FLASHBACK:(Deceit O’ The Day)

What is Operation Allies Welcome? The refugee scheme that allowed DC shooting suspect into the US

The man accused of shooting two National Guard members near the White House Wednesday night entered the country through Operation Allies Welcome, a resettlement program to assist Afghan nationals.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the suspect – an Afghan man identified as Rahmanullah Lakanwal – arrived in the U.S. in 2021. He later applied for asylum in 2024, which was approved this year under the Trump administration.

The U.S. has now suspended all Afghan immigration requests in response to the shooting outside a metro station in downtown Washington D.C., which officials described as a targeted ambush. The two guard members are still in critical condition.

In a televised address from Mar-a-Lago, Trump condemned the attack – the day before Thanksgiving celebrations get underway – as a “crime against humanity”.

On Wednesday, Trump lashed out at former president Joe Biden’s administration for letting in “20 million unknown and unvetted foreigners” to the US through the Operation Allies Welcome program. However, this figure appears to be an enormous exaggeration.

The scheme was launched in August 2021 during Biden’s presidency, following the chaos of the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Taliban’s return to power.

Continue reading “”

Missouri prosecutors fear ruling means deadly force can be self-defense against simple assault

Missouri prosecutors are concerned that a recent decision by the state Court of Appeals could open self-defense laws so broadly that the slightest threat of a minor attack could justify a person responding with deadly violence.

The Nov. 12 ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, would threaten public safety by making it difficult to charge, try or resolve violent crimes, Robert W. Russell, president of the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, wrote in an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief.

“If the opinion becomes law, mere shoving matches could justifiably be escalated to gun battles,” Russell wrote.

The ruling was made on a case that involved a fight between two women outside Anchor House, a veterans’ homeless shelter in Warren County, west of St. Louis, in November 2022.

Danielle Lechocki, a former Marine with several medical issues, said she felt “extremely threatened” after another shelter resident threatened to “mollywock” her, meaning hit her. Lechocki pulled a knife from her backpack, according to court documents, after the other woman lunged at her.

The other woman denied she went after Lechocki, who said she was just trying to show she wasn’t a “pushover.” A third person stepped in between the two women and no one was hurt.

But the county judge denied Lechocki’s request to use self-defense to justify her actions, agreeing with the prosecutor who argued that as a matter of law, deadly force cannot be used to repel a simple assault and battery.

The jury ultimately found Lechocki guilty of attempted unlawful use of a weapon but acquitted her of fourth-degree assault. Lechocki was sentenced to two days in jail and a fine of $1,000, which would be waived if she served 25 hours of community service.

The appellate court ruled that the judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense. The lower court’s ruling was reversed and the case was sent back for a retrial.

The Missouri Legislature changed the law on deadly force in 2007, the appeals court ruling said, allowing the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to protect himself or herself or a third person “against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony,” which was defined as “included but not limited to murder, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnapping, assault, and any forcible sexual offense.”

Continue reading “”

New York’s Assault on the NRA — and Free Speech — Gets a Court Bailout

In 2017, under the direction of then-Governor Andrew Cuomo, the state of New York launched a coordinated campaign to cripple the National Rifle Association (NRA) because of its defense of the Second Amendment and protected speech. New York’s Department of Financial Services contacted banks and insurance companies that did business with the NRA and delivered an unmistakable message: Continue associating with the NRA, and the state would investigate, cite, and regulate your business into oblivion. Coming from the state’s top financial regulator, the warning carried real weight – exactly as intended.

The strategy worked. Financial institutions and insurers quickly distanced themselves from the NRA, leaving the organization unable to secure even basic corporate services in the state. If that sounds like an obvious First Amendment violation, that’s because it is. More than 60 years ago, the Supreme Court made clear in Bantam Books v. Sullivan that government “threat[s] of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion” against third parties to suppress disfavored speech are flatly unconstitutional.

Because that rule remains as clear today as it was in 1963, the Supreme Court agreed with the ACLJ’s amicus brief and ruled unanimously for the NRA last term. Justice Sotomayor, writing for the Court, put it plainly: “A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.” When regulators use the power of their office to pressure private actors into isolating or punishing a speaker, they violate the First Amendment just as surely as if they had censored the speech directly.

This case sits squarely at the intersection of the First and Second Amendments. The NRA’s policy views related to the Second Amendment, its speech, its advocacy, and its expression are all protected by the First Amendment. A government that can strangle a gun-rights group through financial coercion can use the same tools to silence pro-life organizations, religious ministries, parental-rights groups, or anyone else who falls out of political favor. That is why the ACLJ fights not just for the substance of constitutional rights, but also against government efforts to punish those who speak about them.

That unanimous ruling should have ended the matter. It should have allowed the NRA’s lawsuit to proceed so a jury could determine the full extent of the constitutional violations. But the Second Circuit had other ideas. In defiance of both the Supreme Court’s clear command and the First Amendment itself, the court held that New York’s officials were entitled to qualified immunity – meaning the case had to be dismissed.

Qualified Immunity Was Never Meant to Shield Deliberate Speech Suppression

Continue reading “”

Thanksgiving is a federal holiday in the United States celebrated on the fourth Thursday of November. Outside the United States, it is sometimes called American Thanksgiving to distinguish it from the Canadian holiday of the same name and related celebrations in other regions. The modern national celebration dates to 1863 and has been linked to the Pilgrims 1621 harvest festival since the late 19th century. As the name implies, the theme of the holiday generally revolves around giving thanks with the centerpiece of most celebrations being a Thanksgiving dinner.

In 1789, per a request by Congressional resolution, President George Washington proclaimed “a day of public thanksgiving and prayer.” In 1863, President Lincoln issued a proclamation making Thanksgiving an official annual holiday to be commemorated each year on the last Thursday of November.

To stimulate economic recovery following the Great Depression, in 1939, President Franklin Roosevelt moved the holiday to the second to the last Thursday of the month to extend the holiday shopping season.

To alleviate confusion, Congress passed H.J. Res. 41 (77th Congress) on October 6, 1941, to establish Thanksgiving Day as a legal holiday on the fourth Thursday of November. President Roosevelt signed the joint resolution into law in December of 1941, to take effect the following year

 

“There appears to be no act of Congress that has ever designated a particular day as Thanksgiving Day. In short, this bill will fix the last Thursday in November as the permanent day for our annual Thanksgiving.”
– Earl Michener, Michigan 2nd Congressional District Representative October 6, 1941

Courts Broadly Interpret the 1st Amendment, While Hypocritically Limiting the 2nd Amendment – FourG

While judges act like their restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment is in accordance with constitutional law, they hypocritically don’t apply the same narrow interpretation to the First Amendment. Courts read the First Amendment to create a presumptive immunity for expression, striking down regulations unless they survive the most stringent review. The First Amendment has always been broadly interpreted.

In contrast, the Second Amendment (even after the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case in 2008 expanded it beyond a collective right to an individual one) has been treated as a limited individual right hedged by presumptively valid police-power regulations. And after Heller, the courts have continued chipping away at the Second Amendment.

Both amendments make it very clear they cannot be regulated away. The First Amendment states in part, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” The Second Amendment provides, “the right…to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” So why is one treated as if it comes with caveats but not the other?

The Supreme Court applies a rigorous standard of review to the First Amendment, strict scrutiny for content-based restrictions, which requires the government to demonstrate a compelling interest that is narrowly tailored. This is the highest level of scrutiny, and most restrictions fail the test. Laws regulating the First Amendment are presumed unconstitutional unless they have the narrowest possible tailoring — time, place and manner restrictions must be content neutral.

In contrast, longstanding regulations are presumed lawful when interpreting the Second Amendment. There is no requirement that time, place and manner restrictions be content neutral. Even in Heller, the court stated that “dangerous and unusual” weapons could be banned, and firearms could be banned in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings.

Instead of applying strict scrutiny to firearms regulations — which would invalidate almost all firearms regulations — lower courts after Heller developed a two-step test: assessing if a law burdens core protected conduct, then applying intermediate scrutiny. This requires an important governmental objective, such as public safety or reducing gun violence, and a reasonable fit between the law and the objective, which doesn’t need to be the least restrictive means.

In a recent case from 2022, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court backed off from the lower courts’ two-step test, replacing the second step with requiring that the government show how the regulations are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Ruling that a state law which required a reason to obtain a concealed weapons permit was unconstitutional, the court said bans on assault weapons or large-capacity magazines were acceptable if analogized to historical limits, and the court allowed red-flag laws, mental-health prohibitions and domestic-violence restraints.

Courts have upheld laws that impose a 10-round magazine limit, safe-storage mandate, 5-day waiting periods and restricting someone with a stalking conviction from owning a firearm.

The Supreme Court unanimously held in the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio that the First Amendment protects advocacy of illegal conduct unless it incites imminent lawless action. Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, was convicted under Ohio’s Criminal Syndicalism Act for a speech at a rally that included threats against government officials and called for “revengeance“ if suppression continued. SCOTUS ruled that the law was unconstitutional.

Considering much of the justification for restricting the Second Amendment comes down to preventing violence, this distinction is strange.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment’s protections has expanded over the years. It’s almost impossible for a public person to win a defamation or libel lawsuit, since the Supreme Court ruled in the 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan that the plaintiff must prove “actual malice,” which means knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard.

Commercial speech used to be unprotected. Now, it receives intermediate scrutiny after SCOTUS’ 1980 ruling in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission.

Hate speech, flag burning, violent video games and lies about military honors are all protected now.

If the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny to firearms regulations, they would fail due to the lack of historical tradition. Requiring a minimum age of 21 to own a firearm would fail, since 18–20-year-olds served in the 1791 militia. Red flag laws would fail, since there are no pre-deprivation hearings. Magazine limits would fail since there is no founding-era analogue. Many felons are nonviolent, so laws prohibiting their possession would fail as too broad.

Judges justify the hypocrisy by pointing to the need to prevent gun deaths. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 44,400 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S. last year. However, when compared to a similar country, England (and Wales), which bans firearms, the U.S. has lower overall violent crime rates. This reveals that judges are making decisions based on emotion, not relying on a purely constitutional analysis.

Investigators Say National Guardsmen Shot Near White House Were Ambushed in Targeted Attack

FBI Director Kash Patel, Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, DC Metro Police Department Executive Assistant Chief Jeff Carroll provided an update after two West Virginia National Guardsmen deployed to D.C. were shot Wednesday afternoon. Despite a previous report by West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morissey stating that both National Guardsmen had succumbed to their injuries, the assembled officials confirmed that both are alive but are in critical condition.

Patel said that the FBI is leading the investigation into the shooting of the guardsmen, whom he said “were brazenly attacked in a horrendous act of violence.”

Carroll said:

“At approximately 2:15 this afternoon, members of the National Guard were on high visibility patrols at 17 and I when suspect came around the corner, raised his arm with the firearm, and discharged at the National Guard members.

The suspect is in custody, being treated at a local hospital, and Carroll said that it’s unclear at this time whether the suspect was shot by other National Guard members or other law enforcement officers in the area. He added that investigators believe that the suspect in custody acted alone “and ambushed these members of the National Guard.”

Mayor Muriel Bowser described the attack as “a targeted shooting,” also saying, “I, too, want to send my thoughts and prayers to the families of the guardsmen and to the guardsmen.”


In response to the shooting, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said that more National Guardsmen will be surged to the city.

Preemption Laws Make Lawful Carry Easier…That’ Why They’re Under Attack by the Gun Control Industry.

Preemption laws offer legal protection for gun owners, but only when they are enforced. The work to advance any pro-gun legislation is arduous, more so in Minnesota than most states. But passing a law is only half the battle. This is also especially true in Minnesota, where local officials are concocting yet another illegal scheme to defy the state’s firearm preemption statute.

This has sadly become the norm, as defying preemption is a recognized way for municipal politicians to signal to their anti-gun supporters and donors that if the Second Amendment is no impediment to their plans, neither is a state statute. This contempt is now playing out in Minnesota, where mass noncompliance and legal fairytales are the order of the day.

The city of Saint Paul, Minnesota, recently declared that their city council “stands ready to act on day one when the state lifts preemption” to establish the complete ban on possession of semi-automatic firearms, “large capacity” magazines, binary triggers, “ghost guns,” as well as to create even more “gun-free zones.” It admits, however, that none of their new gun control is actually enforceable under the law as it presently stands.

Current Minnesota law, Minn. Stat. § 471.633, states:

The legislature preempts all authority of a home rule charter or statutory city of the first class, county, town, municipal corporation, or other governmental subdivision, or any of their instrumentalities, to regulate firearms, ammunition, or their respective components to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by them except that:

(a)   A governmental subdivision may regulate the discharge of firearms and

(b)   A governmental subdivision may adopt regulations identical to state law

       Local regulation inconsistent with this section is void.

State law speaks clearly on the matter, and no parts of the adopted or proposed ordinances qualify under the exceptions. Meanwhile, passing illegal legislation on the pretext that the law may someday change doesn’t remedy the violation. Try withholding presently owed taxes in the hope of future amendments to a state’s revenue laws to see where that gets you.

Yet even while acknowledging these efforts as unconstitutional in Minnesota due to the existing firearm preemption law, the Saint Paul City Council unanimously passed the ordinance and became the first city among a coalition of 17 cities that have pledged to do the same.

The city of Edina, Minnesota, attempted a similar effort last week which is now reportedly on hold. Edina Mayor James Hovland noted he wants residents to be able to weigh in at a public hearing first before the city council takes a vote while seemingly ignoring Edina City Attorney David Kendall’s legal input that the city cannot put an effective date on a gun ban until state law is changed and that he doesn’t, “think that the council is in a good position to direct police to enforce [such] an ordinance.”

Without any enforcement ability, these actions are transparently performative political theatre. However, a deeper dive at the continued audacity of jurisdictions to ignore the superior authority of the state illustrates the ongoing danger posed to the rule of law. Fundamental to the principle of law is clarity, and while these local politicians may feel empowered, their actions continue to create confusion and fear for residents and law enforcement officers.

Of course, lawsuits that should not have to be filed have and will be to defend gun owner rights. Judicial ping-pong on an already established legal principle will further contribute to havoc as gun control advocates perceive a dual benefit of virtual signaling and depleting the coffers of their adversaries, who are forced to defend settled law against frivolous attacks.  Taxpayer money will also be spent to defend these “contingent ordinances,” with no material benefit to anyone. The best that can be hoped for, from the gun prohibition point of view, is pure symbolism.

Nevertheless, it’s imperative to hold the line on all laws that protect citizens from officials wanting to create a confusing patchwork of gun control, a long-fought battle for the Second Amendment community as a whole. Preemption vindicates the principles that laws should be consistent, understandable, and fairly applied. The alternative is a regime in which compliance — if it is practical at all — inevitably involves forfeiting one’s own rights. A Minnesotan could travel from one end of the state to another, or he could exercise the full measure of the right to keep and bear arms recognized by state. But he could not do both at the same time.

The enactment of a law is often the beginning of the legal battles, not the end. NRA-ILA’s work involves not only making it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self- protection but also providing a protective framework to ensure the law works as intended. The infringement on display in Minnesota is merely one example of many. That’s why state preemption laws, and national efforts like H.R. 38, remain among ILA’s highest priorities.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States….Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America
— Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.

The Modern “Healthy Diet” Is The Same One They Fed Slaves

Obesity rates have been reaching breakneck pace in recent times, and the projections from here are all doom and gloom. 26% of adults in England are now classed as obese. By 2040, we’re estimated to reach 36%. This calamity has been happening in blissful disregard for any attempts put up by the NHS to get the nation back on track.

In fact, anyone with a pair of eyeballs can make the case that the introduction of the National Dietary Guidelines in 1983 made the situation worse. In what was essentially a copy and paste job from USA’s Dietary Guidelines of 1977, the nation was encouraged to treat animal fat like the plague and swap them for more carbs and more polyunsaturated fats.

Obesity surged upwards right from that point, and an emerging problem became a fact of life that everyone seems resigned to dealing with. The establishment’s vision of a healthy high carb diet only appeared to fan the flames.

dietary guidelines failure

Luckily, the NHS has since realised their mistake, and amended it with the EatWell Plate in 2006, which was then upgraded into the EatWell Guide in 2016. The issue was that the 1983 version didn’t recommend whole grains over refined grains.

None of this has done anything to arrest the momentum of obesity, but don’t let that get in the way of another classic tale of government competence. The crisis has been averted. The problem was that we’ve been refining the grains that used to be the beacon of health across countless civilisations stretching back to the dawn of agriculture.

Because nothing spells out optimal human health quite like following the diets that slaves and peasants were forced to eat. Traditionally-made whole grain bread, a sprinkle of some legumes, and a good smattering of fruits and vegetables to add a tinge of rainbow to a diet of love and freedom.

It did the job for the slaves, who always exemplified the pinnacle of health in society. It will do the same for us now.

Contents
  1. The EatWell Slave Diet

Continue reading “”

Democrats Calling for Mutiny Must Be Punished

By now everyone is aware that six Democrats in Congress created videos in which they openly encourage members of the U.S. military and Intelligence Community to mutiny against the commander in chief.  They couched their seditious statements in the pretense that they are interested only in protecting the Constitution, but their message is unmistakable: Resist President Trump’s lawful orders, and we’ll have your backs.

Americans whose minds have not been pickled by leftism are not impressed.  The Democrat instigators have been called “TikTok Traitors,” the “Seditious Six,” the “Idiot Six,” and worse.  President Trump immediately accused the lawmakers of sedition and demanded that they be arrested and stand trial for their potentially deadly provocations.  In response, the Democrat provocateurs have pretended to be outraged that the commander in chief would correctly describe their seditious actions as seditious.

Democrat word games have become so exhausting over the last thirty years.  Remember when Bill Clinton lied about his affair with twenty-two-year-old White House intern Monica Lewinsky by telling a grand jury, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”?  No matter how corrupt American politicians were before Clinton’s galling equivocation, it has seemed as if rhetorical obfuscation began exponentially accelerating after that moment.

Fast-forward to 2025, and former CIA director John Brennan is entirely comfortable going on national news shows and telling the world that he and fifty other “intelligence professionals” never lied about Hunter Biden’s “laptop from Hell” being Russian disinformation because the spies clearly stated in their 2020 pre-election op-ed defending the Bidens that the laptop’s treasure trove of criminality had merely “the hallmarks” of a Russian operation.  If Americans were confused about their attempt to blame Hunter’s crimes on the Russians, that’s because Americans are poor readers!

Senator Elissa Slotkin — one of the “Seditious Six,” a former CIA analyst, and a protégée of John Brennan — is busy playing the same sick word games as Slick Willy and commie Brennan.  She claims that her seditious video is meant only to draw attention to President Trump’s “illegal orders,” but when she is pressed to name one such “illegal order,” she admits that she is “not aware” of any.

If Slotkin can’t identify any of President Trump’s orders as illegal, why is she making videos encouraging rank insubordination among America’s military and intelligence personnel?  The Democrats are executing the exact same playbook that they have been using against Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.  For months, Democrat governors and lawmakers have threatened federal agents with future prosecution for doing nothing more than enforcing existing immigration law and arresting criminal illegal aliens in their states.  In order to protect millions of foreign nationals from deportation, Democrats have been obstructing law enforcement operations by promising to punish officers who do their jobs.

Threatening ICE agents with unlawful and malicious prosecutions will inevitably get people killed, because in the real world, hesitation invites disaster.  When prominent Democrats encourage military and intelligence personnel to resist orders, the consequences are potentially catastrophic.  As one astute commenter notes, “the threat of weaponized lawfare against U.S. troops is seditious psychological warfare.  It’s seditious sabotage aimed at breaking the chain of command.  It’s a seditious plot to erode trust in leaders and it undermines the oath that keeps the military united and effective.”  The Democrat strategy is nefarious and straightforward: Induce service members to question the orders of their commanding officers.  Hesitation and delay during combat will not only get Americans killed, but also directly serve enemy interests.

Democrats’ attempts to confuse American service members also encourage our geopolitical adversaries to be more aggressive.  As Glenn Beck argues, “if a video like this were aimed at Putin’s military, we’d assume Russia was unstable or nearing a coup.”  Therefore, Democrats have severely “weakened America — signaling doubt to allies and opportunity to enemies.”  If you were a general in China’s military, would you be less or more willing to invade Taiwan after prominent Democrat officials encouraged division and subversion among America’s rank-and-file troops?  Public calls for insubordination make America appear destined for civil war at home and ill-prepared to defend its own interests or those of its allies abroad.

In describing his disgust with Democrats’ efforts to instigate a military rebellion against the Trump administration, Congressman Byron Donalds pulled no punches: “Donald Trump is the commander in chief, not Mr. Crow, not Senator Slotkin.  They are not the commander in chief!  And like I said before, they would not tolerate any Republican launching any video like that!”

Can you imagine?  After patriotic grandparents and Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans protested the fraudulent 2020 election by walking through the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, Democrats (and useful RINO idiots Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger) spent tens of millions of dollars producing a theatrical congressional hearing meant to demonize all MAGA voters as “domestic terrorists” and “insurrectionists.”  If prominent Republicans in Congress had subsequently encouraged members of the military and Intelligence Community to disobey orders coming from installed-president Biden, the backlash against them would have been swift and brutal.  Not only would they have been expelled from Congress, but they also would have been arrested in the most publicly humiliating fashion.  In contrast, the “Seditious Six” sit for ego-stroking interviews during which they play victim.

This is what Republicans mean when they denounce “Democrat privilege” in the United States.  Time and again, Democrats do things with impunity that would land a normal Republican in prison for decades.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, and their fellow Russia Collusion Hoax co-conspirators will never be held accountable for manipulating intelligence to frame President Trump as a Russian spy.  Kamala Harris and other prominent Democrats who bailed out arsonists during the most destructive riots in American history will never be held accountable for putting violent repeat offenders back on the street.  Alexander Vindman will never be held accountable for undermining the Trump White House and triggering a farcical impeachment.  None of the conspirators who violated state election laws and used fraudulent mail-in ballots to pretend that Sleepy Joe Biden was the most popular presidential candidate in our nation’s history will ever be held accountable for stealing the 2020 election.  Anthony Fauci won’t be held accountable for covering up the laboratory origin of COVID or hiding the worst side-effects of the mRNA “vaccines.”  Social media companies won’t be held accountable for censoring Americans who protested the stolen 2020 election or the unconstitutional “vaccine” mandates imposed by installed-president Biden’s administration.  It appears that neither Jim Comey nor Letitia James will be held accountable for respectively committing perjury and mortgage fraud.  Democrat prosecutors and judges will never be held accountable for abusing the criminal justice system to railroad President Trump, his friends, and his voters.

In the United States, two-tiered “justice” protects Democrats and renders Republicans defenseless.

Now we will see whether six Democrats can actually get away with encouraging a military mutiny.  If past is prologue, the answer is surely “yes.”

There’s a popular social media meme that succinctly describes our situation: When leftists say “our democracy,” what they mean is “our regime.”  Democrats have taken over so much of the permanent bureaucracy that even when they are out of power, they still command much of the American government.  They are emboldened to commit sedition and treason because they know that no left-leaning prosecutor, judge, or jury will hold them accountable.  This kind of in-your-face double-standard will eventually end the Union.

Let’s hope, for the sake of our country’s future, that guilty Democrats begin to pay a price.  Forgive me for not holding my breath.

Newsweek Puts Out Misinformation on our New Research Comparing Armed Civilians to Police in Stopping Active Shootings: Study Praising Armed Civilians Sparks Criticism

Our research is available here. After the Newsweek was published on Friday, November 21, 2025, the reporter updated her article on Monday, November 24, 2025.

Devin Hughes, founder and president of gun violence research organization GVPedia, told Newsweek, “The paper is fraud, which I do not use lightly.”

Hughes alleges that the study defines active shooter incidents differently from the FBI.

“Lott’s study then only applies that new definition to cases in which there was a defensive gun use, while deliberately excluding thousands of cases in which a defensive gun use did not occur,” Hughes said. “This deceptive tactic allows Lott to claim that the percentage of active shooter cases stopped by a defensive gun use is vastly higher than it is in reality, regardless of what definition of an active shooting one uses. The end result is blatant statistical malpractice.”

Lott told Newsweek that the FBI’s definition excludes gang violence, drug related violence and shootings in relation to another criminal act.

“The FBI defines active shooter incidents as those in which an individual actively kills or attempts to kill people in a populated, public area,” Lott said. “But it does not include those it deems related to other criminal activity, such as a robbery or fighting over drug turf. Over the period from 2014 to 2024, the FBI includes 14 cases where a legally armed civilian used a gun to stop an active shooting attack. We think that the number is 199. We thought it was useful to fill in the rest of these cases using the exact same definition that excluded ‘gang violence,’ ‘drug related violence,’ and ‘shootings in relation to another criminal act’ to see how police and civilians compared in dealing with these attacks.”

Jenna Sundel, “Study Praising Armed Civilians Sparks Criticism,” Newsweek, November 24, 2025.

Dr. Lott’s response to this point included this.

While I appreciate you making some updates to your article, you make it sound as if it is just our word versus Hughes when you simply write “Lott told Newsweek that the FBI’s definition excludes gang violence, drug related violence, and shootings in relation to another criminal act.” But I have provided you links to the FBI active shooting reports where you can confirm for yourself that the FBI does in fact exclude these types of crimes (see the fourth paragraph on page five in their first report and page 2 in their latest report. It is something that they list out in EVERY report in between these two reports).

Continue reading “”

Homeowner shoots and kills would-be burglar in Kendall

Four people trying to break into a Kendall home were met with gunfire Saturday evening, leaving one of the suspects fatally shot by the homeowner, Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office officials said.

The attempted burglary happened just before 7 p.m. at a home near Southwest 141st Street and 110th Avenue. Detectives told NBC6 the homeowner was inside the home and opened fire when the four suspects tried to force their way into the home.

“I heard two shots,” said a neighbor who added that he had never seen gun violence in the neighborhood before.

One suspect was shot in the upper extremities, police said. That person later died at the hospital.

The other three people fled the scene and remain on the run.

Deputies are investigating the home invasion.

Like that ‘not a cartel per se’ matters

US labels Maduro-tied Cartel de los Soles as a terror organization. It’s not a cartel per se

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — President Donald Trump’s administration has ramped up pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by designating the Cartel de los Soles as a foreign terrorist organization. But the entity that the U.S. government alleges is led by Maduro is not a cartel per se.

The designation, published Monday in the Federal Register, is the latest measure in the Trump administration’s escalating campaign to combat drug trafficking into the U.S. In previewing the step about a week ago, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused Cartel de los Soles, or Cartel of the Suns, of being “responsible for terrorist violence” in the Western Hemisphere.

The move comes as Trump evaluates whether to take military action against Venezuela, which he has not ruled out despite bringing up the possibility of talks with Maduro. Land strikes or other actions would be a major expansion of the monthslong operation that has included a massive military buildup in the Caribbean Sea and striking boats accused of trafficking drugs, killing more than 80 people.

Venezuelans began using the term Cartel de los Soles in the 1990s to refer to high-ranking military officers who had grown rich from drug-running. As corruption expanded nationwide, first under the late President Hugo Chávez and then under Maduro, its use loosely expanded to police and government officials as well as activities like illegal mining and fuel trafficking. The “suns” in the name refer to the epaulettes affixed to the uniforms of high-ranking military officers.

The umbrella term was elevated to a Maduro-led drug-trafficking organization in 2020, when the U.S. Justice Department in Trump’s first term announced the indictment of Venezuela’s leader and his inner circle on narcoterrorism and other charges.

“It is not a group,” said Adam Isaacson, director for defense oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America organization. “It’s not like a group that people would ever identify themselves as members. They don’t have regular meetings. They don’t have a hierarchy.”

Maduro’s government in a statement Monday categorically denied the existence of the cartel, describing the Trump administration’s accusation as a “ridiculous fabrication” meant to “justify an illegitimate and illegal intervention against Venezuela.”

Up until this year, the label of foreign terrorist organization had been reserved for groups like the Islamic State or al-Qaida that use violence for political ends. The Trump administration applied it in February to eight Latin American criminal organizations involved in drug trafficking, migrant smuggling and other activities.

The administration blames such designated groups for operating the boats it is striking but rarely identifies the organizations and has not provided any evidence. It says the attacks , which began off the coast of Venezuela and later expanded to the eastern Pacific Ocean, are meant to stop narcotics from flowing to American cities.

But many — including Maduro himself — see the military moves as an effort to end the ruling party’s 26-year hold on power.

Since the arrival of U.S. military vessels and troops to the Caribbean months ago, Venezuela’s U.S.-backed political opposition also has reignited its perennial promise of removing Maduro from office, fueling speculation over the purpose of what the Trump administration has called a counterdrug operation.