The Mythological White Supremacist

Washington — We at The American Spectator call it “Kultursmog,” and it is the only kind of smog of which our friends on the left approve. Actually, they not only approve of Kultursmog, but they contribute to it. Kultursmog is that aspect of American culture that is utterly politicized, and it is politicized by the politics of the left. Its leading centers of pollution are Hollywood, California; New York City; Washington, D.C., and, increasingly, Silicon Valley. I had hoped that Silicon Valley, with its brave claims to libertarianism, might have escaped the pollutants of Kultursmog, but I was wrong. The lure of virtue flaunting proved too strong for the tycoons of Silicon Valley. Now they are taking it to outer space. Did you see that Jeff Bezos had hardly gotten his feet back on terra firma when he donated $100 million not to the Red Cross, not to the Little Sisters of the Poor, but to Van Jones, who is himself a leading smokestack of Kultursmog over at CNN.

Kultursmog is everywhere. It is in the books we read, the movies we attend, the songs we sing. It does not permeate our history, which is why the woke folk are so intent on tearing down our history, including statues of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and even Frederick Douglass. Can Martin Luther King Jr. be next?

I have made a career of sounding the alarm against the propaganda of the left, and just the other day, I caught the left extruding their propaganda into the public arena. They were using the obituary pages of The New York Times to spread their malign message. Is there no place they will not defile with politics?

One of the left’s favorite myths is that America is abundant with white supremacists and practitioners of something called the alt-right. I know. I, too, once thought the alt-right was a roadside direction or an indication a detour was ahead, but apparently it has something to do with the politics of a distinctly extremist variety. Advocates of the alt-right apparently tend to congregate at rural gas stations, usually in the dark of night. That is about all I know about it, but the writers at The New York Times claim to be highly agitated over it.

A couple of weeks back, William Regnery II, a man who supposedly “bankrolled” what the Times called “some of the leading organizations and figures behind the rise of the alt-right and championed efforts to win adherents to a modernized notion of white supremacy,” bit the dust. And do you know how the hysterics at the Times handled his passing? They devoted an entire half-page to him, complete with a picture of him standing with some young adjunct who looked understandably uneasy. The young man was wearing an ill-fitting suit, and he might have been more comfortable was he armed, but he was not. The recently deceased Regnery and I might have met years ago at some Republican function, for he was active in the Barry Goldwater campaign of 1964. Or possibly, it was at a stamp collectors’ conference. I used to be an avid collector. At any rate, he is dead, and from the Times’s own information gathered for Regnery’s obit, it is clear that he never succeeded in any political endeavor, from his earliest Republican days to his days of aimless wanderings with fanatics.

BLUF:
Anti-gun researches will continue to use flawed methodology and bad data as long as a fawning media and gun control establishment continue to fuel any “research” with the “right” conclusion

How Anti-Gun Research Works

The objective world mistrusts most gun policy research because it’s clear the objective is to produce an anti-gun outcome rather than honest analysis. Politicians and professional activists claim the mantle of evidence but will ignore any findings that threaten their anti-gun agenda.

Anti-gun politicians continue to advocate for policies that the very researchers they champion have contradicted, if not found to be ineffective. Researchers and activists cherry-pick data, but they also cherry-pick which findings to use – even from a single study. Can you imagine if the same low threshold for credibility was applied to pro-gun findings?

Let’s try an exercise. Vermont – one of the safest states in the nation, one that had Permitless Carry for centuries – enacted a magazine capacity restriction in 2018. Let’s look at the violent crime rate in Vermont and the U.S using data from the FBI’s Crime Data Explorer. The national violent crime rate decreased from 2018 to 2019 but the rate in Vermont increased – and even increased more than it had from 2017 to 2018.

Continue reading “”

The utter open hypocrisy of this Kabuki Theater is simply stunning.
For the entire length of the Trump presidency they were all adamant in their hate of all things Trump, calling his election illegitimate because it didn’t go their way. It again confirms that when they make an accusation, they’re projecting their own faults.


Image

When the ‘Fact-Checker’ gets it right back at them


PolitiFact Claims Joe Biden ‘Doesn’t Want to Ban Handguns,’ But Here Are His Actual Words.

Joe Biden has been pretty clear about his desire to ban handguns.

During his CNN town hall last week, Biden was asked, “So, how will you address gun violence, from a federal point of view, to actually bring about change and make our local cities safer?”

In his response, Biden told the woman who asked the question: “The idea you need a weapon that can have the ability to fire 20, 30, 40, 50, 120 shots from that weapon — whether it’s a — whether it’s a 9-millimeter pistol or whether it’s a rifle — is ridiculous. I’m continuing to push to eliminate the sale of those things…”

In response to the tweet from House Republicans declaring that Biden “says he wants to ban handguns,” PolitiFact claims “the clip doesn’t back up the GOP tweet, and the full transcript goes further to sink this claim.”

PolitiFact claims that the numbers cited by Biden “apply to assault-style firearms and high-capacity magazines. As recently as June, when Biden rolled out his strategy to bring down murders, he said he wants to ban both.”

“Experts disagree over what is or isn’t an assault weapon. States set different thresholds for what qualifies as a high-capacity magazine,” PolitiFact continued, before adding, “But regardless of the definition, neither term includes all handguns.”

Did anyone say Biden wants to ban all handguns? Nope. Yet, PolitiFact unwittingly admitted in its analysis that some handguns would be affected by Biden’s gun control proposal. So, does Biden want to ban handguns? He’s publicly indicated that he wants to ban some. There’s no doubt about that.

Yet, PolitiFact rated the claim that Biden wants to ban handguns as “False.” In fairness, they could have gotten away with rating the claim “Half True” because one could argue that the House GOP’s wording wasn’t clear, but they didn’t take Biden’s words out of context. They even showed the video of Biden’s response to the question. Biden may not have said he wanted to ban all handguns, but he clearly said he wants to ban some. Yet, PolitiFact disingenuously rated the claim false, which seems to imply that Biden never said he wanted to ban any handguns at all.

1, Interesting to see they didn’t mention that the controversy comes from Chipman’s involvement at the Branch Davidian siege

2, “If confirmed, David Chipman would be the most qualified director the ATF has ever seen, an agency that’s purpose is to enforce existing gun laws.”–Shannon Watts.
She’s more on the nose than she realizes. This is an admission that the ATF exists for no other purpose than to stomp over peoples civil liberties. If that’s the metric by which she’s using to infer his qualifications, he’s definitely a good choice.


NRA and Republicans out to hobble Biden’s choice for top gun law role

David Chipman’s nomination to lead the ATF could be in trouble – which would be a serious blow to gun control advocates

The nomination of David Chipman to lead the principal agency that enforces federal gun laws is stalling as Republicans and the National Rifle Association (NRA) seek a major symbolic victory on the ever contentious issue of gun rights.

This week Merrick Garland, the attorney general, urged the US Senate to confirm Joe Biden’s pick to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) where he will play a crucial role in the struggle against gun violence.

The intervention was the latest warning sign that the nomination of Chipman might be in trouble – which would be a serious blow to gun control advocates

Continue reading “”

Democrats condemn Trump’s ‘Big Lie’ but keep telling ones even worse ones themselves

Did you know that black people are not going to be allowed to vote in America anymore? At least in states controlled by Republicans? Sounds a bit unlikely, but that’s a conclusion you might have come to if you took seriously what President Joe Biden said in Philadelphia Tuesday.

Biden decried Republicans’ proposed changes to election laws as “the 21st-century Jim Crow assault” that tries “to suppress and subvert the right to vote in fair and free elections, an assault on democracy.”

This is, to be polite, unhinged nonsense.

Biden is old enough to remember what real Jim Crow voter suppression was like. It meant zero black people voting in places like Mississippi. It meant threats and violence against black people who tried to register to vote. It meant unfair application of literacy tests and poll taxes.

Requiring voters to present photo ID is nothing like this: Large majorities think it’s reasonable.

Continue reading “”

“….from our sources from deep within the Bureau.”

It appears that some personnel in the ATF don’t like what they see going on behind closed doors and are taking steps to get it out in the open.


CAUGHT: Biden’s ‘AFT’ Secretly Changing Rules To Revoke Firearms Licenses

A Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) leak shows that the organization is changing its secret rules regarding guns sellers to make it easier for the government to strip firearms dealers of their federal firearms license (FFL).

In 2020, Gun Owners of America (GOA) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the ATF. The gun-rights group asked the agency to provide a copy of ATF O 5370, entitled “Federal Firearms Administrative Action Policy and Procedures.” This document lays out the administrative remedies for violations found during an ATF inspection of a licensed firearms dealer.

The ATF has long tried to prevent the document from seeing the light of day.

After much stalling, the ATF begrudgingly turned over the heavily redacted version of the document to GOA. Still, the federal agency redacted almost all of the valuable information the FOIA request. Some of the missing information includes what violations could cause the dealer to lose their FFL.

ATF Response ATF O 5370 Federal Firearms Administrative Action Policy and Procedures 1D – Redacted

The ATF did not know when it turned over the document to GOA that AmmoLand News had already obtained an unredacted copy of the secret document from our sources from deep within the Bureau.

Continue reading “”

GAINING DEPTH ON GAIN OF FUNCTION: FAUCI FLOPS

We may as well try to close the loop on our efforts to understand the issue between Senator Rand Paul and the fallacious Dr. Fauci. Neil Cavuto gave Fauci the opportunity to respond to Josh Rogin’s Washington Post column taking up the issue (I excerpted it here) on his FOX News show yesterday.

Cavuto is a friendly interlocutor for Fauci. On Tuesday he judged Fauci “a good man, a good doctor.” He declared that “[Fauci] has been vilified to the point that you’d think he was Lex Luthor, and I don’t know how productive that is.”

Cavuto failed to press Fauci on any of the several subjects he covered in the course of the 16-minute segment. FOX News has posted the 16-minute video clip of the segment here. On the question of gain-of-function research, I find the evasiveness of Fauci’s response and the appeal to the character of everyone involved telling, but you be the judge. The clip below comes at 11:00 of the Cavuto segment.

 

Missouri Teachers, CRT Advocate Plotted to Hide Social Justice Curriculum from ‘Trump Country’ Parents.

Teachers questioned how they could teach history and social studies through a social justice lens without rankling parents in the ‘highly conservative county … in the middle of Trump country.’

The curriculum-writing team in a suburban St. Louis school district plotted with a critical race theory advocate on how to keep parents in the dark about their efforts to inject leftwing social justice advocacy into their classrooms, according to a video of their meeting leaked online.

The video, posted on rumble.com in early July, is alleged to be a condensed version of a September 2020 webinar that members of the Francis Howell School District’s curriculum-writing team participated in. The webinar was hosted by their equity consultant, LaGarrett J. King, an associate professor of social studies education at the University of Missouri. He was described on the call as a specialist in the study of “race, critical theories and knowledge.”

It’s unclear who edited the video, which appears to have been posted anonymously by someone with the online moniker “wokeatfhsd.”

During the webinar, King told the predominantly white team members that “This is not a safe space,” but rather a “racialized space,” because “In many ways a safe space is a space where white people tell us how not racist they are. And this is not that space.”

King said “the first thing we have to understand is that our social studies and our history curriculum is political and racist,” and “there is no such thing as neutral history.” He then asked the team members to question whether they are developing black history curriculums through the historical lens of the oppressor. “We have made those who have oppressed people, the oppressor, we have humanized them,” he said.

The nation’s founding “means nothing to black people,” he said, calling history “psychologically violent” but one-sided. He also seemed to justify violence in the name of racial justice.

“All of our wars was about freedom, violence,” King said. “But yet, when black people say, ‘Hey … we need to take over, man. We need to burn this place down, we need to do this, we need to do that.’ ‘Oh no, you should do non-violence to achieve freedom.’ It’s silly. It’s prejudice.”

During a question-and-answer portion of the webinar, teachers and staff on the call questioned how they could reframe their classes to look at history and social studies through a more racialized social justice lens without rankling parents in the “highly conservative” community, which one teacher described as “the middle of Trump country.” King agreed that teachers could do away with verbiage like “white privilege,” while still getting the progressive message across to students.

“Kids are way more open,” she said, “but then they go home and they tell their parents, and then their parents get upset. I don’t advertise to my students when I’m teaching U.S. history that sometimes I would consider myself the anti-U.S. history teacher.”

Another white teacher said because they teach in a conservative county, “Sometimes I think we have deferred to letting that stop progress. We let noise keep progress from moving forward.”

In a paper he co-authored in 2018, King acknowledged that critical theory was developed in the 1920s by German thinkers who “sought to extend Marxist theory into the changing social, political, and economic landscape of the twentieth century by talking about how culture and ideology encourage and sustain social inequality.” In order to “remain true to critical pedagogy,” the authors wrote, “teachers should work to identify questions that are important to students’ lives and that encourage them to reflect on the ways that they are either privileged or oppressed by social dynamics.”

Continue reading “”

Anthony Fauci Is Immune to Answering Questions

Are you tired of Anthony Fauci yet?
Here he is yesterday, giving Rand Paul the runaround again:

Stephen “Not the Trump Guy” Miller goes into Fauci’s rhetorical tricks on his latest podcast. Fauci plays these little games whenever he testifies about this stuff. When he gets a question he doesn’t want to answer, he pretends not to know what his interlocutor is talking about, he parses and nitpicks the technical language, he blusters, and other cheap obfuscatory tricks. Subterfuge. He is shady as hell.

I agree with Miller that Paul is making a mistake by going straight at Fauci so aggressively, because Fauci just puts up his defenses. He makes himself out to be some sort of victim, with the eager help of the media. That’s not the right approach. You need to let Fauci feel comfortable, so he drops his “aggrieved scientist” act and keeps talking until he accidentally says something true.

Not that the partisans on either side care, because they just want “their team” to win, but some of us actually want to know how and why this has been happening to us for the past 18 months. We want Fauci to stop playing these games and just tell the truth.

And if Rand Paul doesn’t know what he’s talking about, if he’s got the definition of gain of function wrong… then what is gain of function? Paul read out the definition during that hearing. If that’s not the correct definition, what is?

Are any journalists going to ask Fauci for his definition of gain of function? If not, why not?

Ha ha, just kidding. There are very few journalists left, and the real ones are ever allowed anywhere near Saint Anthony.

And how’s this for a pullquote:

This is, of course, a lie. Fauci is first and foremost a politician, and politicians lie. He lied to us about masks because he thought we couldn’t handle the truth. He lied to us about herd immunity because he thought we couldn’t handle the truth. And now it sure sounds like he’s lying about gain of function research. He doesn’t act like a guy who’s being honest.

I don’t trust Anthony Fauci anymore, and I don’t trust anybody who expects me to trust him. I want nothing to do with the weird little cult these freaks have built around him. They have the right to their religious beliefs, but it’s not science.


 

Deceitful, corrupt, bureaucraps…but I repeat myself


It Sure Looks Like the FBI Basically Orchestrated the Gretchen Whitmer ‘Kidnapping’ Plot.

In news that’s flying below the radar a bit, more evidence of just how corrupt and compromised the FBI has become emerged today.

You may recall the much-ballyhooed plot to supposedly kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer last year. Arrests were made in October of 2020, with the claim being that the FBI had stopped the kidnapping plot as well as a plan to overthrow the government. After it came out in the weeks following the bust that one of the participants was anti-Trump and a Black Lives Matter supporter, the story quickly died down.

All of this was intertwined at the time with the politics of Whitmer’s controversial COVID policies. Earlier in the same year, there had been demonstrations at the state’s capital that drew lots of press attention and condemnation. The insinuation pushed by the media was that those demonstrations had provoked the kidnapping plot.

But now, a big curveball is being thrown into the mix regarding what actually happened. Apparently, the FBI didn’t just have informants within the group where the arrests were made. Rather, FBI operatives played a key role in the planning of the entire ordeal and were also seemingly instrumental in birthing the plot.

Would there have been a Whitmer kidnapping plot without the FBI taking such an active role and egging people on to join in? That’s a question that’s tough to answer without more information, but it certainly shows a level of questionable behavior on the part of the FBI, with agents and superiors going much further than just gathering evidence. As to whether this qualifies as entrapment, I recognize that’s a complicated legal question and won’t attempt to opine on the matter, but man, does this entire thing feel dirty.

Continue reading “”

Below The Radar: The PISTOL Act

A while back, we discussed the difference between the ideal and the achievable. It is a conundrum that many Second Amendment supporters have, whether it is legislation or candidates. Our enemies often have the same problem, so we can take some small comfort.

Just as Dianne Feinstein has introduced a fallback measure to the semiauto ban she really wants, the same approach is being taken with regards to the Biden-Harris regime’s attack on AR-15-type pistols (among others). We have discussed the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act on multiple occasions, and it is the ideal solution to address that attack.

However, as Second Amendment supporters have often learned, the ideal solution isn’t always possible.

In this case, removing short-barreled rifles from the purview of the National Firearms Act may not be possible at the present time. In fact, to be very blunt, seeing the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act become law in this Congress is a pipe dream, given who controls the committees and subcommittees.

This is not to say it’s a bad idea – introducing legislation and tracking the cosponsors is a good way to gauge what sort of support there is for efforts to restore our rights. That makes having a fall-back option a good idea. Enter HR 3823, the PISTOL Act.

What this bill, introduced by Representative Bob Good (R-VA), does is to maintain the status quo by stating that firearms like the AR-15 pistols with a stabilizing brace may not be placed under the National Firearms Act. This would end the present threat for the short term – provided that anti-Second Amendment extremists don’t increase their numbers in Congress.

This doesn’t come without trade-offs.

On the one hand, if the PISTOL Act were to be passed into law (say as an amendment to the appropriate appropriations bill), it may make it more difficult to pass the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act in the future. But given the realities that surround passing legislation, even taking a majority in the future won’t make passing the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act a given.

For one thing, the same filibuster that currently is preventing anti-Second Amendment extremists from packing the court and ramming through extreme legislation will be wielded by the likes of Chuck Schumer, Chris Murphy, Dianne Feinstein, and other anti-Second Amendment extremists to block pro-Second Amendment legislation. It cuts both ways, and before Second Amendment supporters contemplate nuking the filibuster to pass such improvements, remember that Harry Reid’s use of the “nuclear option” for nominations backfired to the tune of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett on SCOTUS.

The fact is, the PISTOL Act may be a suitable incremental measure in lieu of passing the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act, and Second Amendment supporters should contact their Senators and Representative and polite urge them to support this legislation. However, it is no substitute for defeating anti-Second Amendment extremists at the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels.

Democrats Trying To Sneak Illegal Alien Amnesty Into ‘Infrastructure’ Bill.

The “infrastructure” bill was already a dog’s breakfast of hard-left graft wish lists. But Democrats also want to use it as a Trojan horse for illegal alien amnesty as well:

What better time to push through amnesty for potentially millions of illegal immigrants than during the Biden border crisis? As tone-deaf as the plan is, that is exactly what Senate Democrats are planning to do in the $3.5T infrastructure bill. A decision has not been made on the numbers yet but Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate Democratic Whip, confirmed this week that it will happen. Democrats will try to push through immigration reform in the budget process.

With the news being reported today that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer wants to bring a trial vote on infrastructure to the floor of the Senate by Wednesday of next week, this is an interesting turn of events. Add that to the ruling by the federal judge who determined that DACA is “an illegally implemented program”, and immigration reform has come to the forefront of political discourse once again. In the past, it has been an issue that a bipartisan group gets together and comes up with a plan to move immigration reform through Congress but at the last minute it always falls apart and the issue gets kicked down the road. This plan will likely include those people designated as Dreamers, farmworkers, and possibly essential workers like those who worked as health care workers during the pandemic.

Politico reports that this plan is being hatched by leaders of the Progressive Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, and the Black Caucus. The biggest cheerleaders for this move are Senators Durbin, Bob Menendez, and Bernie Sanders. Rep. Raul Ruiz of California is chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and he says, “This is currently our best effort.” Democrats privately admit that this is likely their only chance to ram through immigration reform.

And all this despite a crisis at the border and polls that show illegal alien amnesty is extremely unpopular.

Continue reading “”

TPTB saw him as threat to their cushy seats on the .gov gravy train, so he had to go, by any means necessary


The Ruling Class Poses the Very Authoritarian Dangers It Claimed Trump Did.

President Donald Trump’s greatest sin was threatening the power and privilege of the Ruling Class.

For that, it will never stop seeking to bludgeon him, those seeking to carry his mantle, or their tens of millions of supporters—those icky, intransigent, irredeemables, judged as such because they refuse to submit.

In so doing, it has shown that it presents the very authoritarian threat it claimed he did.

The Ruling Class raved that Trump was a tyrant, madman, and traitor in part because it believed it needed to delegitimize him to neutralize a threat to the racket it has had going at the expense of the American people for too long, but also in part because he really broke them.

One need not play armchair psychiatrist to see both elements at play in the latest revelation, in an endless stream of them, of the opinion of Trump held by one of his senior-most military officials.

That the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—a man who proved the point that Wokeness has infected our national security apparatus when he recently divulged that he considered understanding “white rage” to be part of his job description—harbored fever dreams of Trump as Hitler, says far more about him, and his ilk, than it does about Trump.

Needless to say, such comments are neither made in good faith—coming from someone who had publicly opposed the president previously—nor do they seem to be rooted in any sort of rigorous, fact-based argument.

But let’s for a moment entertain them. For starters, were Trump everything his political adversaries accused him of being, he would have sought to exploit the coronavirus tragedy to usurp maximum power, ruling by fiat, controlling speech under the guise of health and public safety, seeking to manipulate 2020 election laws to maximize his odds of victory, and so on.

Instead, even as pressure mounted to act unilaterally in response to the coronavirus, Trump largely respected federalism—redounding to the benefit of the millions who lived in the few states that remained relatively free during the pendency of the crisis—and dramatically reduced regulations to enable a vaccine to get to market in record time.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
While anti-gun Democrats like Carolyn Maloney will use this GAO report to push for more gun control laws, what the study tells me is that a) we’ve got much bigger issues that are driving up healthcare costs and b) banning or tightly regulating items doesn’t solve the problem. Even if the right to keep and bear arms wasn’t protected by the Constitution, gun control wouldn’t be the best answer to bring down the rate of violent crime and firearm-related injuries, but the Second Amendment makes the idea a non-starter. Want to reduce gun-related injuries? Reduce the number of violent criminals, and leave the 100-million responsible gun owners alone.

The Fuzzy Math Behind The GAO’s New Report On The Cost Of “Gun Violence”

Democrats have a new talking point in their continued push for new federal gun control laws – restricting the rights of Americans doesn’t just save lives, but money too. A new report from the Government Accountability Office claims that that the United States spends $1-billion per year on hospital costs related to “gun violence,” and anti-gun politicians are already pointing to the new report as a reason to pass more anti-gun legislation.

The nonpartisan GAO found gun violence accounts for about 30,000 hospital stays and about 50,000 emergency room visits annually. More than 15 percent of firearm injury survivors are also readmitted at least once after initial treatment, costing an additional $8,000 to $11,000 per patient. Because the majority of victims are poor, the burden largely falls on safety-net programs like Medicaid, including covering some of the care for the uninsured.

The report, the first of its kind from the watchdog agency, is based available data on caring for people who suffer non-fatal gun injuries each year. It’s expected to fuel Democrats’ calls for expanded background checks amid a stalemate on gun control legislation.

“Congress must do whatever it takes — including abolishing the filibuster if necessary—to address this public health crisis,” said New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney, chair of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, who led the coalition requesting the GAO study.

Do you get the feeling that Maloney was going to use this report to call for an end to the filibuster no matter what it said? This report is a means to an end, and the end result that Maloney and her fellow Democrats are aiming for is the end of the filibuster and the establishment of one-party rule; from enacting sweeping gun bans with 51 votes to packing the Supreme Court full of anti-gun justices that will uphold every new infringement on the Second Amendment approved by Congress.

Continue reading “”

“…outrage over the hypocrisy of allowing border crossers by land but not those who are seeking asylum for real reasons by sea.” ?

This is easy to understand. Mexicans in California tend to vote Demoncrap while Cubans in south Florida tend to vote Republican.


‘Outrageous:’ Mayorkas Blasted for Vowing to Reject Asylum-seeking Haitians, Cubans.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas vowed the United States will reject any Haitian or Cuban attempting to enter the country by boat, even if they have demonstrated a credible fear of being persecuted in their home countries.

“Allow me to be clear: if you take to the sea, you will not come to the United States,” Mayorkas said.

The warning comes as Cuban authorities are cracking down on demonstrators after massive protests erupted in the country over the weekend. At least 100 people are missing or have been arrested so far. In Haiti, the nation has been rocked by turmoil after President Jovenel Moise was assassinated last week.

Mayorkas fled Cuba with his parents in 1960 after Fidel Castro’s communist takeover of the country, a point he spoke about when President Biden nominated him to lead DHS.

“When I was very young, the United States provided my family and me a place of refuge,” Mayorkas tweeted. “Now, I have been nominated to be the DHS Secretary and oversee the protection of all Americans and those who flee persecution in search of a better life for themselves and their loved ones.”

But on Tuesday, Mayorkas said those attempting to make it to the U.S. by sea will be stopped by the Coast Guard and returned to their countries.

“If individuals make, establish a well-founded fear of persecution or torture, they are referred to third countries for resettlement,” Mayorkas said, reports CBS News. “They will not enter the United States.”

Continue reading “”

The Big Lie On Gun Study Funding

For years, we were told the reason there wasn’t more research done on “gun violence” is because they legally couldn’t. See, the law stated that federal dollars couldn’t be used to advocate for gun control, and the CDC decided that meant they couldn’t conduct research on gun violence, probably because they knew what their intentions were and how that would influence results, so they just skipped the research.

And then they blamed it on a law that didn’t actually prevent research.

However, some people bought into that lie. Some still are.

So, when an op-ed tries to play the middle ground yet still repeated this Big Lie, there’s no reason to take the authors seriously.

Murder in the U.S. has become political once again, an issue for both the left and the right. But the U.S. can’t afford to bicker on this.

The nation is ranked in the global murder rate index worse than Pakistan, Sudan and Angola. Homicides in American cities rose an estimated 30% in 2020 and were up another 24% early this year. Los Angeles reported last week that shootings had spiked by half this year.

Fortunately, with decades of empirical data about what works and what doesn’t, we now know how to prevent murder. It turns out that both the liberals and the conservatives were on to something.

There are two broad ideological camps in this political quagmire: the law-and-order camp that supports more policing and tougher law enforcement and abhors gun control, and the criminal justice reform and Black Lives Matter camp that demands safety from police violence and racism and wants guns off the streets.

Republicans vilify Democrats as soft on crime. And Democrats face an internal rift between progressives who demand an end to violent and unfair policing, and those worried that such a focus would not help in the face of growing violent crime. In his response so far, President Biden has walked a fine line: emphasizing that states can use the $350 billion in COVID-19 relief funds to bolster local police departments, but also calling for better enforcement of gun control laws.

So far, so good.

But it’s later when things really go off the rails.

Preventing murder also requires a serious discussion about guns. As one study summarizes it: “More Guns, More Crime.” Pro-gun politicians seem to have known this all along, why else would they have blocked federal funding for research about the relationship between firearms and homicide for 25 years?

Enough already. End the murder politics. Dueling soundbites will lead to a rerun of the 1990s, when Democrats postured to look tough on crime to win elections. We know how that story ended: Then-Sen. Biden wrote a crime bill that ballooned the American prison population without reducing crime.

This time we know better, and we should do better. If we burst out of the ideological bubbles, the U.S. can build an evidence-based strategy to end the killing.

How can we end the politics and burst out of ideological bubbles when the authors are perpetuating one of the biggest political lies in the gun control debate?

Federal funding for research was never blocked. As noted previously, it prevented federal money from being spent to advocate for gun control. The CDC decided that meant they couldn’t research guns, likely because they had preconceived notions of what they would find and were bound and determined to find it.

Gun research continued, some of it funded with federal money, but this was open and honest research that found what it found and reported it as they saw it.

Yet when you uncritically claim that the research was blocked for 25 years, you’re ignoring the actual facts. You’re perpetuating a lie that was popular with anti-gunners and the media, though I repeat myself, yet had no basis in reality. If you can get such a basic fact wrong, why should anyone take anything else said at face value?

Besides, at the end of the day, the discussion on gun control is about more than reducing crime. If that’s all it was about, the debate would look very different. No, in part it’s about restricting the constitutionally protected rights of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. The rights of individuals need to be protected first and foremost.

It’s not just a political question. It’s a question of civil liberties.

Then again, if the op-ed writers couldn’t even look past the Big Lie on gun research, why would I expect them to really understand what the gun debate is about?