Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

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.

SOMEONE SHOULD BE FIRED AFTER CNN ANALYST GOES ON RACIST RANT AGAINST WHITE AFRIKANERS

Things got wild on CNN on Monday night after a former Obama staffer and current CNN analyst decided to go on a racist rant over President Donald Trump admitting 48 South African refugees.

As RedState has reported, South Africa’s ruling party has infamously made singing “Kill the Boer,” which translates to “kill the farmer,” a staple of their political rallies. For context, the song specifically refers to white farmers (Afrikaners) and dates back to the country’s apartheid days. Laws to confiscate their land and extra-judicial killings have taken center stage over the last several years.

For some reason, though, that has greatly offended Democrats, who have finally found refugees they do not want to admit into the country. Funny how that works, right? I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. On the other hand, here’s Ashley Allison making it clear that it’s not one.

ALLISON: So if the Afrikaners don’t actually like the land, they can leave that country. 

JENNINGS: They are. They’re leaving to come here. These refugees are coming here.

ALLISON: No, they can leave and go to where their native land is, which is probably Germany or…

JENNINGS: Are you against them coming here?

PANELIST: Holland…

ALLISON: Holland, yes. 

JENNINGS: Are you against them coming here? 

ALLISON: I’m against the hypocrisy of this administration…

JENNINGS: No, no, that’s not the question. The question is are you against them coming here. 

ALLISON: If there was actually a genocide happening like there is other places in Sudan and the Congo, I would not, I’m not opposed for Congolese and for the Sudanese to come to Africa [America?] just like I’m not opposed to Venzualans and South Americans coming to America if they are fleeing and looking for asylum. What I am against…

JENNINGS: So just these 50 people, you’re against…

ALLISON: What I am against is that they are being given special treatment when there is not a genocide happening in South Africa, and they just don’t like the law of the land!

What an absolutely deranged thing to say on so many levels. Imagine, for a moment, if a Republican CNN panelist told black Americans that they can “leave and go to where their native land is” if they don’t like laws that physically and financially persecute them. Do you imagine that person would still have a job right now? Heck, they kicked Ryan James Girdusky off the air permanently for making a beeper joke about terrorist-supporter Mehdi Hasan, and the conservative commentator chimed in to provide this bit of insight on Allison’s rampant racism.

It should also be mentioned that pretending all South American refugees are legitimate and worthy of entry while singling out these South Africans is completely transparent. Most of the illegal aliens who crossed the border and claimed asylum were economic migrants. At no point did Allison have a problem with that or decry the standards by which they were being admitted. Let some white farmers with hundreds of years of lineage in Africa show up, and suddenly she wants to proclaim only the persecutions she approves of count. There’s no good explanation for that except that she’s exactly what she appears to be, which is a blatant racist.

Understand that as much as Trump brought these Afrikaners over to help them, he also did it because he knew Democrats would react like this and expose themselves. He threw the bait out there, and they gobbled it up because they just can’t help themselves. Meanwhile, CNN is just fine with racism on their airwaves as long as it comes from the “right” people.

The Totalitarian Impulse Buckley Knew

I’ve just finished reading Buckley: The Life and the Revolution That Changed America, a forthcoming biography of National Review founder William F. Buckley by Sam Tanenhaus. It is a magnificent, absorbing work about a man known as the father of postwar American conservatism, and one that will lead to a lot of debate when it is published early next month.

That debate will be good, as there is much to consider when thinking about a figure like Buckley today. The book itself is over 1,000 pages, and it’s best to break it down into parts. Naturally, Buckley was disliked by the left, and he was right about the nature of communism. Yet Buckley also has critics on the right. Many consider that over time Buckley kicked out too many real conservatives from of the movement he helped to found—conservatives like Pat Buchanan, who turned out to be right about many issues, such as immigration. Many of today’s conservative’s also suggest that Buckley’s errors led to the sad state of affairs at today’s National Review, a magazine that has become practically irrelevant.

For the purposes of this first part of the review, however, I’d like to focus on the things Buckley got right. Namely, communism and the totalitarian nature of the American left. The most important paragraph in Buckley appears in a section that takes place in the early 1960s. Buckley was debating Arthur Schlesinger Jr., an advisor to President Kennedy. Schlesinger thought that whenever dictatorships arose in the modern era it was “because democratic government is too weak, not because it is too strong.” The best way to prevent totalitarianism was for the government to create economic prosperity and social equality, providing “a minimum national standard to save individuals from intolerable handicaps.” Tanenhaus explains Buckley’s reaction:

This might sound good, Buckley countered, but in reality, Schlesinger and others were concealing their true intentions, their “intellectual desire to redirect society. Even if every citizen had a million dollars, John Kenneth Galbraith would still find a need for government action….There are in motion today forces that want to drain our power into a reservoir. I hope someday Mr. Schlesinger will turn in horror on the system he has abetted.”

Here Buckley gets to the heart of the matter. The left wants revolution and totalitarian control. Period. If every house had a full refrigerator and every American had a job, they would still be calling for revolution. To think otherwise is naïve.

Continue reading “”

VPC Releases Report Alleging Suppressors Are ‘Threat to Public Safety’

Only days after TheGunMag.com carried a report about how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is issuing expensive firearm suppressors to its agents, the Violence Policy Center has released a study calling the devices a “public safety threat.”

In a statement announcing its report, titled Silencers: A Threat to Public Safety, the VPC says its “study” is a reaction to efforts by the firearms industry and “gun lobby” to have suppressors deregulated. The release acknowledges that the National Firearms Act (NFA) is a “restrictive federal law that also covers machine guns and short-barreled rifles,” to which it adds, “The NFA is overseen by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).”

In the release, VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann asserts, “Silencer de-regulation efforts are the latest salvo in the gun industry’s increasing militarization of the civilian marketplace in search of increased profits. Allowing these military-bred accessories to be generally available will make it easier for criminals to take innocent lives, threaten police, and hamper the ability of law enforcement to respond to mass shootings or sniper attacks.”

But in 2021, the U.S. Concealed Carry Association published an essay on silencers which included this: “Indeed, silencers are so rarely used in violent crimes that it is hard to find meaningful statistics on them. The ATF has internally used numbers suggesting that, despite the fact that there are more than 1 million silencers registered under the National Firearms Act, less than 0.003 percent of silencers are used in violent crimes. And only about 44 defendants per year are prosecuted for criminal use of silencers.”

The VPC news release declared, “The ‘benefits’ most commonly cited by silencer manufacturers, however, remain sound reduction and increased accuracy and rate of fire as the result of reduced recoil and improved stability of the weapon when firing.

“In a civilian context,” the VPC continues, “these ‘benefits’ could help enable mass shooters and other murderers to kill a greater number of victims more efficiently. At the same time, they can limit the ability of law enforcement to respond effectively.”

The VPC seems distressed that, “Data on the dramatic increase in civilian silencer ownership. In 2010 the number of legally registered silencers in the U.S. was 285,087. By 2024 this number had grown to 4,857,897—an increase of more than 1,600 percent. The dramatic increase seen in recent years has been fueled by silencer marketers and manufacturers overseeing the application process with ATF for purchasers and a shift by the agency in 2021 to allow application forms to be accepted online.”
In a December 2024 report from Real Clear Policy, writer Owen Miller noted, “The National Hearing Conservation Association (NHCA) wrote a letter in 2019 outlining their support for suppressors as a tool to help curb preventable hearing damage:

“Although firearm suppressors do not completely eliminate the risk of [noise-induced hearing loss] from firearm noise, the risk can be significantly reduced…Therefore, NHCA supports the use of firearm noise suppressors as a form of an engineering noise control to reduce hazardous firearm noise exposures.” 

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was commissioned in 2011 to assess the level of noise exposure for federal government agents at an outdoor shooting range,” Miller added. “The scientists assigned to the study concluded:

“…the only potentially effective noise control method to reduce students’ or instructors’ noise exposure from gunfire is through the use of noise suppressors that can be attached to the end of the gun barrel.”

Miller, vice president of the American Suppressor Association, finished off his remarks stating, “Suppressors are legally used by millions of hunters and shooting enthusiasts who rely on these safety devices for much needed hearing protection. Spreading misinformation or engaging in scare tactics in the wake of this high-profile crime will do nothing to address the issue of curbing violence in New York City or elsewhere else in America.”

College Palestinian Group Admits Their Job is to ‘Destroy the United States.’

A Palestinian support group and domestic terror outfit that operates with impunity on many U.S. college campuses has now admitted openly that they see it as their job to destroy the United States of America by subvert our youth.

The group, Students for Justice in Palestine, is responsible for many of the racist, anti-Jewish protests at schools all across the country.

These Muslim terrorists pretend that they are supporting the human rights of so-called “Palestinians” and are protesting “genocide” being perpetrated against Gazans by Israel.

Now, before we go any farther, the singular truth is that there is no genocide taking place in Gaza against the mythic “Palestinians.” The proof of that statement lies in the population numbers in the region. For instance, in 1950, the population of Gaza was 63,444 citizens. And what is it today? 823,407… yeah… if the Jews are trying to conduct “genocide” in Gaza, they have really, REALLY failed at it!

Anyway, the leader of this terror group infesting Temple University recently let the cat out of the bag.

Temple University activist Rishi Arun openly admitted that “It is our job to destroy imperialism, destroy the United States, and destroy capitalism.”

“We will do it by organizing that actively undermines and destabilizes the legitimacy and the power of [the United States],” he adds, “and the power and legitimacy of capitalism,” this terrorist added.

WATCH:

 

This terrorists needs to be either jailed, or deported.

While Left Wants Ban on ‘Assault Weapons,’ They’re the Reason They Won’t Get One

Earlier this week, Democratic Senators Adam Schiff and Chris Murphy unveiled their new assault weapon ban bill. This is just the latest iteration of something they’ve pushed for regularly since the last assault weapon ban sunset in 2004.

Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth, offering support on X, referred to these as being “designed for war.”

And I’m not going to debate her on it.

Nope.

But I am going to point out a few things that perhaps the left needs to keep in mind as we go forward.

They’re a big chunk of the reason that so many people have these so-called weapons of war. Popularity started back in the 1990s when the move to ban them first started. It continued as people bought ban-legal versions of these weapons and realized they were great. When the ban sunset, they were firmly entrenched as part of our American gun culture.

Continue reading “”

This is the way it’s been in Europe for quite a while. Major parts of a gun are serialized, and restricted. You can see this on Glocks and other European made guns where the serial number is on the frame, slide and barrel. Just like for ammo, if the tyrant demoncraps in California do happen to pass such a crap-for-brains law,  people who are interested enough will simply cross the state line to buy.

Beyond ‘Ghost Guns’: California Democrats Push Background Checks for Gun Barrels

California Democrats are pushing legislation to require background checks for gun barrel purchases, effectively taking the “ghost gun” regulatory push to its logical conclusion.

The bill, Senate Bill 704, is sponsored by state Sen. Jesse Arreguín (D).

SB 704 singles out firearm barrels among the many other parts of firearm, requiring a background check for any replacement barrel or aftermarket barrel upgrade purchase:

Commencing on July 1, 2026, this bill would, except as specified, prohibit the sale or transfer of a firearm barrel, as defined, unless the transaction is completed in person by a licensed firearms dealer. The bill would require the licensed firearms dealer to conduct a background check of the purchaser or transferee and to record specified information pertaining to the transaction, including the date of the sale or transfer.

Moreover, SB 704 specifically outlines how the costs of performing background checks for barrels must be handled, making clear that the legislation literally creates “a new crime,” albeit a misdemeanor, in the state California.

Gun rights proponents have long warned that the Democrats’ use of terminology like “ghost guns”–and the resulting regulation of said “guns”–would lead to background checks for aftermarket firearm parts. State Sen. Arreguín’s legislation is doing just that.

Additionally, the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) warns that with a background check, SB 704 would end online barrel sales via the requirement for face-to-face transactions.

NAGR said, “We have warned that this was always the end goal. Target the secondary market — driving up the cost of repairing and maintaining firearms in an effort to win through attrition. The ultimate objective is a complete ban on online sales.”