Category: Enemies Domestic

BLUF
Democrats,  Demoncraps, who have spent years delegitimizing the Supreme Court and rule of law, undermining legislative norms, cheering on unprecedented and blatant executive abuses, and using the DOJ to target their political enemies, among other “democracy”-destroying behaviors, do not occupy any high moral ground. And while “democracy” was once just a transparently silly euphemism for “stuff we want,” it has since evolved into a rhetorical device that denotes a decisively illiberal mindset.

DEMOCRATS Demoncraps: The Only Way To Save Democracy Is One-Party Rule.
‘Save Our Democracy’ is the new ‘Russia Collusion.’

At this point, it would save everyone time if Democrats could simply point to a policy agenda item that isn’t going to save democracy — if such a thing exists.

If Republicans vote, they are killing democracy. If they don’t vote, they are killing democracy. The only way to “save democracy,” writes The Washington Post’s Max Boot, is to empower one-party rule — a position that probably sounds counterintuitive to anyone with a middle-school education. “Now you need to vote to literally save democracy again,” contends President Joe Biden, or we will lose our “fundamental rights and freedoms like the right to choose, the right to privacy, the right to vote — our very democracy.”

Chilling stuff. But it doesn’t end there. You will remember that by failing to “reform” the filibuster, which would entail authorizing the thinnest of fleeting majorities to shove through massive generational “reforms” without any national consensus or debate, we are also killing democracy. This has been the position not only of left-wing pundits and the New York Times editorial board, but also senators tasked with defending their institution. I wonder if they will support this democracy-saving fix next session, as well?

Then again, if we don’t nationalize the economy to avert a climate crisis, we are also killing democracy. “We’ve got to save democracy in order to save our species,” Jamie Raskin explains. And if we don’t empty the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to temporarily keep gas prices low to help Democrats win in 2022, we are killing democracy. “We find ourselves in a situation, where keeping gas prices low is key to preserving and strengthening the future of our democracy,” MSNBC’s Chris Hayes says.

We must allow the president to unilaterally create trillion-dollar spending bills and break existing private sector contracts by fiat. For democracy. We must pack the court to “save democracy.” We must create a Ministry of Truth to help with “strengthening democratic institutions.” We must vote for a Pennsylvania candidate who can’t cobble two consecutive coherent sentences together because the “fate of our democracy” is at stake, says our former president.

Continue reading “”

New Low(y): Gun Controllers Register as Foreign Agents to Undermine American Freedom

Beginning last year, NRA-ILA has been keeping readers up to date with an ongoing effort by the Mexican government and domestic gun control supporters to attack the American firearms industry. According to a new report from Politico, this conspiracy to leverage a foreign sovereign to undermine an American constitutional right has become more formalized in recent days with the creation of a new advocacy group named Global Action on Gun Violence.

Back in August 2021, the Mexican government filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts against the most prominent U.S. gun manufacturers alleging that these heavily regulated businesses were somehow responsible for Mexico’s violent crime problem. The suit was the international version of a domestic gun control strategy from the 1990s, when anti-gun jurisdictions and avaricious plaintiff’s attorneys teamed up in an effort to bankrupt the U.S. firearms industry by holding companies accountable for the third-party criminal misuse of their products. This wild departure from long-established tort law eventually necessitated Congress enacting the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

In an attempt to get around the PLCAA, the Mexican suit argued that the U.S. federal courts should ignore both U.S. law and the Second Amendment and instead rule against the gun companies under the laws of Mexico.

Some observers will find it ironic that Mexico has sought to exert sovereignty over foreign businesses in this manner when the Mexican government has failed to exercise sovereignty over its own purported territory. A 2020 Washington Post item stated,

In a classified study produced in 2018 but not previously reported, CIA analysts concluded that drug-trafficking groups had gained effective control over about 20 percent of Mexico, according to several current and former U.S. officials.

The Mexico suit was filed with the help of handgun prohibition group Brady (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.), and specifically longtime Brady counsel Jonathan Lowy. At the time, NRA pointed out, “That Brady would ally itself with a foreign government that has become virtually synonymous with corruption proves just how detached the gun control movement has become from the values and traditions that define America.”

Continue reading “”

The Progressive Socialist War on American Children

The time has come that we — as constitutional conservatives and Republicans — stop playing this absurd adherence to the Marquis of Queensberry’s rules. It is imperative to understand the strategy, goals, plans, and objectives of the radical leftists and Marxists; that is why I have a copy of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” in my home. The leftists in America have no issue with wrongly castigating and demonizing their political opposition in the most despicable and heinous terms. We need not lower ourselves to such a level of depravity, but we must simply tell the truth. As we head into the final stretch of this midterm election cycle it is no longer debatable: the progressive socialists have declared war against American children. After this past week, what else should we deduce?

I am committed to ensuring that the unalienable rights of our children, born and unborn, are not violated. America is looking for courageous adults who will stand upon the ramparts for our children.

This past week we witnessed 15 unelected bureaucrats of the Centers for Disease Control advisory board unanimously voted that the COVID shot be included in child immunization requirements. So, 15 individuals – who, behind the anonymity of their vote — decided that our children, as young as 6 months, must be given a shot to get an education in a public school. You can bet that most Democrat-controlled states will then mandate all children must adhere to the CDC guidance (Never forget that it was Karl Marx who listed state control of education as one of the Marxist planks). This decision was met with unrestricted angst and anger from our youngest daughter who blatantly refuses to have such an injection go into little Jaxton Bernard’s body.

COVID is not a disease–it is a virus; therefore, the so-called mandated “vaccine” is not such. A vaccine eradicates a disease. It has been proven that this COVID shot does not prevent this viral infection. As a matter of fact, in young people, the COVID shot has proven to have adverse effects. Furthermore, COVID was most dangerous for those with specified comorbidities — heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and obesity. The demographic that was the least impacted by COVID was the 0-17-year-old group. So, why mandate this ineffective shot, and leverage education, rather indoctrination, on its inoculation?

It kind of reminds me of Joe Biden threatening to cut off school lunch programs for school districts that refused to adopt the LBGTQ+ and gender dysphoria agenda.

As well, we have a new abhorrent assertion emanating from the progressive socialists. Murdering unborn babies in the womb is now an economic issue. Yes, so says Stacey Abrams, and even Joy Reid of MSNBC. It appears, according to Abrams, that if women dismember their babies in the womb, they lessen their economic concerns. Talk about a creepy take on budget cuts. Now leftists, in the need to make abortion relevant, have reduced unborn babies to a budget line item . . . and they want veto power. Our children are a gift from God, and they are endowed with the very first unalienable right: life.

The leftist position goes beyond anything reasonable or moral and, instead, promotes infanticide. Ralph Northam referred to a born child as “it.” Maryland and California have legislation advancing the idea that a born child can still be left to die. This is a demonic evil.

As well, there is an abominable drive towards child gender modification, mutilation, and surgeries along with life-altering hormonal therapies and puberty blockers. Parental rights, in this instance, are not part of the leftist ideological agenda. After all, leftists believe that our kids are not ours, but the property of the State. A leftist judge here in Dallas County, Texas, has ruled that a mother can, against the dad’s wishes, take her 10-year-old son to California so he can undergo gender modification surgery because she wants him to be a girl.

We have the American Medical Association asking the DOJ to investigate anyone speaking out against child gender modification surgery. Planned Parenthood has now added child gender modification surgery to its business plan. There are medical centers now seeing this as a lucrative, profitable endeavor and are pushing for these procedures, which the American Psychiatric Association designated as child abuse. Yes, we are chemically and physically castrating our kids. In Virginia, a progressive socialist elected official wanted to introduce legislation that parents who did not “affirm” their child’s chosen gender should lose custody. She has since back-peddled, no doubt due to the outcry when the story broke, including members of her political party who shunned her . . . and rightfully so.

Perhaps collusion exists between the medical-industrial complex and the educational-indoctrination complex. The CDC is mandating the COVID shot to attend public school. Some cannot afford private schooling. Children are then forced into public, government indoctrination centers, especially since Randi Weingarten and the leftists despise educational freedom and parental choice in education. The children are therefore indoctrinated, having drag queens paraded before them, while they are told, against parental knowledge, that they can choose their gender . . . and the teachers will enable them to do so.

Never forget, the medical-industrial complex makes the money from this purposeful and intentional grooming.

The progressive socialists do not talk about child sex trafficking. They are redefining pedophilia to be “minor-attracted persons.” They are sexualizing our children. Remember the Netflix series “Cuties?”

There is a progressive socialist war on our children. I am reminded of Jesus, who said:

“It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.” (Luke 17:2)

Metaphorically speaking, there are a lot of progressive socialists who do not realize that they have a millstone tied around their necks.

Steadfast and Loyal.

Russian-installed authorities order evacuation of Kherson in face of Ukrainian counteroffensive.

Russian-installed authorities in the occupied city of Kherson on Saturday urged residents to leave immediately in the face of a looming counteroffensive by Ukraine’s armed forces whose aim was to recapture the southern city.

“Due to the tense situation at the front, the increased danger of massive shelling of the city and the threat of terrorist attacks, all civilians must immediately leave the city,” a statement on the Russian administration’s Telegram channel said Saturday.

Urging people to board boats across the Dnieper River, Russia also said in the statement that all departments and ministries of the Kremlin-installed administration should also leave the southern city, which has been in the hands of Russian forces since they invaded Ukraine in February.

Ukrainian forces bombarded Russian positions and targeted supply routes across the province on Friday, inching closer to a full assault on the only provincial capital that has remained in Russian hands throughout the war.

Continue reading “”

Former FBI Official Will Testify About White House Pressure to Inflate Domestic Extremism Numbers

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee announced on Thursday that they would be calling a former top FBI official to testify before Congress to address claims that the Biden administration pressured agents to label cases as domestic extremism or a white supremacist threat even if they did not meet that criteria in order to match Joe Biden’s rhetoric.

Last month, current and former FBI agents came forward claiming the Biden administration has been deliberately exaggerating the danger posed by white supremacists. According to the whistleblowers, high-ranking FBI officials were pressuring field agents to fabricate domestic terrorism cases and label people as white supremacists in order to “meet internal metrics.”

“The demand for white supremacy” coming from FBI brass “vastly outstrips the supply of white supremacy,” one agent told the Washington Times. “We have more people assigned to investigate white supremacists than we can actually find.”

“We are sort of the lapdogs as the actual agents doing these sorts of investigations, trying to find a crime to fit otherwise First Amendment-protected activities,” one whistleblower said. “If they have a Gadsden flag and they own guns and they are mean at school board meetings, that’s probably a domestic terrorist.”

On December 2, members of the House Judiciary Committee will interview Jill Sanborn, a former assistant director of the FBI Counterterrorism Division and executive assistant director of its National Security Branch, who has been accused of pressuring agents to reclassify cases per the White House’s requests.

The FBI claims it only investigates those “who commit or intend to commit violence and criminal activity that constitutes a federal crime or poses a threat to national security” and that it does not target individuals or organizations based on their political beliefs.

Last year, the administration previously came under fire for using the resources of the Department of Justice to target angry parents at school board meetings and treat them like domestic terrorists. Merrick Garland authorized the FBI to investigate parents who protested school board meetings alleging a “disturbing trend” of teachers being threatened or harassed. However, PJ Media’s Megan Fox looked into those allegations and concluded that they’re mostly bunk.

In addition, the National School Boards Association (NSBA), which had prompted Garland to write the memo with a letter likening parents to domestic terrorists, eventually apologized for doing so. Despite this, Garland has not rescinded the memo. Late last year, a whistleblower revealed an internal email showing that the FBI was using counterterrorism tools to monitor parents despite Garland denying before Congress that the FBI was doing so. This summer, whistleblowers revealed that the FBI “pressured and incentivized” agents to classify cases as domestic violent extremism.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: BEYOND DEMOCRATIC DESPOTISM

John Adams Wettergreen (d. 1989), writing in 1988 with a startling prescience of our present time:

In 1970 I believed that Tocqueville’s soft despotism was the aim of the bureaucratizers. However today we cannot be so optimistic as was possible in 1970. Today’s bureaucratizers are not soft despots at all. The political use of criminal law, such as began during the Watergate scandals and has begun to be regularized during the Reagan administration, is characteristic of tyranny-not Tocqueville’s ‘new,’ ‘soft’ one, but a harsh one. . . To the carrot-spending unlimited by law-the legislature has now added the stick-the penalties of the criminal law.

What Wettergreen perceived in the shadows more than 30 years ago is now evident to most everyone with eyes to see.

The Paranoid Style in Gun Control Politics
Bloomberg’s “The Trace” fabricates a conspiracy about amicus brief writers who adhere to Supreme Court Rules

If you’re looking for a website like QAnon, but catering to gun control advocates, you will enjoy some articles from The Trace, a gun control website founded and funded by Michael Bloomberg. In August, The Trace presented a conspiracy about the amicus briefs filed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The article was reprinted by Politico. Will Van Sant, The NRA’s Shadowy Supreme Court Lobbying Campaign, Politico, Aug. 5, 2022.

The 12-brief conspiracy

The Politico reprint of the Trace article opens with snazzy graphics. Forty-nine amicus brief were submitted in the Bruen case: “12 of those briefs were filed by people or institutions who had received millions of dollars from the NRA, a Trace and Politico Magazine investigation found. Only 1 brief disclosed the financial connection.” According to Van Sant, “neither the justices nor the public were told that 11 of these ostensibly independent voices owed their livelihoods in part to the NRA.” Let’s look at some of his examples.

In 1991, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) was created by San Jose police officer Leroy Pyle. The then-police chief of San Jose, Joseph McNamara, was one of the leading gun control spokesmen in America. McNamara attempted to fire Pyle for Pyle’s Second Amendment advocacy. Pyle ended up winning his case, thanks in part to the excellent work of his attorney, who happened to be the daughter of California Senator Dianne Feinstein. Later, Jim Fotis succeeded Pyle as head of LEAA, and LEAA received substantial donations from NRA. Although LEAA is apparently now defunct, in its day it advocated for the viewpoint of most rank and file law enforcement officers: skepticism about gun control and support for strict punishment of violent criminals.

In Bruen, an amicus brief was filed by The League for Sportsmen, Law Enforcement and Defense, which is based in Virginia. Van Sant’s article reports:

“Those of us involved with the League have been involved in 2nd Amendment advocacy for decades,” attorney Christopher Day, counsel of record on the brief, said by email in response to a request for comment. “The League is not affiliated with the NRA, nor received any financial support from them.” The League is led by James Fotis, who for many years oversaw an NRA-supported effort to elect judges and state attorneys general who opposed firearms restrictions.

According to Van Sant, it was “shadowy” for the League’s 2021 brief not to disclose in that brief that the League’s president had, years before, headed an organization that received NRA grants.

That is not what the Supreme Court Rules say, nor should they. Consider some career attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice. During their employment, they “owed their livelihoods” (Van Sant’s phrase) to the DOJ. Later, they left the DOJ for private practice, and still later they wrote an amicus brief supporting a DOJ position in a Supreme Court case. Per Van Sant’s theory, the former DOJ lawyers must disclose their past DOJ employment in their amicus brief.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
There is not going to be a national divorce. There is going to be a national backlash, a backlash against the stupid, corrupt, and evil ideology of the left. We normal people are not going anywhere. We’re not chopping up our country any more than we are going to tolerate these monsters chopping up our little kids. We will not divorce them. We will defeat them. And it will be glorious.

Instead of a National Divorce, How About a National Backlash?

Dumping the libs and their garbage, blue cities – figuratively throwing their junk out on the lawn just in time for the sprinklers to go off – is so tempting and sounds so sweet. If only we could wave a magic wand and make the weirdos, losers, and mutations of the left just go away, along with annoying states like New Jersey. After all, they are pretty much a significantly less hot Amber Heard, and they are figuratively doing to America what she did to Johnny Depp’s bed.

Pack your stuff, libs, and get out. You’re someone else’s problem now.

But as much fun as it is to simply wish our pinko ex would just disappear and that we in red America could buy a Porsche, rent a condo, lose some weight and get some hair plugs, then hook up with an eager actress/model/whatever half our age, that doesn’t work out when middle-aged accountants do it, and it won’t work out for us if we try it as a country. The devil is in the details, and the details get really, really devilish.

I discuss a national divorce in my most recent non-fiction book, “We’ll Be Back: The Fall and Rise of America,” but I show the consequences of one in my seventh and latest novel in the “People’s Republic” series, the just-released “Inferno.” Beyond all the new book’s gunplay and shooting – there’s a lot – and its cruel mockery of woke, liberal nonsense – there’s a lot of that too – “Inferno” gets into the weeds about what happens when you split a country in two.

The answer is not a lot of good.

When was the last time you heard of a happy divorce, especially when the exes have to live next door to each other? And they would – right next door to us. A national divorce means splitting up the country. This state goes blue, that one red. Some places are easy to take – yeah, blues, Chicago is all yours. But what about the rest of Illinois? Once you get out of Beetlejuice’s hellhole, you are mostly among normal Americans who like America, know which bathroom to use, and don’t murder each other with gleeful abandon. What, are we going to leave them behind the lines?

That’s not going to work well, especially when the blue rulers decide to turn blue America into a giant college campus and mandate that everyone sits to pee as a Harrison Bergeron-esque nod toward urination equity.

Continue reading “”

The truth about Michael Bloomberg’s militia fetish

If you don’t control your mind, someone else will. Jim Morrison said that, and it’s as true today as it was when The Doors front man first uttered those prophetic words. When it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, there is no one who wants to control minds more than former New York City mayor and multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg.

Bloomberg, 80, funds a vast array of anti-gun propagandists who operate across multiple digital and print platforms. Some, such as Bloomberg News, are accepted by the mainstream media as a legitimate news source. Others, such as The Trace, masquerade as journalists but are nothing more than well-paid anti-gun activists with access to unlimited print and pixels.

Bloomberg turned to his loyal staffers at Bloomberg News to launch his latest assault on our gun rights, by trying to change how we define a militia.

The former mayor wants the public to believe that the National Guard is the “well regulated militia” mentioned in the Second Amendment, which is “necessary to the security of a free state.” Therefore, if the public accepts that it’s the National Guardsmen whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, our individual gun rights can be eliminated, Bloomberg hopes.

This misinterpretation of the Second Amendment, while laughable, is nothing new. We are the true militia the framers had in mind – everyday Americans who possess modern firearms, ammunition and the skills to use them proficiently.

Here are some recent examples of Bloomberg’s attempts to redefine militia:

  • A Bloomberg News story published July 1 states that the New York Governor signed a law extending property tax relief to veterans who served at least 10 years “in the U.S. Armed Forces or in the organized militia of the State of New York.”
  • A Bloomberg News story published June 29 examined a labor dispute involving active-duty Ohio National Guardsmen – those serving an Active Guard and Reserve, or AGR, tour. “The US Supreme Court accepted the Ohio National Guard’s request to consider whether the agency that oversees federal-sector labor relations also has jurisdiction over state militias,” the reporter wrote.
  • A Bloomberg News story published Aug. 17 profiled an Ohio National Guard unit comprised of high-tech computer specialists including several civilians. It was headlined: “Modern-Day Militia Ready for Fight Against US Election Hacking.”

Telegraphing an attack

These confusing headlines and word-salads were not accidental. They were carefully designed, and they betray the propagandists’ true intent: Change the public’s mindset because another attack on our gun rights is coming.

Fortunately, we have case law and several strong Supreme Court decisions that protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, in my humble opinion, Bloomberg’s attack will not be a legal one – at least not yet.

This is propaganda, which is designed to alter public opinion and perception, and Bloomberg’s propagandists have always played the long game. They seek to change minds first, which will make it easier to change laws later.

Keep in mind what we’re dealing with: “I don’t know why people carry guns. Guns kill people,” Bloomberg once said, while surrounded by a heavily armed personal security detail, probably.

His attitude and his billions make him our most formidable anti-rights opponent. At least this time we know something is coming

3 Months After Bruen Ruling, Antis Still Trying to Dance Around Constitution

More than three months after the landmark Supreme Court ruling that struck down New York’s unconstitutional, and century-old gun permit “good cause” scheme, anti-gunners continue trying to get around the Second Amendment, while the media seem content to help the whining.

According to CNN, since the June 23 smackdown of New York’s carry permit law in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, “scores of new lawsuits have been filed against gun restrictions at the federal, state and local levels.” The cable news network report also noted, “This shift in burden has put gun rights groups at a greater advantage in court. It has also changed the type of work that government defenders – and the outside gun safety groups that often support them in litigation – must do to advocate for their laws.”

Monday, anti-gun New York State Attorney General Letitia James announced she will fight a federal court ruling from last week that declared some tenets of the state’s new law—hastily adopted just days after the high court ruling—were unconstitutional. Speaking defiantly, James said her office had “filed a motion to keep the entire Concealed Carry Improvement Act in effect and continue to protect communities as the appeals process moves forward. This common-sense gun control legislation is critical in our state’s effort to reduce gun violence. We will continue to fight for the safety of everyday New Yorkers.”

In a prepared statement, James’ office said the new law “strengthens requirements for concealed carry permits, prohibits guns in sensitive places, requires individuals with concealed carry permits to request a property owner’s consent to carry on their premises, enhances safe storage requirements, requires social media review ahead of certain gun purchases, and requires background checks on all ammunition purchases.”

Critics complain the new statute is as bad, if not worse, than the original law.

The New York Times said ruling by District Judge Glenn Suddaby “dealt a sharp blow to New York, which had sought to provide a model for new gun legislation for the five other states whose laws were invalidated by the Supreme Court’s June ruling — in part by outlining how those ‘sensitive places,’ where the court said it was permissible for states to bar guns, can be defined.”

Ramping up the rhetoric, anti-gun New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced Tuesday he was designating Times Square as a “gun free zone.”

The Times story quoted Judge Suddaby, who called the “good moral character” requirement of the new law “fatally flawed.” He also said the demand for access to someone’s social media accounts for the previous three years would not pass muster.

“No such circumstances exist under which this provision would be valid,” the judge said.

BOMBSHELL WSJ INVESTIGATION REVEALS RUNAWAY CORRUPTION IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Some Americans still believe the federal government is working in the public’s best interest. If anything can disabuse these naive holdouts of this notion, it will be the bombshell Wall Street Journal investigation that just dropped—revealing runaway corruption among the federal bureaucracy.

The Journal reviewed more than 31,000 financial disclosure forms and analyzed more than 850,000 financial assets and 315,000 trades to shed light on any conflicts of interest among more than 12,000 senior career bureaucrats and political appointees.  Its investigation found that “thousands of officials across the U.S. government’s executive branch disclosed owning or trading stocks that stood to rise or fall with decisions their agencies made.”

“Across 50 federal agencies ranging from the Commerce Department to the Treasury Department, more than 2,600 officials reported stock investments in companies while those companies were lobbying their agencies for favorable policies, during both Republican and Democratic administrations,” the Journal reports. “When the financial holdings caused a conflict, the agencies sometimes simply waived the rules.”

The federal employees weren’t even subtle about it. Per the Journal, “More than five dozen officials at five agencies reported trading stocks of companies shortly before their departments announced enforcement actions against those companies, such as charges or settlements.”

That’s sus.

To get an understanding of how shady this behavior is, consider examples from a few specific agencies. At the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for example, the Journal found that “more than 200 senior officials… or nearly one in three, reported that they or their family members held investments in companies that were lobbying the agency.”

Similar corruption plagues the Department of Defense, where, per the investigation, “officials in the office of the secretary or their family members collectively owned between $1.2 million and $3.4 million of stock in aerospace and defense companies, on average, during years the Journal examined. Some owned stock in Chinese companies while the U.S. considered blacklisting the companies.”

But at least they’re transparent about it all, right?

Ha! The Journal notes that the federal government “doesn’t maintain a comprehensive public database of the mandatory financial disclosures of all senior executive-branch officials” so they literally had to “buil[d] their own.”

I’m sure there are lots of good-hearted people who work in the federal government and genuinely do try to serve the public. (Unfortunately, very similar conflicts of interest hang over Congress, as well). But the rampant financial conflicts of interest plaguing so many top officials create a cloud of suspicion over the entire federal bureaucracy.

Federal employees are already paid quite well, more than the average private sector employee, in fact. Surely they do not need to also trade stocks in their agency’s industries. To have such suspicious activity occurring among those given vast power yet not accountable to voters is simply unacceptable.

We should prohibit this kind of stock trading among federal bureaucrats, and, even better, drastically scale back the power these bureaucracies have to begin with.

Why Did Biden Just Send Top U.S. Officials to Meet With the Taliban?

In a shocking development Saturday afternoon, it was first reported by CNN that top officials within the Biden administration met with top Taliban leaders in Doha, Qatar, marking the first meeting with the terrorist group since al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri was vaporized by a U.S. drone strike in July, under Taliban care and comfort.

CNN noted:

The administration sent the CIA’s deputy director and the top State Department official responsible for Afghanistan to the Qatari capital of Doha for the talks with the Taliban delegation which included their head of intelligence, Abdul Haq Wasiq.

The presence of CIA Deputy Director David Cohen and the Taliban’s Wasiq at the meeting on Saturday indicates an emphasis on counterterrorism. The White House last month called cooperation with the Taliban on counterterrorism “a work in progress.”

Cohen was accompanied by the State Department’s Special Representative for Afghanistan, Tom West, who has often led engagement with the Taliban since the US withdrawal last year.

The goal of the meeting is still unclear, but it comes in the wake of recent news regarding a giant pile of cash — $3.5 billion — that Taliban leaders in Afghanistan would love to get their hands on. The money was frozen after the Taliban took over Afghanistan following President Joe Biden’s disastrous, failed withdrawal of U.S. troops, allowing terrorist masterminds back to their sandy playground.

The meeting also comes just weeks after Taliban terrorists celebrated the first anniversary of Biden’s botched pullout by parading some of the billions in top-tier U.S. military equipment left behind by Biden and Pentagon brass.

Continue reading “”

Surveillance State USA… Biden quietly unleashes spymasters in dramatic Executive Order…

Orwell would be proud. Deliberately buried in the Friday evening news cycle, Biden released an Executive Order with dramatic implications for how signals intelligence is collected on individuals throughout the world.

Specifically, Biden’s directive repeals restrictions on the use of signals intelligence collection (read: spying on you) implemented since the Obama Administration

The Executive Order of October 7, 2022 (Enhancing Safeguards for United States Signals Intelligence Activities), establishes enhanced safeguards for United States signals intelligence activities that supersede the safeguards for personal information collected through signals intelligence established by Presidential Policy Directive 28 of January 17, 2014 (Signals Intelligence Activities) (PPD-28). [White House]

So what was so problematic about the Presidential Policy Directive 28 that Biden Admin had to repeal? We encourage you to read the entire directive, but the following passage strikes us as interesting in light of the fact that Biden just repealed it:

The collection of signals intelligence shall be authorized by statute or Executive Order, proclamation, or other Presidential directive, and undertaken in accordance with the Constitution and applicable statutes, Executive Orders, proclamations, and Presidential directives.

(b) Privacy and civil liberties shall be integral considerations in the planning of U.S. signals intelligence activities. The United States shall not collect signals intelligence for the purpose of suppressing or burdening criticism or dissent, or for disadvantaging persons based on their ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Signals intelligence shall be collected exclusively where there is a foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purpose to support national and departmental missions and not for any other purposes.

(c) The collection of foreign private commercial information or trade secrets is authorized only to protect the national security of the United States or its partners and allies. It is not an authorized foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purpose to collect such information to afford a competitive advantage[4] to U.S. companies and U.S. business sectors commercially.

(d) Signals intelligence activities shall be as tailored as feasible. In determining whether to collect signals intelligence, the United States shall consider the availability of other information, including from diplomatic and public sources. Such appropriate and feasible alternatives to signals intelligence should be prioritized.[Obama White House Archives]

What could the Biden Administration be gearing up for? Why would they want to relax restrictions on intelligence collecting? Are they planning escalation in Ukraine, escalation in their Domestic War on American Patriots, or both?

We will cover this story as it develops.

11 anti-abortion protesters face charges in blocking Mount Juliet clinic

Eleven people face federal charges for their role in blocking the entrance of a Mount Juliet reproductive health clinic during an anti-abortion protest in 2021, including a Lebanon man who now faces a separate federal lawsuit for a July 2022 protest at the same clinic.

A federal grand jury indicted the 11 on violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which prohibits even temporary interference with reproductive health care services.

The group livestreamed their protest, which they called a “rescue,” outside the doors of the Mount Juliet carafem clinic on March 5, 2021, with several members physically blocking a patient and employee from accessing the clinic, according to court documents.

Continue reading “”

Mexican official says new lawsuit against US gunmakers is on the way

There’s no reason to believe the outcome will be any different than the first lawsuit that the administration of Andrés Manuel López Obrador brought against U.S. gun makers; a dismissal of the case long before it ever reached trial. Still, with AMLO’s cartel strategy of “hugs, not bullets” resulting in even more cartel violence, it’s no surprise that he and other officials are trying to distract from their own failures by pinning the blame on the US firearms industry.

Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard told the Mexican Senate on Wednesday that the government’s next lawsuit will be filed in the border state of Arizona, though he didn’t say whether any gun control groups will be a part of this new effort as they were the first time around.

During his speech on Wednesday, Ebrard referred to a bipartisan package of gun safety measures passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden in June. The law blocks gun sales to those convicted of abusing unmarried intimate partners and cracks down on gun sales to purchasers convicted of domestic violence.

“Illicit arms trafficking is already a crime in the United States,” Ebrard said.

“You have to start establishing criminal responsibilities because the companies that are selling these weapons in these counties (in Arizona), which are very few, of course they know where those weapons are going,” he added, but did not specify which companies he was referring to.

Ebrard makes it sound as if there are no laws whatsoever governing gun sales from licensed firearms retailers, even though border state gun dealers not only have to follow the long list of federal regulations surrounding firearm transfers, but even have special requirements placed on them like reporting multiple sales of modern sporting rifles to the ATF.

Frankly, if he really wants to talk about establishing criminal responsibilities, I’d say he should start much closer to home and crack down on the graft, corruption, and theft within the Mexican armed forces.

Continue reading “”