May 26, 2025

Memorial Day is an American holiday, observed on the last Monday of May, honoring the men and women who died while serving in the U.S. military.

Originally known as Decoration Day, it originated in the years following the Civil War and became an official federal holiday in 1971.

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.

Ben B@dejo

I think I’ve figured it out.

Harvard never disciplined certain foreign students who harassed and assaulted Jews on campus. They didn’t suspend them, so that they wouldn’t lose their F-1 visa status. That’s what they’re “hiding” from DHS.

Harvard keeps saying they provided all records, which is not entirely false — because there is no disciplinary record for students who were not disciplined. They aren’t failing to produce disciplinary records. The disciplinary records don’t exist. DHS is looking for disciplinary records that should exist, but don’t.

Harvard won’t explicitly say that they didn’t discipline them, because the moment they say that, the Trump administration can issue a finding, on that basis alone, that Harvard violated Title VI by failing to discipline them. And then Harvard has to either agree to a “voluntary” resolution agreement with the federal government (the Office for Civil Rights in either the Department of Education or the Department of Health and Human Services), or be issued an involuntary resolution agreement on terms that it doesn’t decide, or begin losing its federal funding — in a manner that cannot easily be challenged in a suit alleging violations of the Administrative Procedures Act (because the procedures will have been followed).

Harvard doesn’t want to admit that they didn’t discipline foreign students. And it’s too late to discipline them now, because if they do so now, it will be clear that they only disciplined them after DHS started asking questions.

DC_Draino

This is a brilliant analysis of why Harvard is refusing to work with DHS and why Trump is punishing them

DHS wants to deport foreign criminals who violated the rights of others in violent protests on campus

Harvard never punished them and is hiding surveillance footage of their crimes

Once its proven they failed to protect the Civil Rights of American citizens to protect foreign extremists, Harvard loses its federal funding

Harvard is backed into a corner by Trump

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 “”

There’s a Difference Between Being Pro-2A and Anti-Gun Control

This morning, as I awoke, the House Rules Committee was debating the budget reconciliation bill. The One Big, Beautiful Bill, as it’s being called. Part of that debate was the inclusion of the Hearing Protection Act, which would remove suppressors – they’re safety devices, by the way – from the list of items regulated by the National Firearms Act.

It should have already been included, but Rep. David Kustoff of Tennessee reportedly offered up something that was just table scraps for gun rights supporters. It reduced the fee for an NFA tax stamp from $200 to nothing.

It’s not nothing, but it’s pretty darn close.

See, the problem here is that we’ve been looking at Republicans and their position on guns wrong for quite some time.

For a while, the big thing was where they stood on gun control. The National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups’ questionnaires typically revolved primarily around whether they’d oppose things like universal background checks, assault weapon bans, and things of that sort.

There were some questions about measures that would restore people’s Second Amendment rights from where they are now, but a lot of it was about opposing gun control, and not without reason. After all, we were largely playing defense in legislatures across this nation, with more success in some than in others.

In truly pro-gun states, we saw the advancement of gun rights, of course, but in most places, that was much harder. That included in Congress.

The problem with playing defense is that you find yourself with two different groups. Some are pro-gun while others are anti-gun control.

Anti-gun control lawmakers have their place. In a state like California, that can be a big difference, especially if enough of them get elected to office. They can stem the tide of anti-Second Amendment legislation.

These are the defensive players.

What we really need right now, though, are actual pro-gun legislators in Congress.

Those are the ones who would easily back the Hearing Protection Act without hesitation and would insist the SHORT Act – which removes short-barrelled rifles from the National Firearms Act list as well – be included, too. They’d not just oppose gun control, but support legislation like national constitutional carry or, at least, national reciprocity.

Pro-gun doesn’t mean opposing gun control. It means looking at our right to keep and bear arms as a sacred right gifted to all people by virtue of being free men and women. It’s a right that makes damn sure we remain free, too.

For generations, our gun rights have been under assault, but for the first time, we have a chance to correct at least some of those past wrongs.

What we need aren’t anti-gun control folks. Not right now. We need lawmakers to actually be pro-gun for a change. We need them to step up and do what they know is right. We need to get some of our rights back so that we can defend ourselves from tyranny, either a tyrannical government or from the tyranny of the thug.

I’m willing to accept that we can’t get everything back, but nothing but the removal of the cost of a tax stamp is a slap in our faces. That’s the act of Republicans who are anti-gun control more than pro-gun.

It’s time we start calling them what they are.

Make them defend it, if they can.

Analysis: Reconciliation is the Best Shot for Deregulating Silencers, But it’s No Sure Thing
Silencer deregulation is now the closest it’s ever been to becoming a reality.

On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed its budget bill with a provision that takes silencers out of the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. It now heads to the Senate, where it is a very small part of a very big bill. And a must-pass bill that needs just 50 votes to pass at that.

It may not be smooth sailing once the Senate gets ahold of the bill, though.

Certainly, bundling the effort as part of a much larger budget bill is the best chance it has of getting through this Congress. That 50-vote Senate threshold will be a huge advantage for gun-rights activists backing the bill. There is next to no chance a bill delisting silencers from the NFA could get the 60 votes needed to clear a filibuster.

The Hearing Protection Act, a standalone bill that delists silencers, hasn’t garnered a single Democratic co-sponsor for several Congresses in a row, and Mike Crapo (R., Idaho), one of its co-sponsors, recently told me on the podcast it isn’t likely to get more than a few Democratic votes on its own.

The House version fares a bit better, with one Democratic co-sponsor and 85 Republicans.

But there are doubts over whether it could get through, given that chamber’s tight margins and likely opposition from Republicans like Pennsylvania’s Brian Fitzpatrick.

So, budget reconciliation offers gun-rights activists more hope of achieving their goal. Certainly, that’s what drove them to savage a less ambitious plan to just cut the NFA’s silencer tax to zero that House Ways and Means Committee Republicans had initially passed. Gun Owners of America went so far as to call it a betrayal and accused the committee of trying to save the NFA’s registration rules.

Those Republicans have argued they aren’t opposed to delisting silencers, but the gun-rights groups are miscalculating on what can get through reconciliation. The sticking point is over what the Senate Parliamentarian will allow under the Byrd Rule. The half dozen sources I spoke with on either side of the fight came to starkly different conclusions about what’s allowed.

The Byrd Rule forbids provisions that deal with “extraneous matters.” There are six definitions for what that means. The most relevant one to silencer delisting is likely the ban on provisions that produce “a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision.”

The gun-rights advocates, as shown in this Gun Owners of America fact sheet, argue the NFA is a tax, and the registration requirements in it are merely mechanisms to enforce that tax. So, eliminating registration and the other regulatory requirements associated with the NFA is not “extraneous,” and delisting silencers should be allowed.

However, the Ways and Means Republicans disagree. They argue since the main goal of delisting is not to affect the NFA’s tax, but rather to eliminate the other requirements in the law, the Parliamentarian will rule against it. They say they looked into the idea of including delisting but were warned by a former Parliamentarian that it wouldn’t work, which is why they went with the tax cut instead.

Still, everyone seems to agree that the Parliamentarian will probably approve eliminating the silencer tax. In fact, some on the gun group side argue the tax provision works as a kind of fallback. That way, even if delisting gets canned, the tax cut can still serve as a consultation.

On the Ways and Means side, they fear delisting silencers from the NFA while also eliminating the tax on them could be ruled as redundant, or the whole section could be tossed out under the Byrd Rule instead of just one part of it. In other words, adding the delisting provision risks ending up with no reform at all.

But that could happen even if delisting or the tax survives the Byrd Rule. The fact that the fiscal impact of the tax repeal is just $1.4 billion over 10 years, a tiny percentage of the overall budget, may work in either direction. It’s unlikely to be enough money to work as a meaningful bargaining chip to settle disputes over things like Medicaid cuts or SALT write-off limits. But it could also easily be swept away if enough Republican Senators think it isn’t worth the squeeze of potentially negative publicity.

That’s one of the risks of the hard-nosed public push the gun-rights groups pursued against the Ways and Means Republicans, which those Republicans didn’t know was coming. If the public backlash doesn’t work, they’ll end up getting what the Republicans they torched were trying to deliver in the first place–or nothing at all. And they’ve likely alienated them, which makes them and perhaps other Republicans less inclined to stick their neck out in the future.

Although if it does work, it’ll have been worth it. Silencer deregulation has been a top priority of the gun-rights movement for a very long time. Plus, if the gun groups prove to be right, the public pushback could convince Republicans they need to take a more aggressive tack going forward to stay in those groups’ good graces–especially since they were savvy enough to suss out the right play.

The ultimate bet is over who is interpreting the Byrd Rule correctly. If the gun groups end up getting silencers delisted from the NFA, I doubt they’ll fret much over whether they alienated some House Republicans along the way. If not, though, their pull on Capitol Hill will be further diminished for no gain.

Yeah, until the next demoncrap administration is in office and the feckless bureaucraps change their tune…..again.

ATF Issues New Guidelines for FFL’s, Ending Biden’s ‘Zero Tolerance’ Policy

Though the end of the Biden administration’s “zero tolerance” approach to federal firearms licensees was announced a few weeks ago, it took some time for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to come up with a new national policy for compliance inspections of FFLs.

That policy was officially unveiled on Friday, with the agency declaring that the new guidelines for both FFLs and ATF agents will “promote fairness, consistency, and public safety.”

The policy replaces the 2021 Enhanced Regulatory Enforcement policy, also known as the “zero-tolerance” policy. It directs industry operations investigators to consider all circumstances of an inspection rather than applying automatic outcomes, ensuring ATF uses its regulatory authority fairly and effectively.

“This update is about getting it right and making sure we’re focused on public safety,” ATF Acting Director Daniel Driscoll said. “Under the previous policy, some licensees were being penalized for simple mistakes such as, forgetting to put their license number on forms.

This new guidance gives our investigators the discretion to tell the difference between an honest mistake and a real threat to public safety. Law-abiding dealers deserve a system that treats them fairly, not like suspects. They are our partners and the first line of defense in our efforts to combat firearms trafficking.”

I can’t imagine Driscoll’s comments coming out of the mouth of former ATF Director Steve Dettelbach, who was happy to serve as Biden’s attack dog on the industry. Biden himself declared the gun industry an “enemy” in his 2020 campaign, but as Driscoll says, the industry (including individual gun dealers) are an inherent part of combatting illegal gun sales and gun trafficking.

So what’s actually changed? The ATF points to several major revisions from the previous policy.

Continue reading “”