Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

Drug Cartels Are Proxy Armies, So Use the Militaryby Austin Bay
August 13, 2025

Sometime after 2002, Communist China began subtly transforming organized Latin American drug trafficking syndicates. The gangs, the biggest with the hired guns, money and political connections to rate as cartels, continued their usual felony and smuggling operations but added an additional line of operation: hybrid warfare entities, shape-shifting cousins to Iranian proxy armies and classic guerrilla cadres.

The goal of this Chinese-induced transformation: waging plausibly deniable disintegrative and chemical and anarchic war against America on America’s own soil.

Chemical war? Killer drugs are chemicals.

Disintegrative warfare. The term appears in chapter 13 of a book called “World System History: The Social Science of Long-Term Change.” In a disintegrative war, a “unitary belligerent becomes increasingly fragmented by secessions.”

Or, instead of classic territorial secession, social and economic fragmentation spawned and accelerated by corrupt local and state political machines, violent crime encouraged by George Soros-backed district attorneys who put murderers and rapists back on the street, and deadly drugs and more violent criminals crossing open borders

The date 2002 is ballpark. “Unrestricted Warfare,” written by Chinese strategists Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, mulls weaponizing almost everything human beings do or want to do. But by 2011, China’s strategic intent was evident and the cartel connectivity was emerging.

According to several sources, fentanyl’s so-called “second wave” hit the U.S. in 2007 — fentanyl cut with heroin. In 2013, overdoses from synthetic opioids like fentanyl increased dramatically.

Communist China was and remains the world’s primary source of fentanyl. Beijing either ships it directly to the U.S. or smuggles it via Mexico. It’s a two for one — making money while destroying America.

In 2017, the National Interest called China’s drug strategy vis-a-vis the U.S. the “Reverse Opium War.” From 1839-1842, China’s Qing dynasty went to war with Britain to stop the Brits from selling opium in China. The drug threatened Chinese social cohesion. China became a failed state.

Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, heavens, Washington, D.C. Flailing U.S. cities are the battlegrounds in China’s drug war. Illegal drug use and violent crime kill Americans and destroy social cohesion.

President Donald Trump, however, has formulated policies and operations to address the disintegrative crises.

Washington is a mess — and Trump has a test case. He has the legal authority to secure D.C. So he’s ordered operations. Federal and local law enforcement, backed by a federalized National Guard, will cut D.C.’s murder rate — one small step toward reintegration. Federal prosecutors will prosecute the lawbreakers.

As for adding the military the so-called civil “drug war”? Military capabilities have played secondary but significant roles in the anti-drug war since President Richard Nixon officially declared a “War on Drugs” in 1971. The Pentagon has provided the DEA, FBI and other civilian law enforcement with electronic intercept, intelligence and logistics.

Make it make sense: Gun grabbers come out against fighting crime

A gun control nonprofit that wants to disarm Americans has come out against President Donald Trump’s Washington, D.C., crime crackdown.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, known these days as Brady: United Against Gun Violence, issued a lengthy statement on Monday condemning Trump’s ongoing D.C. crime crackdown.

The statement began by describing the one-day Jan. 6 riot as “the worst outbreak of mass violence in recent District memory.”

Recall that only one person died during the riot: Rioter Ashli Babbitt. Meanwhile, 99 people have been murdered in D.C. this year alone.

The statement continued by using possibly falsified crime data to claim violent crime in D.C. “has fallen precipitously since 2023 and were at a 30-year low the day the president returned to the Oval Office.”

Hilariously, the statement attributed this alleged low to the Biden administration’s otherwise widely panned policy decisions.

According to the White House, the reality is that “D.C.’s murder rate is roughly three times higher than that of Islamabad, Pakistan, and 18 times higher than that of communist-run Havana, Cuba.”

The statement from Brady president Kris Brown concluded with her suggesting that Trump’s federal police are the ones “endanger[ing]” D.C. residents, not the hordes of violent criminals running the streets.

“We cannot allow the president to suggest that federalized police is an appropriate response to any and all challenges; or that federalized police do not further endanger the public, especially Black and Brown communities who live and work in or visit D.C.,” it read.

So, in other words, the same people who want to disarm Americans, thus making them prey to criminals, also want to effectively disarm the police, making residents even more prey to criminals. It makes no sense, especially when you factor in how the locals actually feel.

Last year, dozens of business groups with offices in D.C. penned a letter to Mayor Muriel Bowser expressing “deep concern about the alarming increase in violent crime across our city.”

 

“D.C. is quickly becoming a national outlier in rising crime, and the trends are alarming,” the letter read. “Our organizations are primarily based in the downtown business district, where there have been horrifying acts of violence.”

“Innocent people in neighborhoods across the city have been targeted in robberies, carjackings, and seemingly random acts of violence,” the letter continued.

D.C. Police Union Chairman Gregg Pemberton has also raised concerns about the city’s violent crime epidemic.

“We stand with the President in recognizing that Washington, D.C., cannot continue on this trajectory,” he said in a statement. “Crime is out of control, and our officers are stretched beyond their limits.”

He reiterated this during an appearance this week on Fox News’ “America Reports“:

 

As for Brady, last year it also came out against self-defense, arguing that guns “are rarely used successfully in self-defense.” The stunning claim prompted a fact-check from Breitbart.

“Academic work by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck shows that, at a minimum, guns are used to protect life and property at least 760,000 times a year,” the fact-check reads.

Sen. Murphy’s Crushing NFA Tax Proposal is Really a Preview

The firearm industry and gun owners just got a preview of what’s in store should antigun politicians again be able to force through punitive gun control measures.

It’s a daunting – if not egregious – example of just how much contempt some elected officials have for Second Amendment rights.
U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) slipped in a proposed amendment to a Defense spending bill that would skyrocket the National Firearms Act (NFA) tax to $4,709. That proposal comes just weeks after Congress reduced the tax to $0 from the previous $200 requirement that was in place since 1934.

Gun control advocates like Sen. Murphy don’t just recoil at the idea of lawful gun ownership. Politicians like him, bought and paid for by billionaire gun control benefactors, absolutely loathe the Second Amendment. And they’re willing to make gun owners pay the price. Literally.

Sen. Murphy slipped his proposed amendment into the U.S. House of Representatives spending bill for Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies. That bill, H.R. 3944, is being considered in the U.S. Senate. That’s where Sen. Murphy proposed Senate Amendment 2973, which states, “There shall be levied, collected, and paid on firearms transferred a tax at the rate of $4,709 for each firearm transferred.” That’s specific to the tax allowed by the 1934 NFA, so it would apply to tax stamps for suppressors, short-barrel rifles, short-barrel shotguns and the $5 tax on “Any Other Weapon” would increase to $55 from the current $5 tax.

That’s a 4,709 percent increase from what gun owners are expecting to pay now, and a 2,254.5 percent increase from what gun owners were paying when the $200 tax was in effect. Sen. Murphy didn’t feel the need to punish gun owners for exercising their Second Amendment rights when they were paying the $200 tax. It’s only now that the tax is lifted is he reacting to his frustrations that he couldn’t prevent the changes in the One, Big Beautiful Bill.

More importantly, Sen. Murphy is revealing what he – and his antigun partners – will do if they are in a position to force through unfettered gun control policies. Sen. Murphy would punish law-abiding gun owners, and the firearm industry that serves them, with burdensome policies that would price out everyday Americans from lawful firearm ownership.

If Sen. Murphy were to get his way, Second Amendment rights would become a right in name only. It would “only” be for the elite few who could afford the punitive tax. It would be “only” for those the government deems are affluent enough to afford it and it would “only” be a right that would be accessible until the next time gun control elites raise the price and the bar once again.

States Already Doing It
Critics who scoff at this notion that government officials bent on denying Second Amendment rights would twist the law to make lawful firearm ownership unaffordable aren’t just in a squeeze attempting to explaining Sen. Murphy’s proposal to levy nearly $5,000 each and every time a law-abiding citizen wants to purchase a suppressor, short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun. Those critics know they can’t explain away the fact that there are antigun legislatures in the states that are already doing this.

Currently, California adds an 11 percent excise tax on firearms, firearm parts and ammunition. Colorado passed legislation to add a 6.5 percent excise tax on firearm and ammunition sales. Several other state legislatures – including Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York and Washington have proposed similar “sin taxes” on law-abiding citizens seeking to lawfully exercise their Constitutionally-protected rights to keep and bear arms.

Firearm and ammunition manufacturers already pay a 11 and 10 percent federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition, which funds wildlife conservation, habitat restoration, public land access, construction of public recreational marksmanship ranges and hunter education in all 50 states. This “user-pays” system has generated over $29 billion, when adjusted for inflation, for conservation through the Pittman-Robertson excise tax since its inception in 1937. The industry asked Congress to have this excise tax used for conservation as wildlife populations at the time were struggling. The Pittman-Robertson excise tax enhances the exercise of the Second Amendment rights and enables passing on the American heritage of hunting and recreational sports shooting to the next generation.

In contrast, Sen. Murphy’s $1,000 tax, like one previously proposed by U.S. Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), is unconstitutional because they are transparently intended to suppress the exercise of a constitutional right. Imagine a $1,000 tax on purchasing a book that certain politicians don’t want you to read.

Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), along with U.S. Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), introduced federal legislation to keep antigun politicians from pricing lawful gun ownership out of reach for Americans through “sin taxes.” They introduced the NSSF-supported Unfair Gun Taxes Act as H.R. 2442 and S. 1169, respectively.

The bicameral legislation would prohibit states from implementing excise taxes on firearms and ammunition to fund gun control programs.

Pass HPA & SHORT Act
There’s yet another way Congress can prevent Sen. Murphy from running rampant over Second Amendment rights by jacking up taxes. Congress can take up and pass the Hearing Protect Action (HPA), introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 404 by Rep. Ben Cline (R-Va.) and in the Senate by Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) as S. 364 and the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act as H.R. 2395 by Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) and S. 1162 by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.). Those bills remain an NSSF priority.

HPA would remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act (NFA) and make them accessible for purchase in the same manner as a firearm. That means no more tax stamp requirement (which is currently $0, but which couldn’t be raised to $4,709 by a future antigun Congress in a reconciliation package), fingerprint and photo submissions, redundant background checks, notification to the chief law enforcement officer and, importantly, no registration with the federal government. Suppressors would be available for purchase at retail with a simple Form 4473 and FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verification the same way actual firearms are purchased and transferred. Suppressors would be on display right next to choke tubes.

The SHORT Act would do the same for short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and “any other weapons” that are regulated by the NFA.

The hurdle remains high. It takes 60 votes to clear the filibuster in the Senate. Right now, only 53 senators could be counted on to protect Second Amendment rights. If Sen. Murphy is willing to punish law-abiding American gun owners with thousands of dollars in punitive taxes to put Second Amendment rights beyond their financial means, he assuredly would block HPA or SHORT Act in the Senate. That’s why gun owners must not risk their rights and #GUNVOTE in elections.

Well, he’s nothing but a stooge, grandstanding again.

Murphy Tries to Re-Impose (and Hike) NFA Taxes After Congress Zeroed Them Out

We’ve been reporting on a rider inserted in the House Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill that would force Washington, D.C. to recognize valid concealed carry permits from all U.S. states and territories (as well as end the District’s “no guns allowed” policy for public transportation, but pro-gun Republicans aren’t the only ones trying to use the appropriations process to change gun laws.

Murphy’s trying to insert a rider into the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill with language to undo the NFA reform included in the OBBB and instead raise the transfer tax on NFA items from $200 to $4,709 for each transfer.

As Brady indicates, the nearly $5,000 that Murphy wants to impose essentially indexes the original $200 transfer tax imposed in 1934 to the rate of inflation over the past 90 years. Still, that’s much higher than what we’ve heard proposed from other anti-gun Democrats in Congress, who’ve talked about tripling the $200 tax once they have hte numbers to do so.

And therein lies the problem for Murphy. He can propose any kind of tax increase he wants, but he basically has zero chance of seeing his proposal included in the MCVARA appropriations bill (which has already passed the House). The Republican majority that voted to zero out transfer taxes on suppressors, short-barreled firearms, and “any other weapons” a couple of weeks ago isn’t going to turn around and vote in favor of dramatically hiking the taxes instead.

Murphy’s offered a couple of other amendments to the appropriations bill as well.

Amendment 2972 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to issue a quarterly report on “the number of veterans who should have been reported to the national instant criminal background check system… if such reporting by the Secretary was permitted, and of those veterans, the number of suicides by firearm that occurred in the previous quarter”.

That amendment is a response to another rider that would extend the VA’s prohibition on submitting the names of those veterans who’ve had a fiduciary appointed to handle their affairs to NICS.

A temporary provision in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024 and its extensions (including the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act of 2025) prohibited the VA from making these NICS reports without a judicial finding. That provision, though, is set to expire on September 30 unless Congress includes similar language in this year’s appropriations bill.

And Congress has included that language. Section 412 of the MCVARA bill states:

None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under section 5502 of title 38, United States Code, in any case arising out of the administration by the Secretary of laws and benefits under such title, to report a person who is deemed mentally incapacitated, mentally incompetent, or to be experiencing an extended loss of consciousness as a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective under subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others.

Murphy’s also offered an amendment that would simply strike that language from the appropriations bill so that veterans who’ve had a fiduciary appointed to help manage their financial affairs to be deemed a prohibited person without a judicial finding of dangerousness.

I doubt those amendments are going to fare any better than Murphy’s attempt to jack up NFA taxes by more than 2,000 percent, but gun owners should still be in contact with their Senators to encourage their opposition; both to these amendments and any others that would negatively impact our Second Amendment rights that might be introduced by anti-2A senators.

Pro Forma Kabuki Theater

Democrat Senator Pushes for $4,700 Tax Stamps

A leading anti-gun firebrand on Capitol Hill this week introduced a measure that would skyrocket the federal tax on NFA items, like suppressors and short-barreled firearms.

U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat who has signed on to just about every wandering gun ban and restriction that has come through Congress in the past two decades, on Tuesday suggested new tax rates on NFA items.

His proposed amendment to a Republican military spending bill would set the typical $200 making and transfer tax on most items to $4,709 and move the $5 tax on AOWs to $55.

“If we want to save lives in this country, we have to find a way, come hell or high water, to stop mass legalization of silencers in this country,” said Murphy in a press conference last month on the eve of potential NFA reform in the Republican reconciliation bill, H.R.1, better known as President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

While H.R.1 did not include “mass legalization” of suppressors (they have never been illegal, just taxed since 1934), it did drop the tax rate to $0, effective in January 2026.

National gun control groups quickly welcomed Murphy’s move, with Brady saying, “Thank you, Chris Murphy, for introducing this critical amendment to strike the provision in the big UGLY bill that removed taxes on deadly silencers & other uniquely lethal weapons, and instead adjust taxes to reflect inflation today.”

The likelihood of Murphy’s proposal sticking to the spending bill and making it into law is slim in the Republican-controlled Senate. Still, it signals one of the priorities that Dems will pursue when the polarity of Congress switches.

The Misogyny of the Anti-Gun Movement

A couple of days ago my colleague Tom Knighton wrote about some examples of misogyny in Second Amendment spaces, but the issue is perhaps even more pronounced among gun control advocates.

As Paige Pearson writes at the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s blog, many gun control groups have institutionalized their opposition to women exercising their Second Amendment rights… and they have become more vocal as more women are becoming gun owners.

The Smoking Gun is Everytown for Gun Safety’s media arm that describes itself as “the online resource committed to exposing the gun industry’s” role “in our gun violence epidemic.” Apparently that includes exposing the evils of marketing and advertising in a manner that attracts 50 percent of your possible customer base.

Enter Greg Lickenbrock, who spoke with three marketing and sociology professors from Oregon State University about their observations in advertising towards American women from firearm manufacturers and retailers.

“The fact that we now see women in these ads, and portraying different ‘characters,’ demonstrates the industry’s efforts to increase ownership among women,” Dr. Brett Burkhardt said.

“After a few years of experimenting with sexualized ads that didn’t correlate with increased sales to women, the industry now seems to have landed on an advertising idea that works: showing women as competent and serious gun owners,” added Dr. Michelle Barnhardt.

Dr. Aimee Dinnin Huff offered her thoughts as well. “There isn’t yet an established female American gun owner identity or image that consumers can latch onto. Many ads still rely on gendered assumptions rather than a nuanced understanding of the different types of relationships women have with firearms,” she said.

Dr. Burkhardt added another thought, stating, “These new and more common depictions of women and firearms are examples of how the industry is seeking to naturalize women’s gun ownership.”

Why shouldn’t gun ownership be considered natural for women? Or, to put it another way, why do anti-gunners want to denormalize half the population exercising a fundamental constitutional right?

To be fair, groups like Everytown are just as opposed to guys owning guns as they are with women exercising their 2A rights. But the anti-gunners can’t stand the fact that more women are choosing to purchase a firearm; whether for self-defense, hunting, competitive shooting, or just because it’s fun to spend time at the range. And they absolutely hate that the firearms industry has recognized that a growing number of women are making up their customer base.

Media still widely misrepresents American gun owners as old, white guys but recent trends in firearm purchasing couldn’t put this caricature to rest any better. Over the past five years, the surge of new first-time buyers has made the gun-owning community the most diverse population of gun owners ever. That’s a good thing – as the Second Amendment is for everyone. And that includes women.

Women are featured more prominently today in advertising because more women are buying firearms for any number of reasons – all good ones – and the industry is listening to them. Women’s nights at neighborhood shooting ranges, women-only firearm training classes and even friend groups choosing to go to the range together are all increasingly more popular activities as women choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights in any safe way they choose.

Marketing has changed over the last few decades to follow the customer. For Lickenbrock and others, that means seeing a lot more women with guns. And that’s a good thing.

I certainly think so, and if you’re reading this I’m relatively sure you’re in agreement with Pearson too. The gun control lobby, on the other hand, isn’t just going to clutch its collective pearls. They too will be targeting women with anti-gun messaging and campaigns designed to discourage them from keeping and bearing arms; portraying it as something that’s far too dangerous for ladies to engage in… and ignoring stories about women saving their own lives thanks to their decision to become a gun owner.

Cynical Publius

Dear Democrats:

Hey. How’ve you been?

It’s been a rough 25 years. It feels like ever since that hanging chad election in 2000, we have been at each others’ throats. Mostly this is because we’ve let the hyperbole and the wild conspiracy theories control us on both sides. Now I say that is 80% you and 20% us (because you control the media), and we’ve done our fair share with Birthers and Big Mikers, but the bottom line is that neither side trusts what the other side says.

That’s a shame.

I get why you may not trust us. But you are going to have to on what we are about to tell you. Sometimes objective truths need to be said, and we’re about to say them.

Buckle up Buttercups. What you are about to read is 100%, verifiably true:

1. In the 2016 presidential election, the Hillary Clinton campaign fabricated out of the ether a wholly fictional “dossier” alleging that Donald Trump was an agent of the Russian Federation.

2. This “dossier” was shared with intelligence and law enforcement agencies in the friendly Obama Administration, and treated as reliable intelligence even though those agencies knew it was highly suspect.

3. This wholly-fabricated “dossier” was then used as a legal basis for surveillance and wiretaps on members of the Trump Team before and after the election, and the communications equipment in the Trump Transition Team HQ in New York was in fact wiretapped by the Obama Administration.

4. After the election was over and Trump had won, the intelligence community determined that there was no material Russian interference in the election. Barack Obama directed them to reverse that finding.

5. This new, false finding, coupled with the ongoing concerns regarding the dossier became the bases for a concerted effort by the Obama Administration to prevent Donald Trump from ever taking office, even though the American people had just elected him. The ongoing Potemkin Villages of the dossier and the IC report were the bases for numerous unlawful warrants on the Trump team, the creation of interview traps where Trump members might incriminate themselves by making a false statement to the FBI, and generally encircling the entire Trump transition team via subterfuge and placing them in a public aura of an illegal enterprise and not a validly-elected administration.

6. With the Obama plan unable to prevent Trump from taking office, his loyalists who remained in the new Trump Administration did their very best to work towards removing Trump via scandal, with James Comey being the chief bagman via the bogus dossier.

7. While everything described above was happening, it was all being leaked to the media in an effort to discredit and cripple the Trump Administration. Often bogus information would be fed to a media source, the source would report it, and then the fact that the media reported the bogus information was used by Democrat operatives as a basis for legitimizing it, i.e. “the wrap up smear.”

8. All of the above became such a burden on the new Trump Administration that a special prosecutor, Robert Mueller, was appointed to cut through to the truth. Unfortunately Mueller was relying on the same fake dossier and bogus IC reports, so bogus data led to a bogus investigation that served no other purpose than to cripple the Trump Administration for two years.

9. To summarize points #1 through #8 above, the Obama/Hillary plan had three steps: (i) spread Russia lies so Trump loses the election; (ii) if Trump wins the election, spread Russia lies so he is never inaugurated; and (iii) if he is inaugurated, spread Russia lies to cripple his ability to govern.

10. After Trump lost in 2020 and he started indicating that he would run again, the Obama team, now with Biden installed in the White House as a puppet, knew they could not let him win as he would unravel what they had done, make it public, and potentially cause a bunch of them to end up in prison. So they coordinated lawfare attacks on Trump across the nation using Democrat operatives, thinking that Trump would end up in prison or his reputation would be in such tatters that he could never be elected. That backfired.

11. Trump got elected in 2024.

12. On July 18, 2025, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released a treasure trove of heretofore hidden information which, alongside already-public information about the fake dossier, shows that everything we say above is 100%, inarguably, reliably, factually, objectively accurate.

We repeat, everything written above is VERIFIABLY, OBJECTIVELY TRUE.

We know you love to say how much you “love democracy.”

Do you? Do you REALLY “love democracy”?

What is described above is the most undemocratic thing imaginable.

Forget any arguments about whether something was criminal or the statute of limitations or whatever other technicality distractor gets thrown out there, we have a very simple question for you:

HOW CAN YOU TOLERATE THIS?

Please consider this letter a peace offering. If you are willing to acknowledge what transpired and offer an apology, we might be able to begin to trust each just a teeny bit. We are all Americans, after all.

Sincerely,

The American Coalition of Non-Smoothbrained Conservatives

The Bombshell Tulsi Gabbard Just Dropped on the Russian Collusion Hoax Should Terrify Every American

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Friday released an earth-shattering report detailing how federal agencies under the Obama administration manipulated intelligence findings to concoct and promote the Russiagate hoax.

This, along with earlier revelations about how intelligence agencies pushed the false narrative about President Donald Trump and Russia, shows just how deep the scheme ran.

In the lead-up to the 2016 election, multiple internal assessments concluded that the Russian government was not trying to influence the outcome of the race, according to a memo that Gabbard released. Multiple intelligence agencies came to the same conclusion.

On August 31, 2016, “a DHS official tells former DNI James Clapper that there was ‘no indication of a Russian threat to directly manipulate the actual vote count.’”

Nevertheless, the FBI allegedly asked the agencies to water down their assessments to avoid coming to solid conclusions. On September 2, the Bureau asked that a whistleblower’s report be “softened” and acknowledged that they were “uncomfortable” with implying “definitive information that Russia does intend to disrupt our elections.”

Later, an official with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) insisted that the next Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) should affirm that the Kremlin “probably is not trying…to influence the elction by using cyber means.” Several IC officials concurred.

These assessments resulted in the September 12 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which noted that “foreign adversaries do not have and will probably not obtain the capabilities to successfully execute widespread and undetected cyber attacks on election infrastructure.”

After Trump won the 2016 election, intelligence officials reaffirmed that Russian cyber operations had not influenced the outcome. However, the assessment was abruptly suppressed. In December, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office started compiling a new Presidential Daily Briefing that also confirmed that Russia did not sway the results of the race.

However, Gabbard’s memo notes that the FBI “inexplicably withdraws from coordinating on the product” and expressed plans to draft a dissent. Later in the day, a senior PDB official kills the PDB ‘based on some new guidance.’” The original briefing, noting that Russia did not affect the election, was never published.

Continue reading “”

When It Comes To Islam, Are We In The West Too Stupid To Survive?
By Richard C. Crandall

I question whether we will survive as a nation or are even worth saving. If nothing else, our refusal to recognize Islam for what it is seems to presage our demise.

Putting aside the damage leftism does to American culture, we are also at risk from Islam, about which we still remain appallingly ignorant 24 years after 9/11. Instead, we have adopted the myth of “Moderate Muslims.” Before elaborating on Moderate Muslims, we must ask, “What other groups get to use the prefix “moderate?” During WWII, were there moderate Nazi members of Congress who claimed to only believe in the “good” parts of Mein Kampf, such as free health care. Were there moderate members of the KKK who only went out occasionally lynching, burning, and raping? And where are the moderate wife beaters who avoid hitting the face and who don’t leave visible bruising?

Moderate Muslims adopt a cafeteria approach to Islam, ignoring those they dislike or that play badly in the West, all while clinging to the core message: A worldwide caliphate, free of all other faiths, except those that are useful to their Islamic overlords.

Continue reading “”

24 years after 9/11 and Noo Yawk goes for this….

Zohran Mamdani: “VioIence is an Artificial Construction”

New York City’s Democratic voters chose Zohran Mamdani as their nominee. It says a lot about how bad Mamdani is, though, that a lot of people thought the allegedly handsy former governor of New York, who left office in disgrace, was a better option, but the voters have spoken.

While it’s entirely possible someone else will prevail in the general election, the odds are good that Mamdani will win based on current polling.

There’s a lot for me to dislike about Mamdani, including his previous call to ban all guns, but a lot of New Yorkers aren’t going to disagree with that on any level, unfortunately, and since I can’t vote against him, my own feelings are irrelevant.

But there’s a reason everyone in the Big Apple should be concerned, and that’s just how soft on crime he’s shaping up to be.

For example, he says that violence is an artificial construct.

Now, I get that he’s claiming that non-violent crimes are being prosecuted as acts of violence, even when they’re not, but I’m rather skeptical of that claim without some hard evidence backing it up. [Editor’s Note: New York actually prosecutes gun possession without a permit as a violent crime, so there is some evidence that’s the case – Cam]

Breaking into a business that has an attached but separate dwelling isn’t likely to be viewed as the same as breaking into a home in court. I seriously doubt a prosecutor would even try it.

Of course, sometimes horrible things happen. Vile people do vile things, even if they work in a prosecutor’s office or with law enforcement. I get that.

But the language here matters.

Mamdani could have just started off by arguing that people are overprosecuted and left it there. That’s something people will likely rally behind and something that his opponents will have a hard time attacking him for.

Instead, though, he says “violence is an artificial construction,” which is the kind of language we hear in a lot of other debates. Gender is an artificial construct. Gender roles are an artificial construct. Even rights have been termed as artificial constructs.

In short, the term “artificial construct” or “artificial construction” is a common buzzword used for undermining the mere existence of a thing.

Violence, on the other hand, isn’t. How we define “good” and “bad” forms of violence might be, but the act of being violent is no such thing. It’s an objective fact that violence happens, that people do it to others, and victims get hurt as a result.

This isn’t artificial, nor is it constructed.

What Mamdani is doing, even if unintentionally, is laying the groundwork to excuse violent crime entirely because if it’s an artificial construction, then there’s no reason to punish it beyond our need to uphold this artificial construction. Since it’s clear he’s hostile toward such artificial constructions, it seems that he favors violence not being punished.

It’s a reasonable extrapolation, after all.

Overprosecution, which may or may not be happening, isn’t a case of violence being an artificial construction. It’s a case of prosecutors crossing the line from what is acceptable and just to injustice and unacceptability.

Mamdani’s entire argument, however, hinges on this idea, which means that it’s a good thing the Bruen decision put an end to shall-issue permitting in New York City, because New Yorkers are probably going to need those guns pretty soon if he’s elected.

Well, that’s definitely not ‘good behavior’……

Impeach: A Judge Decides to Ignore the Supreme Court on Deportation Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s deportations to third-world countries can continue without limited notice, blocking an injunction by a little judge who sought to wrest immigration policy away from the executive. The high court slapped down Judge Brian Murphy’s order, but like James Boasberg, another disgrace to the bench, he’s ignoring the ruling.

This isn’t normal. While the president can remove people under the Alien Enemies Act, these judicial insurrectionists tried to claim that due process had to be applied. That’s ludicrous; none of the illegals Obama deported had court dates. It’s another episode of the judicial coup against the Trump administration. Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said to be prepared for fireworks over what they will do to hold this little judge accountable.

Obama pines for a social media Ministry of Truth:

“We want diversity of opinion. We don’t want diversity of facts…it will require some government regulatory constraints.”
“There is a difference between these platforms letting all voices be heard, versus a business model that elevates the most hateful voices, or the most polarizing voices or the most dangerous in the sense of inciting violence.”
“And I that I think is going to be a big challenge for all of us that we’re going to have to undertake.”

Obama-approved narratives must go unchallenged, according to Obama.

“Watermelon”  = ‘Green’ on the outside, Red on the inside.

Green group with ties to Chinese Communist Party part of network influencing U.S. policy.

A national-security watchdog group is asking members of Congress to take a closer look at an energy transition advocacy nonprofit that has ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). According to State Armor, the watchdog group, nonprofits are coordinating with U.S. climate groups to influence climate policy, advance the interests of the CCP and undermine U.S. national security.

A new report by State Armor argues that the CCP is co-opting the American progressive climate change lobby to advance a transition away from fossil fuels. The alternative technologies being pushed by this lobby, according to the report, create significant economic and geopolitical advantages by undermining U.S. energy dominance and leaving it dependent on Chinese supply chains for its energy production.

“It creates a dependence on our side and deprives us of a natural strength, which is our energy independence that comes from other resources,” Michael Lucci, CEO of State Armor, told Just the News. State Armor is a non-profit organization dedicated to advocating for state solutions to global security threats.

Continue reading “”

The Truth Is, They Do Want a King

I just returned from a wonderful week away enjoying time with my family and dear friends to find a lot of chatter about “No Kings” from the predictable group of left-wing Marxists, and their good friend Bill Kristol. It would seem laughable if this rebrand of revolutionary angst were not proven deadly already. Rather than burning urban areas under BLM flags, the revolutionaries are now shooting elected officials at home under the banner of contempt that pretends to dislike monarchies. As I noted recently, these dark and satanic ideologies imported openly into the American polis through the writings of Marx are deadly and should be removed from society as poison is drawn from a wound.

Those who wish death to America are not limited to the ayatollahs of Tehran. The tragic reality is that those inside the United States who hate this nation likely outnumber those who feel the same way from the Middle East. This is the product of generations of successful indoctrination imparted by the government schooling system. Education is not just about reading, writing, and arithmetic. It has always been about transmitting values. Those who hate the American way know it and act accordingly. This must be dealt with if ordered liberty is to stand a chance beyond our lifetimes.

The “No Kings” protest movement is organized and aimed at resurrecting the terror that gripped this nation during the 2020 summer of rage. The majority of Americans finally tired of the fictional, manipulative narratives of the Black Lives Matter and allied transgender movement over the last couple of years and voted accordingly in 2024. As Dr. Ben Carson shared with me recently, the results of the last election lulled too many conservatives into believing that political evil is defeated in our time—when the reality is that those who wish death to our way of life have been regrouping and plotting a counterassault. That counter assault was attempted in several U.S. cities recently through allegedly anti-immigration law enforcement, most notably in Los Angeles. Even in that city defined in our time as a protest center, the deep blue governing officials couldn’t get away with aiding and abetting lawlessness as usual. So they quickly rebranded the movement to “No Kings.” In doing so, they signal the brainless and fictional narrative that Donald is ruling as a dictatorial king, who curiously allows protests against him. The hypocrisy of that argument requires an entire volume to dissect.

As the saying goes, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. The protestors hope to tap into a patriotic root with this iteration of rhetorical schema, rallying a wider coalition based on the nation’s rejection of monarchial rule in the 18th century. They will fail because the branding can’t get even skin deep.

Look around at who is showing up to these supposed “No Kings” events. It’s the same Randi Weingarten-esque group bussed in to every other anti-American protest. The iconography of their signs remains intact from the previous protests, sporting the usual color patterns associated with Ukraine and the sexual liberation movement. What you won’t find is a Betsy Ross flag, which served as the nation’s colors at the time of our ancestors’ rebellion against an *actual* king. America’s left wing decided it, and the nation’s founding, is racist. Given such logic, honest activists would demand to become subjects of King Charles III.

But let’s lay all that aside for a moment and talk about how to respond to one of these “No Kings” protestors from a position that grants a basis of dignity in approach. I offer this: the left wing is desperate for a king. Everything about progressivism yearns for someone who will make all things safe, who will guarantee the right to all self-centered behavior, who will provide all things needed for one to live in equity rather than through what one earns. Progressivism demands a king who will uphold its cause zealously, and punish people who dare to assert that the law should provide rights and reasonable limitations equally to all citizens for the purpose of a virtuous society.

Their king will tell you what you can drive, what you can say, what you can eat, and how you may use your land. They want a king who will literally cover your face and inject your body, a king who will take your children if you deny transgender ideology, a ruler who will terminate your bank accounts and your job if you stray from depraved thinking. The progressive left wing wants what it has always wanted: power. It needs—no, demands—a dark lord who will, as the great novelist J.R.R. Tolkien wrote, rule them, find them, and bind them in darkness.

No, the protestors we see now do not reject a king. They demand one.

Scripture assures that those who want to live under dark rule will eventually get their wish. But we dare not hasten those days. So long as God gives us the strength, we must be sure to prevent that coronation from happening.

Israel Tricked Iran’s Top Dogs Into Gathering, Then Took Them Out

Israel managed to trigger an emergency where most of Iran‘s military top brass gathered in one place. Then Israel took them all out.

One of the marvels of yesterday was the Israeli military’s incredible precision and effectiveness. It can blast a terrorist leader to his eternal reward without destroying the whole building. It could have a secret drone base in Iran. And it could apparently induce most of Iran’s military — especially air force — leaders to group together in one place for their own annihilation.

It is too bad that Israel didn’t take out Iran’s political leaders, including the ever-insidious Ayatollah Khamenei, but Israel definitely had its hands full, and it did incredibly well. After all, with reportedly every one of the top air force and several of the other top military leadership gone, presumably it will be much more difficult for Iran to plan its retaliation against Israel, especially since Israel also took out a lot of its military targets and thus its weapons. There might not be — hopefully — an awful lot left ready to fire at Israel.

Fox News talked to an Israeli security officer who claimed that it was no coincidence that so many Iranian military leaders, all of whom have been complicit in terrorist activities, had conveniently gathered together for an Israeli strike. “We carried out specific activities to help us learn more about them, and then used that information to influence their behavior,” the source told Fox. “We knew this would lead them to meet — but more importantly, we knew how to keep them there.”

The official added that the strikes were more successful than Israel had anticipated. According to the source, air defense systems and ballistic missiles that were intended for use against Israel were preemptively targeted.

So was a nuclear facility. Among the Iranian casualties were most of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps’ (IRGC) Air Force leadership, according to Fox, including commander Amir Ali Hajizadeh, along with Revolutionary Guard leader Gen. Hossein Salami and armed forces chief of staff Gen. Mohammad Bagheri. They have gone to join their master below.

We’ve been told for so many years that Iran was close to a nuclear weapon that we have become bored with it, but let’s be honest — isn’t it entirely possible Iran has a nuclear weapon, which no one wanted to admit? Or maybe they did have one before last night.

Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations told Fox that Iran has been planning to attack the United States and Israel. In fact, Iran was already attacking Israel through its terror proxies, the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah. And the Iranian regime certainly prioritizes hatred for America and Israel. Whatever was going on behind the scenes in Iran, it is true however that the Israeli attack yesterday seriously crippled the genocidal regime.