Category: Mendacity O’ The Day

Medicaid? She’s a multimillionaire and her father, Jim Klobuchar, passed back in 2021.

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.

Try “well known but – poorly – covered up, before the 2020 election”

Yes, Our President Was Senile for a Long Stretch.

On the menu today: Before we dive into the latest detailed anecdotes of President Joe Biden’s undeniable senility in his final year in office, we ought to look back at the on-the-money prediction of these all-too-late tell-all books from back in 2022. I knew this was coming and there’s an extremely good chance you knew this was coming, too. Democrats can’t wait to move on; it’s humiliating to learn Biden couldn’t function in the evenings, his staff told Democratic donors that Kamala Harris was incompetent and unelectable, and that Tim Walz was terrified of debating JD Vance. But how do you learn from a mistake if you refuse to ever admit them?

Everyone Recognizes George Clooney . . . Except Biden

The Morning Jolt, June 20, 2022:

I think the single most predictable “bombshell” of the coming years is that sometime in 2025, someone like Bob Woodward or Robert Costa will publish a book with a title like “Perpetual Crisis: Inside the Biden White House,” and we will “learn” something like:

The president’s official health report said he was in fine shape for his age. But behind the scenes, Jill Biden, Ron Klain, and Susan Rice were deeply concerned the president’s health was rapidly declining, and that he would soon be unable to perform his duties.

His speech was becoming less and less coherent, his thinking more erratic, his mood shifts more intense, and he angrily lashed out at routine advice or recommendations. He insisted he had not been told things he had been briefed on and that his wrong statements were correct. He repeatedly insisted the U.S. had committed to protecting Taiwan, when no treaty required it.

When asked about this, Biden insisted no policy had changed. At almost every public appearance, no matter how much he had been instructed to stick to the teleprompter’s prepared remarks, Biden would go off script and add some comment or outburst — like “for God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power!” — that undermined his message and created new foreign-policy headaches.

But the first lady, Klain, and Rice all concurred that Biden’s problems could be hidden from the public, at least for now, and that Vice President Harris taking over was unthinkable — both because it would be too traumatic for the country and because they had little faith in Harris’s ability to defeat Trump or DeSantis in 2024.

Either man entering the Oval Office in January would put nothing less than all of American democracy at risk. For the good of the country, Biden had to stay in place, and his cognitive decline hidden — much as FDR’s disability, JFK’s back pain, and Woodrow Wilson’s stroke had been hidden before. 

Biden’s public appearances grew less and less frequent, and he virtually stopped doing sit-down interviews. Late at night, Klain and Rice would get together, satisfied they had kept the ship sailing for another day. All the while, the public had no idea that Biden was in such rough shape.

Though it will be treated like a bombshell revelation, the fact is we all have eyes and ears and can see and hear Biden.

I just wish the lottery numbers were so easy to predict.

Enjoy these days of Joe Biden getting knocked around like a piñata, because after Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson have sold all the books they can, the story of the coverup of Joe Biden’s failing physical and mental health is going to disappear like the subject of a David Copperfield prime-time special. It’s just too embarrassing, too harmful to the Democrats’ priorities now, too much of a benefit to Donald Trump and Republicans. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer yesterday, on CNN:

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.”

Ohio Court says concealed carry is not a constitutional right.

Michael Bloomberg is a multibillionaire who hates the Second Amendment. He hates Open Carry most of all. And so it should come as no surprise that a writer for one of his companies (Bloomberg Law) opened his article by saying, “Ohio authorities can prohibit citizens from carrying concealed weapons if they’re able to openly carry guns, a state appeals court ruled Thursday.”

Of course, the judge said no such thing. I suspect that the Bloomberg writer did not read past the “Topics and Issues” description of the case.

The Ohio Court of Appeals held that there is no constitutionally protected right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment and that there is no constitutionally protected right to concealed carry under the State of Ohio Constitution.

The Court explained in paragraph 108 of the decision that the Ohio legislature had created a limited statutory right to concealed carry, and the creation of that state statutory right “to others cannot expand Hall’s constitutional right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, just as Ohio could not contract the scope of that [Open Carry] right by statute.”

The Ohio Court of Appeals addressed the Defendant’s three Constitutional challenges: the Fourth Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms under the United States and the State of Ohio Constitutions.

After the Defendant lost on his Fourth Amendment issue raised on appeal, the Second Amendment analysis began on page 10 and ended on page 45 of the 46-page opinion. The State of Ohio Supreme Court had already decided that, “[T]here is no constitutional right to bear concealed weapons” under the State Constitution, and so that issue raised by the Defendant was quickly disposed of.

What is impressive and unusual about this decision by the Ohio Court of Appeals decision in State of Ohio v. Desmond Hall is the depth and breadth of its analysis.

By contrast, the California Court of Appeals, in the case of People v. Miller (2023), likewise concluded that concealed carry is not protected by the Second Amendment, but did so in just eight paragraphs.

The moral of this story is that one should not rely on reporters, especially not when one can go directly to the source, which in this instance is the published opinion of the Ohio Court of Appeals, available for everyone to read for free.

Most people rely on others’ opinions when those opinions confirm their unfounded beliefs. They never make the effort to seek out the truth, even when the truth, as the judges see it, is one click away.

Don’t be like most people.

State of Ohio v. Desmond Hall 
People v. Miller, 94 Cal. App. 5th 935 (2023).

That phone in your pocket is a spy and a tattle tale. The goobermint has long known, and long used this knowledge for its own purposes. The demonscraps are so stupid,  they think we’re so stupid, they can sell their BS as fresh clean cattle fodder.

‘Inorganic’ – GPS Data Reveals Bernie Sanders, AOC Anti-Oligarchy Rally Was Full Of Serial Protesters

The Democratic Party launched a full-scale propaganda blitz in a desperate attempt to sway public opinion as its favorability ratings plunged to record lows. True to form, the party of leftist radicals prefers to bend reality—relying on rent-a-protesters or, in this case, inorganic crowds—to create a false perception of popularity. And that’s exactly what unfolded on Friday in Denver.

Drone footage shows a large crowd as U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, spoke at Denver’s Civic Center. The outspoken socialist wrote on X: “34,000 people out in Denver. Largest political rally there since 2008.” 

Sanders attempted to explain that the large turnout reflected what voters are saying: “No to authoritarianism. No to oligarchy. No to Trumpism.”

However, leftist corporate media failed to fact-check the socialist for misinformation or disinformation. Others did—using a sophisticated algorithm to analyze data from all smartphone devices at the event—and found the numbers were severely overinflated. 

Many of the attendees were probably bussed in and had a history of participating in Antifa/BLM, pro-Hamas, and pro-Palestinian protests. The Democratic Party is known for bussing activists through NGO networks to events to fill seats—a tactic repeatedly used throughout Kamala Harris’ 2024 presidential campaign trail to create fake hype.

Data analyst Tony Seruga exposed just how staged the latest Democratic Party rally was, revealing their ongoing attempts to manipulate public perception with inorganic crowds made up mainly of DEI activists rather than genuine grassroots supporters:

GPS—Here we go again, there were 20,189 devices. Still a large crowd but not even close to the 30,000 quoted in Denver newspapers nor the 34,000 quoted by Bernie Sanders and AOC.

84% of the devices present had attended 9 or more Kamala Harris rallies, antifa/blm, pro-Hamas, pro-Palestinian protests, 31% had attended over 20.

For more insight into what data we also look at in addition to GPS location data would be demographic and psychographic data using over 6,000 different databases, i.e., like the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Pew Research Center, market research firms like YouGov, Experian, specialized tools like ESRI’s Tapestry Segmentation, consumer surveys, social media platforms like 𝕏, Facebook, Linkedin.

Demographic data includes basic characteristics like age, gender, income, education level, occupation, marital status, family size, ethnicity, and where people live (e.g., city, state).

Psychographic data dives deeper into people’s lifestyles, values, attitudes, interests, personality traits, social class, activities, and how they make purchasing decisions. For example, it might show if someone values sustainability, enjoys outdoor activities, participates in community activism.

While demographic data is straightforward, psychographic data can reveal sensitive personal details, like beliefs even life goals.

Additionally, by cross pollinating each device with other devices regularly within close proximity to the target device we are able to build a detailed profile for each target.

90% of those in the above 84% were likely working with one of these five groups and is the reason for their presence.

Once again, this is based a very sophisticated algorithm that looks at the behavioral metrics for each device, including the physical 1:1 proximity to leaders and paymasters from these groups in the past.

Disruption Project, Rise & Resist, Indivisible Project, Troublemakers and the Democratic Socialists of America.

Each receives money from ActBlue and at least three, via USAID.

Disruption Project: Legal status is unclear, likely operating illegally. Rise & Resist: 501c4 non-profit Indivisible Project: 501c4 non-profit Troublemakers: Legal status is for profit. Democratic Socialists of America: 501c4 non-profit

Continue reading “”

And they wonder why no one trusts them anymore.

Once upon a time, people trusted the media. When someone was questioned about where they got some fact, just responding, “I heard it on the news,” was enough to silence criticism.

In fact, distrust of the media was something used in fiction to show that an individual was a little unhinged; if not a lot unhinged.

Thanks for reading Tilting At Windmills! This post is public so feel free to share it.

I’m not saying the media was more trustworthy, mind you, only that they had that trust.

They don’t anymore. More and more people distrust the mainstream media, and the media seems to be at a loss for why. At least, I’d imagine they would be since they don’t seem to be addressing the problem, even as their viewership/readership plummets.

New media outlets tend to get a lot more traffic and have a lot more trust, but the mainstream media can’t understand why. For them, it’s something insidious and not the result of their own failures.

It started ages ago, but it ramped up during Trump’s first term when they decided it was their duty to make sure Trump was a one-term president. They stopped even pretending, and it just got worse.

This week, we had a couple of grand examples of it.

Let’s start with this one.

Image

Now, that looks pretty clear-cut, doesn’t it? Tulsi Gabbard saying Trump and Putin are tight is kind of unambiguous.

Except, it’s BS. The AP got called on it, and then posted this:

Image

That’s right. Gabbard wasn’t talking about Putin but Modi. They hoped they could get away with it, but they didn’t.

The story is now gone in that way, but the internet is forever.

But, in fairness, it’s not just the mainstream media that’s the problem. Even their new media allies engage in this, too.

The Daily Beast ran this on Monday:

The story comes from an upcoming book, apparently, which means legacy media at work, with The Daily Beast ginning up interest in it.

Now, we know that Trump has played fast and loose with marriage vows in the past, so this certainly sounds plausible. Except, it didn’t happen.

Well, it did, but not like they’re spinning it.

Continue reading “”

But the Great Replacement Theory is just a myth, right?

“GOOD MEN PROJECT” (My Foot)
Author thinks inanimate objects are more of a problem than those with evil intent

Gary Whittenberger, Reducing Gun Violence in the United States

Gary Whittenberger is a retired psychologist and freelance writer known for his thoughtful contributions to discussions on psychology, philosophy, science, and religion. Holding a doctorate in clinical psychology from Florida State University, he worked as a psychologist in federal prisons for 23 years. Whittenberger is an active member of the freethought community and co-directed the Tallahassee Freethinkers’ Forum. He has authored several works, including God Wants YOU to be an Atheist, and has written for Skeptic Magazine, Free Inquiry, and other publications. His articles often tackle complex topics such as personhood, free will, and gun violence prevention.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Quick backdrop questions, what have the work in clinical psychology, in federal prisons, and freethought activism, taught about the American culture’s psyche around guns–the heart of the matter?

Dr. Gary Whittenberger: Scott, I want to thank you for this opportunity to talk about my article “A Comprehensive Program for Reducing Gun Violence in the US” which appeared in the October/November 2024 issue of Free Inquiry magazine.  Also, I compliment you on the great work you are doing with The Good Men Project.  We need more journalism, analysis, and commentary like that.

Turning to your question:  I think Americans have an obsession with guns which is unhealthy.  I think it has roots in the founding of a new country, exploring and settling the western frontier, and rebellion against old governments, all of which occurred a few centuries ago.  Fear and anger at levels higher in our country than what are found in other countries stimulate the ownership, purchase, and use of firearms.  Part of the solution is to lower these emotions and part of it is to reduce the access to and the number of firearms in the country.

Jacobsen: In the Uvalde case, what were the failures of law enforcement?

Whittenberger: Law enforcement officers failed to confront the shooter as soon as they could have and should have.  In my opinion, whenever there are at least two officers who have firearms on the scene, they should call for backup but begin to engage the shooter.  This response needs to be stipulated in policies, laws, and training.  Officers who do not have the willingness or courage to act to defend others in stressful situations should not be in law enforcement.

Jacobsen: How can gun regulations balance with Second Amendment rights?

Whittenberger: As I said in my article, the Second Amendment needs to be amended.  Although American citizens should have a right to possess, own, and use guns, this right should not be absolute.  The right should be regulated, restricted, and limited for the common good, especially to minimize unjustified aggression.  I have suggested that ordinary citizens be limited to three firearms.  Nobody needs an armory.  I think “military type” guns should be held from the public.  I believe that five different groups of persons should be prohibited from having guns.  Any ethical, well-trained, and responsible firearms user has no good reason to oppose these reforms.

Jacobsen: What is the importance of considering mental health in approach reduction of gun violence?

Whittenberger: I think it is extremely important, but I don’t agree with the more conservative pundits who think it should be the only approach to reducing gun violence.  The more guns there are in a society, the more unjustified gun violence there will be.  The more guns are accessible to people likely to misuse them, the more unjustified violence there will be.  Yes, treating mental health problems is necessary, but not sufficient.  We need to identify, diagnose, and treat mental health problems early, during childhood, and this is why we need so many more social workers, counselors, and psychologists to work with children in our schools.

Jacobsen: What community intervention efforts can mitigate gun-related violence?

Whittenberger: I think politicians, office holders, nonprofits, and all citizens of a community should strongly advocate for and support gun control policies, as I have outlined in my article.  We all need to commit ourselves to slightly reducing our freedoms to possess, own, and use guns in order to reduce gun violence and promote the common good.  Give up a little in order to gain so much more!  I support buy-back programs conducted by cities and counties.

Jacobsen: What other training or preparedness might help law enforcement agencies?

Whittenberger: Law enforcement agencies need to improve both their employee selection procedures and their training.  Officers need to use their agency-issued firearms in a prudent, rational, ethical, and legal manner.   Over-use and under-use of firearms by officers are both problems which need to be corrected.  We saw in the Uvalde situation that officers took up to 75 minutes to mount their counter-attack, which was way too long.  On the other hand, we have seen in other kinds of situations that officers are too prone to use their firearms too quickly to resolve a situation.

Jacobsen: What other reasonable and unreasonable approaches to the reduction of gun violence are being proposed other than, for example, pray?

Whittenberger: I think I have mentioned most of the reasonable approaches in my article.  Banning firearms for private citizens in the US would be an unreasonable approach.  I think more than half the citizens do have legitimate uses for the ownership of firearms for protection, hunting, and target practice, but ownership of firearms by some citizens, of military-grade guns, and more than three guns is not reasonable.

Jacobsen: What would be a reasonable estimate of efficacy of these proposition to reduce gun violence?

Whittenberger: I think full implementation of the practical steps I have recommended would reduce gun violence by 90%.

Jacobsen: What might be some criticisms of your approach?

Whittenberger: A common criticism is “Implementation of your recommended gun regulation program would lead to the banning and confiscation of guns among private citizens.”  This is a slippery slope argument which is used to scare people and arouse resistance to gun regulation.  My approach is a common sense and gradual approach which would not be fully in place for about 75 years.  And yet, reductions in gun violence will gradually dissipate over that time period.   Responsible users of firearms should be willing to sacrifice just a little of their freedom for the common good which comes from a reduction of gun violence in our society.

Jacobsen: What might be barriers to implementation at the state of the federal level?

Whittenberger:   Extreme selfishness, fear, the NRA, and owners of large numbers of guns would be barriers to implementation.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Gary.

Whittenberger:   You are welcome.  And thank you for bringing wider exposure to my article and my many ideas about gun control.  Gun violence is rampant in our society and we need to solve the problem!  “Thoughts and prayers” for victims just don’t cut it.  Please continue your excellent work with The Good Men Project.

Observation O’ The Day:
I assume you’ve noticed that the lying dems almost unanimously shake their heads “no” as they’re saying “yes” to almost every lie they tell. this is a perfect example.

He likely doesn’t care how he’s thought of, as he thinks his pension and benefits are sacrosanct. Well. I’d give him pause to consider that at Courts Martial where he could wind up ‘dismissed’ (that’s the same as a Dishonorable Discharge for the enlisted ranks) and the loss of all pay and benefits. Not to mention a long term at the Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth.

Judicial Watch Sues for Details of Army Labeling Right to Life Groups as Terrorists

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense for details of U.S. Army training materials that designate pro-life organizations or individuals as “terrorists” (Judicial Watch Inc. v U.S. Department of Defense (No 1:24-cv-02895).

Judicial Watch filed suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia after the Department of the Army failed to respond to an August 13, 2024, FOIA request for:

  • All emails of Army Secretary Christine Wormuth, Under Secretary Gabe Camarillo, Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George, and/or Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James Mingus regarding the designation of pro-life groups or individuals as “terrorists.”

Judicial Watch made a subsequent FOIA request to Special Command Operations, U.S. Army Reserve, Fort Liberty, NC, a component of the Army, for:

  • Records related to the designation of the National Right to Life Committee or any other pro-life organization as “terrorists” in anti-terrorism training materials used by Fort Liberty.
  • All emails of Garrison Commander Col. John Wilcox regarding the designation of pro-life groups as “terrorists” in Army training material.

A photo reportedly circulating on social media shows one slide from a presentation used to train soldiers. The slide, titled “Terrorist Groups,” lists several groups, including National Right to Life and Operation Rescue, and “opponents of Roe v. Wade.” The Army responded to the news report, saying the material had not been vetted correctly. 

“Let’s be blunt – the radical leftist Biden-Harris administration is trying to set our military against conservative American citizens,” Judicial Watch Tom Fitton said. “And that we have had to sue after being denied basic records about the Army’s targeting of pro-life Christians makes the scandal worse.”

In his new book Rights and Freedoms in Peril, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton details a long chain of abuses officials and politicians have made against the American people and calls readers to battle for “the soul and survival of America.” The book details how the progressive movement threatens America’s most venerable institutions, undermining the core principles that make this country a beacon of hope to the world.

 Earlier this month Judicial Watch sued the U.S. Department of Defense for records regarding the U.S. Air Force Academy’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) plans.

 In June 2024, Judicial Watch sued the Defense Department for records regarding the deletion of the words “Duty, Honor, Country” from the United States Military Academy at West Point’s mission statement.

 In March 2023, records obtained by Judicial Watch from the Department of Defense showed the Air Force Academy has made race and gender instruction a top priority in the training of cadets.

In July 2023, Judicial Watch exposed records from the United States Air Force Academy, a component of the United States Department of Defense, which included instructional materials and emails that address topics such as Critical Race Theory, “white privilege,” and Black Lives Matter. 

In July 2022, Judicial Watch sued the Department of Defense for  records related to the United States Naval Academy (USNA) implementing Critical Race Theory (CRT) in the training of naval recruits.

 In June, Judicial Watch received records revealing Critical Race Theory instruction at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point One training slide contains a graphic titled “MODERN-DAY SLAVERY IN THE USA.” [Emphasis in original]. 

In the day of the internet, which records and keeps everything, these moron politicians still think they can gaslight people

Tony Blinken Tells Congress ‘No One Anticipated’ Taliban Takeover of Afghanistan.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken testified before Congress on the Biden administration’s chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal in a long-awaited hearing that was originally scheduled for September. Though he claimed that “no one” in the Biden State Department anticipated the Afghan government’s swift collapse, a group of diplomats warned Blinken of that very prospect roughly one month before the Taliban captured Kabul.

“Even the U.S. government’s most pessimistic assessments did not anticipate that the Afghan government and security forces would collapse so rapidly in the face of Taliban advances,” Blinken told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday.

Twenty-six diplomats, however, sent Blinken a dissent cable in mid-July 2021—one month before the fall of Kabul and six weeks before a suicide bombing attack killed 13 American servicemembers—warning of Afghanistan’s rapid deterioration. Asked why he ignored that cable, Blinken responded, “Very simply because no one anticipated the government and Afghan forces would collapse as quickly as they did.”

Blinken’s appearance comes nearly two months after the Biden official was set to testify before the House committee in late September. But Blinken failed to attend the hearing, defying a subpoena in the process, and only agreed to testify after the November presidential election. Blinken also missed a May deadline to turn over withdrawal-related internal documents, which were requested under subpoena.

Continue reading “”

A President has plenary power to pardon anyone he wants for any federal crime. That being said, the Bidens are just another crime family that managed to amass enough political power to insulate themselves from the legal consequences any normal citizen would be subject to.

Biden pardons his son Hunter despite previous pledges not to.

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden pardoned his son, Hunter, on Sunday night, sparing the younger Biden a possible prison sentence for federal felony gun and tax convictions and reversing his past promises not to use the extraordinary powers of the presidency for the benefit of his family members.

The Democratic president had previously said he would not pardon his son or commute his sentence after his convictions in the two cases in Delaware and California. The move comes weeks before Hunter Biden was set to receive his punishment after his trial conviction in the gun case and guilty plea on tax charges, and less than two months before President-elect Donald Trump is set to return to the White House.

It caps a long-running legal saga for the younger Biden, who publicly disclosed he was under federal investigation in December 2020 — a month after his father’s 2020 victory — and casts a pall over the elder Biden’s legacy. Biden, who time and again pledged to Americans that he would restore norms and respect for the rule of law after Trump’s first term in office, ultimately used his position to help his son, breaking his public pledge to Americans that he would do no such thing.

In June, Biden categorically ruled out a pardon or commutation for his son, telling reporters as his son faced trial in the Delaware gun case, “I abide by the jury decision. I will do that and I will not pardon him.”

As recently as Nov. 8, days after Trump’s victory, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre ruled out a pardon or clemency for the younger Biden, saying, “We’ve been asked that question multiple times. Our answer stands, which is no.”