Well, they were in on it, so it’s no surprising

BLUF
This is appalling. The “danger to democracy” that the mainstream media and the Democrats have been screeching about for months is not Republicans—it’s the dishonest American media itself.

The Real ‘Threat to Democracy’: Dems Colluded With Twitter to Affect the Outcome of the 2020 Election and the Media Doesn’t Care

It’s an absolute bombshell of a story—Twitter, the social media home of journalists and politicians, censored a damaging story about Joe Biden’s son in the weeks before the 2020 presidential election, clearly affecting the outcome. Friday night, Twitter owner Elon Musk released the smoking gun: files proving that Twitter engineers purposefully shut down any mention of the New York Post Hunter Biden “laptop from hell” story despite knowing that it was actually true.

After years of decrying “Russian influence” in our elections, and lambasting Republicans for questioning election outcomes (despite new Democrat House leader Hakeem Jeffries being one of the great deniers of all time), you’d think the media would be issuing blanket coverage of this outrageous and undemocratic action by the social media bluebird.

Not so. As of 8:11 PM PST, over 5 hours after the news started breaking on Matt Taibbi’s Twitter account (an event which was publicized well in advance by Musk), the Usual Suspects in journalism could barely find the space in their pages to mention it. A rundown:

Continue reading “”

Another Lawsuit Filed Against Oregon for Most Restrictive Gun Law in the Country

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Oregon State Shooting Association (OSSA), and Mazama Sporting Goods filed a lawsuit against the state’s recently passed Ballot Measure 114, which is considered one of the strictest gun control laws in the country. 

The lawsuit claims that the measure infringes upon the right of Oregon residents to buy and own firearms, imposing “severe and unprecedented burdens on individuals seeking to exercise perhaps the most basic right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

This is the third lawsuit filed since November 8, which was filed by the Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF), Sherman County Sheriff’s Department, Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC).

“The deficiencies in this ballot measure cannot go unaddressed. Forget that it is scheduled to go into effect before Oregon even certifies the election, but it requires potential gun owners to take a class that has yet to be created, at a cost yet to be determined, so that they can obtain a permit that doesn’t permit them to purchase a firearm,” NRA Oregon state director Aoibheann Cline said in a statement to the Daily Caller.

The strict measure will require residents to get background checks, firearm training (which does not currently exist), fingerprint collection, and a permit to purchase any firearm.

The lawsuit also alleges that the measure creates a “Kafkaesque regime” which they claim is not supported by history, tradition, or modern regulation.

“Oregon’s Measure 114 is blatantly unconstitutional,” NSSF’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane said, adding “the right to keep and bear arms begins with the ability of law-abiding citizens to be able to obtain a firearm through a lawful purchase at a firearm retailer.”

He also said that it threatens the most constitutional right… “Oregon has created an impossible-to-navigate labyrinth that will achieve nothing except to deny Second Amendment rights to its citizens. The measure is an affront to civil liberties which belong to People, not to the state to grant on impossible and subjective criteria,” Keane added.

The state has rushed to pass the measure, meaning no one will be able to buy a firearm beginning on December 8.

Demand for ‘Pure Blood’ Soars as Unvaccinated Blood Banks Launch

Demand for “pure blood” from unvaccinated donors is soaring as specialist blood banks have been launching around the world.

Patients who have chosen not to take COVID-19 shots can now access “pure blood” if they require a transfusion.

A new service called “SafeBlood Donation” was launched by a Swiss naturopath named George Della Pietra.

According to a report by VICE, the demand is so high for “pure blood” that SafeBlood Donation now has members in at least 16 countries.

SafeBlood Donation has the long-term goal of opening blood banks that provide its members with unvaccinated plasma.

HOW TWITTER HELPED ELECT JOE BIDEN

As Elon Musk promised, Twitter is releasing internal documents about how and why they suppressed information about Joe Biden’s corruption, as documented on his son’s laptop, in the last weeks of the 2020 campaign. Twitter apparently outsourced the task to liberal (but not crazy) commentator Matt Taibbi. You can follow Taibbi’s thread here.

I will have more to say when it is over, but here are some highlights as we go along.

The Biden campaign communicated directly with Twitter to get objectionable tweets censored

Remarkably, Twitter locked out the account of White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany because she referred to the (accurate) New York Post story about the laptop. A Trump staffer complained disgustedly:

Twitter officials suppressed the news but couldn’t come up with a coherent rationale for doing so

It is notable how many Twitter employees questioned whether there was any basis for suppressing the news about Biden:

One Democratic Congressman reached out to Twitter to express free speech-related concerns, but Twitter officials didn’t seem to get the point:

A guy named Szabo from NetChoice weighed in, explaining to Twitter the desirability of more censorship:

The thread continues. So far, I would say it tells us pretty much what we already knew. Liberal Twitter employees seized on a flimsy pretext to suppress a story that would hurt the Biden campaign in the closing days before the election. Taibbi comments that one striking feature is that the censorship was carried out without the involvement of Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s CEO, who later apologized for it. Perhaps the partisans at Twitter thought Dorsey may not be on board with their censorship.

It is also interesting to read the many replies by liberals who think that what Twitter did was A-OK. I they represent the majority of Democrats in believing that any information that helps Republicans or hurts Democrats should be suppressed.

The thread is ongoing, you can read it at the link. I will follow up later tonight or in the morning with any additional significant revelations.

 

Matt Taibbi

1. Thread: THE TWITTER FILES

2. What you’re about to read is the first installment in a series, based upon thousands of internal documents obtained by sources at Twitter. 
3. The “Twitter Files” tell an incredible story from inside one of the world’s largest and most influential social media platforms. It is a Frankensteinian tale of a human-built mechanism grown out the control of its designer. 
4. Twitter in its conception was a brilliant tool for enabling instant mass communication, making a true real-time global conversation possible for the first time. 
5. In an early conception, Twitter more than lived up to its mission statement, giving people “the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers.” 
6. As time progressed, however, the company was slowly forced to add those barriers. Some of the first tools for controlling speech were designed to combat the likes of spam and financial fraudsters.
7. Slowly, over time, Twitter staff and executives began to find more and more uses for these tools. Outsiders began petitioning the company to manipulate speech as well: first a little, then more often, then constantly. 
8. By 2020, requests from connected actors to delete tweets were routine. One executive would write to another: “More to review from the Biden team.” The reply would come back: “Handled.”Image

Continue reading “”

Presidentish Joe Biden knows exactly what today’s schedule entails. He’s going to Georgia to campaign for Sen. Raphael Warnock.

Unless he’s going to Massachusetts to campaign for Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who isn’t up for election right now.

Or maybe he’s going to Georgia for Warren or Massachusetts for Warnock. And there’s something about a fundraiser.

Maybe we can clear things up by watching the video of Biden himself.

As always, I’m happy to provide for you — at no extra charge — the VodkaPundit Quick & Dirty Transcript.

Also, as always, any errors in the transcription are my own fault, and I apologize in advance. Any sense being made on the part of Biden is purely accidental and should be immediately dismissed.

Transcript:

Reporter: When are you going to Georgia to help Sen. Warnock?

Biden: I’m going to Georgia today to help Sen. Warren. Not to Georgia. I’m going to help Sen. Warren. I’m doing a major fundraiser up in Boston.

Buttigieg: Thank you, Mr. President.

Biden: Today. For, for the, uh, our next and continued Senate candidate and senator.

Biden made it quite clear that he will be traveling to Boston for a major fundraiser. This much is true — I checked his daily calendar. He’ll be attending a reception for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which I assume involves fundraising.

I’m still trying to suss out what he might have meant by “our next and continued Senate candidate and senator.” My guess — and it’s only a guess — is that Biden had Warnock, who is in a special runoff election campaign, stuck in his brain because that’s who the question was about.

Or maybe he’s forgotten that the midterms are over and believes that Warren is fighting to be the “next and continued Senate candidate and senator.”

Warren was not up for reelection in 2022, and won’t be again until 2024.

So Biden does seem to know where he’s going and what he’s doing; he just doesn’t seem to understand why.

Or maybe he’s clear on all three but just has trouble saying it.

Whatever the case, he looks and sounds like the senescent old man he is, and not like the most powerful man in the world.

Fiduciary responsibility requires that return on investor’s $$ be given top priority over politically correct ‘woke’ BS

Florida Withdraws $2 Billion from BlackRock Over ESG Investing.

According to a press release, Florida Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis announced that the Florida Treasury would begin divesting $2 billion worth of assets currently under management by BlackRock. The State Treasury will immediately have Florida’s custody bank freeze approximately $1.43 billion worth of long-term securities and remove BlackRock as the manager of about $600 million worth of short-term overnight investments. Asset managers invest these taxpayer funds as part of Florida’s Treasury Investment Pool. By the beginning of 2023, the State Treasury will divest all short- and long-term investments from BlackRock and relocate investment responsibilities to other fund management entities.

Patronis said, “As Florida’s Chief Financial Officer, it’s my responsibility to get the best returns possible for taxpayers. The more effective we are in investing dollars to generate a return, the more effective we’ll be in funding priorities like schools, hospitals, and roads. As major banking institutions and economists predict a recession in the coming year, and as the Fed increases interest rates to combat the inflation crisis, I need partners within the financial services industry who are as committed to the bottom line as we are — and I don’t trust BlackRock’s ability to deliver. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink is on a campaign to change the world. In an open letter to CEOs, he’s championed ‘stakeholder capitalism’ and believes that ‘capitalism has the power to shape society.’ To meet this end, the asset management company has leaned heavily into Environmental, Social, and Governance standards – known as ESG – to help police who should, and who should not gain access to capital.”

At least one analyst downgraded BlackRock earlier this year because of the political risk associated with ESG investing. Following the third quarter release, UBS analyst Brennan Hawken downgraded the company’s stock from Buy to Neutral and dropped the target price to $585 from $700. Hawken’s note on the change cited growing pushback on BlackRock’s environment, social, and governance (ESG) investment strategy.

Continue reading “”

“Saint Benitez” delivers another win to gun owners (and legal smackdown to California AG)

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, affectionately known as “Saint Benitez” among Second Amendment activists for his string of decisions striking down California gun control laws (decisions that have, unfortunately, largely been stymied by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges), has unleashed his latest opinion on California Attorney General Rob Bonta in two cases that deal with a weaselly attempt by Gov. Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers to make it financially risky to challenge the state’s gun laws in court.

Shortly after the state of Texas passed their anti-abortion law allowing abortion providers to be sued by private citizens and the Supreme Court declined to block it from taking effect, Newsom declared his intent to fire a responding shot in the culture war; this one aimed at the Second Amendment.

Not long after the Supreme Court issued the Bruen decision, Newsom and his legislative allies approved SB 1327, which not only allows California residents to bring their own lawsuits against companies that violate California gun control laws, but imposed a new fee shifting standard on plaintiffs who challenge any of the state’s gun control measures: unless the plaintiffs are successful on each and every complaint they allege, they’re responsible for paying 100% of the state’s attorneys fees. If, on the other hand, the plaintiffs do manage to meet that impossibly high bar, the state is not obligated to pay a dime of their costs.

Two lawsuits were immediately filed in the wake of SB 1327’s enactment; Miller v. Bonta, brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition, and South Bay Rod & Gun v. Bonta from a coalition including the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (where, in full disclosure, I serve as an unpaid board member), Gun Owners of California, Second Amendment Law Center, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association.

On November 28th, Judge Benitez held a hearing on a request for an injunction in the cases. The arguments from the plaintiffs were quite simple; in fact, they were able to throw Bonta’s own words back in his face, since the California AG had previously filed an amicus brief in the challenge to the Texas abortion law on constitutional grounds. Bonta is now forced to defend the very practice he declared unconstitutional just a few months ago, and his chief argument was a weak one: his claim that he won’t enforce the law unless or until the Supreme Court has officially ruled on the constitutionality of the Texas abortion statute. That stance, he argued, should be enough to moot both of these cases, but in today’s ruling Judge Benitez rejected Bonta’s defense in no uncertain terms.

The American court system and its forum for peacefully resolving disputes is the envy of the world. One might question the wisdom of a state law that dissuades gun owners from using the courts to peacefully resolve disagreements over the constitutionality of state laws.

The law at issue here is novel. As four concurring Justices recently said in a Texas case with similarities, “where the mere ‘commencement of a suit,’ and in fact just the threat of it, is the ‘actionable injury to another,’ the principles underlying [Ex parte] Young authorize relief against the court officials who play an essential role in that scheme. Any novelty in this remedy is a direct result of the novelty of Texas’s scheme.” Whole Woman’s Health, 142 S. Ct., at 544-45 (citations omitted). The same principles authorize relief against the state officials here.…

If Defendant Attorney General committed to not enforcing § 1021.11 and entered into a consent judgment binding himself, his office, his successors and district attorneys, county counsel, and city attorneys, it might be a closer question. Again, this does not prevent future Attorneys General or other state statutes from being enacted and enforced. But that is not this case. In this case, the commitment of non-enforcement is conditional. The Defendant Attorney General says that his cessation of enforcement in a seeming case of tit-for-tat will end if, and when, a purportedly similar one-sided fee-shifting Texas statute is adjudged to be constitutional. Certainly, that condition may or may not occur. In the meantime, the statute remains on California’s books. And the actual chilling effect on these Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights remains. Therefore, the case is not moot.

Bonta’s attempt to avoid having to defend the indefensible has failed, and both Miller and South Bay Rod & Gun will now move forward. In response to Benitez’s decision, Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb declared that “California cannot be permitted to use the law to suppress constitutional challenges to its increasingly radical gun control schemes”, and today’s decision is a key step towards a broader decision consigning SB 1327 to the dustbin of history.

DON’T BELIEVE GIVING UP RIGHTS PROVIDES SECURITY

New York Time columnist David Brooks is reminding America why they shouldn’t put faith in opinion writers pontificating from their metropolitan ivory towers.

Brooks recently said America would be a much safer country if Americans would simply give up their freedoms and become more like Europe. If America wouldn’t hold onto the individual right to keep and bear arms spelled out in the Second Amendment, and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, he argues it would be a much safer place.

In his estimation, giving up the ability for self-defense and defense of loved ones would make crime just go away.

“That would take a gigantic culture shift in this country. A revamping of the way we think about privacy, a revamping of the way we think about the role government plays in protecting the common good,” Brooks said during a segment on PBS’ “Newshour.” “I think it would be something. I think it would be good not only to head off shootings, but good to live in a society where we cared more intimately about each other. And I would be willing to give up certain privacies for that to happen.”

That’s certainly out of the mainstream of how the rest of America views lawful firearm ownership. There were over 21 million background checks for the sale of a firearm in 2020, the most ever in a single year. Last year, Americans submitted to 18.5 million background checks. In 2022, background check figures are headed for the third strongest year on record. During the week up to and including Black Friday, the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) tallied over 711,000 background checks, with over 192,000 on Black Friday alone. That was the third busiest day for FBI’s NICS ever.

The Plan: Give Up

Just how would America achieve this utopia that Brooks imagines? Just give up, he said. Give up your rights. Give up your freedoms. Submit to an Orwellian state that provides you with all your needs. He admits this wouldn’t be easy.

“But for many Americans that would just be a massive cultural shift to regard our community and regard our common good in more frankly a European style,” Brooks explained.  “I think it would benefit our society in a whole range of areas, but it’s hard to see that kind of culture change to a society that’s been pretty individualistic for a long, long time.”

America broke away from European-style rule for a reason. The Founding Fathers rejected the British crown’s demands to give up guns then. Based on background checks for gun sales, America continues to reject calls for strict gun control. A recent Gallup poll found that support for more gun control dropped nine points from 66 percent to 57 percent in an October survey.

Failed Disarmament

The argument that individuals should surrender their gun rights has been tried elsewhere with predictable results. Gun owners that complied with gun seizures find themselves unable to protect themselves while criminals that ignore the law are empowered. A recent report from ABC News in Australia showed that criminals find it easier now to obtain illicit firearms than before the multiple amnesty periods when government officials collected firearms from Australians. New Zealand instituted their own gun confiscation program and crime spiked. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern ushered in Draconian gun control, including confiscation, and the country and crime hit new peaks.

The only ones left with guns were the criminals. That’s a lesson that Canada’s grappling with now as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is eyeing his own gun confiscation scheme and banning the transfer of any handguns. Some Canadian provinces are rejecting the heavy-handed measures. Sadly, history is replete with examples of regimes that took away its citizens firearms only to become tyrannical and turn their citizens into defenseless subjects. Those that fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence expressed their fear of a tyrannical government and enshrined our right to keep and bear arms for self defense in the Bill of Rights for a reason.

Brooks is wrong to think that ridding ourselves of rights and lawful gun ownership would reduce crime. The answer to rampant crime is more law enforcement. The changes needed to safeguard America’s communities don’t begin with turning our backs on freedoms. It starts with holding elected officials in The White House, Congress, state capitols and district attorneys responsible for not enforcing the law and failing to hold criminals accountable.

Brooks’ notion is a devil’s bargain. Americans know it. Surrendering freedom has never resulted in anything less than creating a society of victims.

Well, either they know they’ve lost, or the fix is already in. We shall see.

Gun-Control Groups Staying Out of Georgia Senate Runoff as NRA Spending Surges

Gun group spending ahead of the Georgia Senate runoff has been decidedly one-sided.

With the election only days away, none of the three major national gun-control groups–Everytown for Gun Safety, Giffords, and Brady–are making much of an effort to influence the race’s outcome, Federal Election Commission (FEC) records show. The latest filings for Everytown for Gun Safety’s Super PAC show it has only spent $1500 for phone calls in support of incumbent Senator Raphael Warnock (D.). Neither Brady PAC nor Giffords PAC has submitted updated filings since the November general election. None of the gun-control groups’ websites refer to any new spending or advertising campaigns ahead of the final Senate race.

The lack of activity among the major gun control groups stands in stark contrast to the strategy taken by gun-rights advocates ahead of election day. The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund has poured more than $3 million into the race on television ads, digital ads, media placement, mailers, and text messages in support of Herschel Walker (R.), the PAC’s filings show.

Timothy Lytton, a Georgia State University law professor who studies gun politics, told The Reload that the gap in reported spending could be the result of differing strategies.

“I think gun-rights groups are probably doing more to craft a media strategy,” he said. “That takes a lot more dollars. The gun-control groups are probably trying to mobilize more volunteer networks in terms of getting turnout.”

The runoff battle is the last key Senate race in which the NRA and all three major gun-control groups have endorsed a candidate–the NRA for Walker and the other three for Warnock. The race’s outcome will determine the extent of Democratic control in the Senate. If Walker wins, the Senate will remain a 50-50 split, and Vice President Kamala Harris (D.) will again be the tie-breaking vote for the Democrats’ razor-thin majority. If Warnock wins, Democrats will have gained a seat in the chamber in an unusually strong midterm performance for a party with an incumbent President in the White House. It will also lock in a key Georgia Senate seat under Democrat control for another six years.

Few polls have been conducted for the race, but those that have been released show a narrow lead for Senator Warnock. An AARP/Fabrizio Ward & Impact Research poll released last Tuesday found Warnock leading Herschel Walker 51 percent to 47 percent among all likely voters. That’s a gap within the poll’s margin of error, meaning voter turnout could be a decisive factor.

At the same, investments from gun groups may not be enough to sway the outcome of the race. The same poll found that among voters aged 50 and older, the demographic most likely to vote in the race, only four percent rated gun control/gun rights as their most important deciding issue. That puts it ahead of only climate change as the least cited issue among eleven possible choices. Just two percent of older voters who are not already committed to either candidate rated guns as their top issue.

Lytton agreed that guns have faded a bit as an important issue among the Georgia electorate. He chalked that up to the recent success of the gun-rights movement in getting measures like permitless carry passed in the state, diminishing the sense of urgency for pro-gun voters.

“Gun rights have been near the top of the state’s political agenda for well over a decade, and there have been a lot of legislative successes for gun-rights groups,” he said. “I think in some ways that has taken the wind out of their sails. One of the things that prompts turnout among gun-rights voters is the fear that their liberties are going to be restricted.”

With Republicans now in control of the House, and an extremely narrow Democratic majority a foregone conclusion in the Senate, the race’s outcome will likely have little bearing on the prospects of new gun legislation clearing Congress. However, an additional Democratic seat in the Senate would help tip the balance of power among committee members and boost President Biden’s ability to make key political and judicial appointments that could significantly affect gun policy.

Neither the NRA nor the three gun-control groups responded to a request for comment.

The election will take place on December 6.

Tennessee Court Says YES! Tenants of Public Housing Have Right to Possess Guns

Tennessee – -(AmmoLand.com)- On October 13, 2022, the Tennessee Court of Appeals released a decision that addresses whether tenants in a public housing project can be forced by government landlords to “waive” their 2nd Amendment rights. The decision came in the matter of Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corp. v. Kinsley Braden, M2021-00329-COA-R3-CV.

The litigation arouse in Maury County, Tennessee, when the landlord, Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corporation, filed a civil action to evict Kinsley Braden, a tenant, “for possessing a firearm in his apartment in contravention of the lease agreement.” Columbia Housing is a corporation that provides subsidized housing for the City of Columbia pursuant to Tennessee’s Housing Authorities Law. It operated a multi-family, low-income public housing complex in Columbia, Tennessee.

The tenant voluntarily signed a lease that contained a provision prohibiting firearms on the property. When Columbia Housing learned that he had a firearm in his apartment, it moved forward to evict him. The tenant opposed the eviction by claiming that the lease agreement, which was with a government agent, violated his rights under the Second Amendment. The trial court rejected the defense and ruled in favor of the landlord.

The Court of Appeals found it significant and undisputed that the landlord was a governmental entity. As such, the Court concluded that it was bound to act subject to the restrictions on government action imposed by the constitution. It also found that “the unconstitutional conditions doctrine ‘prevent[s] the government from coercing people into giving up’ their constitutional rights.”

Columbia Housing had argued that low-income housing was not protected because it was a “sensitive place” under the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and New York State Rifle and Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen. The Court of Appeals rejected that argument based in part on the analysis set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruen regarding the issue of “sensitive places” and the national tradition dating to the time of the Second Amendment, which defines what those places are. The Court of Appeals also noted that unlike some categories of sensitive places that the Supreme Court has referenced, this case involved an individual’s private home, not a public venue.

This may be the first reported decision by an appellate court in Tennessee that examines the decision in Bruen, and that also looks at the evolving and unsettled sensitive places doctrine. The discussion of the doctrine by the Court of Appeals is only enough to resolve the case before it, but it is significant because it clearly shows adherence by the Court of Appeals to what the U.S. Supreme Court has held.

Continue reading “”