Colleges Are Dropping Testing, Curriculum Standards in Order to Create ‘Diversity’

Colleges and universities are changing both admissions and curriculum requirements in order to create more ‘diversity’ within their student bodies. These changes often involve lowering of standards, and an implication that students from certain backgrounds cannot score as high on tests as their peers.

1.  SAT spikes social justice-themed ‘adversity scores’…kind of

“Mr. Singer’s actions exemplified the pernicious effect of racial preferences on the college admissions process.”    

This year, the College Board ruled that it would not go forward with adding the proposed controversial “adversity score,”  which would add points to a student’s SAT/ACT score based on his or her socioeconomic background. After criticism from many students and parents concerned not only about the implication that certain groups need to handicap their test scores but also about the creation of unfair disadvantages for students who don’t fit the ‘diversity’ bill, the CEO of College Board decided to instead use a system by a different name: “Landscape.” This program doesn’t assign an “adversity score,” but has the same goal of considering socioeconomic factors into SAT and ACT scores. The factors considered are housing stability, median family income, household structure, college attendance, education levels, and crime.

2. Judge recommends “bias training” preceding Harvard lawsuit

Harvard found itself in the middle of a major scandal this year, after being accused of bias against Asian Americans via the university’s affirmative action admissions program. A federal judge ultimately sided with Harvard and suggested that a mandatory bias training for the school’s admissions officers should be implemented to give every student a fair chance. Edward Blum, President of plaintiff group Students for Fair Admissions, says he will be taking this case to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, as he believes Harvard does indeed have a history of discriminating against Asian American applicants in its effort to ensure the admission of applicants of other minority ethnicities.

3. Stanford pushes separate physics course for minority students

This year Stanford pushed a separate physics course to ensure retention of “underrepresented” physics majors. The course is a modified version of a standard required course, with additional class time and “learning assistants” hired to offer extra help with coursework. The school stated that “students from underrepresented groups often don’t have the same level of preparation from high school as their majority peers,” and that “the difference in preparation is large enough that it may lead students to drop out of the major but small enough that the kind of support offered by this course can be enough to keep them in.”

4. Ditching SAT/ACT requirement to promote diversity

To increase diversity, Colorado College has decided to make it “optional” to submit SAT/ACT scores. “Standardized test scores do not always reflect the academic potential of students from disadvantaged backgrounds,” said one professor. The school suggests these tests limit minorities, and therefore that removing this requirement makes it easier to reach those with a disadvantaged background. By removing the SAT/ACT requirement, the school claims that their numbers of freshmen have doubled. These numbers do not say, however, the academic success the institution is experiencing

5. Using affirmative action to get a “competitive advantage”

The man at the center of this years’ college admissions scandal, Rick Singer, reportedly not only helped celebrities get their children into college by lying about athletic involvement but also instructed them to lie about their ethnicities. If he was working with a white family, Singer would reportedly tell them to lie about their race on college applications to give that student a better competitive advantage.

“Mr. Singer’s actions exemplified the pernicious effect of racial preferences on the college admissions process,” said Dion J. Pierre, a conservative research associate, adding that that Asian and Caucasian Americans have less edge than the other races while millions of dollars in grants and scholarships are given to students solely based on skin color.

U.S. Stocks Climb Again in Santa Claus Rally as All Three Main Indexes Close at Records

U.S. stocks powered higher again Thursday, helped by reports of record year-end retail sales, though trading volumes were light and markets were closed in Europe, Hong Kong and Australia for another post-Christmas holiday.

Amazon led the market up, with the stock gaining more than 4% after the e-commerce giant said the holiday shopping season broke all records.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 105.94 points or 0.37% to 28,621.39 and has gained for 9 of the past 11 trading days to post a year-to-date rise of 22.69%.

The S&P 500 gained 16.53 points, or 0.51%, to 3,239.91 for a year-to-date return of 29.24%.

The Nasdaq Composite rose 69.51 points, or 0.78%, to a new record at 9,022.39 after posting a record close for a 10th straight day, the longest winning streak since July 1997. Year-to-date the Nasdaq has risen 35.98%

U.S. Gun Sales Near Record High as Violent Crime Rate Drops
Gun-related crimes fell 68 % and violent crimes 48.6 % in the same period that more guns were sold in the U.S.

Violent crime dropped by 48.6% in the U.S. in the same period that saw the record number of arms purchases: 423 million firearms, according to recently released data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

Firearms-related accidents alone declined 68 percent between 1986 and 2018, a period in which U.S. citizens purchased 8.1 billion rounds of ammunition.

“These figures show that the United States has a strong desire to continue buying firearms for lawful purposes,” Joe Bertozzi, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, told American Military News.

“The continued popularity of guns demonstrates that Americans have a keen interest in protecting themselves and their homes,” he added.

American citizens have the right to defend themselves. They have been able to counteract crime as opposed to what is happening in Latin American countries where the hyper-regulation of arms has granted a monopoly to law enforcement, state security forces, and criminal groups that act above the law, such as organized crime groups.

Caracas, Venezuela, which lost the right to carry arms under Hugo Chavez, is the most striking example of the city with the most homicides. Now Mexico, with more than 100 homicides per day and the second most violent city in the world, Acapulco, is living through the most violent year in its history and shows how the rigid law restricting the bearing of arms leaves the law-abiding citizen vulnerable.

Meanwhile, in the United States, more and more citizens have legal access to firearms. More than 25 million people registered in 2019 to carry guns in the US.

According to the FBI, 202,465 people registered to buy weapons on the biggest selling day. The gun registry process involves authorities corroborating whether the person has a criminal record.

This was the second-highest figure in history. The highest was in 2017 when 203,086 people filed their information for review in a single >
Both historical dates coincided with “Black Friday,” which falls on the last weekend of November, the day when there are massive discounts across the country.

Compared to last year, there was an 11% increase in domestic sales. At the end of November 2018, there were 182,093 registered arms buyers. As Christmas and New Year approaches, the numbers continue to rise.

In rural states like North Dakota, the number of buyers increased by up to 20%. According to Cody Schuh, owner of Shooters Inc., the political climate always contributes to a spike in sales. But he says this year was noteworthy. People not only stocked up on ammunition but also bought new rifles and pistols.

“Now we’re beginning to see that individuals buy weapons because they want to be safe without being told to do so by the state,” Schuh said.

It should be noted that the figures show the number of buyers, not the number of weapons. In October of this year alone, 1.2 million firearms were sold in the USA, 10.8% more than in October 2018.

Also, in October, the FBI reported that it reviewed the profiles of 2.4 million potential buyers, the highest record in a given month. In October last year, it was 2.3 million.

According to Small Arms Analytics and Forecast, 1.1 million firearms were sold in the U.S. in September of this year, 11% more than in September last year.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms and overthrow an abusive government with a militia.

“What this tells us is that Americans vote with their wallets when it comes to the ability to exercise the Second Amendment,” said Mark Oliva, director of public relations for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Oliva says that this phenomenon is interesting, because contrary to the will of politicians who openly demand to restrict the Second Amendment, citizens are supplying themselves with weapons.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution speaks of the right of every American citizen not only to bear arms but to arm a militia if the government abuses its power and exceeds its functions.

Oliva considers FBI data to be the most accurate barometer when measuring arms sales and argues that this is not just a whim or coincidence but a “meaningful investment.”

He argues that U.S. citizens choose to invest their hard-earned money to exercise their rights, unlike the politicians seeking to restrict their ability to defend themselves.

The Democratic Party wants to remove Trump from power, but to deprive citizens of the right to rise against a tyrannical government.

For example, the Democratic Party demands greater control when carrying arms and has the backing of at least 150 companies that demanded greater control before the Senate. But sales show that millions of people disagree.

The irony is that the same party that seeks the removal of President Trump, whom they consider to be abusing his power, is the one that wants to deprive citizens of the ability to remove a tyrant from power.

This reflects the actions of the Democratic Party. They demand that the high and mighty state be the one to remove Trump from power, not “the people” they claim to represent.

Meanwhile, those with a more libertarian or conservative political orientation refuse to give more power to the state, much less to take away their right to self-defense.

For history has shown that every tyranny is established once it disarms its citizens. This is what happened in Cuba through Fidel Castro’s speech “Guns? For what?”

Sixty years later, Cuba is still run by the same family. Twenty-five million people in the U.S. showed with their weapons that they are not willing to risk the same thing happening in their country.

They are safer both from crime and the possibility of the emergence of tyranny. That is why they are literally in charge of their self-defense.

Virginia’s Second Amendment attack

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam apologized for his medical school blackface stunt, but he will have much more to apologize for if he signs into law a bill that attacks Virginia residents’ Second Amendment rights.

The measure is Senate Bill 16, which would ban “assault” firearms and certain firearm magazines.

Since Democrats have seized control of Virginia’s General Assembly, they are likely to push hard for strict gun control laws. Those laws will have zero impact on Virginia’s criminals and a heavy impact on Virginia’s law-abiding residents who own, or intend to own, semiautomatic weapons for hunting or their protection.

As a friend once explained to me, “I carry a gun because I can’t carry a cop.”

I am proud of my fellow Virginians’ response to the attack on their Second Amendment rights. Firearm owners in the state have joined with sheriffs to form Second Amendment sanctuary counties. That means local authorities will be required to protect Second Amendment rights in the face of any attempt by Virginia’s General Assembly to abrogate those rights.

Eighty-six counties – over 90 percent – in the Virginia commonwealth have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions. Spotsylvania County’s Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to approve a resolution declaring that county police will not enforce state-level gun laws that violate Second Amendment rights.

Sheriff Chad Cubbage said, “Be it be known that the Page Sheriff hereby declares Page County, Virginia, as a ‘Second Amendment Sanctuary,’ and that the Page County Sheriff hereby declares its intent to oppose any infringement on the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.”

Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins made a vow during a Board of Supervisors meeting, where the board unanimously agreed to declare the county a Second Amendment constitutional county, to “properly screen and deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms.”

In an attempt to appease residents’ resistance, Northam suggested there would be a ban on only the sales of semiautomatic rifles. He would allow gun owners to keep their current AR-15s and similar rifles as long as they registered them. Otherwise, they must surrender the rifles.

I’d urge Virginians not to fall for the registration trick. Knowing who owns what weapons is the first step to confiscation. Northam further warned, “If we have constitutional laws on the books, and law enforcement officers are not enforcing those laws on the books, then there are going to be consequences, but I’ll cross that bridge if and when we get to it.”

Some Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill say that local police who do not enforce gun control laws should face prosecution and even threats of the use of the National Guard.

Virginians must heed the words and capture the spirit of their two most distinguished residents, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. These resolutions referred to the federal government, but are just as applicable to state governments in principle.

They said: “Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government … and whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

Too many Americans view the Second Amendment as granting Americans the right to own firearms to go hunting and for self-protection. But the framers of our Constitution had no such intent in mind. James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 46 wrote that the Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … [where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote: “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

Similar quotations about our Founders’ desire for Americans to be armed against the possible abuses of government can be found at

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.


What the Hell Is Wrong with Nancy Pelosi?

The dictum attributed to Bonapart still applies:
“Never interrupt your enemy when they’re making a mistake.”

The First Rule of Holes states: “If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”

VodkaPundit’s Second Rule of Holes says: “When your opponent is in a hole, get them a bigger and nicer shovel.”

Whatever Nancy Pelosi is trying to accomplish, it isn’t working. She’s in a hole, she’s digging furiously, and with such dedication to her craptaculent efforts that she wouldn’t even notice me handing her a bigger and nicer shovel.

Dig, Nancy, dig!

The left needs to drop the woke nonsense: 2019 showed us yet again that wokeness loses elections.

Actually, as long as it means they’re losing, they shouldn’t drop their crap-for-brains politics.
“Never interrupt your enemy ………” 

Woke politics has been a disaster for the left. For all Jeremy Corbyn’s emphasis on economic inequality, his continual appeasement of the woke middle-class has alienated Labour’s traditional support base. His most raucous cheerleaders have been those committed to a divisive form of identity politics, in which race, gender and sexuality supersede issues of class. In the run-up to the General Election, Corbyn even publicly announced his pronouns at an LGBT event, a gesture guaranteed to please the few and baffle the many.

Why is it that there seems to be such a close correlation between those who champion identitarian grievances and those who mistrust democracy? I suspect it comes down to a sense of entitlement, one that for obvious reasons is likely to be more common among the more privileged in society. We have seen this on university campuses where, as studies repeatedly show, the universities with the most affluent students are those most likely to have issues with censorship. Anyone who has attended a gathering of woke activists will be aware that the loudest tend to have cut-glass accents.

This General Election was a revolt in which the working class mobilised against the elites who had decreed that their votes should count for nothing. It was also a rejection of the woke ideology that has infected the left. Jo Swinson, who had pledged in the Liberal Democrat manifesto to ‘recognise non-binary gender identities’, and was nonplussed when asked whether or not she considered biological sex a reality, failed to galvanise even the necessary support to hold on to her seat. Get woke, go broke, as the adage has it……….

Trump saved the world

Paul Krugman — Nobel Prize-winning economist, retired Princeton professor, New York Times columnist, and village idiot — was not alone in predicting a worldwide recession upon the election of Donald John Trump as president.

3 days after we made Donald John Trump president, Business Insider reported, “One of Trump’s major economic policies could lead to a ‘global recession.'”

That one policy was the keystone to his economic plan: engaging the trade wars.

Business Insider said, “Trump made the free trade debate one of the central topics of his campaign after criticizing China, Mexico, and Japan. He suggested putting a 45% tariff on Chinese imports, said he would declare China a currency manipulator on his first day in office, proposed taxing imports from Mexico, argued in favor of ‘ripping up’ trade deals, and called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, ‘a rape of our country.’

“If Trump were to pursue these policies, Willem Buiter, chief economist at Citi, wrote in a note to clients that it might spark a global trade war, ‘which could easily trigger a global recession.'”

The story said researchers at Deutsche Bank warned, “The biggest threat to growth is a possible protectionist turn, which could depress global trade and even trigger trade wars.”…………

On August 12, 2019, NBC reported, “President Donald Trump’s trade war with China is increasing the odds that America will be thrown into a recession, according to investment bank Goldman Sachs.”

But once again, the experts were wrong.

President Trump did not kill the world economy. In fact, the opposite happened.

CNBC reported, “Global stock markets have been on a torrid run in 2019, adding more than $17 trillion in total value, according to Deutsche Bank calculations.

“The value of global equities began the year just under $70 trillion but has now surpassed $85 trillion, according to a chart from Deutsche Bank’s Torsten Slok.”

That is a 25% increase, which means 2019 was a pretty good year for investors and the global economy.

The story said, “The large climb for world markets has been largely dominated by the U.S. markets, however. The rally in the U.S. has been broad, with the S&P 500, Dow Jones Industrial Average and Russell 2000 all rising more than 20% this year.”

Enjoy because the good times will not last forever. They never do.

Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities For The Win.

It’s glorious how the normal people of Virginia are rising up to reject Governor Blackface … or is it Governor KKK-klothes? He can’t seem to remember which one he was in the photo, meaning he had probably donned both creepy get-ups at some point. Yay, our Democrat betters! In any case, the people are telling him, “No, we’re not letting you goose-stepping Bloomberg bots take our guns,” and it is especially glorious that the means to make this righteous commitment is a new, and not garbage, sanctuary movement.

I’ve always been an advocate of playing by the left’s new rules, and this is a great opportunity to new rules the libs good and hard. We got your sanctuary right here, pinkos.

See, the left decided that Virginia, whose northern reaches are now full of government workers and other garbage people, needed to turn blue. With tons of lib donor money and the aid of a typically inept state GOP (I know those feel here in California), they managed to just barely grab control of both houses of the legislature. With Governor Byrd-Jolson in charge, they immediately promised to do away with the Second Amendment. They announced that they were going to confiscate the citizens’ scary guns and do all sorts of other things to show those disobedient, probably Jesus-loving rubes who was boss.

Except, as Chairman Mao – who you think these dorks would appreciate more – pointed out, power grows from the barrel of a gun, not out of a mean tweet.

Instantly, everyone outside the garbage counties locked and loaded their freedom and so the Second Amendment sanctuary movement began. County after county, and many cities, all committed to resisting if the state tried enforcing unconstitutional gun laws against normal citizens. And it was beautiful. The Dems wet themselves.

Remember, these normals won’t hurt anyone who doesn’t mess with them. They work, raise children, pray, and they keep guns for the defense of themselves, their families, their communities and their Constitution. They didn’t get the memo that said they were supposed to just roll over and become subjects instead of citizens.

After all, Virginians aren’t Canadians.

Neighbor uses shotgun to stop Christmas Eve burglar

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.—A man who was allegedly trying to break into cars in a northeast Albuquerque neighborhood was caught red-handed by a resident.

Dwight Rivera said he woke to the sound of screaming early Tuesday morning and found his neighbor had pulled a shotgun on a man attempting to break into his car.

“This morning early at three o’clock my RING went off and I saw a man with shotgun and yelling at somebody and I thought it was just a fight but it was somebody breaking into the car and he caught him red-handed,” Rivera said.

Rivera said he could hear his neighbor yelling commands at the alleged burglar over his security system.

“‘Stay down or I’ll blow your head off. Don’t move!’ And he was complaining that ‘Oh my back is hurting me, I have to get up,’ and he said if you move ‘I swear I’ll shoot you’ and you hear this on the RING,” he said.

Police eventually responded and arrested Dakota Estrada. This was the fourth time since September that Estrada has been arrested for breaking into cars.

“These guys should be put in jail for doing this stuff. I could have been shot by the crossfire. This is crazy. And around Christmas time this is even more crazy,” Rivera said.

Estrada was charged with auto burglary. He will make an appearance in court later this week.

1 suspect dead, 1 hurt after attempting to rob fireworks stand

HARRIS COUNTY, Texas (KTRK) — Two suspects were shot after they attempted to rob a fireworks stand on Christmas Eve in west Harris County, officials say.

It happened at a stand located at 4820 Highway 6 at around 8:30 p.m.

According to a tweet posted by Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, three to four men tried to rob the stand when two of them were shot by an employee.

“He’s supposed to be stumbling behind the strip center. Possibly 2 shot. One for sure is probably going to be confirmed,” dispatchers told paramedics at the scene.

Gonzalez says the employee ‘disarmed one of the males’ and shot at the suspects.

“It either results in someone being in prison or someone ending up dead,” Gonzalez said. “In this case the owner was, from early indications, trying to protect himself and the location from robbery.”

One of the suspects who was shot died at the scene, while the other was sent to the hospital. His condition was not released.

The Sheriff’s Office identified the injured suspect as 30-year-old Derrell Ridley. He has nine prior charges with the Harris County Sheriff’s Office.

Spokesperson: Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam Has ‘No Plans to Call in National Guard’

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) has no plans to use the National Guard against residents in Second Amendment sanctuary counties, according to a spokesperson.
The Los Angeles Times quoted Northam spokeswoman Alena Yarmosky saying, “[Northam has] absolutely no plans to call in the National Guard.”

The clarification of Northam’s position comes after Rep. Donald McEachin (D-VA) suggested the governor use the National Guard to force compliance with any newly passed gun controls.

The Washington Examiner quoted McEachin saying, “I’m not the governor, but the governor may have to nationalize the National Guard to enforce the law. That’s his call, because I don’t know how serious these counties are and how severe the violations of law will be. But that’s obviously an option he has.”

Northam’s decision not to call in the National Guard at this time also follows Culpeper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins’ vow to “deputize thousands” to defend gun rights.

Jenkins said:

Every Sheriff and Commonwealth Attorney in Virginia will see the consequences if our General Assembly passes further unnecessary gun restrictions. “Red Flag” laws without due process will create enormous conflict as well.

America has more guns than citizens and murder has long been illegal. At best, the proposed gun restrictions will disarm or handicap our law-abiding in their defense and possibly cause a criminal to choose another tool for evil.

Jenkins added, “If necessary, I plan to properly screen and deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms.”

What We Learned from the Bloomberg Effect in Virginia

There is a lot we can learn from the recent elections in Virginia. Democrats now hold the majority in both houses of the legislature, the offices of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General and Secretary of state.

To touch the obvious highpoints-

  • Money talks. When your local representative is elected to office because billionaire Michael Bloomberg bought his victory, then the representative doesn’t speak for you. He speaks for Bloomberg.
  • Politicians who take large campaign contributions can propose disastrous laws so long as the contributions continue. Bloomberg’s political contributions becomes essential while the local results of legislation becomes superfluous.
  • News outlets accept money to run campaign advertisements. Beyond their personal biases, the media’s commercial incentives further distort their ability to report honestly on an election.
  • Big-government politicians in both parties want more government so that political payoffs continue. These politicians have no use for limited government and free citizens.

All elections have consequences. Unusual elections have unusual consequences. Even before they took office, the Virginia Democrats advanced Bloomberg’s agenda.

  • Virginia Democrats proposed to outlaw zoning for new single-family homes and thus to punish the people who live outside the dense urban centers that make up the core Democrat constituency. Living in your own home is now racist.
  • Virginia Democrats proposed to disarm honest citizens in and near the state capital. Democrats don’t trust the people who elected them.
  • Virginia Democrats proposed to disarm adults under 21 years of age. That means you could be a young police officer and carry a gun when you’re on duty, you could also be old enough to be married and have children, but you wouldn’t be old enough to buy a gun to protect your family when you’re off duty. Only a true believer thinks that makes sense.
  • Democrats proposed to outlaw firearms in common use for the last hundred years. In the name of “freedom and democracy”, they want to outlaw the tools that gave us our freedom and democracy. Honest gun owners across the state said they would not comply. Police officers and Sheriff’s deputies also said they would not comply.
  • Virginia Democrats proposed to illegally use the National Guard to go door to door and forcibly confiscate firearms from honest gun owners. That is how you start a civil war.

If gun control laws in other states are a guide, then these gun prohibition laws would not apply to the legislators themselves. If I’m wrong and the laws apply equally to our rulers, then Bloomberg’s money can buy a full time security detail for every Democrat legislature and their family.

You, on the other hand, are on your own.

The publicly stated rationale is that these power-grabs are for “the public good” and to reduce “gun violence”. If this bigotry against gun owners runs true to form, then in the name of public safety we’ll ask the police to disarm honest citizens who are less danger to the public than the police. In the name of public safety, we’ll establish more “gun free zones” where criminals hunt for disarmed victims. The mainstream media will publish the gun-prohibition talking-points but ignore that crime has fallen while gun ownership has soared.

There is some good news as well. Today, we have the alternative media and it is harder than ever to fool all the people all the time. Unfortunately, you still have to get off the couch to vote once you’re informed about the issues.

Today, we have the alternative media and it is harder than ever to fool all the people all the time.

Talking points are easy and progress is hard. Actions to reduce urban violence would be to reverse Democrat regulation and let industry make more jobs. We’d stop the government programs that destroy our families. We’d end the disastrous drug-prohibition laws that turn our Democrat-controlled cities into war zones as immigrant drug gangs fight for turf. That won’t happen because this contest is about political power rather than being about violence or prosperity.

Prohibition is a foolish and dangerous quest. I’d respect billionaire Bloomberg if he tackled our ruinous drug prohibition scheme, but instead, Bloomberg chose to assaults our individual right of self defense. Drug lords would probably attack Bloomberg if he tried to make drugs legal. I think Bloomberg judged that honest gun owners in the US were safer scapegoats for failed Democrat policies. I hope a wise judge will stop Bloomberg’s foolishness before too many of us are hurt or killed.

On the plus side for liberty, billionaire Bloomberg created a hundred thousand activists who might change the next elections in Virginia. Looking across the state, there were over 90 meetings to establish second-amendment sanctuaries in December. 112 local governments voted to ignore unconstitutional infringements on the right to bear arms.

2A Sanctuary in Virginia

We’ve seen the second-amendment sanctuary movement spread into other states. Why don’t you go to your county board and start a sanctuary county where you live.


When people desperately trying to avoid a fight are left no choice but to fight, they are often the fiercest fighters imaginable.

The reason being an explosion of righteous anger – of berserker fury – directed at the bullies who will not leave them be.

Governor “Coonman” Northam of Virginia is such a bully.

He intends to rescind the current, ancient and long-acknowledged legal right of Virginians who aren’t criminals to possess more than single shot rifles and pistols – by criminalizing anyone who does possess them. These newly minted “criminals” will then be required to turn in their formerly legal firearms to the government or be subject to Hut! Hut! Hutting! by armed government workers sent by the Coonman to enforce his criminal acts.

This is a recipe for 1775.

Another bully – Thomas Gage, the British military governor of Massachusetts – attempted a “Coonman” in that year, which lit the fuse of what became the Revolutionary War. He sent armed government workers – Redcoats – to confiscate the weapons of the colonists – who had finally had their fill of being bullied. These long-ago AGWs eventually gunned down several colonists on the village green at Lexington.

Word of the massacre spread and the people rose in response, fighting back with whatever means available, harrying the column of armed government workers as it made its way back toward Boston, some 18 miles away.

The fury incited by that long-ago “Coonman” was subsequently described by himself:

“These people show a spirit and conduct against us they never showed against the French . . . They are now spirited up by a rage and enthusiasm as great as ever people were possessed of and you must proceed in earnest or give the business up. A small body acting in one spot will not avail, you must have large armies making diversions on different sides, to divide their force. The loss we have sustained is greater than we can bear. Small armies cannot afford such losses, especially when the advantage gained tends to do little more than the gaining of a post.”

Eight years later, those furious colonists finally succeeded in getting the bullies off their backs – permanently.

They probably never imagined that homegrown bullies even worse than “Coonman” Gage would eventually arise to torment them.

The current “Coonman” may not realize just how very tired the people are of being bullied – and how willing they are to fight, if a fight is forced upon them.

The “Coonman” feels confident. He has the full weight and force of the government and all its means at his disposal. He has legions of armed government workers available to enforce his writ.

But he hasn’t got the fury – and that is something he ought to reckon with, before it it is too late.

If this thing starts, it will not end until one or the other side is no longer capable of fighting. It will be no-quarter-given. It will be awful.

But it will be righteous.

And it may be necessary.


Carrying Concealed Not Legal Grounds to Stop and Search a Person in PA

U.S.A. –-( At about 2:30 in the morning of 28 June, 2014, Michael Hicks was at a convenience store in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Hicks had a valid concealed carry permit, and had a handgun in an outside the waistband holster, concealed by his shirt.

Open carry is generally legal in Pennsylvania, but it is not legal to open carry in a vehicle. This limits the practicality of open carry on a regular basis.

Video surveillance of the scene showed Hicks adjusting his shirt, briefly allowing the handgun to be seen before approaching the convenience store. Hicks goes about his business, but minutes later is stopped by police. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania watched the surveillance video and described what happened:

Hicks arrives at the Pace Mart at 2:31 a.m.and parks his vehicle at a gas pump. A second, unidentified individual already was parked at an adjacent gas pump. The individual clearly recognizes Hicks as an acquaintance, and approaches Hicks’ vehicle to greet him. Hicks exits his vehicle, and his firearm becomes visible, albeit barely. Hicks either is holstering the firearm or adjusting his garments around it when the second individual reaches Hicks’ driver’s side door, which is still open.The individual greets Hicks, and the two men shake hands with a brief, one-armed embrace.Hicks does not appear to gesture or point to the firearm, and he does not remove it from his waistband at any point.Hicks begins to walk toward the convenience store, continuing to adjust the position of the handgun, which becomes more clearly visible for a moment. Thereafter, the handgun is holstered outside Hicks’ waistband and covered by his shirt, but its outline remains visible. Hicks enters the store, exits a short time later, then returns to the gas pump, where he begins to fuel his vehicle. Hicks speaks briefly to a third, unidentified individual while he pumps gas. Hicks then reenters his vehicle and begins to pull away from the gas pump. Moments later, numerous marked police vehicles intercept Hicks’ vehicle with their lights flashing.

Even viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, there exists no basis for a finding that Hicks was engaged in any manner of criminal conduct.There was no indication or apparent threat of violence, and no information suggesting that Hicks engaged in any type of confrontation with another individual, physical, verbal, or otherwise. Neither the camera operator’s report nor the police radio dispatch suggest anything of the sort. Indeed, “[t]he video from the camera clearly shows the firearm concealed in [Hicks’] waistband and that, despite the hour, there are a number of individuals at this location.” Brief for Commonwealth at 16. However, significantly, no individual expresses any visible indication of alarm at Hicks’ presence, his possession of his firearm, or the manner in which he carried it. Rather, the video depicts patrons of a gas station going about their business, at least two of whom engage in seemingly friendly interactions with Hicks.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that Hicks Fourth Amendment rights had been violated, and there was no legitimate reason for the police to stop him that early morning in June.

Michael Hicks was deprived of the protections of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the evidence derivative of his seizure should have been suppressed.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion was decided on 31 May, 2019. The State of Pennsylvania applied to the U.S. Supreme Court to appeal the decision on 27 September 2019.  The United States Supreme Court formally declined to hear the case. The Court declines to hear cases by declining a writ of certiorari.

The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on 9 December 2019.


The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

For several decades, there has been an assumption in law enforcement circles, backed up by court decisions, that merely the suspicion of a person carrying a concealed weapon was sufficient to allow for a “stop and frisk” of that person.

Law enforcement agencies generally preferred to have that power. I was taught, decades ago, somewhat informally, to always stop and search a suspect if I thought they might have a concealed weapon. I was told, by the officer who was teaching me, that “he had never heard of a judge who threw out the evidence if a weapon was found”.

With the success of the concealed carry movement in partially restoring Second Amendment rights, we are seeing a reversal of that policy. The reason is simple: concealed carry is becoming common and accepted.

In this case, Hicks was and is a black man. Skin color was not a part of the legal case.  It is part of the social construct. This case shows black people have the same legal rights as others. More and more black people are exercising their Second Amendment rights. The exercise of Second Amendment rights is a key indicator of equal treatment under the law.

One of the findings of the infamous Dred Scott case was that black people could not be considered citizens, because if they were, they would be allowed to keep and carry weapons wherever they went. This case shows black people in Pennsylvania have reached a close approximation of the ability to keep and carry arms wherever they go.

When the Supreme Court refuses to grant certiorari in a case, it does not mean the Supreme Court necessarily agrees with the outcome of the case in the lower court. It means the case will only apply in the jurisdiction of the lower court.  It is an indication the Court does not place a high priority on reversing the decision of the lower court.

In Pennsylvania, police no longer have the legal ability to stop people and search them, simply because they have been noticed to be carrying a concealed weapon.

No, Jesus Was Not a Refugee and He Was Not Homeless

Every Christmas, we hear the same tired refrain from the same charlatans. Jesus, they claim, was a refugee. The implication is that if you are a Christian that you are obligated to welcome refugees because they are pretty much like Jesus.

The latest edition comes from Pete Buttigieg. Buttigieg is one of those people who, despite living an immoral and dissolute lifestyle explicitly condemned by Scripture (that would be the proscription on homosexual acts) and in direct disobedience to the words of Christ (see Matthew 19:4-6), takes it upon himself to lecture everyone else about what it means to be a Christian.

This is patent nonsense.

First, at no point in Scripture, or, if you are Catholic, in Sacred Tradition is there any intimation that Jesus was born in poverty. Tradition holds that Saint Joseph was a carpenter. Lately there has been a debate among lefty theologians over his occupation, rendered by Matthew as “tektori,” and whether than meant “carpenter.” Tektori can mean any skilled artisan. There is a hint, based on the procedures laid out for a census in 1st Century Egypt, that Joseph might have had some property interest in Bethlehem that would have required him to register for the census there. The upshot is that Joseph was a skilled craftsman and while probably not affluent, he most likely provided a home for his family that was a bit above the poverty line for Judea in the 1st Century AD.

Jesus was not homeless. He was born in a manger because his parents arrived in a Bethlehem in the midst of an influx of people there to register for the census. There were no rooms to be had. It was the manager or nothing. The Holy Family had a home in Nazareth.

Finally, Jesus was not a refugee.

Joseph and Mary and Jesus were citizens of a province of the Roman Empire. When the Massacre of Innocents took place, they fled to Egypt and stayed, we think, in the rather sizable Jewish community there. Egypt was also part of the Roman Empire. The odious Reverend James Martin claims that Jesus was a refugee based on the UN High Commissioner on Refugees definition

refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.

Martin, by the way, is probably the most dishonest non-televangelist pastor/priest in any denomination. There is literally no lie he will not tell to warp Scripture to fit his personal goal of mainstreaming homosexuality. Here is the central lie in his argument:

The Holy Family, as Matthew recounts the story, was fleeing because of a “well-founded fear of persecution” because of their “membership in a particular social group,” in this case people with young children living in Bethlehem. I am not sure how you could get any clearer than that.

This is [also, ed.] patent nonsense. A birth cohort is not “membership in a particular social group.” They Holy Family was a refugee in exactly the same way that anyone today on the run from state authorities would be called a refugee. The move from one region of the Roman Empire to another is not even remotely similar to that of a modern refugee. At a stretch, He could be classed as an internally displaced person, with an emphasis on the singular form of “person” because there were no others similarly situated. The period of time in which the Holy Family was away from Nazareth was fairly short. Herod the Great died no more than a year or two after the birth of Christ and then the family returned home. By age 12, we know the Holy Family was traveling openly to Jerusalem for Passover pilgrimage (again, not a mark of a family in poverty).

The truth here is very simple. Christ is not a metaphor for whatever political cause you are flogging. The Nativity is not a primarily a reminder of illegal immigrants or the poor or the social justice cause you are pushing. The Nativity is the a demonstration of God’s love for the world and his desire that we all be saved…………

Remember the reason for the season.

Merry Christmas
MILESFORTIS will return


And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.

And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn.

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.

But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.

And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.


Male suspect shot after home invasion near Gulf Beach Highway

The crook Crook.

The home invasion happened just before 6 a.m. on Redoubt Avenue and Gulf Beach Highway, Escambia County Sheriff’s Office (ECSO) tells Channel 3.

ECSO says the suspect has been identified as 37-year-old Jonathan Crook.

Deputies say he faces a non-life-threatening injury to the shoulder.

Reports add that Crook was banging on the homeowner’s door when the owner wouldn’t let him in. Crook was still trying to force his way in when the homeowner fired shot.

Crook then fled and drove himself to the hospital.

Robbery suspect fatally shot outside of Bay Point convenience store

1 The ‘store gun’ is in a drawer instead of on the clerk.
2 The clerk wants to get in a fisticuffs match with a guy that has a gun
3 It’s apparent that either the crook’s gun is a toy, the crook has no ammo or he doesn’t really want to shoot, probably due to an ill-informed notion of Florida’s “3 Strikes and You’re Out” law
4 The nearest I can tell, the fatal shot by the clerk was made right as the crim was running away from behind the counter and the adrenaline rush kept him from knowing he was already dead. (Again a good lesson on ‘just because you’ve made a good – as in lethal – shot, it doesn’t mean the bad guy is out of action’.)

A convenience store clerk shot and killed an assailant who assaulted and pistol whipped him during a violent robbery Sunday night in Bay Point — a harrowing attack that was captured on video, officials said.

Kamal Sandhu, owner of Kam’s Market on Port Chicago Highway, said two men entered the store around 11 p.m. with the intention of robbing the place. One of the men pistol-whipped a cashier and held the employee at gunpoint while rifling through the cash register.

“They had a little struggle,” Sandhu said.

In video footage from a camera facing the counter, two men — one dressed in a black sweater with his face covered by a cloth and dark sunglasses; the other wearing a blue jacket, a green hoodie and a backpack — walk into the store from the front entrance and go in separate directions.

The store clerk, putting away money behind the counter, glances at the men but remains focused on his work. The man in black keeps walking before crouching near the end of the counter.

Four seconds later, he approaches the clerk, pointing a gun from his waist. He grabs the clerk and pulls him out of the way before smacking him in the head with the gun. The clerk falls to the ground and the man grabs a stack of bills.

The clerk’s hand reaches for the register, but the man pushes him down as he grabs what appears to be a yellow bin. The thief starts snatching more cash from the register, placing it in the yellow bin, while the clerk puts his hand on his head where he was hit with the gun.

But in a moment the robber looks away, the clerk opens a drawer — blood now flowing from his head — where a gun can be seen. The thief spots him and hits the clerk again while trying to shut the drawer.

The men struggle for six seconds, at which point the thief gets a grasp of his gun and hits the clerk on the head two more times.

The second man who had walked into the store jets out the door.

The clerk stands up, makes eye contact with the thief who had just pistol-whipped him — the two each holding a gun — before the thief runs away without the bin of cash.

Another man runs to the clerk behind the counter, touches him on the back, picks up the gun, tucks it behind his pants and jogs out of the store.

Investigators later determined the clerk had shot his assailant during the attack, said Jimmy Lee, a spokesman for the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office.

Responding deputies found the robber suffering from a gunshot wound on the ground near the store at the intersection of Lynbrook Street and Desanie Way officials said.

He was pronounced dead at the scene. His identity was not immediately released.

Belleville neighbor shoots armed intruder at apartment

BELLEVILLE IL— The St. Clair County Sheriff’s Department is investigating an incident in which police say an armed intruder was shot twice in an apartment Tuesday afternoon.

Police say that just before 4:30 p.m., a 20-year-old armed man tried to steal a woman’s car in a parking lot near Elmway Court.

He wasn’t able to steal the car, according to police. The man went to a nearby apartment building, breaking several windows, and held a group of people inside an apartment at gunpoint, they say.

Police believe a neighbor heard a commotion in the apartment and came to the residence armed. The neighbor saw the intruder and shot him twice, police say.

Police arrived and helped get the intruder to a hospital.

The man has injuries that aren’t life-threatening, and police have not reported any additional injuries.

Democrats Seek To Outlaw Suburban, Single-Family House Zoning, Calling It Racist And Bad For The Environment

They can’t control their power mad fantasies and not go into their standard operational overreaching.

  • Virginia House Del. Ibraheem Samirah introduced a bill that would override local zoning officials to permit multi-family housing in every neighborhood, changing the character of quiet suburbs.
  • Oregon passed a similar bill, following moves by cities such as Minneapolis; Austin, Texas; and Seattle.
  • Proponents say urban lifestyles are better for the environment and that suburbs are bastions of racial segregation.

Democrats in Virginia may override local zoning to bring high-density housing, including public housing, to every neighborhood statewide — whether residents want it or not.

The measure could quickly transform the suburban lifestyle enjoyed by millions, permitting duplexes to be built on suburban lots in neighborhoods previously consisting of quiet streets and open green spaces. Proponents of “upzoning” say the changes are necessary because suburbs are bastions of segregation and elitism, as well as bad for the environment.

The move, which aims to provide “affordable housing,” might be fiercely opposed by local officials throughout the state, who have deliberately created and preserved neighborhoods with particular character — some dense and walkable, others semi-rural and private — to accommodate people’s various preferences.

But Democrats tout a state-level law’s ability to replace “not in my backyard” with “yes, in your backyard.”

House Delegate Ibraheem Samirah, a Democrat, introduced six housing measures Dec. 19, coinciding with Democrats’ takeover of the state legislature in November.

“Single-family housing zones would become two-zoned,” Samirah told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Areas that would be impacted most would be the suburbs that have not done their part in helping out.”

Fisa Court Committed a Fraud upon America.

Presiding judge Rosemary Collyer, having returned from her vacation on Mars and just in time for her retirement, has demanded of the FBI revised procedures to ensure that the multiple frauds committed upon the court, including inclusion of fraudulent material, omission of exculpatory information, and the deliberate alteration of documents to mislead the court.  It was farcical to hear her, in the face of multiple felonies in a Deep State plot bordering on sedition, suggest that revised procedures for the handling and submitting of FISA applications is the answer to our chief law enforcement agency’s attempt to overthrow a sitting president of the United States.

Did she just wake up?  Where has she been?

Back on February 2, 2018, a House Intelligence Committee memo, written when it was chaired by the now vindicated Rep. Devin Nunes, detailed the phoniness and falsification of the data used in the first and subsequent FISA warrants based primarily on the fraudulent Steele dossier.

Nunes told how FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe admitted that without the now fully discredited Steele dossier, there would have been no FISA warrants and no subsequent Deep State coup against Trump under the guise of a counter-intelligence investigation:

The dossier, authored by former British spy Christopher Steele and commissioned by Fusion GPS, was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign through law firm Perkins Coie.  It included salacious and unverified allegations about Trump’s connections to Russia.

The memo, which has been at the center of an intense power struggle between congressional Republicans and the FBI, specifically cites the DOJ and FBI’s surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, saying the dossier “formed an essential part” of the application to spy on him[.] …

The memo states that in December 2017, then FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe testified that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” from the FISA court “without the Steele dossier information.”

The memo also says Steele was eventually cut off from the FBI for being chatty with the media.  It says he was terminated in October 2016 as an FBI source “for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations — an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI.”

Justice is supposed to be blind, but in her case and that of the other FISA court judges, it was brain-dead………..

Most Americans know of the FISA court and its star chamber judges but not about it, which is that it is a borderline example of the prophetic warning about trading liberty for security and winding up with neither.  The potential abuse of FISA powers is enormous and the damage that has been done to our republic, and our politics has been staggering:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court deals with some of the most sensitive matters of national security — terror threats and espionage.  Its work for the most part cannot be examined by the American public, by order of the Congress and the President.  It is a tribunal that is completely secret (or supposed to be), its structure largely one-sided, and its members unilaterally chosen by one person.

A rotating panel of federal judges at the FISC decides whether to grant certain types of government requests — wiretapping, data analysis, and other monitoring for “foreign intelligence purposes” of suspected terrorists and spies operating in the United States.

… [T]he 11 judges are appointed exclusively by the Chief Justice of the United States, without any supplemental confirmation from the other two branches of government.  John Roberts has named every member of the current court, as a well as a separate three-judge panel to hear appeals of FISC orders, known as the Court of Review.

The FISA court knew all of this or should have.  The remedy is to impose the appropriate criminal sanctions authorized by law.  As Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett notes:

A year and a half ago when the redacted FISA applications were first made public, it was obvious that the FBI relied almost entirely on Christopher Steele’s phony “dossier” and that the FISA court was being lied to.  Back then, Collyer should have immediately ordered a “show cause contempt” hearing demanding that Comey, Sally Yates, Andrew McCabe, Dana Boente and Rod Rosenstein all appear before the court to explain why they should not be held in criminal contempt for deceiving judges in the four warrant applications they signed.  They swore that the information was true and verified when they knew or should have known it was not.  Collyer still isn’t ordering a contempt hearing.  This is an appalling abdication of judicial duty.

Indeed it is. Imprisonment and/or disbarment for the lot of them is required.  After that, abolish the FISA court itself.  It is an unelected fourth branch of government with no real accountability.  We have sacrificed our liberty for its bogus promise of security, putting our democracy at risk.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we see that happening before our very eyes.