“In retrospect, it’s clear that Osama bin Laden emerged the victor of 9/11:”


To Save America, Abolish the TSA

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable causesupported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Nevertheless, like so much else in the Bill of Rights, those sentiments are no longer valid, especially when you’re shuffling your way, shoeless and beltless, through the sheep pens of the Transportation Security Administration, George W. Bush’s gift to the American traveling public.

In retrospect, it’s clear that Osama bin Laden emerged the victor of 9/11. He brought down the Twin Towers and took a chunk out of the Pentagon, severely wobbled the American economy, destroyed the freedom of the skies, set the American government haring after all sorts of villains but not a single enemy it would name, and made himself a martyr. Worst of all, because of the actions of 19 Muslim hijackers, most of them Saudi nationals but all of them members of the Islamic ummah, he panicked the U.S. government into presumptively criminalizing more than 300 million American citizens with the passage of the Patriot Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and of the TSA, a mortal sin that will live in infamy.

What about safety? Surely you jest. To previous generations of Americans, the idea of trading liberty for safety would have been laughed out of court, but a fearful, feminized society won’t even hesitate. Curtail your freedom of movement and subject yourself to intrusive, sometimes bodily, inspection every time you wish to travel by plane? Why not? If it saves just one life…

Feel safer yet?

More than twenty years later, it’s clear to everyone who flies that what we have is not safety, but safety theater — the illusion of safety, conducted by uniformed government employees of last resort whose mission as it has evolved is not to provide the phantasm of “security” but to obstruct, hamper, harass, and hinder Americans as they attempt to go about their lives. “The Transportation Security Administration marked another year of progress,” reads a blurb on their website. You can bet more “progress” will be forthcoming in 2024.

And was this unconscionable violation of the plain language of the Constitution met with the universal opposition, disdain, and outrage that it deserved? Of course not. From 1968 to 1972 there was a spate of airplane hijackings by Cuban radicals; “On to Cuba!” became a punch line on late-night comedy, and the introduction of metal detectors at airports and the presence of sky marshals put an end to it. After 9/11, the appearance of one failed “shoe bomber” has meant your shoes come off forever. And while the new, improved, intrusive TSA might manage to scoop up some weapons inadvertently packed in luggage from those parts of the country where guns or knives are part of everyday life, it misses many, many more — up to 70 percent. Possibly it has discouraged a few terrorists from attempting to emulate the late sheikh of Araby, but why bother? After all, why hijack a plane when you can just walk across the undefended, roundheeled southern border, get free transport — no ID necessary! — into the interior and there bide your time?

Note that the ongoing “unarmed” (so far) invasion from the south is referred to as a “humanitarian crisis” in the Soviet Newspeak jargon of the news media, when in fact it’s an… unarmed (so far) invasion from the south and thus a national-security matter. Not to the Biden administration, however, especially as personified by the hapless, malevolent, and soon-to-be-impeached Alejandro Mayorkas, the current Secretary of Homeland Security.

Continue reading “”

Comment O’ The Day

It turns out that not interfering with people’s constitutional rights and allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals who don’t care about gun laws (you know, because they’re criminals) makes criminals think twice before attempting to victimize them.

Notice there’s nothing about diversity, equity, inclusion, or climate?
Or, as a comment notes:
I suspect that the pollsters have told the WH that DEI has become a losing issue especially among ethnic whites, and the word has gotten out to tone down the rhetoric during this election season. I think it would be best to judge the new CNO by what she does and not what she says.


The CNO Stated Her Priorities

 

Comment O’ The Day
Sporting rifle or ” weapon of war” – doesn’t matter. The very point of the 2A was to acknowledge that we possess the right to own & bear weapons = to those of the government/military in order to protect ourselves from tyranny

“known to the goobermint….”
It’s not like it’s a bug, but a feature. and it is awful convenient


Attorney Mark W. Smith of Four Boxes Diner on YouTube:

Image

Comment O’ The Day
Let’s call this what it is: The sex groomer Stasi.

BLUF
Make no mistake: This bill does involve training teachers to profile parents based on the likelihood that they may secretly harbor heresy against the transgender state religion

California Bills Headed to Newsom’s Desk Will Launch a Transgender Inquisition Targeting Parents.

“We’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children” might as well become the new slogan of the Golden State.

California’s Legislature has passed—or is about to pass—a slew of bills aimed at undermining the rights of parents (and potential foster parents) who disagree with the transgender worldview.

What would the state need to launch a transgender inquisition? It would need inquisitors to identify and hunt down parents who dared to dissent from gender ideology. It would need an apparatus to induct kids into its cult while keeping parents in the dark. It would need institutions to screen potential foster parents to block heretics from fostering or adopting kids who might convert to the state religion. Most importantly, it would need a legal way to pry kids from the arms of their apostate progenitors.

These legislative proposals foot that bill. One of them would train teachers to profile these hated “anti-LGBTQ” parents, another would train psychotherapists to prepare to hide gender “treatments” from parents at a minor’s request, a third would prevent school districts from removing sexually explicit books if they contain transgender themes, a fourth would prevent Californians from becoming foster parents if they dissent from gender ideology, and the fifth would expand the definition of child abuse to include “non-affirmation” of a child’s claimed transgender identity.

In a supreme Orwellian irony, each of these California bills claims to uphold the virtues of “diversity” and “inclusion,” while forcing down parents’ throats a constricting worldview at odds with reality and seeking to exclude moms and dads from raising their own children if they dare to disagree.

Continue reading “”

Jeff Goldstein.
It’s been said before, but it bears repeating: when you allow the government to override your rights in the name of ‘safety’ during an ’emergency,’ the government is then incentivized to frame everything as an issue of safety, requiring an ’emergency’ edict to properly and necessarily address.

Comment O’ The Day

I don’t trust information about studies unless a link is given to read the study or a title of the study is given so that it can be found. Behind this study is Cynthia Miller-Idriss. She’s the same person who claims “Physical fitness has always been central to the far right.”


Everytown

Our new study with @splcenter found that young people with easier access to guns tended to hold stronger beliefs that the government is restricting our freedoms and that the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to overthrow the government.


Moros Kostas

You guys are really telling on yourselves with this one. Gun rights bother you at least in part because they promote small government views.

Government, almost by definition, DOES restrict our freedoms. Those polled aren’t wrong in the least for seeing it that way. The constant struggle is keeping this necessary evil contained to the minimum required for a functioning society.

Orgs like Everytown are part of a broad spectrum of authoritarian social engineers. They want people to be docile, preferably stuffed into cities, owning nothing, and restricted to a narrow overton window of acceptable opinions and lifestyles. The Chinese social credit system is their model.

Guns are a threat to this (as is free speech, which is why that is also a target for them). Not even really guns themselves, but the individualist ideas they can awaken simply by accepting the natural right to bear arms. Because once you accept the natural rights framework, the Bloombergian government dystopia they want is unacceptable.

Notice how the very same people who want to ban guns also tend to want social media to censor more speech, want the government to tax everything they declare undesirable, want to punish thought crimes with a widening net of “hate speech” restrictions that shutter the overton window, and constantly find new things they want banned.

This is also why they insist on federal gun laws. They know Boise or Manchester are doing just fine with minimal gun control laws, which drives them insane. It proves the problem in their violent cities is their own fault, and not due to gun rights. The authoritarians can’t allow such counterexamples to exist.

Control, control, control. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

Also, if people polled really said the 2A grants the right to overthrow govt, that’s nonsense. But I wonder if what they meant (these are young laypeople, after all) was that the 2A exists in part as a failsafe against a govt that has gone tyrannical. Because that is absolutely correct.

 

Let’s require the Secret Service and FBI to switch to this technology exclusively for a 4-year test period. After that we can talk. Of course, they won’t.
– Tom Gresham

The First Smart Gun Is Finally Coming to Market. Will Anyone Buy It?
Gun makers have been working for decades on a weapon that can only be fired by an authorized user

Sasha Wiesen sleeps with a .40-caliber handgun in a safe by his bed. The commercial real-estate broker from Florida recently preordered a new type of firearm he hopes will make the safe unnecessary.
The new weapon is the Colorado startup Biofire’s 9mm Smart Gun, which can only be fired if it recognizes an authorized user with a fingerprint reader on the grip or a facial recognition camera on the back.
“I’m usually an early adapter,” said Wiesen, 46 years old. “It might be the gadget part of me that made me buy it, but it’s also the safety aspect.”
Guns that use technology to ensure that they can only be fired by their owners, called smart guns, have been developed and debated since the 1990s. The Biofire Smart Gun will be the first widely available for sale if it ships in December as planned.
Proponents tout smart guns as a way to reduce accidental shootings and firearm thefts. Gun-rights supporters have been wary, in part over concern that governments could outlaw sales of weapons that don’t have smart-gun technology.
Earlier efforts to bring smart guns to market have failed, largely because of pressure from gun-rights activists or because they didn’t work as promised.
As with other technologies such as electric cars that changed long-established products, the question for smart guns is whether they can work at least as well as the traditional versions they replace and find customers behind affluent early adopters.
The Biofire Smart Gun costs $1,499. Similar handguns without high-tech features typically cost between $400 and $800.

Continue reading “”

Think about what he just said. In his mind, and the minds of most Democrats, we’re not a constitutional republic with three branches of government accountable to the people. We should instead be ruled by un-elected bureaucrats and intelligence agencies who do their bidding. Mfume just completely epitomized everything that is wrong with our government.
– Greg Price

We’ve let these schools raise up a generation or two of snowflake pansies.


If you need therapy after a court rules against you, you shouldn’t be a lawyer.

Make SCOTUS great again: Boston University law students offered therapy after recent rulings.

The work week ended with monumental rulings from the Supreme Court. The hot takes coming from the media are heavy with doom-and-gloom vibes because most of them are liberals.

There is no denying the rulings on the three big cases that deal with affirmative action, religious freedom, and student debt forgiveness, will “re-shape America for generations to come,” as one CNN anchor said this morning. A Washington correspondent for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution said the rulings were made “strictly along ideological lines.” Another anchor noted that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, opined that the rulings show that it may be time for “re-shaping the Court.’

The drama. The Supreme Court is following the Constitution and the liberals are emotionally distressed. They have become so accustomed to the Court randomly making law instead of following the Constitution, like Roe v Wade back in 1973, that justices who are originalists are seen as oddities of the right. For example, Joe Biden, who has been humiliated by the rulings, especially the one on student loan bailouts, said the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution wrong. Imagine the ignorance and arrogance of Biden, who barely graduated from law school, saying the Supreme Court just didn’t understand the Constitution.

The big affirmative action case where the Court ruled that the admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina “violate the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment,” was a punch in the gut to those who think discrimination is bad if it is against black and brown students but ok against Asian and white students. That is an over-simplification but it is the core of the system that routinely denied admission to qualified Asian students so that preference could be made for black and Hispanic students. Picking winners and losers based on skin color in college admissions always results in discrimination against someone. We long ago abandoned the dream of Martin Luther King, Jr. that his children would be judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. In other words, meritocracy is back in college admissions and that is a good thing. Students deserve admission based on merit, not skin color, and the ability to check a box on an application.

Boston University is trying to cope with the fact that we now have a Supreme Court that follows the Constitution.

“The rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)—in cases addressing the admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina—are profoundly disappointing because they take us backward, potentially creating less diverse college campuses and a less just America,” Boston University President Robert A. Brown wrote in a letter sent to the University community shortly after the decision Thursday. “These decisions are antithetical to Boston University’s values and mission.”

Brown added that the University would continue to review the decision “to better understand what it means for our admissions and academic practices and the changes we may be required to make.”

Whenever I think of affirmative action, I am reminded of a line George W. Bush often used in speeches about education – the soft bigotry of low expectations. It is insulting to black and brown students to assume that because of their skin color, they need special consideration. It assumes that all black and brown students come from poverty and few opportunities that others are afforded. Perhaps back when affirmative action first began but not now. There are more middle-class and upper-class minorities now than ever before. Affirmative action was never meant to be a forever policy. It is no longer needed as it once was.

There are ways for colleges to make their own admissions policies, something that Chief Justice Roberts notes. One associate professor at BU School of Law notes the lack of guidance in the ruling.

“It’s hard to say what this means for other colleges and universities because the majority opinion wasn’t all that clear in a lot of important ways,” says Jonathan Feingold, an associate professor of law at the BU School of Law.

“I wouldn’t take this opinion as a reason to take off the table ever considering race again,” Feingold says. “Colleges and universities may just have to do it in a more careful, defined way than what Harvard and UNC did.”

To that end, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, writing in the majority opinion, notes: “Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” In other words, “the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,” he writes.

In order for Boston University law students to be able to cope with a Supreme Court that follows the Constitution, mental health resources are being made available to help them “navigate these times.” The resources are not specialized counseling for students but resources that are already available.

Two of the resources were BU Behavioral Medicine and BU Student Wellbeing. According to its website, BU Behavioral Medicine offers therapy, on-call service for mental health emergencies and mental health diagnoses, among other services.

The student government criticized the decision in 303 Creative LLC. v. Elenis, which gave a Christian web designer the right to deny services to same-sex couples. It also condemned Biden v. Nebraska, which ruled President Biden’s proposed student loan forgiveness plan was unconstitutional.

“These three decisions form part of a lengthy sequence of this court’s ruling which steadily erode the rights of marginalized communities and undermine the very diversity upon which our nation was built,” the SGA argued.

The group that has benefitted the most from affirmative action policies is women. On today’s college campuses, women students often outnumber men. In 2022, for example, there were almost two women attending college for every man. It was the highest recorded gender imbalance favoring women in U.S. college enrollment. To hear the left speak, affirmative action was solely about skin color. That was never true.

It is the Supreme Court of Clarence Thomas now and that is a remarkable change. The correction is long overdue. The left is just going to have to learn to cope with getting back to the Constitution as it was meant to be, not as the left wanted it to be.

Is there an equivalent Russian term for “kabuki theater?”
Mario Nawfal
BREAKING: THE COUP IS OVER | WAGNER’S RETREATING
This official statement from Prigozhin, the head of the Wagner group and the leader of this coup, says it all. I don’t think anyone expected this: “They were going to dismantle PMC Wagner. We came out on 23 June to the March of Justice. In a day, we walked to nearly 200km away from Moscow. In this time, we did not spill a single drop of blood of our fighters. Now, the moment has come when blood may spill. That’s why, understanding the responsibility for spilling Russian blood on one of the sides, we are turning back our convoys and going back to field camps according to the plan.”
The President of Belarus, Lukashenko, has been in talks with Prigozhin all day and has taken credit for the peace agreement. Prigozhin accepted the terms of Lukashenko’s agreement and agreed to halt the movement of his forces and return back to his bases. The agreement also guarantees security for fighters of PMC Wagner. It seems that the attempted coup has come to an end, and Prigozhin, along with his men, will return to their bases.
Reports of Wagner forces not only leaving Moscow Oblas, but also leaving Rostov. Russian media reports that criminal cases have already been dropped from Yevgeny Prigozhin and that Prigozhin and his forces will receive FULL IMMUNITY Restrictions on the movement of vehicles have been lifted from the Voronezh region which saw clashes earlier during the coup.
MY THOUGHTS: – I did not expect this would end peacefully with a deal as it seemed both sides seemed at the point of no return – I have no idea how Prigozhin and Putin can both operate in Russia with what just transpired, and I also have no idea what will happen with the war in Ukraine but I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a peace deal reached.
Today was another example of citizen journalism replacing mainstream media with UNBIASED and UNCENSORED live breaking news. 
I am fried, been awake for more than 30 hours, initially doing a piece with former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan before shifting to the Coup piece which is at 21 hours and counting. Time for me to finally sleep!