Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

Iran’s Quds Force Commander Esmail Qaani killed in Israeli strike, reports say. Who was he?

Esmail Qaani took command of Iran’s Quds Force after the assassination of his predecessor, Qasem Soleimani, in a US drone strike in 2020

The Quds Force is an elite branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) responsible for extraterritorial military operations and supporting proxy groups across the Middle East.

Qaani began his military career during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, leading several brigades before becoming deputy commander of the Quds Force in 1997, serving under Soleimani. Unlike Soleimani, who was often seen on the frontlines with Tehran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria, Qaani has maintained a lower profile, conducting meetings privately and away from public view. His leadership has coincided with increased Israeli airstrikes against Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah and other paramilitary groups.

In October 2024, Qaani was reported missing after Israeli airstrikes targeted the southern Beirut suburb of Dahiyeh. He had travelled to Lebanon following the death of Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who was killed in an Israeli strike in late September. The attack also targeted Hashem Safieddine, Nasrallah’s presumed successor, who has also been unreachable since.

BLUF
Either Kinzinger knows all this and is willfully trying to deceive his audience, or he’s an ignorant buffoon who thinks he’s much smarter than he really is. I won’t hazard a guess about what’s more likely, but either way folks are better off tuning out what he has to say.

I don’t have to ‘guess’. From all his prior anti-civil rights rants, Kinzinger-precisely-fits a description of a domestic enemy.

Kinzinger Delivers What Might Be the Dumbest Take on the Second Amendment Ever

I lost whatever respect I might have had for former Congressman Adam Kinzinger when he said he was open a ban on so-called assault weapons in 2022. Since his departure from Congress, Kinzinger has embraced a number of anti-gun proposals, even telling a gathering in Chicago in 2023 that ““Second Amendment people should be on the front line of gun control.” Kinzinger didn’t mean on the front lines defending against gun control. No, he means we should be advocating for “reasonable solutions to gun violence” like banning young adults from keeping and bearing arms.

As dumb as those comments were, they pale in comparison to Kinzinger’s latest invocation of the Second Amendment, which he now insists is about “guaranteeing a state a right to a militia.”

I’m not sure why Gavin Newsome doesn’t activate the rest of his army guard to prevent the president from it or force him to overrule it…. Then fight on the second amendment guaranteeing a state a right to a militia. How can a state have a militia if the president can simply…

— Adam Kinzinger (Slava Ukraini) 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@AdamKinzinger) June 10, 2025
Since that post Kinzinger has doubled down on his hare-brained theory, both on X (where he was quickly rebuked by Charles C.W. Cooke):

This is astonishingly illiterate. See, inter alia, Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 and Article II, Section 2. Moreover, as Scalia noted, it’s precisely *because* the federal government has plenary power here that the individual rights reading of the Second Amendment (the Standard… https://t.co/dSv2vG8oPt

— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) June 10, 2025
and in a post on his Substack, where he argues:

If we believe in the Second Amendment’s invocation of a state-based militia, we need to reconcile it with the uncomfortable truth that the National Guard, as currently structured, doesn’t really fit that mold. Either we redefine what we mean by “militia,” or we face the fact that state-controlled military forces don’t exist in a meaningful way when they can be federalized at will.

Kinzinger probably should have read through the Heller decision before declaring himself an expert on the intricacies of the Second Amendment. As the Supreme Court made clear, the amendment has nothing to do with guaranteeing a state a “right to a militia”. Nor does it require serving in a militia in order to keep and bear arms.

Continue reading “”

Why Is Governor Newsom Going Full Jefferson Davis?

Victor Davis Hanson

What triggered the American Civil War were state officials who refused to honor federal law and instead boasted of their open defiance of Washington.

That precedent apparently is the incendiary model for the weird, but dangerous recent behavior of an increasingly unhinged California Governor Gavin Newsom.

He is currently supporting the often-violent protestors in Los Angeles and their resistance to federal officials’ enforcement of immigration laws.

Newsom claimed that Trump’s use of ICE to detain those here illegally in the U.S. was “reckless”, “chaotic” and “eroding trust”.

Does he think that his own rhetoric is creating calm and building trust by opposing the lawful enforcement of federal statutes? Or is he following the baleful model of arch-Confederate rebel Jefferson Davis?

Does Newsom support the similar defiance of fellow resistor Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass? She all but called for official city resistance to the enforcement of federal law, with an added threat, “We will not stand for this.”

What does Bass—who recently was junketing in Ghana as entire swaths of Los Angeles were incinerated—mean by “we”? All of Los Angeles? The LAPD?

Will Bass use the LA police to stand against federal officers who are implementing the law and have a constitutional right and indeed requirement to enforce federal laws within the states?

Does the governor grasp that his reckless states’ rights rhetoric empowers violent protestors who torch cars, pelt passersbys, and assault officers?

Take, for example, fellow California Democrat, Congresswoman Norma Torres. She just messaged federal immigration officers with the obscene threat, “Get the f— out of LA.”

Does Torres believe that Los Angeles should become a modern-day South Carolina of 1861, boasting that it will defy the federal government?

Is Torres echoing Democrat and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries? He just boasted that he would dox endangered ICE agents, publishing their personal information and revealing their identities (“Every single one of them, no matter what it takes, no matter how long it takes, will of course be identified.”).

How exactly does Rep. Torres think she is going to get federal officers “the f— out of LA”?

Does Torres consider the now outnumbered and often threatened ICE officers to be the modern versions of surrounded federal troops at Fort Sumner?

Newsom did just not stop at siding with violent resistors to federal officers.

He again took on the federal government and the Trump administration for reminding California that it is subject to federal fines for its current defiance of federal Title 9-related presidential executive orders barring transgendered biological men from competing in women’s sports.

Trump recently was merely following the precedent of the Obama administration that first issued such warnings of cut-offs to educational institutions that might not abide its own Title 9 federal policies and directives.

Here is how Newsom worded his threats of insurrectionary resistance to Washington:

“Californians pay the bills for the federal government. We pay over $80 BILLION more in taxes than we get back. Maybe it’s time to cut that off”.

Cut that off?

Has the rebellious Newsom read the U.S. Constitution? Is he calling for us Californians not to pay our federal income taxes?

Does he know that he just de facto called for federal tax evasion—an act that could be construed as a felony under 18 U.S.C. Section 2 of the federal tax code?

States do not have the legal authority to override the federal government by arbitrarily withholding federally warranted income taxes from its U.S. citizens. In 1861 such defiance almost destroyed the U.S.

And does a clueless Newsom really believe that California’s $80 billion surplus of taxes versus receivables with the U.S. Treasury actually pays “the bills for the federal government”? Hardly.

In truth, it amounts to no more than 1.5 percent of the annual $5.5 trillion in federal revenue?

Does Newsom even realize that California taxpayers are American citizens first, and California residents second?

Or has his past advocacy for defiant sanctuary cities and current nullification of federal law made him a states’ rights rebel in the past fashion of George Wallace’s Alabama resistance?

Beside their Confederate-like defiant threats to resist federal laws, do Newsom, Bass, and Torres realize they are clearly on the wrong side of public opinion?

Despite the media and leftwing hysterias, even the liberal CBS poll just reported that 54 percent of Americans still support deportation as a legitimate means of enforcement of federal immigration law.

In contrast, Newsom’s latest polls show that just 2 percent of Democrats envision him as their 2028 party presidential nominee.

Worse, in the most recent average of some 30 polls, only 27 percent of those surveyed expressed a favorable opinion of Newsom.

Does he think that illegal aliens violently breaking the laws of the nation in which they demand to stay and burning its flag, while waving the flag of the foreign country to which they refuse to return, will win the support of the American people?

Does he grasp that 75 percent of Americans support the deportation of illegal aliens who commit criminal acts like many of those currently in the Los Angeles protests?

Or is Newsom signaling that given all these polls he prefers to end his political career—and so just blew it up?

It’s Not Fascism When We Do It

Hakeem Jeffries is threatening ICE agents.

“Every single ICE agent who’s engaged in this aggressive overreach and are trying to hide their identities from the American people will be unsuccessful in doing that,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said at a press conference Tuesday.

“This is America. This is not the Soviet Union. We’re not behind the Iron Curtain. This is not the 1930s. And every single one of them, no matter what it takes, no matter how long it takes, will, of course, be identified.”

 

And this would appear to be illegal.

18 U.S. Code § 119 – Protection of individuals performing certain official duties

In General.—Whoever knowingly makes restricted personal information about a covered person, or a member of the immediate family of that covered person, publicly available—

(1) with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite the commission of a crime of violence against that covered person, or a member of the immediate family of that covered person; or

(2) with the intent and knowledge that the restricted personal information will be used to threaten, intimidate, or facilitate the commission of a crime of violence against that covered person, or a member of the immediate family of that covered person,

(2) the term “covered person” means—

a State or local officer or employee whose restricted personal information is made publicly available because of the participation in, or assistance provided to, a Federal criminal investigation by that officer or employee;

ICE agents are covered against these threats that Jeffries made, and I hope Pam Bondi, the US Attorney General, is paying attention. There are those who have lost confidence in Bondi, but right now, she is the best hope conservatives have if we want to see justice applied evenly.

Continue reading “”

Tiananmen Square Anniversary: Chinese-American Warns U.S. to Protect Gun Rights

Today is the anniversary of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) troops storming Tiananmen Square to massacre the freedom protesters who had gathered there. A survivor of the CCP’s tyranny who now lives in the U.S. has a message for Americans this anniversary: Don’t give up your guns.

Lily Tang Williams is an American citizen now, an entrepreneur who is running for Congress in New Hampshire. But the self-described “Survivor of Mao’s Cultural Revolution” remembers all too well the nightmare of Communist rule in China, and on the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, she emphasized how vitally important the right to keep and bear arms is in preventing such massacres by dictatorial regimes.

Williams took to X to commemorate the anniversary and reaffirm the United States’ Second Amendment. She included a screenshot of her previous post, which warned that the “champion of all the mass killings in this world is always a tyrannical government.”

 

Her previous post referred to the slaughter by the CCP troops of thousands of students at Tiananmen Square, and expressed regret that the students in 1989 did not have guns like the ones she is able to own now in America. “I am a Chinese immigrant and an American citizen by choice. I once was a slave before and I will never be one again,” Williams wrote.

The U.S. State Department and Secretary Marco Rubio put out a statement, too, honoring the “bravery” of the Chinese freedom protesters and explaining:

In the spring of 1989, tens of thousands of students gathered in Beijing’s largest public square to mourn the passing of a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader who tried to steer China toward a more open and democratic system. Their actions inspired a national movement.

Hundreds of thousands of ordinary people in the capital and throughout China took to the streets for weeks to exercise their freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly by advocating for democracy, human rights, and an end to rampant corruption.

The CCP responded with a brutal crackdown, sending the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to open fire in an attempt to extinguish the pro-democracy sentiments of unarmed civilians gathered on Beijing’s streets and in Tiananmen Square.

The fact that the civilians were unarmed is precisely what Williams was warning about in her statements.

On her website, Williams says, “I grew up under Mao’s cultural revolution in China and fled communism for the freedom of the United States. Now, I fear the country I love is becoming the country I left.” It is a fear that many of us have experienced in recent years as we witnessed the attacks on our rights by the Biden administration, and now the increasing dictatorial activism of the judiciary. But one way to deter government tyranny is to exercise our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, to be ready always to stand up for ourselves and our liberties, as the Founding Fathers were.

Hobbs vetoes bill banning China from owning land in Arizona

Arizona’s Democratic governor has vetoed legislation that would have barred the Chinese government from owning land in the state.

The GOP-backed measure banned the People’s Republic of China — including enterprises that are totally owned by the Chinese government and subdivisions of the Chinese government — from having a substantial interest in Arizona property. The bill defines a substantial interest as a stake of 30% or more.

Sen. Janae Shamp, the Republican sponsor of Senate Bill 1109, said during a debate of the bill on Feb. 26 that it was aimed at protecting U.S. military bases from spying, and she alleged that has already happened in Arizona.

“The actual Chinese government, our enemy, was trying to lease buildings near the (Luke Air Force) base,” Shamp said. “(N)ot making sure that we are protecting our national security or our men and women on the ground here in Arizona is ludicrous to me.”

Reports about the Chinese government purchasing land near military bases in the U.S. has, in many cases, been misleading.

Democrats in the state House of Representatives and Senate shared concerns that the original version of Shamp’s proposal was unconstitutional and that it would lead to discrimination in land sales.

A substantial amendment to the bill, passed through the House on May 6, allayed some of those concerns. The initial version of the bill banned certain people and businesses from countries designated as enemies of the United States by the director of national intelligence from owning land in Arizona. There were exceptions for small plots of residential land more than 50 miles away from a U.S. military installation. The amended version narrowed the ban to only the Chinese government and its subsidiaries.

The Arizona House of Representatives approved the amended bill on May 7 by a vote of 41-17, with eight Democrats voting in favor alongside Republicans. The Arizona Senate gave its final approval of the bill by a vote of 17-11 along party lines on May 28.

In her veto letter on June 2, Gov. Katie Hobbs wrote that protecting infrastructure was important.

“However, this legislation is ineffective at counter-espionage and does not directly protect our military assets,” she said in the letter. “Additionally, it lacks clear implementation criteria and opens the door to arbitrary enforcement.”

In the language of the bill, Shamp claimed that its “protection of this state’s military, commercial and agricultural assets from foreign espionage and sabotage will place this state in a significantly stronger position to withstand national security threats.”

Far-right Republican Sen. Wendy Rogers, of Flagstaff, on May 28 said that she had sponsored a similar bill a few years ago and was perplexed when it was voted down on the Senate floor. (Rogers sponsored her legislation in 2022 and 2023. Neither bill received a vote by the full Senate.)

“I hope it’s not too late,” Rogers said, before voting for Senate Bill 1109.

Inside the Anti-Gun Playbook: How Propaganda Manipulates the Public

I’d like to recommend a little light reading for your weekend, and it won’t cost you a cent. It’s Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging, a downloadable 84-page book containing almost all the strategies and tactics employed by the gun control gang.

One thing you will notice is that the Second Amendment gets very little mention, and what it does get is almost entirely about Antonin Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. McDonald v. City of Chicago gets a brief mention, too.

This isn’t surprising: Knowledgeable gun-control fans know there’s nothing they can do about the Second Amendment itself. The process described in Article V of the U.S. Constitution and the fact that the gun-grabbers would have to persuade 38 states to ratify a new amendment is a barrier to the hopes of all but the most optimistic gun control Pollyannas.

The book came out in 2012, so there’s no mention of Bruen or Rahimi. It was also when the National Rifle Association was riding high and membership was peaking. As you might expect, the NRA is the principal villain in this book, sort of like the Death Star in Star Wars or Godzilla.

The book’s emphasis on emotional appeals as propaganda displays a quite unflattering cynicism. They’re shedding crocodile tears while standing on the bodies of the slain, demanding laws that wouldn’t have saved them.

The books authors emphasize avoidance of “(t)he political food fight in Washington or wonky statistics.” That’s almost humorous, considering how “wonky” the statistics used by Everytown and Giffords really are.

Sources like the Gun Violence Archive inflate the number of mass shootings: So far in 2025, the GVA claims there have been 124 mass shootings in the U.S. while the Violence Prevention Project, which has a far more exhaustively researched database, reports no mass shootings since September last year.

But which number, 124 or zero, is more likely to be on the evening news?

It’s just like the exaggerations in the K-12 School Shooting Database I mentioned in a previous article.

In his classic 1984, George Orwell wrote: “And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth.”

It’s called the Big Lie. Adolf Hitler also wrote about it in Mein Kampf. The idea is if you’re going to lie, make it a big lie; repeat it frequently. Eventually, the public will come to accept the Big Lie.

How effective is this? In February 2019, Marist conducted a poll of 880 adults. The survey was commissioned by NPR and PBS and covered ‘popular’ gun control laws.

The results were as one would expect: Big numbers for the gun-grabbers’ agenda.

However, the last question on the survey unintentionally affirmed how well the Big Lie works.

The question was: “From what you have heard or read, do you think, compared to 25 years ago, the per capita gun murder rate in the U.S. is higher, lower, or about the same?”

59% of the survey group said the rate had gone up; 23% said it was about the same.

According to data from the FBI and the CDC, over the 25 years from 1994 to 2018, the murder rate plunged 37 percent.

82% of those responding believed something demonstrably untrue.

Was that ever mentioned in the media coverage of the study? No.

Continue reading “”

The Good, Bad, and Ugly News on the Fight to De-Regulate Suppressors

The fight over removing suppressors from the National Firearms Act has primarily moved to the Senate for the moment, but there are legal and political battles still being fought over the devices in courthouses and committee chambers, and the Trump administration has given both sides some ammunition in its latest filing in a case called U.S. v. Peterson.

Louisiana resident George Peterson was charged with possession of an unregistered suppressor in 2022, and was found guilty in U.S. District Court. Earlier this year a three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit upheld that conviction, ruling that suppressors aren’t protected by the Second Amendment because they’re not “arms”.

Peterson has hired a team of seasoned Second Amendment attorneys including David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and Cody J. Wisniewski to represent him as he seeks an en banc review of the panel’s decision, but in its latest filing the DOJ is still advocating against a broader review by the entire appellate court.

The good news is that the DOJ has, for the first time that I’m aware of, adopted the position that suppressors are, in fact, protected arms under the Second Amendment. In a filing last Friday, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana Michael M. Simpson noted that the federal government as “re-evaluated” its previous position.

In the view ofthe United States, the Second Amendment protects firearm accessories and components such as suppressors. As a result, restrictions on the possession of suppressors burden the right to bear arms, and a ban on the possession of suppressors or other similar accessories would be unconstitutional. The government’s earlier argument to the contrary was incorrect.

The bad news is that in that same filing the DOJ contends that the inclusion of suppressors in the National Firearms Act, and indeed the NFA itself, is not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

But the National Firearms Act’s registration and taxation requirement is constitutional because it imposes a modest burden on a firearm accessory that is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition because suppressors are specially adaptable to criminal misuse. For this reason, the panel correctly affirmed Peterson’s conviction.

Gun control groups are going to have a field day with the Trump administration’s position that suppressors are “specially adaptable to criminal misuse” at the same time Republicans are trying to de-regulate them. And Second Amendment advocates should be up in arms (so to speak) over Simpson’s contention that the registration and taxing of a constitutionally-protected item are just “modest” burdens on the right to keep and bear arms.

Simpson’s argument that the NFA’s registration requirement is no big deal is extraordinarily bad. Current federal statute bars the government from establishing or maintaining a list of gun owners, but now the DOJ (or at least one U.S. Attorney) is essentially arguing that requiring gun owners to register their arms with the federal government wouldn’t violate the Second Amendment. Simpson takes pains to stress that taxing suppressors is okay because they’re supposedly “pose a special danger of misuse”, but he never really explains why or if registration would apply only to those arms that are especially dangerous (at least in the eyes of the goverment).

Simpson’s take on NFA taxes is also wildly inaccurate. The NFA’s tax requirement was meant to pose a substantial burden on buyers of restricted items, and while a $200 transfer tax and $200 making tax isn’t as cost-prohibitive as it was back in 1934, tacking an additional $400 on the price of a suppressor does mean that some folks will be unable to afford one. But Simpson maintains that those taxes (again, at least when it comes to arms that pose a “special danger of misuse”) “are no more burdensome than a variety of other constitutional regulations, such as the requirements that a firearm purchaser obtain a background check or that a person licensed to carry a firearm undergo safety training and pay a reasonable fee.”

Simpson argues that the $200 transfer tax is “modest”, but he fails to set a threshold for an immodest or unreasonable tax, which gets us to the ugly news surrounding suppressors.

On May 22, during an early morning floor debate over the legislation, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) registered her opposition to the bill. In reference to the suppressor tax reduction, she stated, “then, of course, as we mentioned about the silencers, it’s just beyond comprehension.”

According to the former speaker of the House, it is incomprehensible that lawmakers want to eliminate a prohibitory tax scheme on harmless devices that help their constituents lawfully exercise their Second Amendment rights with reduced risk of hearing damage.

Yet the longtime representative from San Francisco still didn’t manage to provide the worst take of the week. That dubious distinction belongs to Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) who argued the current tax on suppressors doesn’t go far enough, and law-abiding Americans already enjoy too much freedom.

In a meeting of the House Rules Committee, Dean claimed to be shocked by the level to which Americans are already exercising their right to keep and bear arms. The congresswoman stated,

You know what the dollars are? It’s $1.4 billion over 10 years. I did the math. That means something like 700,000 silencers are sold in this country a year. That baffles me. I don’t know if that’s accurate, but by the numbers and by the math, that’s what we’re talking about.

Dean took issue with the fact that the suppressor tax has not kept up with inflation and acknowledged its infringing nature: “the tax was used to try to discourage the purchasing of silencers.”

The congresswoman went on to elaborate her preferred scenarios. She said,

If we doubled it, if we just went to $400, you could sell only half as many and not lose a penny in revenue. If we tripled it, you might actually discourage some sales of silencers. Wouldn’t that be a good thing for us to be doing in this committee?

Dean seems to have a better grasp of history than Simpson does, unfortunately. The NFA taxes were absolutely meant to discourage the purchase and possession of restricted items, which is one of the reasons why 2A advocates argue that the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional.

Dean and her fellow Democrats will jack up the transfer and making taxes at the first given opportunity, so it’s critical that the Trump administration not only recognize that suppressors (and I would argue, other NFA items) are protected by the Second Amendment, but that the National Firearms Act cannot be reconciled with our Second Amendment rights.

The DOJ has taken some historic steps to protect and preserve the the right to keep and bear arms under President Trump’s watch, but this is a huge misstep, and one that needs to be rectified going forward. Removing suppressors from the NFA through Trump’s big, beautiful bill would be a big help, but ultimately the administration needs to revise its position on the NFA itself. If not, some of the arguments the DOJ makes over the next four years could prove to be a huge gift to the gun control lobby.

Neuroscientist Accidentally Reveals Democrats’ Dark Strategy Behind Biden’s Mental Health Cover-Up.

Neuroscientist and author Sam Harris recently admitted he was misled about President Joe Biden’s cognitive health, conceding that he once believed claims that Biden remained sharp behind closed doors—but now doubts that assumption, citing what he describes as an “effective” cover-up.

In a candid discussion, Harris acknowledged he used to defend Biden’s mental acuity by separating the president’s communication struggles from his decision-making abilities.

“It’s at least intelligible to say, ‘Okay, he’s not a good communicator. He was never a good communicator, he’s only getting worse,’” Harris said. “You can’t reliably stick him in front of a microphone and trust that something good is gonna come out of his mouth.”

Harris once accepted the idea that while Biden fumbled public speaking engagements, he was still competent when it came to deliberating important issues in private.

“The truth is… when you sit with him and deliberate about the war in Ukraine or anything else, he is compos mentis, he clearly understands the issue as well as he ever did,” Harris claimed he previously believed. “He’s just not a fluid speaker, and less and less fluid by the hour. Neurologically speaking, that is an intelligible claim to make about a person. That’s what I assumed was true.”

However, Harris now says he doubts Biden was ever as mentally fit as some insiders had claimed. “Because of how effective this cover-up was, I no longer believe that to have been true,” he admitted. “I think it’s quite possible that he was just checked out to a degree that I did not suspect at the time.”

Now, we’re supposed to believe this explanation, which is basically the same thing that Democrats and their allies in the media are saying. According to them, they were duped. But, Harris, like everyone else on the left who defended Biden’s mental acuity, was lying.

How do I know? Because he flat-out contradicted himself moments later, and it wasn’t subtle.

While you might assume that Biden’s obvious mental decline would be a deal-breaker for a neuroscientist, Harris made it clear that it didn’t matter one bit. The truth is, Biden’s cognitive state was irrelevant to him. His only real concern was stopping Trump—no matter the cost.

“Even that is preferable to me and to, I think, many Democrats, than having someone who we consider to be genuinely evil—genuinely 100% purposed to serving himself in the office of the presidency,” he said, drawing a sharp contrast between Biden’s frailty and Trump’s leadership.

Harris went even further, laying bare the mentality behind the left’s support of Biden in 2024: “I would rather have a president in a coma, where the duties of the presidency are executed by a committee of just normal people,” he said. “And that’s the choice that many of us believe was before us.”

In doing so, Harris admitted that Biden’s competency wasn’t just misunderstood—it was irrelevant. The real goal, for many Democrats, was to stop Trump at any cost. “Not much materially changes once you reveal just how insane and despicable this cover-up of Biden’s infirmities actually was,” Harris concluded, suggesting that the deception—however egregious—was worth it to keep Trump out of office.

Here we have a neuroscientist—someone with the education and expertise to spot cognitive decline a mile away—claiming he was duped by the Biden White House. But then, in the same breath, he admits it wouldn’t have mattered anyway.

Why? Because he’d rather see a cabal of unelected leftist operatives quietly steer the country into a constitutional crisis than let Trump win.

Spare me the victim act. He wasn’t fooled—he willingly ignored what was right in front of him because his hatred for Trump clouded his judgment.

Just like every other partisan on the left, he helped prop up a mentally unfit president and now wants to pretend he was misled.

He wasn’t. He was complicit.

We Were All ‘Domestic Violent Extremists’ According to the Biden Administration.

The COVID pandemic feels like a distant, bizarre dream now—but the remnants are still around if you look closely. A lone mask-wearing Karen at the grocery store… faded social distancing stickers no one bothered to peel off… reminders of just how absurd—and sometimes terrifying—that era really was. It’s almost laughable to recall some of the things that were forced on us. Other times, it’s downright chilling—as when Joe Biden tried to impose sweeping mask and vaccine mandates on the entire country.

At PJ Media, we pushed back hard against those mandates from the beginning. For that, we were likely branded “domestic violent extremists” by the Biden administration.

It’s true. Newly declassified intelligence documents reveal that the Biden administration categorized Americans who opposed COVID-19 mask and vaccine mandates as potential “Domestic Violent Extremists” (DVEs). This wasn’t mere rhetoric—the DVE designation grants federal agencies expanded surveillance and investigative powers against targeted individuals, according to intelligence records recently declassified and obtained by Public and Catherine Herridge Reports.

The report, which the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has declassified, claims that “anti government or anti authority violent extremists,” specifically militias, “characterize COVID-19 vaccination and mask mandates as evidence of government overreach.” A sweeping range of COVID narratives, the report states, “have resonated” with DVEs “motivated by QAnon.”

The FBI, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) coauthored the December 13, 2021 intelligence product whose title reads, “DVEs and Foreign Analogues May React Violently to COVID-19 Mitigation Mandates.”

The report flags opposition to mandates as one of the so-called “prominent narratives” linked to violent extremism. Among the flagged beliefs: that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe—particularly for children—that they’re tied to a government or global effort to strip away civil liberties and livelihoods, or that they’re part of a broader push to usher in a new political or social order.

I wrote articles including “Biden Can Shove His New Vaccine Mandate up His Donkey,” “The FDA Is on the Verge of Approving COVID Vaccines for Kids Under Six. Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Do It,” and “Screw the CDC — I Won’t Give My Child the COVID Vaccine.” At the time, we thought the biggest problem with publishing articles such as these at PJ Media was that they’d get demonetized. It turns out that the real issue was that the Biden administration probably flagged us as “Domestic Violent Extremists” as well. If you commented on articles like these and agreed with them, they may have flagged you, too.

By defending individual liberty and questioning government overreach during the pandemic, PJ Media and our readers apparently earned ourselves a spot on Biden’s domestic terrorist watchlist. The irony? We were right about the mandates all along—their ineffectiveness, their  unconstitutionality, and their use as tools of control rather than as public health measures.

This was a national security apparatus designed to target political opposition and further evidence that the United States was transitioning to a police state under Joe Biden. When questioning public health mandates gets you branded as a potential terrorist, we’ve crossed a line that should concern every American, regardless of his or her stance on COVID policies.

Fanonism:
By  on 

A term for the anti-colonial liberationist critique formulated by the Martiniquan psychiatrist Frantz Fanon (1925–1961). 

Fanon’s work in Algeria led him to become actively involved in the Algerian liberation movement and to publish a number of foundational works on racism and colonialism. These include Black Skin, White Masks(1952, translated 1968), a study of the psychology of racism and colonial domination. Just before his death he published The Wretched of the Earth (1961), a broader study of how anti-colonial sentiment might address the task of decolonization.

In these texts Fanon brought together the insights he derived from his clinical study of the effects of colonial domination on the psyche of the colonized and his Marxist derived analysis of social and economic control.

Continue reading “”

Frankly, no one that isn’t in the military — this is a weapon of war — or a trained police department, in my view, no one in America who isn’t in one of those two situations should own an automatic weapon. There is no reason to own one of those.
New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (demoncrap)

Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA. Ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.
― German Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler (NAZI)

 

Sen. Schiff Picks Up ‘Ban-Them-All’ Torch for Gun Control

U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) replaced the late U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and has picked up the mantle of her gun control legacy with one bill in particular. He reintroduced the legislation she often sponsored to reinstate the expired federal ban on so-called “assault weapons” as he hopes to once again prohibit law-abiding Americans from owning the most popular selling semiautomatic rifle in America – the Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR).

Sen. Schiff introduced S. 1531, the Assault Weapon Ban of 2025, and made the announcement through a video he posted to social media. Usurpingly, his claims about the previous federal ban are false. His video message immediately received a brutal Community Note, tagging the first-term senator’s message as “incorrect.” Companion legislation was also introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Lucy McBath (D-Ga.) as H.R. 3115, with the same title.

“The claim that the Bill 31 years ago held crimes and mass shootings at bay for 10 years is incorrect. It sunset after 10 years when Congress’s own research proved it had no effect on violent crime committed with the rifles it banned,” the note corrected. ABC News reporting was the source provided. In addition, Breitbart News tagged the video message in an article and reminded readers – or more appropriately, Sen. Schiff, that the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) reported that the ban could not be credited with any reduction in crime.

Continue reading “”

So, basically China’s version of our Nitro Zeus.
What really does interest me is whether or not they had an actual ‘Nitro’ (Direct Action – do not ask) part of that.

US Officials Find ‘Rogue’ Communication Devices in Chinese Power Inverters

Remember “Volt Typhoon?” That was the name given to a group of Chinese hackers who were identified last year by Microsoft. Volt Typhoon was a state sponsored effort to gain access to US infrastructure including communications and utilities. At the time, FBI Director Christopher Wray said this about the effort.

“The fact is, the PRC’s targeting of our critical infrastructure is both broad and unrelenting,” he said. And, he added, the immense size—and expanding nature—of the CCP’s hacking program isn’t just aimed at stealing American intellectual property. “It’s using that mass, those numbers, to give itself the ability to physically wreak havoc on our critical infrastructure at a time of its choosing,” he said.

Here we are just over a year later and US officials are now expressing concern about another element of our energy infrastructure: solar power inverters. Solar panels generate DC power but the electrical grid runs on AC power. A solar inverter converts the DC power into AC power compatible with the grid. Many of these power inverters are made in China and now officials are finding evidence that some of them have “rogue” communications devices built in to them.

While inverters are built to allow remote access for updates and maintenance, the utility companies that use them typically install firewalls to prevent direct communication back to China.

However, rogue communication devices not listed in product documents have been found in some Chinese solar power inverters by U.S experts who strip down equipment hooked up to grids to check for security issues, the two people said….

The rogue components provide additional, undocumented communication channels that could allow firewalls to be circumvented remotely, with potentially catastrophic consequences, the two people said…

Using the rogue communication devices to skirt firewalls and switch off inverters remotely, or change their settings, could destabilise power grids, damage energy infrastructure, and trigger widespread blackouts, experts said.

“That effectively means there is a built-in way to physically destroy the grid,” one of the people said.

So, how this might work is the US finds itself in a conflict with China. Say, for instance, China invades Taiwan and the US attempts to stop them. Suddenly, power grids around the country start misbehaving or fail completely. This is clearly the kind of attack on domestic infrastructure that Volt Typhoon was aimed at as well.

The unnamed US officials don’t name and names but we have a pretty clear idea which Chinese companies could be involved just based market share.

Huawei is the world’s largest supplier of inverters, accounting for 29% of shipments globally in 2022, followed by Chinese peers Sungrow and Ginlong Solis, according to consultancy Wood Mackenzie…

While Huawei decided to leave the U.S. inverter market in 2019 – the year its 5G telecoms equipment was banned – it remains a dominant supplier elsewhere.

Though discovered in the US, the presence of unregistered equipment has raised alarm in Europe.

The European Solar Manufacturing Council (ESMC), the body which represents the interests of some Europe-based PV companies, said that: “With over 200GW of Europe’s solar capacity relying on these inverters—equivalent to more than 200 nuclear power plants—the security risk is systemic.”…

Last week, PV Tech spoke to a leading European inverter manufacturer at the Intersolar Europe trade show in Munich, who said that the risk of cyberattacks to cut power supply from solar inverters was “real”, and that “it’s very clear inverter companies could switch off the grid if they want to.”

All Chinese companies are legal required to cooperate with CCP intelligence services, giving them anything they ask. So it’s not really a shock that this would happen. China has shown for years that it will attempt to exploit every opportunity to spy, steal our technology and gain control of our networks. At this point we really should just assume this is happening everywhere, all the time.