could be constitutionally banned. He called these “sensitive areas” and they include places like courthouses, jails, and things of that sort.

On one level, it makes sense. These are places where some are more inclined to be violent. Plus, they’re easily secured so that virtually no one is able to bring a gun in. In other words, they use metal detectors, not signs on the door.

However, in so doing, the term “sensitive area” is getting used to justify a whole lot of restrictions. In fact, the battle over them in New York is just starting to fire up.

“Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place’ simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department,” wrote Thomas.

While New York politicians have yet to declare Manhattan a gun-free zone, they have pushed back against the ruling. In a long list of new “sensitive places,” state legislators named parks, which by definition includes the biggest park in the lower 48, the Adirondack Park in upstate New York. Interestingly, the Adirondack Park is home to about 130,000 residents—all of whom will effectively see their Second Amendment rights erased when the law takes effect on Sept. 1.

This law is in direct conflict with NYSRPA. When the U.S. Supreme Court recently confirmed the right of Americans to “bear” arms in this case, it didn’t do so in some mealy-mouthed manner that indicated the ruling was a difficult decision or was uncertain in any way.…

For residents of the Adirondack Park, which is about half private land and half publicly owned, the law puts them in a dilemma. Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, the state NRA affiliate, said he has received “hundreds of calls” about the ban from residents of the Adirondacks who are confused and frustrated.

Of course, Adirondack Park is only one of the battlegrounds. In fact, the above-linked piece goes on to quote a Democratic lawmaker who takes issue with this particular measure and how it impacts these good folks.

However, I’m going to go a step further and note that while Thomas explicitly wrote that the entire island of Manhattan couldn’t be declared a sensitive area, what has actually transpired there is just a step shy of precisely that.

For example, a large number of areas are declared sensitive areas, for one thing. Then there’s the idea of carrying on private property.

Now, in many states, business owners can put a sign up to serve notice that the building is gun-free. I know it’s not popular, but I’m actually fine with this because property rights are also a thing that needs to be respected. If a business owner doesn’t want guns on their property, they’re free to do so.

However, in New York, the default is that guns aren’t permitted.

While that’s fine for anti-gun businesses, it also means those ambivalent on the subject of concealed carry are, in effect, determined to be essentially the same as sensitive areas. Since most people try to actively avoid politics, the default for these folks is likely to be that ambivalence.

So, in effect, the majority of the island of Manhattan–and the rest of the state, really–has been essentially declared a sensitive area.

Yes, I support businesses being able to declare themselves gun-free–why would I want to spend money with companies who don’t support my fundamental rights–the default position on something like that should be toward freedom.

What New York did looks to have gone beyond what Justice Thomas intended.

The battle over what actually can constitute a sensitive area has just started. It’s going to be rough going for a lot of people, too, unfortunately, before it’s all settled.

In other words, SloJoe’s puppet masters tried a gambit to entrap President Trump over those ‘classified’ documents

Biden White House facilitated DOJ’s criminal probe against Trump, scuttled privilege claims: memos
“I have therefore decided not to honor the former President’s ‘protective’ claim of privilege,” acting National Archivist Debra Steidel Wall wrote Trump’s team in May.

Long before it professed no prior knowledge of the raid on Donald Trump’s estate, the Biden White House worked directly with the Justice Department and National Archives to instigate the criminal probe into alleged mishandling of documents, allowing the FBI to review evidence retrieved from Mar-a-Lago this spring and eliminating the 45th president’s claims to executive privilege, according to contemporaneous government documents reviewed by Just the News.

The memos show then-White House Deputy Counsel Jonathan Su was engaged in conversations with the FBI, DOJ and National Archives as early as April, shortly after 15 boxes of classified and other materials were voluntarily returned to the federal historical agency from Trump’s Florida home.

By May, Su conveyed to the Archives that President Joe Biden would not object to waiving his predecessor’s claims to executive privilege, a decision that opened the door for DOJ to get a grand jury to issue a subpoena compelling Trump to turn over any remaining materials he possessed from his presidency.

The machinations are summarized in several memos and emails exchanged between the various agencies in spring 2022, months before the FBI took the added unprecedented step of raiding Trump’s Florida compound with a court-issued search warrant.

The most complete summary was contained in a lengthy letter dated May 10 that acting National Archivist Debra Steidel Wall sent Trump’s lawyers summarizing the White House’s involvement.

“On April 11, 2022, the White House Counsel’s Office — affirming a request from the Department of Justice supported by an FBI letterhead memorandum — formally transmitted a request that NARA provide the FBI access to the 15 boxes for its review within seven days, with the possibility that the FBI might request copies of specific documents following its review of the boxes,” Wall wrote Trump defense attorney Evan Corcoran.

That letter revealed Biden empowered the National Archives and Records Administration to waive any claims to executive privilege that Trump might assert to block DOJ from gaining access to the documents.

Continue reading “”

Biden Lied, Americans Died
Congressional report exposes Biden’s Afghanistan lies.

While Biden’s panicked evacuation from Afghanistan was going on, it had failed so badly that staffers from his own wife’s office were contacting private rescue groups to get people out.

This is one of the many damning revelations in the report by Rep. McCaul for the Republican minority on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The interim report, “A Strategic Failure” was conducted despite every possible effort by the White House and House Democrats to stop it, including blocking information requests and keeping briefings unnecessarily classified.

With the revelations that the State Department is actively refusing to cooperate with the Special Inspector General on Afghanistan Reconstruction, this report is more urgent than ever.

Forced to rely on personal interviews and public non-classified testimony, the report reveals that Biden had made it a “priority” to maintain an embassy in Kabul even after he had withdrawn the troops and the country was on the verge of falling to the advancing Taliban terror forces.

“POTUS was publicly making it clear that this was a priority. Ambassador Wilson began stating that ‘I am maniacal about the Embassy remaining in Kabul,’” a military officer described.

Secretary of State Blinken and other State Department officials in D.C. and in Kabul refused to consider the possibility of a Taliban takeover. Only Blinken and his department could order an evacuation, and they refused to seriously plan for one until a week before the fall of Kabul.

Military officials were prevented from even discussing an evacuation, being told, “don’t say NEO” and “This is not a NEO for Afghanistan.” NEO stands for Non-Combatant Evacuation.

Biden’s refusal to listen to advisers who told him to maintain a minimal military force on the ground almost led to an even worse disaster as the only remaining airport was overrun.

Continue reading “”

Gun bill modeled on ‘Strong Ohio’

Aug. 20—An attempt to revive some of the “Strong Ohio” proposals against gun violence, stalled in the General Assembly since 2019, faces a timeline that’s hard to meet.
State Sen. Matt Dolan, R-Chagrin Falls, announced Senate Bill 357 this week…….

Dolan’s bill has five major provisions:

—A “red flag” law in which a judge can allow police to temporarily take the guns of someone suffering a “severe mental health condition,” at risk of harming themself or others.

—Requiring anyone age 18 to 21 who wants to buy a gun that can fire more than one shot before reloading to get a cosigner at least 25 years old for the purchase. Dolan said there is an exemption for young people in the military or police.

—A written statement from a county sheriff would be needed for private gun sales, except transfers between relatives, confirming the buyer is legally eligible to own guns.

—Improving background checks by requiring information on gun buyers to be entered in law enforcement databases by the end of the following business day.

—Using $85 million from the federal American Rescue Plan Act to help hospitals and colleges train more mental health workers, and another $90 million in ARPA funds to build mental health crisis centers for people who need treatment but are now being sent to jails.

Both incumbent Republican Gov. Mike DeWine and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Nan Whaley, former mayor of Dayton, indicated their approval of SB 357.

Its provisions resemble some in the “Strong Ohio” bill that DeWine introduced in 2019 after the mass shooting in Dayton’s Oregon District. DeWine’s press secretary noted that similarity, while Whaley called Dolan’s bill a “good first step.”

The Buckeye Firearms Association denounced the bill as “‘Strong Ohio’ by another name.” The group has already opposed its major provisions, BFA Executive Director Dean Rieck said.

No Clintons, no Bushes, no Kennedys. And shortly, no Cheneys.

BLUF
“There is a new 21st century American Revolution taking place. Except the kings and queens are not in England but here among us. The patriots are voting these Tories out of office. We can hardly wait for Nov. 8,”
–John McLaughlin

Liz Cheney ends 75 years of modern political dynasties

Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney’s GOP primary defeat this week did more than just end her family’s dominance in U.S. politics dating back to her father’s role as President Gerald Ford’s chief of staff in 1974.

It also marked the coming end of a long stretch of at least 75 years of somebody from one of America’s modern political dynasties serving in federal elected or appointed office.

Since 1947, when then-Sen. John F. Kennedy came to Washington, there has been either a Kennedy, a Bush, a Cheney, or a Clinton in office. There was a two-year gap, between 2011 and 2013, when none of those families held an elected seat, but Hillary Clinton was the secretary of state for President Barack Obama.

And the streak could be stretched back at least to 1933 and the Byrds of Virginia, including former Sens. Harry Byrd and Harry Byrd Jr. (who left the chamber in 1983).

Despite a Britain-born hatred for blood politics by colonial Americans that continues to this day in many political circles, the United States has voted in members of prominent political families, which makes Cheney’s loss on Tuesday all the more jarring.

“The end of political dynasties represents the decline of the establishment wings of both parties and the desire by voters to have change and new blood in Washington. It’s unlikely we are going to see a political dynasty endure like we have over the past 75 years,” said Ron Bonjean, a Republican strategist and former House and Senate official.

Continue reading “”

Ex-Gorsuch Law Clerk Takes a Blowtorch to the Imaginary Law Violations the FBI Cited in Trump Raid

It’s a move that House Republicans should consider when they regain the majority in November, but will they do it? In the aftermath of the unlawful August 8 raid on Mar-a-Lago, the Republican Party has been united in its revulsion of what appears to be an unprecedented ransacking of a former president’s home. The legal justification doesn’t pass constitutional muster. There seems to be no crime committed, only that the National Archives grew impatient over record retrieval. That’s not a crime; people dragging their feet regarding government documents is quite common in DC.

Mike Davis has gone on epic threads on social media gutting the case the government has made for the raid. Davis, a former law clerk to Justice Neil Gorsuch, decided to take his legal takedowns of this arguably illegal search and reorganize it into an opinion column for Newsweek. He took the position many have felt for a long time: FBI Director Chris Wray, and now Attorney General Merrick Garland should be removed from office. He also added that it’s telling why AG Garland did not seek the opinion of the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel about signing off on the search warrant (via Newsweek):

All presidents take mementos and other records when they leave office. They don’t pack their own boxes. The National Archives takes the position that almost everything is a “presidential record.” And the federal government, in general, over-classifies almost everything.

Even if Trump took classified records, that isn’t a crime. The president has the inherent constitutional power to declassify any record he wants, in any manner he wants, regardless of any otherwise-pertinent statute or regulation that applies to everyone else. The president does not need to obtain Congress’ or a bureaucrat’s permission—or jump through their regulatory or statutory hoops—to declassify anything.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed this in the 1988 case, Department of the Navy v. Egan : “The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.’ U.S. Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security…flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.”

Thus, if Trump left the White House with classified records, then those records are necessarily declassified by his very actions. He doesn’t need to label that decision for, or report that decision to, any bureaucrat who works for him. It is pretextual legal nonsense for the Biden Justice Department to pretend Trump broke any criminal statute. Indeed, it is noteworthy that Attorney General Garland apparently did not seek an opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)—the de facto general counsel for the executive branch—before ordering this home raid of his boss’s chief political enemy. Perhaps Garland knew OLC wouldn’t give him the answer he wanted.[…]

All former presidents also get a federally funded office, called the Office of the Former President. They get lawyers and other staff, security clearances, Secret Service protection, and secure facilities (SCIFs) for the maintenance of classified records. Even if Trump had classified records, then, they were protected and secure.[…]

FBI Director Christopher Wray recently testified that the FBI was too busy to stop dangerous and illegal intimidation campaigns outside Supreme Court justices’ homes. This was after an attempted assassin was thankfully arrested outside Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home. The FBI apparently didn’t have the time to investigate actual threats to the lives of constitutional officers, but it had plenty of time to raid the home of a former president over an 18-month-old records dispute—with which Trump publicly stated he was fully cooperating.[…]

House Republicans must impeach Attorney General Garland and FBI Director Wray for their unprecedented and destructive politicization of the Justice Department, when they reclaim power in January. And over the long term, House and Senate Republicans must dismantle and rebuild the FBI, so political raids like this never happen again. We cannot allow our law enforcement agencies to become third-world political hit squads.

It’s a line-by-line takedown of the DOJ’s overreach. The Presidential Records Act isn’t a criminal statute. Since Trump was president, the removal of alleged classified materials isn’t a crime. The president is the ultimate decider on classification status, which dresses down the violation of the Espionage Act allegation as lunacy.

Davis also highlights the gross incompetence and hyper-politicization that has engulfed the Justices Department, noting the FBI’s inability to protect sitting Supreme Court justices from death threats after the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, because they were too busy. And yet, the FBI had plenty of time to pursue this search of Mar-a-Lago with a 30-person team following a treasure hunt over allegations that aren’t crimes regarding Donald Trump and classified materials. People were showing up at the homes of Supreme Court justices; some were armed and prepared to commit political acts of violence over abortion. That was real. The purported classified documents at Mar-a-Lago are not actual law violations, but Garland’s presser, which gave this smash-and-grab a federal blessing, tossed him into the same rogue camp as Wray.

House Republicans promised investigations into these egregious acts of extrajudicial operations conducted by the DOJ.  They better make good on those overtures, leaving the door open for possible impeachment articles against these two men.

Fauci and Walensky Double Down on Failed Covid Response

Wonder Land: Like other world leaders who leaned into lockdowns, Joe Biden and the Democratic Party are now realizing how complicated the private economy actually is, and how easy it is to wreck it.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention belatedly admitted failure this week. “For 75 years, CDC and public health have been preparing for Covid-19, and in our big moment, our performance did not reliably meet expectations,” Director Rochelle Walensky said. She vowed to establish an “action-oriented culture.”

Lockdowns and mask mandates were the most radical experiment in the history of public health, but Dr. Walensky isn’t alone in thinking they failed because they didn’t go far enough. Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to the president, recently said there should have been “much, much more stringent restrictions” early in the pandemic.

The World Health Organization is revising its official guidance to call for stricter lockdown measures in the next pandemic, and it is even seeking a new treaty that would compel nations to adopt them. The World Economic Forum hails the Covid lockdowns as the model for a “Great Reset” empowering technocrats to dictate policies world-wide.

It was bad enough that Dr. Fauci, the CDC and the WHO ignored the best scientific advice at the start of this pandemic. It’s sociopathic for them to promote a worse catastrophe for future outbreaks. If a drug company behaved this way, ignoring evidence while marketing an ineffective treatment with fatal side effects, its executives would be facing lawsuits, bankruptcy and probably criminal charges. Dr. Fauci and his fellow public officials can’t easily be sued, but they need to be put out of business long before the next pandemic.

BLUF
What the CDC pushed on the country, even the world, was without precedent. The resulting disasters are everywhere present. At minimum we should expect the CDC to cease and desist, and certainly not entrench and codify. That the latter is taking place reveals what a long struggle lies ahead.

CDC Wants Its Covid Regime Made Permanent

There is no remorse at the CDC. Far from it. The model of virus control deployed over the last 27 months is now part of normal operations. It wants it institutionalized.

The bureaucracy has now codified this into a new online tool that instructs cities and states precisely of what they are supposed to do given a certain level of community spread. The new tool doesn’t say lockdowns as such but the entire model of containment via masks and distancing is baked in, and it can be easily expanded at will.

To understand how absurd this is, consider that as of this writing, major parts of Southern Florida are supposed to be masked up, according to the map provided by the CDC, because covid testing reveals high community spread.

Hardly anyone in Florida has worn a mask since 2020. The very notion is a joke there. However, what happens to the other states and what happens when or if political control of Florida changes to a pro-lockdown party?

Under the orange label (high), the following pertains:

  • Wear a mask indoors in public
  • Stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines
  • Get tested if you have symptoms
  • Additional precautions may be needed for people at high risk for severe illness

Some standout points here. Masks have nowhere controlled the spread of covid. We know this from countless examples all over the world. They have been a spectacular failure except as signals to others to feel a sense of alarm at the presence of disease. Neither have vaccinations achieved the stopping or even slowing of infection or spread. Note the new language too: “Stay up to date.” Vaccinations are headed toward the WEF ideal of subscription plans.

Continue reading “”

ONCE AGAIN FOR THE GUN CONTROLLERS IN THE BACK:
IT’S THE CRIMINALS

New York’s gun laws are a mess. Antigun politicians passing them don’t have a clue. Worse yet, the people facing consequences are law-abiding New Yorkers.

They’re also the ones facing danger. Case in point – New York City’s Democratic Mayor Eric Adams recent reveal. The mayor told media, “When it comes to guns, this year, 2,386 people were arrested with a gun. Of those, approximately 1,921 are out on the street.

“This year, 165 people were arrested with a second gun charge,” Mayor Adams added. “Of those, 82 — out on the street. Not one arrest but two gun arrests — back out on the street.”

Does He Listen?

Mayor Adams won election on a “tough on crime” message. He said he would carry his own firearm and forego using the mayor’s personal security detail. “We cannot have a city where people are afraid to walk the streets,” he proclaimed early in his tenure.

He’s now singing a different tune. “How do you take a gun law seriously when the overwhelming numbers are back on the streets after carrying a gun?” he unironically asked media.

New Yorkers know criminals don’t take laws seriously. That’s why law-abiding New Yorkers have been screaming for years as gun control politicians in Albany impose stricter gun control laws on them, not criminals.

New Yorkers rejected restrictions and legally purchased firearms in record numbers, despite the state’s restrictive and burdensome process to obtain a handgun permit. Since 2020, nearly 1 million New Yorker’s have passed an FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verification to buy a firearm. Industry research continues to show “self-defense” is the number one reason buyers walk out of a retailer with a new purchase. That’s especially true of African American women, in New York City and across the country.

Soft on Criminals, Hard on Industry

New York’s backwards gun control laws are only half the problem. Soft-on-criminal prosecutors refusing to hold criminals accountable allow the cycle to continue. Notorious criminal sympathizer Chesa Boudin was given the boot and recalled as San Francisco’s District Attorney. Nearby Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon possibly faces a similar fate.

Manhattan’s District Attorney Alvin Bragg is cut of the same cloth. His office refuses to bring charges against repeat criminals, allowing them to walk back out on the streets and terrorize victims.

In New York, it’s not just about Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, Mayor Adams and DA Bragg’s collective failure to address crime and keep New Yorkers safe. Democratic Attorney General Leticia James joined to do her part to crush New Yorkers’ Second Amendment rights by suing gun companies for the crimes unrelated to the lawful sale of the firearm.

“There should be no more immunity for gun distributors bringing harm and havoc to New York,” AG James said.

Her premise is a lie, of course, exactly like those repeated ad nauseum by President Joe Biden and gun control pundits. They prefer deflecting blame on a lawful and Constitutionally-protected industry from those actually responsible for gun crimes. It’s the reason for the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). President Biden and others have repeatedly been fact-checked about their false claims.

New Yorkers wanting safer communities must feel like they’re in a madhouse. Their state’s highest elected officeholders dismiss criminals as the root of the problem. They then pass more flawed and unconstitutional laws, while refusing to hold criminals to account. The result is a circular blame game.

One thing New Yorkers can do to change the game in their favor is #GUNVOTE® this November. They can send a clear message to the antigun politicians in New York their rights – and their safety – aren’t a game.

The Post-Bruen New York and California Punitive Gun Control Laws are Clearly Unconstitutional

After Bruen, a notable noncomplier is New York Governor Kathy Hochul. She also follows in the footsteps of her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo. Both passed their big gun control bills by sending a “message of necessity”—a maneuver to prevent legislative hearings and to deprive legislators of time to read a bill before they vote on it. As the New York State Sheriffs’ Association explained:

The new firearms law language first saw the light of day on a Friday morning and was signed into law Friday afternoon. A parliamentary ruse was used to circumvent the requirement in our State Constitution that Legislators—and the public—must have three days to study and discuss proposed legislation before it can be taken up for a vote. The Legislature’s leadership claimed, and the Governor agreed, that it was a “necessity” to pass the Bill immediately, without waiting the Constitutionally required three days, even though the law would not take effect for two full months.

The Sheriffs’ Association criticized “thoughtless, reactionary action, just to make a political statement,” and “the burdensome, costly, and unworkable nature of many of the new laws’ provisions.” “We do not support punitive licensing requirements that aim only to restrain and punish law-abiding citizens who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

Continue reading “”