BLUF:
The country — and President Trump — lived with that practical reality on a daily basis for another 18 months before the SCO finally acknowledged it had all be a lie.  They papered-over that concession the best they could with the Mueller Report, but nothing in the Steele information was ever used by the SCO to advance their ‘investigation”.

The SCO knew all along that it all started with a fraud.

Newly Released FBI Interview with Christopher Steele Proves Russia Hoax was all About Defeating Donald Trump

In the final hours of his Administration, Pres. Trump has ordered the declassification and release of documents related to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation conducted by the FBI into alleged links between Pres. Trump, members of his 2016 Campaign staff, and individuals connected to the Russian Government — the Russian Hoax Investigation.

Among the items that have now been made public is a 26-page memorandum of interview that relates to a two-day interview done with Christopher Steele in September 2017. That is 13 months after the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was launched, and it was almost exactly 12 months after the Crossfire Hurricane investigators received the first set of memoranda from Steele.

The most significant fact of this interview to me is that it was done at the direction and under the supervision of the Mueller Special Counsel’s Office. Understanding the timeline here is important, and given what has been revealed over the past nearly two years since the Mueller investigation was wrapped up, this interview is revealing for a host of not-all-that-obvious reasons.

Continue reading “”

Even Politico, one of the more leftist of leftist publications, is no longer covering up for Biden

On the eve of his inauguration, Politico published an article that contains a line about SloJoe’s lack of mental acuity.

For higher-profile remarks, [Biden would] obsessively rehearse portions until he committed them to memory. And at times through the various iterations of outlining remarks, Biden could grow downright ornery.

“I would never say this,” Biden once snapped at an aide, aghast over the prepared remarks he was reviewing, according to a person in the room during a speech prep session last year. “Where did you get this from?’”

The aide explained that Biden had just said it in a public speech a couple of weeks earlier.

Biden forgetting part of a stump speech is bad enough, but this is an incident that took place last year, but has only come out now. Biden’s handlers kept it under wraps until now. How many other examples of Biden’s mental state have been concealed?

The election is over. Trump is out of office. Biden’s senility is no longer tabooHis sole purpose was to play the role of an “electable” candidate who could appeal to independents and anti-Trump Republicans under that guise just to get Trump out of office.

I know of people taking bets on when he’ll be shuffled off the scene so Kamala’s handlers can take over.

This is somehow a shocking revelation?


BLUF:
Republicans shouldn’t feel guilty about vocally opposing Biden’s COVID-19 relief efforts. Conservative opposition isn’t an obstruction of a commonsense emergency response but a rejection of an imposition of a liberal economic agenda on the United States through a back door.

Biden COVID-19 relief plan is a Trojan horse for a sweeping liberal agenda

President-elect Joe Biden just unveiled his proposal for a $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package. Democrats insist it is targeted to respond to the crisis and only full of “commonsense” measures and much-needed emergency spending.

Yet, even a cursory glance at the specifics of the package reveals that it’s a Trojan horse for a sweeping liberal agenda that Biden could never otherwise get passed.

Yes, the proposal does include billions for vaccine distribution, testing, school reopenings, and the like. But it also includes blatant partisan priorities, such as a federal $15 minimum wage.

Biden knows that this far-left, job-killing policy would never make it out of Congress in a straight up-down vote. The Democrat’s hope here is obviously that he can sneak a doubling of the federal minimum wage into an “emergency” package that lawmakers feel obligated to support. We should all hope this duplicity is unsuccessful.

Continue reading “”

A few days ago, I told the Shootists’ Vice-Chairman to mark my words that on 21 January, we’d start to see a miraculous national recovery begin from the bug, just to make SloJoe look good.


Will COVID Numbers Now Shift for Biden’s Benefit?

How much of the past year was about the actual coronavirus rather than a political weapon to damage President Trump and remove him from office? The answer is obvious. We have had viral pandemics before, including a seasonal influenza, without mask mandates, social distancing, business closures, travel restrictions, and hysterical media coverage.

Much of the hair-on-fire reporting is over cases and deaths. As I have previously written, a positive test is not the same as a case, and a death with COVID is different than death from COVID.

What if these definitions suddenly change in the upcoming weeks, once Joe Biden is in the White House, creating the impression that getting rid of the Orange Man caused the case and fatality numbers to suddenly plummet, not because of anything Biden did, but simply because he isn’t Trump?

Rewriting history is a popular pastime for the left. Just ask George Orwell or observe current events including the social media purge and cancel culture. How might this play out with COVID?

Start with testing — the PCR test which is overly sensitive. From that bastion of right-wing conspiracy, the New York Times,

The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious.

This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are.

In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.

In addition, a positive PCR test is not necessarily a case of COVID. There is a “case definition,” something the corporate media is willfully ignoring. According to the CDC, a case requires, “presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence.”  Notice the AND, meaning not simply a positive test.

The result is that case counts are wildly inflated and are being used to drive lockdowns, business and school closures, mask mandates, and other measures that may not be necessary or even helpful.

What if the definitions conveniently change in the upcoming weeks?

As reported by Zero Hedge last week, “The FDA today joined The WHO and Dr. [Anthony] Fauci in admitting there is a notable risk of false results from the standard PCR test used to define whether an individual is a COVID case or not.”

Did Dr. Fauci just realize this? After decades working in public health and infectious diseases, test sensitivity is something he understands only too well. If he knew, did he say or do anything?

Continue reading “”

Missouri Media Blaming Gun Laws For Violence

Everywhere you go, you tend to find violence exploding in this country, The violence surge isn’t isolated to one or two places; just about every major city has seen an increase. Almost no one is reporting a reduction in violence over the year, and that’s despite months of people being locked down in their homes. That suggests that when they got out, they made up for lost time.

In Missouri, they’re having the same problem as most everywhere else. That’s not surprising. St. Louis, for example, is a city that’s been plagued by violence in recent years.

Yet, it seems that once again, the media has to trip over themselves to lay at least some of the blame on gun rights.

To understand the full scope of gun violence across the state, The Kansas City Star interviewed experts, gathered information about dozens of shooting victims from families and obituaries, and analyzed data from police and the Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit that tracks gun incidents across the country. Because no complete official record exists, the numbers are preliminary, sourced from thousands of media outlets and public agencies.

The effort was undertaken as part of the Missouri Gun Violence Project, a two-year, statewide solutions journalism collaboration supported by the nonprofits Report for America and the Missouri Foundation for Health. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has also been a part of the collaboration.

In an extraordinary year, the people across the state grappling with violence — criminologists, health care professionals, violence interrupters, law enforcement officials — say the coronavirus pandemic’s disruptions aggravated gun violence, putting individuals more at risk and hampering prevention efforts.

But even before the pandemic, Missouri was primed to see worse violence after more than a decade of rolling back gun restrictions and a longstanding lack of trust between police and the most at-risk communities in the state’s largest cities.

Yet the publication acknowledges that the violence in Missouri is primarily driven by St. Louis and Kansas City, their two largest municipalities.

The problem I have is that if gun laws were the problem, then why wasn’t the problem more spread out? Why wasn’t it a problem for much smaller communities? These towns were under the authority of the exact same gun laws, after all. If the gun laws were responsible, then you’d think you’d see an uptick in violence across the board.

Before 2020, you didn’t.

In 2020, most people did acknowledge that the pandemic played some kind of role in the increased violence. It would be impossible not to acknowledge that fact simply because it’s right in front of our eyes.

But elsewhere, we didn’t see the problems being associated with gun laws anywhere else until the pandemic. If lax gun laws are the culprit, then we should see an increase across the board, and we simply don’t.

What that tells me is that it’s not the gun laws that are the problem. Again, if they were, the problems would be everywhere and they’re simply not. No, the problems reside somewhere in the cities themselves.

Yet the media prefers to scapegoat gun rights and gun ownership because it’s convenient and their readers lap it up. Heaven forbid they ever try to look a little deeper at the issue.

Epidemiologist Says Influenza Cases Are Being Counted as COVID-19

Top epidemiologist Knut Wittkowski says that the massive drop in influenza cases can be attributed to the fact that many are being falsely counted as COVID-19 cases.

Wittkowski, former Head of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Research Design at Rockefeller University, cautioned that, “Influenza has been renamed COVID-19 in large part.”

According to CDC figures, the cumulative positive influenza test rate from late September into the week of December 19th was just 0.2%, compared to 8.7% from a year before.

According to Wittkowski, this is because many flu infections are being incorrectly labeled as coronavirus cases.

Continue reading “”

The preceding gets this:

This is the same kind of historical revisionism that tries to paint the 2nd Amendment as some slave patrol scheme in the vein of the Aptly named Dr. Bogus whose revisionist history “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment” includes Section 1, part K literally titled: “The Absence of Direct Evidence”.

Advocates of such false history also try to misconstrue the statements of Patrick Henry before the Ratifying Convention in Virginia from June 5th, 1788.

You can read the full speech here.

You’ll see none of what Bogus suggest regarding the 2nd Amendment being for slavery present there.

All the Judicial, Statutory, and Historic evidence from the 17th Century to Modern day supports the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service.

Being a direct descendant of the English colonies American law is based off of the English model. Our earliest documents from the Mayflower compact to the Constitution itself share a lineage with the Magna Carta. Even the American Bill of Rights being modeled after the English Bill of Rights.

The individual right, unconnected to militia service, preexists the United States and the Constitution. This right is firmly based in English law.

In 1689 The British Bill of Rights gave all protestants the right to keep and bear arms.

“The English right was a right of individuals, not conditioned on militia service…The English right to arms emerged in 1689, and in the century thereafter courts, Blackstone, and other authorities recognized it. They recognized a personal, individual right.” – CATO Brief on DC v Heller

Prior to the debates on the US Constitution, or its ratification, multiple states built the individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to militia service, in their own state constitutions.

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State” – chapter 1, Section XV, Constitution of Vermont – July 8, 1777.

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state” – A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Section XIII, Constitution of Pennsylvania – September 28, 1776.

Later the debates that would literally become the American Bill of Rights also include the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

“And that the said Constitution never be constructed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press, or the rights of the conscience; or prevent of people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceful and orderly manner, the federal legislature for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, or possessions.” – Debates and proceedings in the Convention of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788. Page 86-87.

The American Bill of Rights itself was a compromise between the federalist and anti-federalist created for the express purpose of protecting individual rights.

“In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that.  With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of  a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress  comes into session.  The concession was  undoubtedly  necessary to secure the Constitution’s hard-fought ratification.  Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.”

In Madison’s own words:

“I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the government,” Madison said in his address to Congress in June 1789.

Madison’s first draft of the second Amendment is even more clear.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Ironically it was changed because the founders feared someone would try to misconstrue a clause to deny the right of the people.

“Mr. Gerry — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms.” – House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 17, Aug. 1789

Please note Mr. Gerry clearly refers to this as the right of the people.

This is also why we have the 9th Amendment.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Article I Section 8 had already established and addressed the militia and the military making the incorrect collective militia misinterpretation redundant.

Supreme Court cases like US v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, DC v. Heller, and even the Dredd Scott decision specifically call out the individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to militia service.

This is further evidenced by State Constitutions including the Right to keep and bear arms from the Colonial Period to Modern Day.

“The Constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press. in the structure of our legislatures we think experience has proved the benefit of subjecting questions to two separate bodies of deliberants; …” – Thomas Jefferson’s letter to John Cartwright, on June 5th, 1824

Cornell is being purposefully mendacious.

 

Why Did Fauci Move the Herd Immunity Goal Posts? — Scientists play a dangerous game when they tailor factual statements to promote policy goals.

An expert cannot distort the message to the public because too many in the public can directly interrogate the source material. In this case, that means: models estimating herd immunity thresholds or the data underlying community mask use, drawing their own conclusions. If an expert seeks to distort their view of the science to further a behavioral change amongst the public, the risk of detection is high — at least by some in the public. As such, it runs the risk of immediate backlash and the ensuing loss of credibility. . . .

Once it is revealed that any individual has presented information selectively to get the listener to change their behavior — that person will forever be viewed through that lens: a calculating person. Is Fauci telling me this because the science supports it, because he believes it, or because he thinks hearing it might motivate a behavioral change on my part?

Personally, I don’t see a way back from this situation. The moment the public believes that you might be withholding, selectively presenting, or distorting information to get them to behave a certain way, they will immediately put your comments through a translator. He might be saying this because it’s what he believes, but what if he is saying it to change my behavior. What might that look like? What does he want my behavior to be, and what would it be if he told me something else? If that’s the case, what might his real feelings be … and on and on. The moment you enter this state in a relationship, there is no path back, it is over. Trust is irrevocably broken. A new spokesperson is needed.

And We Should Trust You Now, Dr. Fauci, Because …?

“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent…. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”

EUGENE VOLOKH

From the New York Times (Donald G. McNeil Jr.):

At what point does a country achieve herd immunity? What portion of the population must acquire resistance to the coronavirus, either through infection or vaccination, for the disease to fade away …?

In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent estimate that most experts did. About a month ago, he began saying “70, 75 percent” in television interviews. And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.”

In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks….. [H]e believes that it may take close to 90 percent immunity to bring the virus to a halt ….

Dr. Fauci said that weeks ago, he had hesitated to publicly raise his estimate because many Americans seemed unsure about vaccines …. Now that some polls are showing that many more Americans are ready, even eager, for vaccines, he said he felt he could deliver the tough message that the return to normal might take longer than anticipated.

“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I
went to 80, 85.

Errors happen; scientists’ understanding changes; but Dr. Fauci’s statements here aren’t just about changed medical understanding, right?

Thanks to Randy Barnett for pointing this out, in a post on a discussion list that I’m on.

Remember “Follow the Science.” ?

Public trust is the public health community’s most vital asset. Why do they seem so eager to squander it?


Fauci says he’s been intentionally moving goal posts on herd immunity estimates.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, admitted in a new interview that he’s been intentionally moving the goal posts on his recommendations regarding herd immunity based on what he thinks the American people are ready to hear.

Herd immunity, or the percentage of a population that acquires resistance to the coronavirus through infection or vaccination, has been widely estimated at roughly 60 to 70 percent for the coronavirus since the start of the pandemic.

Dr. Fauci, a member of the White House’s coronavirus response, also cited that number in the beginning of the pandemic but said it would be about “70, 75 percent” in an interview about a month ago, The New York Times reported. Last week, he reportedly told CNBC “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.”

Dr. Fauci told The Times in an interview published Thursday that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the American public was ready to receive the information, which is that 70-90% herd immunity should be achieved before the country can go back to normal.

He said he hesitated to state a number as high as 90% weeks ago because many Americans still seemed skeptical about vaccine.

“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci, who took his first dose of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine Tuesday, told The Times. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.

“We need to have some humility here,” he added. “We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I’m not going to say 90 percent.”

Dr. Fauci said he wouldn’t state that number because it would potentially discourage Americans from getting the vaccine, The Times reported

This isn’t JEOPARDY!™. It’s not necessary to phrase this as a question.

BLUF:
When I see all these news stories and then listen to Feldman’s words, all I can think of is that Democrats are deliberately driving up gun violence so they can justify that “big, bold action” against guns. In that way, Operation Fast and Furious may have been a trial run for what Democrats now plan.


Are Democrats pulling an Operation Fast and Furious scam?

During Obama’s first term, his Attorney General, Eric Holder, implemented Operation Fast and Furious. The ostensible purpose was for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to catch straw purchasers who bought guns in America and sold them in Mexico. ATF blew it and taxpayer-funded guns vanished into Mexico. A secondary goal, though, was to try to convince Americans that guns are bad, to drive gun control laws. When I read about Democrats flooding cities with gun crime suspects, I wonder if they’re trying the same psychological trick again.

What caught my eye first was New York Post report on the fact that almost 90% of gun crime suspects are back on New York’s streets:

Nearly 90 percent of suspects arrested on gun charges this year are back on the streets, which the NYPD says has fueled a historic spike in shootings that have left more than 1,756 dead or wounded.

About 3,345 of the 3,793 perps arrested between Jan. 1 and Nov. 30 for firearms crimes — 88 percent — were let go, according to department data. Just 450 remain in jail, the NYPD told The Post.

Some New York City Council members also want to order police to avoid any contact with homeless people, many of whom are deranged and violent.

In Los Angeles, the new Soros-funded District Attorney, George Gascón (who spent almost ten years growing up under Fidel Castro) is unilaterally doing away with serious punishments for violent gun crimes, virtually assuring that the criminals will be back on the street.

Then there was the news that New York’s shooting rate is heading for a 14-year-high:

Continue reading “”

Gone In 60 Weeks

Joe Biden is not meant to govern. If he manages, and whatever he manages, that’s all well and good, and a bonus but that is not his purpose. His mission was to win the election. This he did, regardless of whether you think he did it fairly, cleanly and legally or not.

Biden was nominated because the Democrat establishment thought he was the only one of the original field of two dozen or so who had a chance of winning against Donald Trump. In that the DNC was correct. All the others vying to take on Orange Man Bad were either too inexperienced and unknown or too far to the left of the party, and so would scare the horses of the centrist American electorate. And so, one by one, they got eliminated by a combination of primary voters and the internal machinations (a special mention goes to Bernie Sanders, who got done out of the nomination for the second time in four years).

Continue reading “”

Biden Urges Dems To Conceal Their Defund the Police Agenda Until After Georgia Runoffs

In a recording leaked to The Intercept, former Vice President Biden appeared to blame the “defund the police” movement for the Democrats’ shellacking down-ballot in the 2020 elections, and urged liberal civil rights leaders not to put public pressure on his incoming administration regarding police reform until after the Georgia Senate runoff elections in January.

“I also don’t think we should get too far ahead ourselves on dealing with police reform in that, because they’ve already labeled us as being ‘defund the police’ anything we put forward in terms of the organizational structure to change policing — which I promise you, will occur. Promise you.” Biden can be heard telling left-wing civil rights leaders in the recording. “Just think to yourself and give me advice whether we should do that before January 5, because that’s how they beat the living hell out of us across the country… I just raise it with you to think about. How much do we push between now and January 5, we need those two seats, about police reform? But I guarantee you there will be a full-blown commission. I guarantee you it’s a major, major, major element…we can go very far.” Continue reading “”

Slow Joe is seen here talking to the press between events.
But, where’s the boot?
For an elderly man who – supposedly – broke a bone, the man seems to have a very little problem walking around. Biden – supposedly – broke his foot 8 days ago, not nearly enough time for the injury to heal. So was it simply another lie to provide cover for him being kept away from people until he could be doped up again, or what?

 

Withholding information

From The Epoch Times:

At a public hearing in Arizona with select members of the state legislature and members of President Donald Trump’s legal team, lawmakers called for their colleagues to support an upcoming resolution that would delay the release of the state’s Electoral College votes.

Arizona state Rep. Mark Finchem told reporters during the Nov. 30 hearing that they hope to have a resolution “within the next 24 to 48 hours.” The state holds 11 Electoral College votes.

“We are clawing our Electoral College votes back, we will not release them,” Finchem said. “That’s what I’m calling on our colleagues in both the House and Senate to do—exercise our plenary authority under the U.S. Constitution.

From National File:

After the state’s hearing into election integrity was only halfway through, Arizona State Rep. Mark Finchem, a Republican, issued a call for his colleagues to withhold the state’s Electoral College votes, as he believes there is enough significant evidence of fraud to invalidate the state’s votes.

From USSA News:

After the state’s hearing into election integrity was only halfway through, Arizona State Rep. Mark Finchem, a Republican, issued a call for his colleagues to withhold the state’s Electoral College votes, as he believes there is enough significant evidence of fraud to invalidate the state’s votes.

“We are clawing our electoral college votes back, we will not release them. That’s what I’m calling our colleagues in both the House and the Senate to do,” added Finchem. “Exercise our plenary authority under the U.S. Constitution.”

From Before Before It’s News:

Arizona State Rep. Mark Finchem ““We are clawing our electoral college votes back, we will not release them”, Gosar: “Biden’s thugs will not steal this election.”

From (We) Are The News:

Arizona Rep. Mark Finchem seeks to prevent the state from assigning its Electoral College votes to Joe Biden

After the state’s hearing into election integrity was only halfway through, Arizona State Rep. Mark Finchem, a Republican, issued a call for his colleagues to withhold the state’s Electoral College votes, as he believes there is enough significant evidence of fraud to invalidate the state’s votes.

“We are clawing our electoral college votes back, we will not release them. That’s what I’m calling our colleagues in both the House and the Senate to do,” added Finchem. “Exercise our plenary authority under the U.S. Constitution.”

Those reports on the hearing, and many, many, more, were found using a Bing search for the set of words (no quotations):

We are clawing our Electoral College votes back

No reference to the hearing was found in any major media outlet.

The same search with Google yielded one article in the Citizens Journal and one Twitter post.

The same search with Google New yielded nothing.

That news sources and major corporations withhold the activities of state legislatures from the people proves we live in a very different world from the one I believed we lived in when I took classes in U.S. history and U.S. government when I was in High School.

We live in interesting times.

Respond appropriately.

‘Safety’ Tips from Gun Prohibitionists Have Hidden Agenda

“Gun sales are way up, in Pennsylvania and across the country. And many are first-time owners,” The Philadelphia Inquirer notes in a “Philly Tips” column. “Here’s what you need to know about gun safety.”

Gun owners can be forgiven if that assertion causes their antennae to go up. The mainstream press, what I call the DSM (Duranty/Streicher Media), has not exactly been supportive of the right to keep and bear arms. Plus, we have seen too often how the term “commonsense gun safety laws” is contorted by gun-grabbers (with little actual knowledge of firearms and shooting) to mean more infringements that won’t do a thing to stop evil people from doing evil things and stupid/lazy people from doing stupid/lazy things.

So, the initial questions ought to be: Who are the experts? What are their qualifications? Do they have an observable agenda?

Scott Charles is the first “authority” we meet, presented as “a gun violence educator and trauma outreach coordinator for Temple University Hospital.”

He says he’s a gun owner, but if he has any specialized training/credentialing that give him notable credibility as a gun safety expert, whoever wrote up his Temple Safety Net profile failed to list them. Instead, we find he has been “an at-risk youth specialist for the State Department of Education [and] assisted in the development of a statewide rite of passage program for young African American males.” He went on to get some degrees that have nothing to do with firearms and has been featured on network television, PBS, and a “documentary” about urban criminals using guns. He’s received some community awards, one of them being from CeaseFire PA, a group that used to admit it was about “gun control.”

So what are Charles’ “gun safety” qualifications? If you didn’t give him time to look it up on the internet, would he know who Jeff Cooper was and be able to explain his rules? Would he be able to tell you what to do about safety issues shooters may encounter at the range like misfires or hangfires? Could he even tell you what those are? Maybe he could. Maybe we just need to see a relevant CV. Maybe.

“As a gun owner and someone who sees the consequences of gun injury, this is something we should take seriously,”  Charles pontificates. “We have a lot of novice, first-time gun owners taking that gun home where there are children, and the data we have says that firearm is most likely to be used to harm somebody in the home.”

So we see him adopting the gun-grabber talking point that guns in the home are more dangerous than not having them in the home. But he nonetheless says he has them in his home. Agenda much? Then you go to his Twitter page and his political predispositions make it all clear. Continue reading “”

Apple Looks to Soften Bill That Fights Forced Labor in China.

The Washington Post is reporting that Apple, Inc. has engaged lobbyists to try to soften language in the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act., which passed the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly in September.

It’s not known exactly what Apple wants to be altered in the bill. But given Apple’s past support for the Chinese Communist regime, one wonders exactly what they’re objecting to.

China has been brutally oppressing the Uyghurs in recent years, putting more than a million of them in concentration camps while trying to snuff out their culture and religion. But it’s also been reported that China was using the Uyghurs as slave laborers in some factories, leading Congress to act. The bill would prevent companies from relying on Chinese factories that use forced labor. Continue reading “”

BLUF:
If you believe that Biden, after his presumptive victory, and the Democratic Party actually want unity, you’re a fool. The only kind of unity they want is where we bend the knee. They don’t want unity, they want submission.

If they think they can spend four years calling me a sexist, a bigot, a Nazi, and get away with it, they’ve got a surprise coming. Don’t forget what they did to you, because the moment their power is threatened, they’ll do it again.

Democrats Labeled Me and Now They Want Unity? No Way.

After spending twenty years claiming that Al Gore won in 2000, four years claiming that Hillary Clinton won in 2016, and two years claiming that Stacey Abrams is the actual Governor of Georgia, the mainstream media continued to demonstrate a rejection of basic reality when they unanimously declared that Joe Biden – on his third attempt – is now president-elect of the United States. The fact that the Trump campaign is actively challenging some results, or that recounts are also scheduled to occur, or that the media are not endowed with the ultimate authority to erase electoral procedure with their enthusiastic projections are irrelevant details.

On the back of this media-endorsed “victory,” Joe Biden took to the stage and delivered what the Left are describing as a “call for unity.” Continue reading “”