Comment O’ The Day:
It is amusing watching Democrats in power walk the tight rope of pretending to know everything while at the same time being completely ignorant.
Nobody believes this overt and public anti-Semite. Nobody.


I mean, politicians lie all the time, but at least she could have tried to make this one sound somewhat reasonable.


Rep. Ilhan Omar: “I Wasn’t Aware That There Are Tropes About Jews And Money”

Rep. Ilhan Omar said Sunday morning on CNN said that she didn’t know about the offensive nature of antisemitic tropes regarding “Jews and money” when she made comments that have been cited by House Speaker McCarthy as the primary reason she was removed from the House Foreign Affairs committee.

REP. ILHAN OMAR: I might have used words at the time that I didn’t understand were trafficking in anti-semitism. When that was brought to my attention, I apologized. I owned up to it. That’s the kind of person that I am. And I continue to work with my colleagues and my community to fight against anti-semitism.

Now, I’ve never compared or made any comparisons, what I was referencing was a case that was in front of the ICC. If you want to debate political differences, that’s something that we should all have the opportunity to do so, but to smear someone and their character, their love for their country and the work they get to do on a committee is wrong, and it is politically motivated. And in some cases, it is motivated by the fact that many of these members don’t believe that a Muslim refugee, an African, should even be in Congress, let alone have an opportunity to serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee….

I certainly did not or was not aware that the word hypnotized was a trope. I wasn’t aware of the fact that there are tropes about Jews and money. That has been a very enlightening part of this journey. To insinuate that I knowingly said these things when people have read into my comments to make it sound as if I have something against the Jewish community is so wrong.

To insinuate that I knowingly said these things, when people have read into my comments to make it sound as if I have something against the Jewish community, is so wrong. If you remember, when I first got elected to Congress, it was when the FBI report came out on the rise of antisemitism. As a rep-elected, the first op-ed I wrote was on that report, which I talked about how it was important for us, as a community, to coalesce around the Jewish community and fight against antisemitism.

I voted for every single resolution — no Republican can say that — condemning antisemitism. My work is clear. The collaboration and work that I do with my Jewish colleagues is very clear. The reason that the Democratic Caucus has not removed me and will not support my removal on the Foreign Affairs Committee is because I have done the work to make sure that I do not support any bigotry.

Another problem with Gun Violence Archive’s numbers

Supporters of gun control love to use Gun Violence Archive as an authoritative source on the number of shootings we have in this country. The number of mass shootings as compiled by the site–a number that doesn’t reflect what most people think of as a mass shooting, it should be remembered–is presented uncritically by the media.

It happens all the time, and in the wake of two shootings in California, it’s happening yet again. While we know plenty about those two shootings and will likely learn more as we go forward, proponents of gun control site Gun Violence Archive’s total number of mass shootings to show it’s more than those two incidents.

Take this editorial as just one example.

History is full of horrific events in which we shake our heads and ask, “How did that happen? What were they thinking?”

The Holocaust and slavery are two prime examples.

It begs the question of what is transpiring today that will be regarded by future generations as deplorable. That historians will record with the hope that they will never be repeated.

Climate change, yes. And then there is gun violence.

California has had three mass shootings in the last four days. Seven people were killed and one injured in Half Moon Bay on Monday. One person was killed and six injured at an East Oakland gas station later that evening. Eleven people were killed and nine injured in Monterey Park on Saturday.

We are not even at the end of the first month of 2023. Yet the Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay shootings bring the number of mass shootings (in which four or more people were killed or injured) to 39 this year, according to the Gun Violence Archive. That follows the 647 mass shootings recorded in 2022 and 690 mass shootings in 2021.

Of course, what follows is the true-to-form call for gun control we typically see from many editorial boards.

Now, in the wake of two deadly mass shootings, I sort of get it. However, they’re not just holding those two incidents up as why we somehow need gun control. They’re holding Gun Violence Archive’s numbers up as well.

And yet, what do we know about any of those shootings?

Well, we know three or more people were injured at those shootings–the low standard the site uses to categorize something as a mass shooting in the first place, which includes gang warfare, drivebys, and so on–but little else.

If we’re going to have a conversation about how we need gun control, about how certain guns shouldn’t be allowed in private hands, or how certain people should be legally barred from buying guns, shouldn’t we also need to know about any of those hundreds upon hundreds of so-called mass shootings?

I ask because I know statistically where most of those weapons came from, and it’s not from lawful gun sales.

How can you say that the gun laws are insufficient when so few of these hundreds of “mass shootings” were carried out with a lawfully-obtained firearm in the first place?

See, Gun Violence Archive is a favorite among the media and anti-gun set (but I repeat myself), yet it only shows part of the picture. To cite their numbers without important context on where those guns were obtained amounts to little more than trying to view a masterpiece by only looking at one single bit with a microscope.

It’s not a full picture by any stretch.

And it matters because while actual mass shootings make headlines, the real violence problem in our country happens in our inner cities. They get counted by Gun Violence Archive to try and push gun control when all the gun laws in the world aren’t going to help.

Thank God this hack never made it to the Supreme Court.

Try Not to Laugh at DOJ’s Excuse for Not Sending FBI to Raid Biden’s Homes for Classified Docs.

Attorney General Merrick Garland is feeling the heat over the obvious double standard between the Mar-a-Lago FBI raid on Donald Trump’s home to retrieve classified documents and Joe Biden’s Car-a-Lago scandal. As a result, Biden’s hit man, who “can’t comment on an ongoing investigation,” has clearly green-lighted his patented leaks to friendly media to make excuses for his duplicity. If this weren’t such a tell for how corrupt the Justice Department is, the excuses would be funny. But since America’s system of jurisprudence in the DOJ and the FBI is clearly so irretrievably fallen, and could take civil society sliding down the hill with it, we should consider Garland’s excuses in the seriousness with which they’re offered.

Now you can laugh.

It’s going to take more than one of Garland’s no-comment-comments to convince anyone paying attention to this ridiculous charade that there’s no gambling at Rick’s. Yet, Garland’s excuse-making is amazing to behold for his audacity in believing anyone is dumb enough to believe this claptrap.

Allow me to distill the nonsense that Garland’s Justice Department, characterized as “people familiar with the matter,” told the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday afternoon.

First up, the Merrick Garland approved leak wants us to believe that gosh, we considered having the FBI SWAT team oversee the raid to get the illegal documents, but the Justice Department “decided against it, both to avoid complicating later stages of the investigation and because Mr. Biden’s attorneys had quickly turned over a first batch and were cooperating, according to people familiar with the matter.”

Just like Donald Trump. Just kidding.

President Trump had the authority to declassify documents and, as a president of the United States, was allowed to take them as his personal documents, according to Mike Davis of the Article III Project. Not so with the vice president, which Biden was when he purloined the documents with the highest security classifications. We’re told, but we don’t have proof since we have only the say-so of Biden’s lawyer Richard Sauber, that some of the documents pertained to Ukraine and China. Of course, those are the countries from which Hunter Biden was extracting millions for access to the Veep.

Garland’s lackeys leaked that President Biden’s own attorneys were allowed to search the documents without FBI presence (read: raid) because he trusted Biden’s attorneys to do the search for them. On his word as a Biden. “Not a joke, not a joke.”

Indeed, the two sides, presumably the DOJ and Biden, though it’s not clear, “agreed that Mr. Biden’s personal attorneys would inspect the homes, notify the Justice Department as soon as they identified any other potentially classified records, and arrange for law-enforcement authorities to take them.” Did Biden get a back rub too? A day at the spa? Cognition lessons? Anything’s possible after telling Team Biden that hey, no problem you can go through the documents and then turn over the documents that Biden’s lawyers wanted to hand over.

WSJ postulates that by allowing Joe’s attorneys to curate and collect the illegally obtained classified documents he was not authorized to have, it laughably signals that “federal investigators are girding for a months-long inquiry that could stretch well into Mr. Biden’s third year in office.” What does that even mean? 

“Instead, the two sides agreed that Mr. Biden’s personal attorneys would inspect the homes, notify the Justice Department as soon as they identified any other potentially classified records, and arrange for law-enforcement authorities to take them, ” WSJ straightfacedly reported.

Apparently, the discussions with the DOJ were very serious and deliberative, and “those deliberations, which haven’t previously been reported, shed new light on how the Biden team’s efforts to cooperate with investigators have thus far helped it avoid more aggressive actions by law enforcement.”

Oh please. Biden had the documents since January 2017. How is that cooperative, again?

Biden says he has no idea what those documents were in the box next to his vintage Corvette. We didn’t get a sexy staged photo of documents splayed out at the Car-a-Lago crime scene. Biden says he doesn’t remember having the documents in the three different properties (some of which had been moved multiple times). We have no trouble believing this. He likely doesn’t remember what he had for breakfast this morning.

Trump’s people were in negotiations with the National Archives, which apparently has somehow morphed into a law enforcement entity with gunned-up FBI SWAT-like officers at their disposal to go grab documents they didn’t want him to have. But not so for Biden.

The DOJ raided Trump’s house because they didn’t like him.

We don’t know who’s going after Joe Biden for what, but we won’t find out because there are only two ways this special counsel probe will go: As a Mueller-like CYA cover-up operation or as a wrist slap that will be spun as a well., we investigated him and all we got was his lousy 5th Amendment, a crack pipe, and the numbers of a couple of hookers. This will be a Hunter Biden/Joe Biden proxy “investigation,” and it will end there. 

BOLD-FACED LIE: Gun Control Groups Twist Heritage Foundation Data Out of Recognition in Court Documents

A conglomerate of gun control groups has filed a brief in federal court supporting the District of Columbia in a lawsuit challenging the city’s prohibition on civilian possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

This was not at all surprising.

What was quite perplexing, however, was the gun control groups’ citation of two of my recent monthly articles for The Daily Signal on defensive gun use. The groups claim the two articles “support” the premise that the District’s ban doesn’t negatively affect law-abiding gun owners, because none of the cases I cited “involved the use of anywhere close to 10 rounds of ammunition.”

Worse, the gun control groups spun this as The Heritage Foundation, among others, having “acknowledged that the ability to fire more than 10 rounds of ammunition without reloading is not necessary for defensive purposes.” (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)

These are incredible claims in the most literal sense: They lack any credibility.

At best, the legal brief’s characterization of my monthly articles on defensive gun use is lazy to the point of recklessness and wrongly attributes to my employer, The Heritage Foundation, a policy position that it doesn’t hold. At worst, this constitutes an intentional effort to manipulate a federal court with a blatantly misleading representation of Heritage’s work on defensive gun use.

Continue reading “”

Ranking Redux

Everytown for Gun Safety is rank. And by that, we mean their state gun control law ranking system is rank(ed at the top of the silliness scale).

Takeaways

Everytown’s state law ranking system:

  • Is arbitrary, lacking any criminological basis.
  • Shows very little gun violence variability between states based on their gun laws.
  • Omits the most violent district, which has stringent gun laws.
  • Includes suicides, which are inappropriate in such an analysis.

Echoing the Brady Campaign

The moribund Brady Campaign (or whatever they are calling themselves this week) used to produce a state gun law scorecard every year. It was, in a word, a gun control wish list and nothing more. We keep their last scorecard criteria to reference their arbitrary scoring system for reference and a few laughs (whichever laws they were promoting that year tended get a higher score).

 

Brady Campaign State Scorecard vs Violent Crime Rates

click for larger, sharable version

 

Everytown Gun Law Ranking and Homicide Rates

click for larger, sharable version

We would dutifully produce a scatter diagram each year showing the utter lack of correlation between the Brady Campaign scorecard and any variety of crime.

The Brady Campaign quit producing their scorecard some time after we demonstrated that the states with “strongest” and most “lax” gun laws had identical rates of violent crime (in this last chart we made, blue California on the left and red Arizona on the right).

With the Brady Campaign largely forgotten, Everytown for Gun Safety picked up the slack and started producing their own “ranking” system

Same game, new player.

Blighted Everytown

The headline element of note is that Everytown’s ranking system doesn’t actually prove their point. Quite the opposite.

Here we took their ranking and graphed it against both gun homicides and all modes of homicides. Though the slope of the line does rise as Everytown’s arbitrary rankings drop (left-to-right, “strongest” to most “lax”) the rise is minuscule.

More importantly, the vertical scattering of points shows high volatility all the way from California to Mississippi. For the statistics junkies, that’s an R2 of 0.02 for gun homicides, which basically means no correlation between Everytown’s gun law rankings and actual gun violence.

Let’s list some of the “research” sins Everytown committed:

  • They omitted Washington, DC, which year in and year out is the murder capital as well as of the nation. The District also has stringent gun control laws, so this omission is blatant data rigging.
  • In their analysis, Everytown included suicides. We have shown, using a more appropriate international scale, that there is no correlation between gun availability and suicide rates. This is because the probability of someone wanting to commit suicide is based instead on external factors and cultural attitudes about suicide.

Let’s score their scorecard:

  • No criminology basis.
  • Excludes important datapoint.
  • Includes inappropriate data.
  • Composed via an arbitrary wish list.

In short, meaningless equine effluvium.

Everytown Dumbs Things Down

We expect advocacy groups (Everytown, NRA… doesn’t matter) to promote their causes. But to present the public with wantonly dubious and disastrously constructed “research” only helps to destroy their own brand and weaken their mission.

 

 

BLUF
So let’s be clear about what the Defensive Gun Use Database shows, and what Heritage’s position is: Civilians—just like the law enforcement officers who are exempt from these restrictions—sometimes need to defend themselves with more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

And in those cases where more than 10 rounds are needed, the extra ammunition may mean the difference between life or death.

BOLD-FACED LIE: Gun Control Groups Twist Heritage Foundation Data Out of Recognition in Court Documents

A conglomerate of gun control groups has filed a brief in federal court supporting the District of Columbia in a lawsuit challenging the city’s prohibition on civilian possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

This was not at all surprising.

What was quite perplexing, however, was the gun control groups’ citation of two of my recent monthly articles for The Daily Signal on defensive gun use. The groups claim the two articles “support” the premise that the District’s ban doesn’t negatively affect law-abiding gun owners, because none of the cases I cited “involved the use of anywhere close to 10 rounds of ammunition.”

Worse, the gun control groups spun this as The Heritage Foundation, among others, having “acknowledged that the ability to fire more than 10 rounds of ammunition without reloading is not necessary for defensive purposes.” (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)

These are incredible claims in the most literal sense: They lack any credibility.

At best, the legal brief’s characterization of my monthly articles on defensive gun use is lazy to the point of recklessness and wrongly attributes to my employer, The Heritage Foundation, a policy position that it doesn’t hold. At worst, this constitutes an intentional effort to manipulate a federal court with a blatantly misleading representation of Heritage’s work on defensive gun use.

Continue reading “”

The FBI’s Response to the Twitter Files Is Not Going Over Well

As Matt covered, the FBI responded to revelations from the Twitter files that the federal law enforcement agency worked with the social media platform to categorize Hunter Biden’s laptop as “Russian disinformation” by hurling accusations about “conspiracy theorists.”

“The correspondence between the FBI and Twitter show nothing more than examples of our traditional, longstanding and ongoing federal government and private sector engagements, which involve numerous companies over multiple sectors and industries. As evidenced in the correspondence the FBI provides critical information to the private sector in an effort to allow them to protect themselves and their customers,” the FBI released in a statement Wednesday. “The men and women of the FBI work every day to protect the American public,” the statement concluded. “It is unfortunate that conspiracy theorists and others are feeding the American public misinformation with the sole purpose of attempting to discredit the agency.”

That response isn’t going over well, especially among First Amendment advocates with deep concerns about the government using private companies to censor information.

Continue reading “”

Biden’s Stolen Valor rant is no surprise to gun owners

Joe Biden walked onstage in front of a group of veterans Friday and then stole their valor.

Biden told the veterans his Uncle Frank was wounded during the Battle of the Bulge, but somehow never received the Purple Heart. Biden claimed he first learned of the oversight when he was vice president, from his father.

“So, I got him the Purple Heart. He had won it in the Battle of the Bulge. And I remember he came over to the house and I came out and my father said; ‘Present it to him, okay?’ We had the family there,” Biden said at the veterans’ townhall, according to media accounts.

Of course, there are massive factual errors in Biden’s latest tall tale. Biden’s uncle died in 1999. His father died in 2002, but Biden wasn’t elected vice president until 2008, so there is no way he could have presented his uncle the medal while serving as vice president. Also, there’s no documentation that Biden’s uncle ever received or was recommended for a Purple Heart — either before or after his nephew became vice president.

Biden’s latest lie comes as no surprise to gun owners. We’ve been hooting and hollering about his Second Amendment-related lies for years, but no one listened.

In August, during a rambling and often incoherent campaign speech in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, Biden added yet another outlandish fib to his usual list of firearm falsehoods.

“Do you realize the bullet out of an AR-15 travels five times as rapidly as a bullet shot out of any other gun?” Biden asked the crowd.

To be clear, the AR round is quick, but it’s certainly not the fastest, and it’s definitely not five-times faster than all other calibers, which would be ballistically impossible.

In April, Biden created another fanciful tale, and like his Stolen Valor rant, he gave himself the starring role.

Biden was in southern Delaware, he claimed, trudging through the woods during hunting season, when he happened upon a hunter in a creek bed. The hunter asked him if he was going to confiscate his rifle, which Biden said he realized held 20 rounds. “You must be a terrible shot to need that many rounds,” Biden claimed he told the hunter in the creek bed. “Do you think the deer are wearing Kevlar vests?”

This tale was the latest version of one of Biden’s favorite quips, which states that anyone who uses a standard-capacity magazine must be a terrible shot, because deer don’t wear Kevlar vests.

Takeaways

Biden’s stolen valor claims are far worse than his previous false tall tales about Corn Pop, blonde leg hair or fictitious prohibitions regarding civilian cannon ownership.

He is the Commander-in-Chief, after all, the very top of the chain-of-command. By definition, every single member of the military is his subordinate. The CINC receives a lot of salutes, but the job also comes with tremendous responsibility, which Biden seems to ignore.

There’s no doubt that among Friday’s crowd were real Purple Heart recipients — men and women who sacrificed parts of their bodies for our freedom. They deserve an immediate apology, although they’ll likely never receive one.

Be it guns or stolen valor, Joe Biden will never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Remember This Whenever Moslems Demand More ‘Rights’ in the West.

Egypt’s Ministry of Endowments recently announced a new record: 1,200 new mosques were opened in the year 2022.

Moreover, in the two years between September 2020 and September 2022, a total of 3,116 mosques were opened (2,712 new; 404 renovated).

Since Abdel Fateh al-Sisi became president in 2014, the total number of mosques to be opened, repaired, or replaced — costing Egypt more than ten billion pounds [~$400 million]— is 9,600.

(One can almost hear the “Allahu akbars!”)

What about the religious places of worship that, for centuries before Egypt’s conquest by Muslim Arabs, dotted that nation’s landscape — namely, Christian churches? How fare they?

As is well known, when it comes to any question concerning the indigenous Christians of Egypt, the Copts, and their churches, accurate information — especially by way of numbers — is difficult to ascertain from the official channels.

As such, I contacted and spoke with one of the most astute analysts on the so-called Coptic question, the Egyptian-born Magdi Khalil, an author and public debater (appearing in approximately 1,500 televised debates, including on Al Jazeera) who specializes in citizenship rights, civil society, and the situation of minorities in the Middle East.

During our phone conversation, Khalil offered up the best-known figures he has been able to ascertain, after making clear that, “as you know, there are no absolutely accurate numbers from Egypt that aren’t politicized.”

He said there are a total of approximately 5,200 Christian institutions in Egypt, including all churches and monasteries from every denomination. As for Islamic institutions, there are 120,000 mosques and over one million prayer halls in the country.

This disparity alone underscores the extreme discrimination Christians face in Egypt. Considering that Copts of all denominations make up, at the very least, 10% of Egypt’s population of 104 million, there is one mosque or prayer hall for every 83 Muslims, but only one church for every 2,000 Christians.*

In 2016, a new Egyptian law was touted as “easing” restrictions on and helping many more churches to open.  Since its implementation, however, human rights groups have noted that it has only marginally helped. Khalil agreed, and said that at best, the 2016 law has made a “5-10 percent improvement.” But, by applying only to churches, as opposed to being a universal law for all religious places of worship, the new law has also formalized the Egyptian government’s divisive — or in Khalil’s words, “racist” — approach to its citizens. He is not alone in making this charge; even Human Rights Watch says that the new law ultimately “discriminates against the Christian minority in Egypt.”

Along with the ease Egypt grants to the building of mosques, often overlooked is the fact that the government also completely subsidizes a great many, if not most, of Egypt’s mosques. (Over 4 billion Egyptian pounds are paid annually by the state to subsidize the Ministry of Islamic Endowments, which is charged with affairs related to mosques and Islamic da‘wa [propaganda]. Moreover, 22 billion Egyptian pounds are annually paid to Al Azhar, which has a parallel educational system, or madrasa, from KG to university, with 2.8 million pupils and students.)

Conversely, not only does Egypt make it immensely hard for Christians to open or maintain churches, but the government does not contribute a “single penny” to their survival, said Khalil. Churches are even required to pay their utility bills, which no mosque in Egypt does, as the government happily picks up their bill.

Aside from the obvious discrimination and legal obstacles the government of Egypt has set up against churches, Khalil and I also spoke a bit about the Muslim mob violence that sporadically rises up against Christian places of worship. According to Khalil, “close to one thousand churches have been attacked or torched by mobs in the last five decades [since the 1970s] in Egypt.” This is a much larger number than is commonly assumed.

Khalil closed by saying, “The persecution of Egypt’s Christian Copts is the longest ongoing persecution in the history of mankind, from 642, to today, 2022. Through all this time, maybe 70 years under British occupation were peaceful and good — the “golden era” for Copts in all this duration. Then [during the colonial era] there was much more diversity in the government, including some Coptic ministers, etc. But the overwhelming majority of the time witnessed the Copts’ persecution.”

“I know of no group,” concluded Khalil, “that has been persecuted for nearly 1400 years — with still no light at the end of the tunnel.”

The Feds’ ‘Misinformation’ Scam.

The biggest political story of 2022 was not the midterm election. It was the release of the “Twitter Files” by Elon Musk, the new owner of Twitter. In the sixth installment published last week on Twitter in a thread by journalist Matt Taibbi, the headline was “Twitter, the FBI Subsidiary.” The FBI had its own channel of communication for tipping off Twitter executives as to authors of tweets who needed to be censored, if not banned, for posting “election misinformation” during the 2020 election season. What was insidious is that some of the offending tweets were satirical in nature and posted by people with relatively few followers.

At least 80 FBI agents were assigned to a social media task force. The Department of Homeland Security had its own operation. Both were inspired by the alleged foreign interference in the 2016 election, known now as the “Russian collusion hoax.” However, it was just days before Election Day for the 2022 midterms that we learned that censorship has been a secret project for over two years of the DHS, the FBI, and “Big Tech.” Apart from Twitter, that included Facebook, Reddit, Discord, Wikipedia, Microsoft, LinkedIn, and Verizon Media.

The mission creep into attacking political speech, which is entitled to the greatest protection under the First Amendment, was inevitable. During the final weeks of the 2020 presidential election campaign, the New York Post was blocked by Twitter and other Big Tech giants from publicizing its story on the incriminating evidence on the Hunter Biden laptop. It was the smoking gun of influence peddling by Hunter Biden to enrich himself, Joe Biden, and his uncle to the tune of millions of dollars. We now know that the FBI joined in that censorship effort. It worked. A poll in 2022 showed that most Americans believe full coverage of the “laptop from hell” would have cost Biden the election.

To its discredit, most of the mass media joined in suppressing the news. Time magazine even ran a story bragging about how the media “fortified” the election to ensure Donald Trump’s defeat.

The other big free speech story of 2020 was the suppression of the doctors and scientists who refused to get with the program for an experimental mRNA therapy that was sold to the public as a vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The subjects targeted for suppression have included the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. Facebook created a restricted access portal to facilitate censorship requests from government bureaucrats.

Continue reading “”

Another disingenuous Federal judge.

Federal Judge Denies Injunction Request Against Rhode Island Magazine Confiscation Law

Banning and confiscating commonly-owned ammunition magazines does not run afoul of the Second Amendment.

At least according to U.S. District Judge John McConnell’s reading of the amendment.

On Wednesday, McConnell denied a motion for a preliminary injunction against Rhode Island’s recently passed law banning the sale and possession of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. He said that so-called Large-Capacity Magazines (LCMs) did not count as “arms” protected by the U.S. Constitution.

“The plaintiffs have failed in their burden to demonstrate that LCMs are ‘Arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment’s text,” Judge McConnell, an Obama appointee, wrote in his order. “Moreover, even were they ‘arms,’ the plaintiffs have failed to prove that LCMs are weapons relating to self-defense. There is no Second Amendment violation from the LCM Ban because of those two shortfalls of persuasion.”

Continue reading “”

Makes sense when “democracy”  means demoncraps are in charge

The Twitter files: leftism requires censorship.

One of the funny (although not ‘funny ha-ha’) things about all of this is that these same people bleat on about ‘democracy’ and its great value and worth. And yet they think of the public as unable to sort out the wheat from the chaff, as children in need of control from – yes – Big Brother Twitter. And they’re not the least bit ashamed about it. They had to do it to save democracy.

America’s Ruling Regime Doesn’t Fear Disinformation. It Fears Truth.

In Joe Biden’s America, attempting to cancel Joe Rogan is just counter-terror policy.

This is because our ruling class—in the name of “defending democracy”—classifies those who question the regime on any matter of consequence as a threat to the homeland, and pledges to pursue them accordingly.

Our ruling elites have engaged in an overt war on wrongthink masquerading as a domestic counter-terror mission since at least January 6, 2021.

Continue reading “”

NY Times Says Most Gun Owners are Law-Abiding, AR-15s are in Common Use, and Confiscation is Futile…Then Calls for 1st Amendment Limits on Gun Makers

It is important, of course, to distinguish between the large majority of law-abiding gun owners and the small number of extremists. Only about 30 percent of gun owners have owned an AR-15 or similar rifle, a majority support common sense gun restrictions and a majority reject political violence. …

Democrats, while they may hope for stricter gun laws overall, should also recognize that they do share common ground with many gun owners — armed right-wing extremists and those who fetishize AR-15s do not represent typical American gun owners or their beliefs. That’s especially true given the changing nature of who owns guns in the United States: women and Black Americans are among the fastest-growing demographics.

This summer, for the first time in decades, Congress passed major bipartisan gun safety legislation — a major accomplishment and a sign that common ground is not terra incognita. It should have gone further — and can in the future: preventing anyone under 21 from buying a semiautomatic weapon, for instance, and erasing the 10-year sunset of the background-check provision. States should also be compelled to pass tougher red-flag laws to take guns out of the hands of suicidal or potentially violent people. Mandatory gun-liability insurance is also an idea with merit.

States and the federal government should also pass far tougher regulations on the gun industry, particularly through restrictions on the marketing of guns, which have helped supercharge the cult of the AR-15. New York’s law, which allows parties like victims of gun violence and the state government to sue gun sellers, manufacturers and distributors, is a good model for other states to follow.

Federal regulators should also do more to regulate the arms industry’s marketing practices, which are becoming more deadly and deranged by the year. They have the legal authority to do so but, thus far, not the will to act.

Americans are going to live with a lot of guns for a long time. There are already more than 415 million guns in circulation, including 25 million semiautomatic military-style rifles. Calls for confiscating them — or even calls for another assault weapons ban — are well intentioned and completely unrealistic. With proper care and maintenance, guns made today will still fire decades from now. Each month, Americans add nearly two million more to the national stockpile.

But even if common-sense regulation of guns is far from political reality, Americans do not have to accept the worst of gun culture becoming pervasive in our politics. The only hope the nation has for living in and around so many deadly weapons is a political system capable of resolving our many differences without the need to use them.

— New York Times Editorial Board in America’s Toxic Gun Culture

 

original:

Image

Reworked to fit the narrative:

Image

 


Observation O’ The Day

One of two scenarios is possible:

1) Katherine Clark is lying about her child’s experiences to stoke hysteria around climate change for political gain.

2) She aggressively instilled unjust fear into her child, causing them to lose sleep over a political talking point.

We hope it’s the former for the sake of the child. Sincerely.

Indeed, but door number two is a distinct possibility:
Progressives Against Progress. [from the summer of 2010!]

The rise of environmentalism poisoned liberals’ historical optimism. “Crankery, in short, became respectable. In 1972, Sir John Maddox, editor of the British journal Nature, noted that though it had once been usual to see maniacs wearing sandwich boards that proclaimed the imminent end of the Earth, they had been replaced by a growing number of frenzied activists and politicized scientists making precisely the same claim.

In the years since then, liberalism has seen recurring waves of such end-of-days hysteria. These waves have shared not only a common pattern but often the same cast of characters. Strangely, the promised despoliations are most likely to be presented as imminent when Republicans are in the White House. In each case, liberals have argued that the threat of catastrophe can be averted only through drastic actions in which the ordinary political mechanisms of democracy are suspended and power is turned over to a body of experts and supermen.”

New study by frustrated anti-gun researcher doesn’t tell the whole story

by Lee Williams

More than 1 million Americans were killed by firearms from 1990 to 2021, and firearm deaths increased markedly during the pandemic, according to a study published Tuesday by the Journal of the American Medical Association network titled: “Trends and Disparities in Firearm Fatalities in the United States, 1990-2021.”

Firearm deaths reached their lowest point in 2004, and then increased more than 45% by 2021 — a 28-year high — the study claims. Black males were most at risk for homicide, and white males over 70 had the highest suicide rates.

The authors analyzed data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and used “key statistics” from the anti-gun group Brady United.

Despite its flaws, such as a reliance on biased statistics and a lack of causal factors, the report has been embraced by the legacy media and has proliferated across the internet.

The authors’ conclusion was rather simple: “This study found marked disparities in firearm fatality rates by demographic group, which increased over the past decade. These findings suggest that public health approaches to reduce firearm violence should consider underlying demographic and geographic trends and differences by intent.”

The study’s lead author, Dr. Eric W. Fleegler of Harvard Medical School’s Department of Pediatrics, has written numerous anti-gun studies and editorials. Gun-rights experts were quick to point out there was a lot missing from his most recent work.

Continue reading “”

Twitter and the FBI on a Collision Course After Sworn Document Shows Conflicting Narratives

The pipeline of revelations surrounding Twitter’s censorship of the Hunter Biden story keeps pumping out new material.

As RedState has reported extensively (click here and here for a taste of what’s transpired), Elon Musk delivered on a promise to release a trove of documents related to the decision to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story just prior to the 2020 election. Revelations include the fact that the Biden campaign had a direct through-line to get content removed, as well as the fact that Twitter lied about the “hacked material” excuse that was used to justify their actions.

But as I’ve written on before, Twitter is just one piece of the puzzle, and in some ways, the company was more a willing lackey than a mastermind of the plot. That distinction goes to the FBI, which was having weekly meetings with Twitter’s leadership to discuss what content to remove from the site. Further, it was the FBI that first planted the idea that the Hunter Biden laptop was a Russian hacking operation meant to spread “disinformation.”

How do we know that? Because of this unearthed FEC disclosure signed by none other than Yoel Roth, who recently left as Twitter’s head of “Trust and Safety.”

According to the old Twitter regime, they were simply responding to what the FBI told them, which was that the laptop had been hacked and leaked as a way to spread disinformation about Joe Biden. Meanwhile, the FBI has claimed in the past that they never gave such detailed descriptions to any social media company, but rather relied on general threat warnings of possible foreign interference. Yet, Roth says they specifically mentioned Hunter Biden, which would leave the laptop story unambiguously the subject at hand.

So who’s lying here? The safest bet is to assume both entities are lying. Clearly, given the document dump that happened on Friday evening, Twitter was far more involved in censoring the story than just listening to the advice of the FBI. Democrat elected officials were colluding with the company to decide what should be taken down.

On the other hand, the FBI obviously lied when it told Twitter (and other social media companies) that the Hunter Biden laptop story was a “hack and leak operation.” There was never any evidence that the laptop was hacked, and the FBI had been in possession of it for over a year at that point. Further, they gained possession of it from the computer repair store where the laptop was left. That means the FBI knew its provenance the moment The New York Post broke the story, but agents (no doubt backed by leadership) chose to falsely claim it was a foreign hacking operation anyway.

In the end, Twitter and the FBI did what they thought they needed to do to ensure Donald Trump wouldn’t be re-elected. There are no good guys or innocent bystanders here. The FBI lied, but Twitter wanted to believe what it was being told, and it pushed well past the boundaries of its stated TOS to ban the Post and block the Hunter Biden laptop story.

 

Who’s on first?

Biden claimed 9,000 oil drilling permits are unused. That’s true, but all work can’t begin ‘right now’

WHAT WE FOUND

Only about 10% of domestic oil and gas drilling occurs on federal land. The rest happens on private and state property, Ed Hirs, energy fellow at the University of Houston, said. At the end of 2021, there were 9,173 approved applications for drilling permits on federal and tribal lands, according to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

Jennifer Pett with the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), which represents independent oil and natural gas producers, told VERIFY that more than 9,000 approved permits aren’t producing oil and gas right now. Joshua Axelrod with the National Resources Defense Council also confirmed that more than 9,000 approved permits are unused.

However, that doesn’t mean oil companies could just start drilling right now and produce oil and gas.

According to the IPAA, some of these leases are going through a “complex regulatory process or are held up in litigation.” Western Energy Alliance, which represents hundreds of companies involved in the exploration and production of oil and natural gas, says on its website that it is defending more than 2,200 leases in court, most of which cannot be developed while the cases are ongoing.

Hirs explained that a variety of factors can halt the oil drilling process for unused permits.

“Federal leases…are subject to environmental studies. They’re also subject to lawsuits filed by neighbors, by municipalities, by counties and state governments. And so it’s become a more arduous process,” he said.

Companies often need to have separate permits secured for multiple well sites before they can bring in an oil rig, the IPAA says. But just because the government approves the permits doesn’t guarantee the well will produce oil and gas, as some never do. This means approved permits may go unused.

“If you’ve gone, like most companies do, and filed a dozen or two dozen [permits] at a time, and your first well turns out to be a dry hole, you’re not going to go ahead and drill the rest of those,” Hirs said.

It’s true that companies will sometimes sit on unused permits until it makes more financial sense. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that since there isn’t a penalty for not using a drilling permit, some companies wait to begin drilling until oil prices are high enough to make it worth their while. One operator told the GAO that they would add a drilling rig if the price of oil increases and may suspend one if it decreases. Another said a permit may go unused if oil and gas prices are too low for them to turn a profit.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose challenges for oil companies, too. Some are facing a six-month waiting period for piping materials needed to drill and are still short-staffed after layoffs spurred by the pandemic-induced drop in demand for oil, Pett said.