Has J. Edgar Hoover’s Spy Program Been Resurrected?
The Bureau Apparently Now Targets MAGA Activists

Although the legacy media has buried the story, it turns out that over the last several years the Federal Bureau of Investigation has resurrected a hated and unconstitutional spying program once directed by the late FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. His program, called the COINTELPRO program, targeted Americans who committed no crime, but simply sought to express their political views.

Former President Richard Nixon directed Hoover to aggressively infiltrate and disrupt many political movements in the late ‘60’s and ‘70’s. This included the Vietnam War activists, the Rev. Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders. They even spied on environmentalists, women’s rights groups and animal rights activists.

According to an exclusive Newsweek expose that was published three weeks ago, it now appears the ghosts of Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover were resurrected by the Biden administration with a new expanded government spying and infiltration program based on political views. The FBI apparently redefined extremism to include those whom the administration determined hold unacceptable political views.

We now learn that during the Biden administration, the Bureau changed its domestic violence definitions from the “furtherance of ideological agendas” to “furtherance of political and/or social agendas.” They report that it was a “gigantic departure for the Bureau.”

As Newsweek explained, “For the first time extremist groups worthy of surveillance and even infiltration could be so labeled because of their politics.” The FBI’s main target: Trump MAGA activists.

A review by its investigative reporters of previously unpublished FBI documents shows, “nearly two-thirds of the FBI’s current investigations are focused on Trump supporters and others suspected of violating what the FBI calls “anti-riot” laws.”

Although I’m not a MAGA activist, I personally abhor any government spying program against its citizens. In fact, I was a plaintiff in a 1970’s leftwing legal lawsuit against the COINTELPRO program. The United States Supreme Court ruled in the case, called Hobson vs. Wilson, that the federal government’s political surveillance program was unconstitutional.

Continue reading “”

What the Media Won’t Tell You About Guns in This Election

Undoubtedly, most Americans are aware of the mainstream media’s bias when it comes to reporting the “facts.” A recent Gallup Poll revealed that only 31% of Americans say they have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of confidence in the media to report the news “fully, accurately and fairly.”

Two topics where the mainstream media is most biased are private gun ownership and the upcoming presidential election. Combine skewed gun and election coverage, and you get media reporting only what they want you to know regarding firearms and your rights.

So, here are a bunch of things they don’t want you to know.

Continue reading “”

FPC Pushes Forward In Post Office Gun Ban Challenge

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has filed a motion for summary judgment in its case pending before a U.S. District Court in Texas challenging the Post Office gun ban.

The lawsuit FPC v. Garland challenges federal gun control laws prohibiting firearm possession, storage and carry at United States Post Offices and related properties, including post office parking lots. The plaintiffs are two law-abiding citizens licensed to carry in Texas and two non-profit membership associations—FPC and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).

Brandon Combs, FPC president, said the lawsuit is one in a long line of challenges designed to restore Second Amendment rights.

“Your right to carry weapons for armed self-defense does not end at the Post Office,” Combs said in a release announcing the action. “We look forward to eliminating this immoral ban and further restoring the People’s right and ability to protect themselves in public.”
In its motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs argue that the post office gun ban fails both of the standards set by the Supreme Court in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen
Continue reading “”

When Fiction Reads Like Reality

NRA In Danger posted “The Cabal Chronicles” yesterday. It presents a fictional newsletter from a cabal dedicated to the destruction of the NRA. It details the efforts made over the years to infiltrate the Board of Directors, siphon money and members from the NRA, and to set it up so that it self-destructs.

This supposed fictional newsletter is as close a description of what has actually happened to the NRA over the last 20 years as could be imagined. I think a publisher presented this as a book would have rejected it as it was just too far-fetched to be believed. However, this supposed fictional newsletter is as close a description of what has actually happened to the NRA over the last 20 years as could be imagined.

From “The Cabal Chronicles” about Indy in 2019:

On the eve of NRA’s annual meeting, some of the CEO’s scandals became public. For a day, though, our plan was in grave danger. The president, first VP, and some directors asked the CEO to step down, which of course would have ruined everything. NRA would have stood out as the nonprofit that discovered its CEO was corrupt, and immediately took action.

Fortunately, our obedient directors and the new chief vendor convinced the CEO to refuse the idea, and instead drafted a letter from the CEO to the board, portraying the CEO as bravely resisting extortionate demands. (We had many a laugh at that one. “Next, we write the letter for Al Capone!”)

Luckily for us, the majority of the board fell in line behind our sheep dogs and endorsed the CEO. So obedient were they that, before we were through, they’d purged their president and the first vice president for daring to challenge the corrupt CEO. The presidency fell to a lady whom we could easily control by making sure she chose our tools as her advisors. Led by them, she stripped any dissenting directors of their committee assignments, effectively making them powerless.

Moving on to 2020 and the pandemic. The Annual Meeting scheduled to happen in Nashville was canceled. However, the bylaws stipulated a meeting must be held so it was rescheduled to happen over Labor Day Weekend in Springfield, Missouri. Then that meeting got canceled and moved to a fancy resort in Tucson, Arizona. While not stated in the story, I think it must have been because too many rank and file members would have headed to Springfield if only to visit the Bass Pro mothership and the NRA Sporting Arms Museum before the meeting.

The Chronicles continue about the 2020 meeting in Tucson which I did attend in reality and did present a resolution in reality.

The regular meeting of the members was canceled “due to Covid.” Then the meeting was reset and held in Tucson, AZ, where due to the small venue and Covid spacing, only a few hundred members could be allowed in. An online site was established for registration, and directors were tipped off in advance to fill it with themselves, their family, and their guests. As a result, registration of ordinary members closed within hours. A couple of dozen got in.

VP Cotton assured the friendly audience that the NY lawsuit was a sham and would surely be defeated. The directors in the audience led the rest in giving LaPierre a standing ovation. Some members did present resolutions which might have hindered our plans for destruction, but the directors present asked that they be referred to board committees, which of course discarded them.

The rest of The Cabal Chronicles continues and concludes with the members striking back by nominating 14 petition candidates. As my readers know, I am one of those 14 petition candidates. I am also one of the two “double nominated” candidates meaning I was nominated by both the Nominating Committee and by petition.

An interesting side note on being nominated by the Nominating Committee. An affidavit regarding the work of the Nominating Committee was filed by Charlie Beers with whom I’ve had friendly conversations. It states as the last item, “In fact, the Committee nominated multiple candidates who have been critical of NRA leadership, notably John Richardson, a longtime NRA member who runs a blog entitled No Lawyers, Only Guns and Money that frequently broadcasts such criticisms.” I’m not sure if that makes me famous or infamous but I’ll take it as I will be permanently in the New York trial records.

Presenting the last few years as fictional newsletter from a fictional cabal was a brilliant move. Read the entire post in NRA In Danger. It will be well worth your time.

Which means; NONE OF THEM were actual MDs, but WERE actual actors

Despite Democrats’ Best Efforts, a New Generation Discovers the Joys of Shooting

Colorado’s lurch to the left over the past couple of decades has led to repeated attacks on lawful gun owners and the right to keep and bear arms, but despite their best efforts, Democrats haven’t managed to destroy a culture of responsible gun ownership.

In fact, in Lake County, Colorado, interest in the shooting sports has led to the creation of the county’s first ever high school trap shooting team.

The team was formed after students expressed interest in having a local trap shooting program. One of those students was senior Raymond Harvey, who previously had to travel to Buena Vista to participate in the sport.

“I started attempting to get a team up here my freshman year,” Harvey said in sharing his determination in bringing the sport to Leadville. “I contacted the athletic director at the time. Then we got a new athletic director, and I worked with Jake, and we finally got a team up here.”

Now, trapshooting is an official club sport at Lake County High School and counts as an extracurricular just like football or any other sport. [Head Coach Jake] Farber said the team is also integrating with 4-H and partnering with the Amateur Trapshooting Association (ATA) and the Scholastic Clay Target Program for special events.

It’s great to see another high school embrace shooting sports, and it’s even better that the push came from students like Raymond Harvey.

“Trap shooting is one of the fastest-growing female sports,” Josh Homer said. “It’s great because it’s a nice integrated sport where males and females compete right next to each other and still have a great time.”

He also emphasized that trap shooting is the safest high school sport.

“Year after year, it ranks as the safest, with very few accidents,” Josh Homer said. “We really emphasize firearm safety and proper conduct.”

Students interested in joining don’t need their own firearm. The Ascent Opportunity Development Division (AODD), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, provides shotguns for participants who don’t have their own. The provided gun is a single-shot break-open model to ensure safety. If a student decides to purchase their own firearm, AODD can assist in choosing the right one.

Who could be opposed to this? Even gun control activists should be okay with high school trap teams. After all, Tim Walz an out-and-proud trap shooter and hunter, and that didn’t stop virtually every gun control group in the country from endorsing him and self-proclaimed gun owner Kamala Harris. If there’s any gun-related activity that groups like Giffords, Brady, and Everytown find acceptable, it has to be trap shooting, right?

Wrong.

“The NRA’s influence concerns Kris Brown, president of Brady, the national gun-violence prevention group. “I look at anything funded by the National Rifle Association with a jaundiced eye, because about 30 years ago they stopped talking publicly about any risks associated with firearms,” she said. “In this country, suicide with a firearm is at a 40-year high, and that is particularly true with teenagers.”

Brown claims not to have a problem with the shooting sports, but if there’s any involvement by the NRA or other Second Amendment groups then there’s an issue. I’m honestly surprised that Brady and other anti-gunners haven’t complained more about 4-H’s shooting sports programs, but maybe we just need to give them a little more time.

Youth shooting sports programs are apolitical in nature, but the anti-gunners still view them as a gateway to Second Amendment activism. They can’t stand the idea of kids learning how to be safe and responsible with firearms while also having a truly great day at the range. But while they complain about the NRA and other groups promoting youth shooting sports, the programs themselves keep growing in popularity… even in those places where responsible gun culture is under sustained assault.

General Milley’s Attack on the Constitution

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, recently called Donald Trump a “fascist to the core” and “a wannabe dictator.” That such a senior military leader would feel comfortable saying this about his former boss is remarkable given that similar statements by officers have, in the past, resulted in severe punishment. The U.S. Constitution makes the president—the only democratically elected leader in the chain of command—commander in chief. Military leaders serving under the president owe him both deference and respect, regardless of whether their policy preferences differ.

General Milley is challenging this foundational principle of American government. Although General Milley’s recent statements are not subject to Article 88 because President Trump was no longer in office at the time the general made them, his previous attempts to undermine Trump’s authority could be. Indeed, General Milley has recognized as much, expressing concern that he may yet face court-martial for his conduct during the Trump administration. Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has revealed that General Milley discussed with her ways in which the military could ignore a hypothetical order from President Trump to deploy nuclear weapons, and that he agreed with the speaker’s suggestion that President Trump was “crazy.”

Others have alleged that General Milley worked behind the scenes to frustrate the Trump administration’s plan to pull troops out of Afghanistan, ultimately succeeding in delaying withdrawal until President Biden was in office. Most egregiously, a 2021 book by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa details how General Milley—without knowledge or authorization from the president—offered to warn a senior Chinese military official “ahead of time” in the event that President Trump ordered an attack against the communist state. This latter conduct, if true, goes beyond even insubordination—it borders on outright treason, which can be prosecuted through court-martial or by the Department of Justice under Title 18, Section 2381 of the U.S. Code.

Presidents have traditionally taken swift and decisive action against military officers who challenge their authority as commander in chief. President Truman famously sacked General Douglas MacArthur—who was wildly popular at the time—for questioning Truman’s approach to the Korean War, explaining later that he “fired him because he wouldn’t respect the authority of the President.” President Obama similarly accepted General Stanley McCrystal’s resignation as commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan after the general publicly criticized high-ranking civilian officials within the Obama administration.

These men dedicated years of their lives to serving their country, and, in at least some respects, their criticisms had merit. General MacArthur understood the perils of communist aggression and sincerely believed that Truman’s approach discounted that threat. General McCrystal undoubtedly had some valid concerns about American policy in Afghanistan. The substance of the concerns voiced by these men, however, was beside the point. Public disparagement of the civilian leaders appointed over them, as a matter of principle, could not be permitted. Yet, as allegations concerning General Milley’s conduct have come to light, civilian leadership has responded with seeming indifference—and even support.

For a republic to survive, civilian control of the armed forces is crucial. Allowing those serving in uniform to undermine the policies of the civilian officials under which they serve would risk praetorianism—where military commanders feel empowered to seize control when they disfavor a nation’s political leadership. Indeed, the citizens of states that accept such an arrangement almost always suffer as a result. From this nation’s founding, Americans have rejected military rule. George Washington deferred to the Continental Congress throughout the Revolutionary War and resigned his commission at its conclusion. When civilian leaders depart from the tradition established by Washington and allow those in uniform to challenge their authority without consequences, they risk undermining a bedrock principle upon which this nation was founded.

While Americans are right to revere the dedication and sacrifice of those in uniform—including the lengthy service of men like General Milley—that respect should never license insubordination of a sitting president or his advisors, regardless of the perceived wisdom of a particular administration’s policies. General Milley has noted that officers “take an oath to a country . . . . We don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or a tyrant or a dictator.” True enough, but soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines must remember that, regardless of their personal views on policy, the Constitution vests ultimate authority as commander in chief of the Armed Forces in the president alone.

Officers who disregard the president’s prerogative, therefore, necessarily violate their oaths of office—their duty to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” When President Trump is back in office, he should send a clear and unequivocal message to his officer corps that insubordination will not be tolerated. Unless there are consequences for men like General Milley, the Republic will suffer.

Victim uses firearm to stop knife attack in North Haven

NORTH HAVEN, Conn. (WTNH) — A man was arrested after threatening someone with a knife in a parking lot on Thursday, police said.

Police said at around 11:35 a.m., Obadiah Claud, 45, charged the victim with a knife and the victim took out his legally possessed gun to try to stop the attack.
Claud fled in his car when the victim took out the gun, police said.

Detectives found Claud’s car in West Haven and arrested him at a local business nearby.
Claud was charged with threatening in the second degree, illegal possession of a deadly weapon, and breach of peace in the second degree.

According to police, this was not a random incident and there is no threat to the public.

Claud is being held on a $50,000 bond.

Poll Shows a Quarter of Americans Believe Civil War May Erupt After the Election

America hasn’t been this divided since the Civil War. But does that mean that if the election doesn’t go the way that either party wants, another civil war will break out?

According to a poll taken by The Times, about a quarter of the U.S. population fears that civil war may break out after the election.

Barbara Walter, a noted Civil War historian, wrote a 2022 bestseller, “How Civil Wars Start and How to Stop Them.” She said that measured against a checklist of the factors that could lead to civil war, “the United States … has entered very dangerous territory.” She added that “we are closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe because of “political extremism, cultural tribalism, the embrace of conspiracy theories, proliferation of guns and militias and the erosion of faith in government and democracy.”

Only the final item on her checklist matters. Neither the right nor the left has faith in our institutions to govern us. The right doesn’t trust the vote-counting process while the left thinks Trump will “destroy democracy” if he wins. It’s an incendiary mix that doesn’t bode well for the post-election period.

Fears that an eruption of violence is very or somewhat likely are shared across the political divide by 27 per cent of American adults, including 30 per cent of women and 24 per cent of men, YouGov found in a survey of 1,266 registered voters on October 18-21.

Twelve per cent of respondents said they knew someone who might take up arms if they thought Donald Trump was cheated out of victory in under two weeks’ time. Five per cent said they knew someone who might do the same if they thought Kamala Harris was cheated.

Does this really point to a “civil war” where there are two identifiable sides fighting for control of the government? If there is going to be violence after the election, it will be in the form of riots more than a military campaign.

Rebellions take planning and organization. The glorified brawl that took place on Jan. 6, 2021, was not a rebellion, no matter how the left wants to describe it. No court has ever said it was a rebellion. No insurrection charges were ever filed against any of the 1,200 defendants.

Whatever happens after the election, any violence will serve only to divide America further.

Concern over Trump’s response to losing again on November 5 was shown elsewhere in The Times-YouGov poll, with 66 per cent of voters saying the former president would not accept a narrow loss, compared with 27 per cent who said the same about Harris.

Among Harris supporters, 5 per cent said she would not accept a narrow loss and 90 per cent said the same about Trump; among Trump supporters, 50 per cent said Harris would not accept a narrow loss and 39 per cent said the same about Trump.

Trump is just as likely to accept the results of the election if he loses as not. Trump has a habit of doing exactly the opposite of what his enemies say he’s going to do, so anything is possible.

What’s not possible is Trump openly calling for armed resistance to the results. And without that, a large-scale revolt is not possible.

Not many respondents believed that Kamala Harris would offer armed resistance if she lost. Far more likely is an avalanche of legal filings challenging the results in several states.

But don’t ever refer to her as an “election denier.”

Israel Hits Iran in Multiple Waves of Targeted Bombing Strikes

Israel said it struck military sites in Iran early on Saturday in retaliation for Tehran’s attacks on Israel earlier this month, the latest attack in the escalating conflict between the heavily armed rivals.
Iranian media reported multiple explosions over several hours in the capital and at nearby military bases, but there were no immediate reports of damage or casualties.

Before dawn, Israel’s public broadcaster said three waves of strikes had been completed and that the operation was over.

The Middle East has been on edge awaiting Israel’s retaliation for a ballistic-missile barrage carried out by Iran on Oct. 1, in which around 200 missiles were fired at Israel and one person was killed in the West Bank.

Continue reading “”