DARPA requests proposals for water-prospecting lunar orbiter.

WASHINGTON — DARPA is seeking proposals for a small lunar orbiter that could be used to test operations in very low orbits while prospecting for water ice.

DARPA issued a program solicitation April 14 for a mission concept called Lunar Assay via Small Satellite Orbiter (LASSO). The agency is seeking proposals for design studies that could lead to construction of a spacecraft.

In its solicitation, DARPA said its interest in LASSO is two-fold. One is to test navigation and propulsion technologies needed for operating in very low orbits around the moon, at altitudes as low as 10 kilometers. At those low altitudes, irregularities in the moon’s gravitational field caused by mass concentrations make it challenging to maintain a safe orbit, requiring frequent maneuvers.

The technologies needed for operating in those low orbits could have applications more generally in cislunar space, DARPA argues, citing the Space Force’s interest in cislunar space situational awareness (SSA). “Sustained and advanced maneuverability for spacecraft is key to enabling further improvements of SSA in cislunar space,” the solicitation states.

Besides testing operations in low orbits, LASSO would also map the lunar surface for concentrations of water ice “that are large enough and with a high enough confidence to justify the expense and energy required to retrieve it,” the solicitation states. The goal would be to cover the entire lunar surface in no more than four years, identifying all regions where subsurface water ice concentrations are at least 5%.

“LASSO will benefit DARPA, and eventually [the U.S. Space Force], by establishing new technologies that can offer increased maneuverability and SSA while also supporting commercial space capabilities and NASA missions by identifying the existence of proven reserves of water,” DARPA concluded in the solicitation.

Continue reading “”

David Hogg Has Humiliating Meltdown on ABC News

On Sunday’s episode of ABC News’ “This Week,”  former Trump White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus made mincemeat out of DNC Vice Chair David Hogg during a heated exchange as Priebus successfully cornered Hogg into defending one the Democratic Party’s recent messaging debacles — advocating for a suspected MS-13 gang member, wife beater, and human trafficker who was deported.

Priebus didn’t hold back, ripping into the current state of the Democratic Party: “They’ve got no message, they’ve got no movement, they’ve got no leader. I mean, it doesn’t get any worse than that.” He blasted Hogg for “defending Harvard” and the DNC for “traveling to El Salvador for MS-13 gang members,” mocking the party’s apparent priorities.

When the host interrupted to note that the deportee in question was only an “alleged” gang member, Priebus criticized Hogg’s pledge to spend $20 million to primary incumbent Democrats.

“You’re taking $20 million… it’s $20 million out of the DNC’s pocket,” he argued. “You can’t be on the board of the fishing and forest company and on Greenpeace at the same time,” he added, calling into question the DNC’s blurred lines between activism and governance.

Hogg jumped in, visibly agitated.

“Let me push back against that,” he began. “This was not an MS-13 gang member, and you damn well know that.”

But Priebus didn’t flinch.

“Oh, come on,” he fired back. “So keep defending this guy, you’re just digging your own hole.”

Priebus is right. Evidence of Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s connections to MS-13 came out last week, as did court documents showing that his wife accused him of domestic abuse and that he’s suspected of human trafficking.

Nevertheless, Hogg dug himself in deeper with the same old talking points we’ve heard before.

“In America, we have due process and we are a land of law and order,” he said. “This administration is repeatedly showing time and time again, they do not care about what the Supreme Court says, they do not care about the rule of law.”

Priebus responded with a reality check. “CNN just did a poll… most Americans think that all illegal immigrants should be deported, by the way.”

Hogg claimed that Abrego Garcia was denied counsel and due process and that “you cannot defend sending people… to another country where they don’t have rights.” Actually, you can defend sending an illegal immigrant back to his home country.

Naturally, Priebus didn’t let the moment slip. “If you want to try to defend the constitutionality of deporting an illegal immigrant that’s here — he’s here illegally,” Priebus insisted before pointing out that “every intel community agency and the White House say he is a member of MS-13.”

Fight with Soldiers, Not Lawyers.

When a group of German saboteurs were caught in New York and Florida in June 1942, planning to blow up hydroelectric plants and other loci of American industrial power but ratted out by two of their fellows in Operation Pastorius, President Franklin D. Roosevelt knew exactly what he was not going to do. “I want one thing clearly understood, Francis,” he told his Attorney General, Francis Biddle. “I won’t hand them over to any United States marshal armed with a writ of habeas corpus. Understand?” Biddle understood: this was war. There would be no civilian “due process.” They would get what was coming to them.

The men had buried their German uniforms on the beaches, and were wearing civilian clothes and carrying a lot of greenbacks when apprehended. Since they had not actually done anything, under civilian law, smart lawyers could get them off with just a couple of years in prison for violating immigration laws, spitting on the sidewalk, and picking their feet in Poughkeepsie. Further, there was a Supreme Court precedent from the Civil War era to deal with, Ex Parte Milligan (1866), in which a Confederate sympathizer and propagandist in Indiana had had his conspiracy conviction by a military tribunal overturned on the grounds that federal courts were still operating at the time of his arrest, and that’s where he should have been tried.

From Roosevelt’s point of view, however, habeas was a luxury the country couldn’t afford; Lincoln had felt the same way during his time as commander-in-chief. Pearl Harbor was, after all, only six months in the rear-view mirror and while the Battle of Midway had just sent the Japanese carrier fleet to the bottom, the Brits had gone tits up at Dunkirk in May 1940 and the Soviets were continuing to reel from Operation Barbarossa, which launched in June 1941. Shortly after the capture of the Germans, FDR issued Executive Proclamation 2561, which created a military tribunal to try their cases. They were thus charged not under civil law but American laws of war dating back to 1775 — the ones that allowed combatants to summarily execute spies and saboteurs. (During the Revolution, both the American  Nathan Hale and the British Major John André were hanged as spies.)

Instead, the operatives were given a military tribunal, convicted, and six of the eight (all had lived in the U.S. and two were American citizens) were sent to the electric chair in August; the two informers were given life or extended sentences in exchange for divulging the plot. Because in those days the Supreme Court actually did read the election returns, Roosevelt’s solution had been pre-emptively sanctioned by the Court in Ex Parte Quirin (July 1942):

In a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Harlan Fisk Stone, the Court concluded that the conspirators, as spies without uniform whose purpose was sabotage, violated the law of war and were therefore unlawful enemy combatants. Noting that Congress had, under the Articles of War, authorized trial by military commission for unlawful enemy combatants, the Court therefore determined that the President had not exceeded his power. Furthermore, the Court asserted that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments “did not enlarge the right to jury trial” beyond those cases where it was understood by the framers to have been appropriate.

What a difference fourscore and three years make. Although the Islamic ummah declared war on the United States of America in 1998, and although President Trump has designated Mexican and South American narco gangs such as Tren de Aragua as terrorists under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, an appalling number of American lawyers — including some ostensibly on the right — appear not to have gotten the message, and have dragged him into federal court over and over again over the phantom issue of alien “rights.” Most recently, the Supreme Court under the wretched John Roberts, ignored its own precious precedents and issued a midnight order temporarily blocking Trump from deporting criminal aliens slated for deportation until further notice while “due process” continues duly.

Continue reading “”

Missouri Lawmakers Resurrect Second Amendment Preservation Act

When Missouri lawmakers passed the “Second Amendment Protection Act” in 2021 and Republican Gov. Mike Parson signed it into law, anti-gun advocates immediately challenged the law in court. Ultimately, a circuit court deemed the law unconstitutional, and enforcement was blocked.

Now, a Missouri state senator and state representative have introduced similar measures that they believe will have the same effect and will pass court muster.

As a little background, the law, introduced and passed in response to several anticipated bills that would be overreach on Second Amendment freedoms during the early days of the Biden Administration, forbade police from enforcing federal gun laws that didn’t have an equivalent state law. Law enforcement agencies with officers who knowingly enforced federal gun laws without equivalent state laws faced a fine of $50,000 per violating officer.

At the time, Gov. Parson said the unique law “draws a line in the sand and demonstrates our commitment to reject any attempt by the federal government to circumvent the fundamental right Missourians have to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their property.”

The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Missouri in February 2022, arguing that the law obstructed cooperation between federal and state governments. A lower court ruled the bill unconstitutional, citing the Constitution’s supremacy clause that prioritizes federal law above state law.

On appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the ruling. At the time, Chief Judge Steven Colloton wrote in the ruling: “A State cannot invalidate federal law to itself. Missouri does not seriously contest these bedrock principles of our constitutional structure.”

One of the new measures, Senate Bill 23 by Sen. Rick Brattin, would have much the same effect. But Sen. Brattin said it is written so it will pass court muster this time.

Sen. Brattin told the Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee that the new version is a “reshuffling” of the bill to put it in accordance with the parameters of the Eighth Circuit Court’s ruling. The new version presents updated language in the bill’s statement of purpose and removes explicit references to federal agencies, centering the bill instead on state and local offices.

“This isn’t coming and reinventing the wheel,” Sen. Brattin told the committee. “This is just clarifying and making it in line with what the Eighth Courts have done.”

Continue reading “”

Trump: ‘Gun Doesn’t Do the Shooting, People Do’ Infuriates Antis

President Donald Trump has slapped anti-gunners with the wet towel of common sense, and it is clear from their reaction that they don’t like it.

Responding to questions about the tragic double shooting at Florida State University, which left two people dead and six others injured, the president told reporters, “These things are terrible, but the gun doesn’t do the shooting — the people do.”

CBS News noted another Trump reaction, “As far as legislation is concerned, this has been going on for a long time. I have an obligation to protect the Second Amendment. I ran on the Second Amendment, among many other things, and I will always protect the Second Amendment.”

Does this mean Trump will henceforth be recognized as the champion of Second Amendment rights? Probably not, since someone, somewhere will undoubtedly complain about something. But it does put him several notches higher than many, if not most, of his predecessors.

Writing at MSNBC, Steve Benen, producer for the Rachel Maddow Show, argued, “I suppose there’s a degree of truth to that — guns don’t pull their own triggers — but it’s also true that killers don’t throw their bullets at their victims. Rather, they use weapons, and those weapons can be regulated by the state.”

This may be one of those, “Well, we’ll see about that” moments, now that Attorney General Pam Bondi has announced the creation of a “Second Amendment Task Force” which will “combine department-wide policy and litigation resources to advance President Trump’s pro-gun agenda and protect gun owners from overreach.”

In her now-famous memorandum to all DOJ employees two weeks ago, AG Bondi stated, “For too long, the Second Amendment, which establishes the fundamental individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms, has been treated as a second-class right. No more… President Trump has made protecting the Second Amendment rights a priority for this administration.”

That said, the president’s reaction to the FSU shooting, which was allegedly committed by Phoenix Ikner, stepson of a Leon County sheriff’s deputy, using one of her firearms. That gun was recovered at the scene, according to the Tallahassee Democrat. Ikner is now in custody, having been shot during the incident.

Trump’s comments on the shooting are not unlike something one might hear from any Second Amendment activist. The alleged shooter is the only person responsible for the crime, for which there is presently no known motive. From Trump’s perspective, there is no reason to penalize every Florida gun owner—or all gun owners in the nation—for the murderous act.

Continue reading “”

Democrats’ gun control/election integrity paradox

Does America’s future really depend upon background checks, draconian controls on buying guns and a national firearm registry?

Democrats seem to think so. Gun control, including measures that violate the constitutional right of Americans to keep and bear arms, is a central feature of their platform. In fact, Democrat-controlled jurisdictions, most recently Colorado, have imposed the harshest gun control measures in the nation.

However, one can argue that, unless voting is limited to identifiable, properly registered citizens in good standing, interests inimical to the American Republic can influence, even determine, federal and local election outcomes. Without secure elections, the future of the Republic is, indeed, at risk.

But, even though Democrats favor photo ID, background checks and waiting periods to purchase constitutionally-protected firearms, they reject the same and similar methods to ensure election integrity as “voter suppression.”

Continue reading “”

Don’t make the mistake of confusing “fear” and “panic”. Fear is good. Fear is necessary. Fear is what stimulates the adrenal glands and the pituitary gland into releasing that stuff that turns us from squishy hairless office apes into nightmares that bodied saber toothed cats, cave bears, and lifts cars off of humans
– Lawdog

Another ATF Bureaucrat Removed From Office

Another long-term Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) employee is out as the purge of anti-gun advocates continues. The latest casualty, Megan Bennett, has been forced to retire.

Ms. Bennett was the Assistant Director of the Office of Enforcement Programs and Services (EPS). Recently, she came under fire for presenting former ATF Director Steve Dettelbach with what appeared to be an 80% AR-15 lower receiver in violation of Washington, DC law. DC requires all AR-15 lowers to be serialized and the transferee to go through the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

It was clear by the ceremony that Dettelbach didn’t go through background checks.

In the ceremony, Bennett talked about her pride in being part of all the new rules implemented under the Biden Administration. Bennett was an advocate of rules such as the pistol brace rule. The rule reclassified pistols equipped with pistol stabilizing devices as short-barreled rifles (SBRs). Millions of Americans own braced pistols. These citizens would have to register their firearms with the ATF’s National Firearms Act Division (NFA), or they could be charged with a felony, face 10 years in federal prison, and be forced to pay a $250.000 fine.

Multiple gun rights organizations sued over the pistol brace rule, claiming that it violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The proposed rule had a checklist called the ATF Form 4999 with a point system determining whether a braced firearm was a rifle or pistol. The Final Rule lacked any resemblance to the proposed rule. The gun rights groups claimed that the Final Rule was not a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule. These groups also contended that the rule was arbitrary and capricious because it had a “you know it when you see it” clause.

The courts would issue multiple injunctions against the ATF’s pistol brace rule, preventing the Bureau’s enforcement of its implementation. Braced pistols would return to shelves of gun stores. This injunction should have been a sign that the ATF should not try to enforce the pistol brace rule, but Ms. Bennett and EPS disagreed.

Continue reading “”