Mark Kelly Wastes No Time Revealing Himself to Be a Nightmare

Kelly was able to sneak into a full term by essentially hiding under Kyrsten Sinema’s skirts for the first two years, doing nothing to call attention to himself. Conservatives here knew that there was a gun-grabbing nightmare just waiting to bust out if he was given six years.

Well, his first move wasn’t against the Second Amendment; it was even creepier.

Mr. Green covered it yesterday in his weekly Insanity Wrap:

Red-pilled California activist Michael Shellenberger’s Public substack grabbed an exclusive on Monday about a weekend conference call concerning the SVB bailout. There, Kelly “asked representatives from the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department, and the Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation (FDIC) if they had a way to censor information on social media to prevent a run on the banks.”

Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie was also on the call and told Public, “I believe he couched it in a concern that foreign actors would be doing this but he didn’t suggest the censorship should be limited to foreigners or to things that were untrue.”

So the way Kelly sees it, Americans sharing facts are a danger. This guy ran as a moderate — and got away with it, too.

Moderately fascist, maybe?

Despite the fact that he’s an astronaut, Kelly never comes off as being terribly bright. Asking something that stupid on a call with that many people would certainly indicate that he doesn’t function at a high level outside of the International Space Station. And, as Massie pointed out, Kelly didn’t even bother to cover his intentions in any nuance.

Stephen mentions that no one really addressed Kelly’s question — most likely because they were so stunned by his audacity and/or stupidity. It would be nice to think that Kelly would learn something from that, but that’s probably not going to happen. Kelly is such an egomaniacal little jerk that he’ll more than likely be emboldened by this.

That means Gun Grabber Kelly is sure to show up sometime soon. That’s not going to work out for him here like he hopes it will. Arizona may have started bleeding purple lately (we’re still pretty red in the House), but this is still a gun state. A fairly bipartisan gun state, in fact. Most of my liberal friends here have guns.

Why Kelly decided to try and become an anti-2A crusader in Arizona is beyond me. He’s a carpetbagger here, he could have done the same thing in a blue gun-hating state.

Again, he’s not that bright. That’s what makes him dangerous.

DC Freaks Out Over DeSantis’s Ukraine Comments; Voters Shrug.

Salent segment:

Rah-rah, Slava Ukraini, and all that, but there’s a limit to American largesse. And people get miffed when Biden jets to Kyiv with a suitcase full of money but avoids East Palestine, Ohio.

Politicians in both parties must understand that their first responsibility is to their own nation; allies come second. Forget this, and the people will toss them on their tin ears. DeSantis makes his priority clear: the United States of America.

Reagan-era Secretary of State George Shultz asked every new US ambassador a simple question. “I’m going to spin the globe and I want you to put your hand on your country.”

When they pointed to the nation assigned to them, Shultz corrected them. “Your country is the United States.”

DeSantis has passed this test. Biden has not.

Losing My Religion?
Reflections on falling away from unbridled tech-optimism.

So I’ve installed an all-new sound system in my study and the other day I was calibrating my subwoofer, as one does.  The way I like to fine tune things is by listening to music I know intimately, and adjusting the levels until it sounds the way it should.

In this case I used my own 2001 album, which I released under the name Mobius Dick, Embrace the Machine.  “Do not rage against the machine,” say the lyrics to the title cut.  “Embrace the machine.”  (Sorry, I don’t have this online anywhere at present; I should really do something about that.  I was too sad about the demise of MP3.com in to put it up elsewhere at the time.)

Listening to that song reminded me of how much more overtly optimistic I was about technology and the future at the turn of the millennium.  I realized that I’m somewhat less so now.  But why?  In truth, I think my more negative attitude has to do with people more than with the machines that Embrace the Machine characterizes as “children of our minds.”  (I stole that line from Hans Moravec.  Er, I mean it’s  a “homage.”)  But maybe there’s a connection there, between creators and creations.

It was easy to be optimistic in the 90s and at the turn of the millennium.  The Soviet Union lost the Cold War, the Berlin Wall fell, and freedom and democracy and prosperity were on the march almost everywhere. Personal technology was booming, and its dark sides were not yet very apparent.  (And the darker sides, like social media and smartphones, basically didn’t exist.)

And the tech companies, then, were run by people who looked very different from the people who run them now – even when, as in the case of Bill Gates, they were the same people.  It’s easy to forget that Gates was once a rather libertarian figure, who boasted that Microsoft didn’t even have an office in Washington, DC.  The Justice Department, via its Antitrust Division, punished him for that, and he has long since lost any libertarian inclinations, to put it mildly.

Continue reading “”

Who’s Running America?

Last week the Senate Democrat majority was hospitalized with Senator John Fetterman dispatched to a psych ward and Senator Dianne Feinstein, who doesn’t seem to know where she is, hospitalized for shingles. Fetterman and Feinstein didn’t let being hospitalized slow them down and went right on co-sponsoring bills even though the former had to be hospitalized because he couldn’t take care of himself and the latter no longer recognized colleagues.

Even in the Senate, Fetterman couldn’t understand what was being said and Feinstein wasn’t aware that she had announced her retirement. Despite that there are press releases from their offices and they’re cosponsoring legislation as if they’re functional and able to make decisions.

Senator Feinstein just introduced the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2023 to mandate abortion nationwide while outlawing state restrictions on late-term abortion when babies can feel pain. Considering Feinstein’s own mental capacity may not be that much greater than an unborn child, she might want to reconsider the value of human life even when it can’t articulate its feelings. But Feinstein isn’t really introducing or sponsoring bills, her staffers, who announced her retirement without her knowing about it, are legislating in her name. That’s a coup.

Or what we used to call a coup before it happened and just became how things worked.

Continue reading “”

The Untouchables

In the movie The Untouchables, written by David Mamet and directed by Brian De Palma, a streetwise Irish cop named Malone tries to educate a starry-eyed fed named Eliot Ness in the ways of Chicago justice when up against an implacable, deadly opponent like Al Capone. The scene has become justly famous for this line: ““He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. THAT’S the Chicago way! And that’s how you get Capone.”

But for our purposes here, what even more important is the exchange between Sean Connery and Kevin Costner that immediately precedes it:

Ness: I want to get Capone! I don’t know how to get him.

Malone: [talking privately in a church] You said you wanted to know how to get Capone. Do you really wanna get him? You see what I’m saying, what are you prepared to do?

Ness: Everything within the law.

Malone: And *then* what are you prepared to do? If you open the ball on these people Mr. Ness you must be prepared to go all the way. Because they won’t give up the fight, until one of you is dead.

Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? In a battle between good and evil, with the law having gone over to the side of evil—as it had in the gangland Chicago of the 1920s and ’30s—what are the good guys prepared to do? With the country-as-founded now being shot out from underneath us on a near-daily basis, how do concerned citizens fight back?

The electoral system? Since the election of George W. Bush in 2000, there have been at least three presidential votes in which the losing side has contested the outcome; Bush’s hanging chads, Hillary Clinton’s baseless charge of “Russian collusion” against Donald Trump in 2016, and the chaos of 2020 that installed longtime hack politician Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. in the Oval Office. Of these, the two most recent are best viewed in tandem. The Left was taken by surprise by Trump’s Electoral College victory (the only kind that counts) and, starting the day after the vote, launched its plan to make sure they’d never be robbed by what they thought was a fixed fight again.

Read this—“Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition” from something called the Electoral Integrity Project and weep:

Preventing-a-Disrupted-Presidential-Election-and

Some of their thoughts:

Continue reading “”

New York lawmaker admits proposed ammo tax is meant as “disincentive” to gun ownership

Thank you very much to New York Assembly member Pat Fahy for saying the quiet part out loud when talking about her proposed tax on ammunition. The Albany Democrat wants to see anywhere from a 2-to-5-cent tax on each round of ammunition sold in the state (basically, the bigger the bullet the higher the tax), with the money going towards community-based violence intervention groups. We’ve seen similar schemes enacted to great fanfare (and little effect) in cities like Seattle, and lawmakers have even proposed this idea in New York before now, but rarely are lawmakers so explicit in their intention to tax people out of a right.

“So, if you buy 50 rounds, it’ll be just a couple of extra dollars,” said Fahy. “So, it’s not a huge tax, but another disincentive to arming up.”

If New York Democrats do end up adopting Fahy’s bill and turning into law, that statement is going to come in very handy during the inevitable court challenge that will ensue. The Supreme Court doesn’t look kindly on taxing the exercise of a constitutionally-protected right, especially when it is designed to chill the exercise of that right.

The Court took up this issue back in the 1940s, in a case called Murdock v. Pennsylvania. At issue was an ordinance imposed by the town of Jeannette, Pennsylvania that required “all persons canvassing for or soliciting within said Borough, orders for goods, paintings, pictures, wares, or merchandise of any kind” to obtain a license from town officials in addition to paying a fee for the privilege of doing so. When a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses were fined under the ordinance for selling religious tracts without acquiring the mandated license, they sued, and eventually the Supreme Court found in their favor.

In its decision, the Court declared:

“the First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .” It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.…

A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce although it may tax the property used in, or the income derived from, that commerce, so long as those taxes are not discriminatory.

Fahy’s proposed ammo tax isn’t a flat licensing tax like the ordinance in Jeannette, Pennsylvania, but thanks to her comment to the press there should be no doubt that the tax on every round of ammunition is designed to be discriminatory in nature against any and all New Yorkers who dare seek to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. When she talks about disincentivizing arming up, she’s really saying the bill disincentivizes the exercise of a constitutionally-protected right, and that’s a no-go according to SCOTUS.

An ammo tax is also a terrible idea from a policy perspective. Seattle, Washington imposed a tax on the sale of both firearms and ammunition back in 2015, and it’s brought in far less money for violence prevention programs than supporters had predicted. They were boasting of $500,000 in tax revenue every year, but in 2019 about $85,000 was collected from the handful of remaining gun stores inside the city limits. Many FFLs chose to simply relocate beyond Seattle’s borders, and many Seattle residents have chosen to buy their guns outside the city limits as well.

Seattle’s violent crime, meanwhile, has gotten exponentially worse. There were 24 murders in Seattle in 2015; far fewer than the  55 homicides reported in the city last year. Seattle’s gun and ammo tax hasn’t made the city a safer place, and Fahy’s proposal would be just as ineffective in New York. But as Fahy herself has made clear, her tax isn’t about preventing crime. It’s about preventing responsible New Yorkers from keeping and bearing arms for self-defense.

We are the enemy

The United States of America is more than a little weird.

Our system of government was created with the understanding that governments are a lot like fire. They might be useful, but they must be controlled or else things get bad very quickly.

I’m of the belief that our Founding Fathers would want to know why we haven’t started a new revolution if they saw what our federal government has become. Yet, for the most part, we still have the ability to act in a way that our rulers might not like.

Yet based on a couple of reports, one has to ask for how long?

Let’s start with this report from Politico, where it seems DHS has been running a domestic intelligence-gathering operation for some time.

For years, the Department of Homeland Security has run a virtually unknown program gathering domestic intelligence, one of many revelations in a wide-ranging tranche of internal documents reviewed by POLITICO.

Those documents also reveal that a significant number of employees in DHS’s intelligence office have raised concerns that the work they are doing could be illegal.

Well, that’s an amazing start.

So what were they doing that was so shady? Well…

Under the domestic-intelligence program, officials are allowed to seek interviews with just about anyone in the United States. That includes people held in immigrant detention centers, local jails, and federal prison. DHS’s intelligence professionals have to say they’re conducting intelligence interviews, and they have to tell the people they seek to interview that their participation is voluntary. But the fact that they’re allowed to go directly to incarcerated people — circumventing their lawyers — raises important civil liberties concerns, according to legal experts.

That specific element of the program, which has been in place for years, was paused last year because of internal concerns. DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, which runs the program, uses it to gather information about threats to the U.S., including transnational drug trafficking and organized crime. But the fact that this low-profile office is collecting intelligence by questioning people in the U.S. is virtually unknown.

The inner workings of the program — called the “Overt Human Intelligence Collection Program” — are described in the large tranche of internal documents POLITICO reviewed from the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. Those documents and additional interviews revealed widespread internal concerns about legally questionable tactics and political pressure. The documents also show that people working there fear punishment if they speak out about mismanagement and abuses.

Basically, the way I see it is that if DHS officials come and say they want to talk, you’re going to talk to them. They can say it’s voluntary, but we’ve been conditioned as a nation to see a refusal to comply as evidence you have something to hide. Many will simply talk in hopes of the whole thing disappearing.

Then we have the fact that you pretty much have to tell them the truth. Lying to a federal agent is illegal.

While you can decline to answer questions, many will feel that might invite further scrutiny.

So anyone who gets a visit feels obligated to answer every question DHS officials want to ask and failure to do so will land them in jail.

All for a domestic intelligence agenda that isn’t really in the purview of the department in question. Not really. After all, they’re an intelligence operation, not a law enforcement one, and much of this should fall on law enforcement.

Sure, if we’re talking about international arms shipments to terrorist groups, that’s one thing. We’re not.

And if that were all, it would be enough.

The problem is, it’s not.

You see, under current law, the FBI needs a warrant to get location data based on your cell phone. This is, of course, to protect your privacy.

If there’s probable cause to suspect you of a crime, or at least probable cause that a crime was committed, that’s one thing. They don’t need it otherwise.

And yet, the got it.

How? They just bought it.

THE UNITED STATES Federal Bureau of Investigation has acknowledged for the first time that it purchased US location data rather than obtaining a warrant. While the practice of buying people’s location data has grown increasingly common since the US Supreme Court reined in the government’s ability to warrantlessly track Americans’ phones nearly five years ago, the FBI had not previously revealed ever making such purchases.

The disclosure came today during a US Senate hearing on global threats attended by five of the nation’s intelligence chiefs. Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, put the question of the bureau’s use of commercial data to its director, Christopher Wray: “Does the FBI purchase US phone-geolocation information?” Wray said his agency was not currently doing so, but he acknowledged that it had in the past. He also limited his response to data companies gathered specifically for advertising purposes.

“To my knowledge, we do not currently purchase commercial database information that includes location data derived from internet advertising,” Wray said. “I understand that we previously—as in the past—purchased some such information for a specific national security pilot project. But that’s not been active for some time.” He added that the bureau now relies on a “court-authorized process” to obtain location data from companies.

Now, I’m not going to get into why this is a problem because I think it’s kind of obvious.

What I do want to get into, though, is why they’re doing all of this.

You see, in theory, these agencies are supposed to keep our nation safe. The problem is that they’ve gone beyond their mandate and are basically treating any and all Americans as potential threats. They’ve tossed the Constitution in the crapper and are doing whatever they want.

Why? Because you and I are the enemy.

The Bill of Rights is meant to protect us from things like this, as are numerous other laws regulating government action. They see us all as threats because we may not bow down and kiss the feet of our betters.

They’re spying on Americans, gathering intelligence on us, as if we’re the problem.

Yet anyone with half a brain can look at the last century or two and see where the real threat comes from.

They don’t need location data for cell phones without probable cause. They don’t need to just randomly ask to speak to people unless part of an investigation. And yet, here we are.

Even this could, in theory, be taken as innocent.

However, we also know that the government has worked to censor us. As Michael Schellenberg put it earlier today before Congress, “U.S. government intelligence and security agencies to wage[d] “information warfare” against the American people.”

We are the enemy, folks.

Keep that in mind.

BLUF
It was a cover-up from the beginning, and the media colluded in it every step of the way. The only question now is what kind of accountability can be applied, and whether we have stopped playing with GOF entirely at this point.

Former CDC director: Gain-of-function research “probably caused the greatest pandemic our world has seen”

No kidding. However, don’t consider Robert Redfield a johnny-come-lately to the lab-leak explanation for COVID-19’s origin. Almost exactly two years ago, just after the former CDC director took his leave of the Biden administration, Redfield stunned CNN host Sanjay Gupta by declaring his conclusion that the pandemic started as a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and resulted from gain-of-function (GOF) research funded in part by the US despite warnings against it.

Two years later, Redfield declared himself even more convinced today of his conclusions. Redfield testified today at a hearing of the House select subcommittee on the pandemic, and he didn’t hold back:

Redfield also argues that GOF created the virus, and the global pandemic, just as scientists warned would happen in 2014:

This brings us back to the reasons why the lab-leak theory got so enthusiastically suppressed by both the government and the media. In 2014, a group of scientists formed the Cambridge Working Group to urge governments to stop funding GOF, as both too dangerous and not valuable enough to pursue. When Francis Collins lifted a moratorium on GOF in December 2017, CWG founder Marc Lipitsch offered a prescient warning about what would happen, as I wrote earlier:

Continue reading “”

Antifa Thugs Firebomb Atlanta Public Training Facility Construction Site.

A few weeks after a shootout with police left an Antifa protester dead and a Georgia State Trooper injured, the “Defend the Atlanta Forest” movement of far-left goons has firebombed the construction site of a future public training facility for the city of Atlanta.

The domestic terrorist action came about as part of a “Week of Action” that the far-left group announced last month.

The “action” began as a series of protest marches in Atlanta on Saturday but culminated in the violent act of terrorism that took place on Sunday night.

You can see the throngs of “protesters” coming to do damage to the construction site in the second image here.

“Forest defenders have taken over the police surveillance outpost on the power line clearing near Intrenchment Creek,” reports the Unicorn Riot Twitter account. “Police retreated after crowd arrived at barbed wire fence and shot fireworks into the area.”

“People are smashing and destroying the outpost’s remains, sirens can be heard in the distance,” the tweet thread continues. “A security light post is on fire.”

These people are brazenly flaunting their handiwork. They don’t even care who knows anymore.

“There was a massive police presence along Key Road in southeast Atlanta early Sunday evening as FOX 5 was told protestors were actively clashing with officers,” reports Fox 5. “Officials said at least one construction vehicle was set on fire.”

The good news is that police have locked down the site and put out the flames, and SWAT crews are in place.

Because it’s Sunday night, we haven’t seen statements yet from the city of Atlanta, Mayor Andre Dickens, or Gov. Brian Kemp.

This is a developing story, and we’ll have more information as circumstances warrant.

It’s only ‘radical’ and causes chaos for the courts who judges don’t really like the idea that securing individual rights is what government is actually all about (see our Declaration of Independence) and hate that a higher court has told them to get back in line.

The Supreme Court’s Radical Second Amendment Jurisprudence is Sowing Chaos in the Lower Courts

In New York State Pistol & Rifle Ass’n v. Bruen, decided last June, the Supreme Court issued one of the most unusual and dangerous opinions in American history. Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion instructed lower court judges to rely exclusively on history and tradition to resolve Second Amendment cases and to completely ignore the government’s asserted safety interests in passing gun control laws. Assuming that a person’s conduct is arguably covered by the Second Amendment’s text, the Justices said, the government can only prevail if it demonstrates that similar laws were enacted in the past.

According to Second Amendment scholar Jake Charles in an excellent new article, since Bruen was decided last June, there have been over 100 state and federal cases challenging gun reform laws. These courts “have received Bruen’s message to supercharge the Second Amendment…. Their collective decisions in the months since the ruling have been scattered, unpredictable, and often internally inconsistent.”

The Court’s exclusive focus on history and tradition in Bruen is a radical departure from how the Court has traditionally decided constitutional law cases. Prior to Bruen, the Justices examined the strength and importance of a constitutional right and compared that to the interests put forward by the government to justify the restriction of that right.

Continue reading “”

One Year in the Russo-Ukrainian War: the Big Pixels

Last Friday we looked at the seven points we discussed a year earlier the day the Russo-Ukrainian War broke out. As promised, today we look at seven points a year in everyone needs to hoist onboard.

Though I nibble on the edges a bit, these are not detailed, tactical “lessons learned.” Land combat details simply are not my bag. No, these a big pixel items. Mostly land centric like the war, but are directly transferrable to the maritime and other domains.

Continue reading “”

It may be to his sorrow, but I considered there was never any common ground with commies.

To My Sorrow, There Can Be No Common Ground With the Left

I am a preterist. But with that in mind, these words from 2 Timothy ring truer than ever:

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

Having been raised a liberal who became a conservative, I have long been an advocate of dialogue. Of finding the middle way. Of reaching a consensus. Knowing both sides of the aisle as I do, I had thought that there might be some point at which our two sides might find common ground or a way of living with one another.

I will now finally admit that is simply not a possibility. I take no joy in that, but there comes a time when one must admit that compromise is impossible, and that to search for it involves capitulation with alleged human beings who have blinded themselves to all but the basest of pursuits and desires. There comes a time at which hope ends, and one realizes that we can no longer live with one another.

It is a sad realization, but one that is based on a harsh, unforgiving reality. Long had I hoped that cooler heads might prevail, that we could see eye to eye on something. But whether it is because of the internet, our feckless leaders, or the inherent sinfulness of mankind, we must admit that the breach between the insanity of the Left and the rest of the world is simply too large and wide to bridge. It would take an act of God to bring about reconciliation.

And for better or worse, He has chosen to leave us to our own devices. The Old Testament prophets warned that those who sought their will above all else would reap the whirlwind. And the people in power have done just that. How long they evade the chaos that they have seeded will be up to the Almighty.

Continue reading “”

I often wonder if the morons really know just what dangerous ground they’re treading on?

WaPo Columnist Says The Quiet Part Out Loud About Attacks On The Judiciary
“A sustained campaign of condemnation isn’t going to push these judges to write liberal opinions, but it could chasten them toward more moderate ones.”

For generations, the Supreme Court mostly hewed a progressive jurisprudence.  Even if there were conservative blips here and there, appointees of Democratic and Republic presidents alike ruled in ways that were conducive to the political left. Litigants routinely judge-shopped cases (Amarillo has nothing on Montgomery), certain that the Supreme Court had their backs. During those golden times, judicial supremacy was considered a necessary condition of our polity.

But those times are gone. Prominent scholars openly speak out against judicial supremacy. And that academic theme carries over to the political realm. Indeed, Senator Wyden called on President Biden to “ignore” a district court’s ruling. Not even Orval Faubus was so audacious. (My article on Cooper v. Aaron is more timely than ever.)

At least with the current administration, there is no realistic chance the President will “ignore” a ruling of a federal court. Indeed, Biden couldn’t even stick to the script, and criticize the Supreme Court justices at the State of the Union. But sooner or later, the academic and political stars will align, and a President will openly flout a federal court judgment. Who will send in the 101st Airborne?

Continue reading “”