Category: Goobermint

NY Gov. Kathy Hochul packs incredible gun control lies and claims into a 58-second video

I live in New York, which is one of the worst states to be a lawful gun owner and a taxpaying citizen. The proof is in the pudding; people vote with their feet when life becomes intolerable due to poor governance, and New York’s allegedly wonderful governance resulted in the loss of yet another congressional seat after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

It is grating to see Gov. Kathy Hochul still bragging about New York as some sort of bastion of freedom and opportunity in the face of the evidence of outmigration. Part of her braggadocio was a video her office posted on Twitter, discussing all the “good” she has done to keep the people of New York “safe from concealed carry weapons.”

First, you don’t have “rights” as a governor; you have powers to govern, and those powers are limited so they don’t violate the rights of the people.

Second, your job is to protect the people’s rights and liberties, and your matriarchal view on “protecting her people” is condescending bunk. Lastly, concealed carry weapons in and of themselves don’t do anything. It depends on who is carrying them. Criminals were carrying concealed weapons prior to NYSRPA v. Bruen and continue to carry after NYSRPA v. Bruen. However, ordinary people’s rights to carry guns in public were infringed by New York State’s discretionary permitting scheme.

Continue reading “”

Maine House narrowly pass bill to require background checks on private gun sales

AUGUSTA, Maine (WABI) – A bill that would require background checks on private gun sales narrowly passed in the Maine House today.

The vote was 69 to 68.

While the state currently requires a background check for commercial gun purchases from licensed dealers, supporters of this bill say it would close a loophole that allows those who are prohibited from having a gun to buy one through a private sale or at a gun show.

Opponents of the bill argue it would impose more restrictions on law abiding citizens while having no impact on public safety, violent crimes, or gun deaths.

“Our failure to do background checks contributes to gun related tragedies around this state, domestic violence deaths as well as a robust guns for drug trade exists where narcotics, opioids, fentanyl, and other illegal substances are trafficked into the state and traded for guns,” Rep. Victoria Doudera of Camden said in support of the bill.

“Madam Speaker, the people of Maine do not want universal background checks, and they definitely would not want them when coupled with universal registration. How can we be sure of this Madam Speaker? It’s because they told us in a people’s referendum when they soundly defeated universal background checks. The people told us this even when the papers and the polls at the time told us that over 80% of Maine voters wanted it,” Rep. Chad Perkins of Dover-Foxcroft said in opposition of the bill.

That citizen referendum to expand background checks was defeated by Maine voters in 2016, 52 to 48 percent.

The bill now head to the Senate.

New laws in Vermont that start July 1: Gun purchases,….

Vermonters will soon see new laws that affect their wallets or their legal choices — and even possibly cut down on the theft of car parts.

Every year, July 1 is the date that many new laws take effect. Some of these laws were recently passed by the Legislature; others were approved a while ago and are just now rolling out.

Here are 11 of the changes you should know about this summer.

Waiting period for gun purchases

Young people in Vermont are less likely than their peers in other states to report feelings of sadness, hopelessness or suicidal thoughts — and yet their rate of suicide deaths is higher than the national average.

Lawmakers have decided that easy access to guns is a significant factor in those deaths. And legislation that goes into effect July 1 will institute a 72-hour waiting period for gun purchases. Lawmakers hope that preventing someone in crisis from gaining immediate access to a gun will allow time for suicidal impulses to pass. The vast majority of people who survive a suicide attempt never make an attempt again.

A new law in Vermont creates a criminal penalty for unsafe storage of firearms if those guns are used in a crime.

The law will allow family members to petition courts for an extreme risk protection order, and creates a new criminal penalty for negligent storage of firearms, if that negligence results in commission of a crime.

The 72-hour waiting period provision is almost certain to invite a legal challenge. In a landmark ruling last year, the U.S. Supreme Court established a new precedent for the manner in which courts should assess the constitutionality of restrictions on gun ownership.

Though Gov. Phil Scott allowed the bill to become law, he said he doesn’t think the 72-hour waiting period will survive a constitutional challenge.

[It makes one wonder why the goobernor let it become law then, but scratch a lib, find a tyrant applies]

THIS IRS EMAIL CORROBORATES WHISTLEBLOWER’S CLAIMS ABOUT BIDEN DOJ INTERFERENCE IN HUNTER PROBE.

A senior IRS official corroborated a whistleblower’s bombshell allegation that Biden Justice Department officials meddled in the Hunter Biden tax probe, according to internal IRS emails released this week.

Whistleblower Gary Shapley’s boss confirmed Shapley’s account of a key meeting that occurred on October 7, 2022, between IRS agents and DOJ prosecutors handling the Biden probe. After the meeting, Shapley wrote to his boss, Darrell Waldon, that U.S. attorney David Weiss indicated he was prohibited from bringing charges against Biden in Washington, D.C. Weiss said that he requested special counsel status but that Justice Department headquarters had denied that request.

“Weiss stated that he is not the deciding person on whether charges are filed,” Shapley wrote.

Waldon, who attended the meeting with Shapley, signed off on his subordinate’s characterization of the meeting. “Thanks, Gary. You covered it all,” Waldon wrote.

The email is powerful evidence supporting Shapley’s claims that the Biden Justice Department interfered in the investigation into the embattled first son and that, contrary to statements from Attorney General Merrick Garland and others, Weiss could not operate freely.

Continue reading “”

Joe Biden Proclaims That He ‘Sold a Lot of State Secrets’ During White House Meeting.

Joe Biden is either the most shameless person ever to hold the presidency or he’s mentally gone. That’s the story after a video surfaced on Monday showing the president proclaiming “I sold a lot of state secrets” during a meeting at the White House.

As RedState reported, Biden hosted Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi last Thursday, and things were as awkward as ever. At one point, the president faced confusion during the Indian national anthem, apparently mistaking it for his country’s own. The next day, a state dinner was held in which Biden brought along Hunter Biden, fresh off his guilty plea, despite the fact that AG Merrick Garland was there.

But if that wasn’t enough to convince you that nothing matters to the current administration, the president decided to announce the following in front of Modi and others.

Remarks by President Biden and Prime Minister Modi of the Republic of India in Meeting with Senior Officials and CEOs of Technology Companies

He didn’t even have to get to the second part before things went haywire, with Biden once again saying “anyway” after obviously losing his train of thought in public. That happens very often to the president. Physically, his voice and pacing sound frail, almost as if he’s tired or on medication. Then he just blurts out that he’s “sold a lot of state secrets.”

Well, alrighty then. I suppose there are a few possible explanations here, some more likely than others. The first possibility is that Biden’s dementia is hitting him so hard that he just accidentally admitted to doing what he’s credibly accused of, which is mishandling classified national security information and accepting bribes from foreign entities. Certainly, the president has had a bad case of advanced age throughout his tenure, and with his condition comes a tendency to just blurt out things he shouldn’t. Who can forget him searching the room for a deceased congresswoman at an event set to honor her?

I suspect that’s not what happened here, though. It’s more likely that his ongoing senility caused him to deliver another one of his patented “jokes” that leaves everyone in the room perplexed, wondering just what the heck is going on. I’d challenge you to look at Modi’s reaction in the video and try not to laugh. The Indian PM isn’t taking anything that comes out of Biden’s mouth seriously.

Even still, it certainly takes a bit of chutzpah to make such a joke when you are currently under investigation for accepting bribes and you’ve already been shown to have illegally held classified documents in your garage. Biden doesn’t care, though, because as I said earlier, nothing matters. He knows he can say whatever he wants and the press will shrug. Compare that to the allegations of a Freudian slip that would be raging had this been a Republican president saying what he said.

Past that, how does any of this help the United States? If you were Modi, having formed a strong, dependent relationship with Russia, would you change course to ally with Joe Biden? What comfort is offered in doing so? The White House isn’t a retirement community, and there are real consequences to having a president who is so obviously out of it. I suspect we’ll keep suffering those consequences until voters make a change.

Honolulu, state of Hawaii coughs up six figures to sailor forced to give up his guns over mental health counseling

To be honest, I’ve got mixed feelings about this. While I’m glad that the city of Honolulu and the state of Hawaii are being forced to cut a check to Michael Santucci, the roughly $130,000 he’ll receive after his Second Amendment rights were violated doesn’t seem nearly enough to make up for the harm that was done to him.

Santucci was an active duty member of the Navy in 2021 when he sought a permit to possess a firearm in the home. After acknowledging that he had recently received mental health counseling, his application was rejected by the Honolulu PD on the grounds that he’d allegedly admitted to a significant mental health disorder. Not only was his permit denied, but the firearms he had previously lawfully purchased were seized by the Honolulu police.

In truth, Santucci was homesick, and simply wanted to talk to a counselor at Tripler Army Medical Center. Santucci ended up suing after his permit was rejected, and last year a federal judge ruled in his favor, declaring that Santucci had not demonstrated any sort of significant mental health disorder that would disqualify him under the Hawaii law while leaving the statute itself untouched.

After the judge’s ruling, the city and state settled with Santucci. The state of Hawaii agreed to fork over some $28,000 for Santucci’s trouble, while the city of Honolulu agreed to a $102,000 figure. Santucci still hasn’t received a check from the city, but it looks like one will soon be cut.

A Honolulu City Council committee Tuesday approved the city’s portion of the settlement — $102,500 — which goes to the full council next month.

The lawsuit by Michael Santucci alleged that the HPD seized his guns and that it held up his permit application in 2021 because he wrote down on his firearms questionnaire that he had recently received mental health counseling.

His lawyer said police had violated Santucci’s constitutional rights.

“Mr. Santucci’s case sort of demonstrates the attitude that HPD has toward people owning firearms. I think they view it really more as a privilege rather than a constitutional right,” said Santucci’s lawyer Alan Beck.

I’d say that’s an understatement on Beck’s part, and it’s not just limited to the city of Honolulu or its police department. As we reported earlier this week, local departments like the Honolulu PD are denying permits to anyone who possesses a medical marijuana card, and Gov. Josh Brown recently signed a carry-killer bill that prohibits lawful concealed carry in the vast majority of publicly accessible spaces, including all businesses by default.

The Democrats in charge of Hawaii’s government are doing everything they can to keep the islands gun-free and have displayed no concern or consternation about treading over a fundamental constitutional right in the process.

Because of Santucci’s legal actions the city of Honolulu has changed its questions on the firearms permit application, which will hopefully prevent this particular infringement from happening in the future. When it comes to getting the state to actually start treating the right to keep and bear arms as the fundamental right that it is, however, attorneys like Alan Beck and organizations like the Hawaii Firearms Coalition and the Hawaii Rifle Association still have their work cut out for them.

This is right out of the Declaration of Independence:
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

Special Report: Biden Weaponizing IRS Into a Well-Armed Paramilitary Force

U.S.A. — Iowa Senator Joni Ernst introduced a bill last week titled “Why does the IRS Have Guns Act,” which would prohibit the IRS from buying or storing guns and ammunition, transfer all IRS firearms to the General Services Administration so they could be auctioned off to licensed gun dealers to reduce the national debt, and move the agency’s Criminal Investigation Division to the control of the Justice Department.

“The taxman is fully loaded at the expense of the taxpayer,” Ernst said in a statement. “As the Biden administration has worked to expand the size of the IRS, any further weaponization of this federal agency against hardworking Americans and small businesses is a grave concern. I’m working to disarm the IRS and return these dollars to address reckless spending in Washington.”

While the outcome of Ernst’s legislation is not promising – Joe Biden will likely veto her bill, should it ever reach his desk – the Senator’s efforts have drawn much-needed attention to the massive arsenal that the IRS has amassed – is amassing.

The IRS is preparing for battle. Some of the weapons and tactical equipment currently in their inventory are used by elite military commandos, not American law enforcement officers. To be clear, none of this extreme militarization occurred until after Biden took office.

“Who are they preparing to battle?” asked Adam Andrzejewski, CEO and Founder of OpenTheBooks.com, the largest private repository of U.S. public-sector spending. Andrzejewski’s watchdog efforts have led to federal legislation, grand jury indictments, congressional hearings, subpoenas and convictions, as well as audits by the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Research Service reports.

In one recent report, Andrzejewski found that IRS has spent $35.2 million taxpayer dollars on guns, ammunition and tactical gear since 2006, but the agency’s purchasing increased dramatically under Biden.

“The years 2020 and 2021 were peak years at the IRS for purchasing weaponry and gear. Just since the pandemic started, the IRS has purchased $10 million in weaponry and gear,” the report states.

Continue reading “”

Analysis: What the Pistol-Brace Ban Repeal Defeat Means

The Senate voted against undoing President Joe Biden’s pistol-brace ban. That probably won’t have a direct practical impact on the ban’s fate, but it will have a political and, potentially, even a legal one.

On Thursday, the Senate voted 50 to 49 against a resolution to repeal the ATF’s brace rule. The vote was entirely along party lines. Not a single Democrat or Republican crossed over in either direction.

Now, it might not seem like a Senate controlled by the party of the President that instituted the policy refusing to undo it isn’t that unexpected. But there are a couple of reasons this move was surprising.

For starters, this resolution isn’t a standard piece of legislation. If it were, Senate Democrats could have kept it from getting a vote at all or added a bunch of amendments to it. But, since this was a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution, it was privileged and got an up or down vote instead.

CRA resolutions have been the primary way Republicans have scored political points against President Biden via legislation since they retook the House in 2022. They’ve managed to push five different resolutions through the House and garner enough Democratic support in the Senate to send them to Biden’s desk. The President has managed to kill all the resolutions by vetoing them, which would require a two-thirds vote of both houses to overcome.

Still, those previous five resolutions pitted Biden and his administration against at least a few Democrats in both houses. The same can’t be said of the pistol-brace ban resolution. While two Democrats in the House voted for it, every Democrat in the Senate rallied to the President’s side.

That may cause political pain for some members who are up for reelection in red or purple states. The rule change effectively bans millions of pistol-brace-equipped firearms, many of which were likely bought years ago, since the vast majority of affected guns have not been registered. So, getting vulnerable Democrats on record supporting it could have some electoral value.

But, as it stands now, the repeal failure is a clear political loss. Instead of making President Biden and Democrats appear divided, it does the exact opposite.

It’s also a potential setback for the legal case against the pistol-brace ban. At the very least, it’s the less ideal outcome because Congress’s opinion of the ATF’s rule is particularly relevant to the challenges.

The key questions at the center of most brace ban lawsuits are not about the Second Amendment. Instead, they’re about the ATF’s power to regulate braced guns and the public’s ability to understand the regulations they hand down. Had Congress been united in passing a resolution declaring the ATF is wrong in how it has reclassified braced guns, that it had overstepped the power granted to it by Congress, that would have provided more ammunition to the groups challenging the legality of the rule on those very grounds.

Instead, Congress is divided on that question. Plaintiffs in the case can point to that division as evidence the ATF doesn’t have clear authority to enact its rule, but the argument is weaker than it otherwise would have been.

Still, that doesn’t mean the pistol-brace ban is going to survive. The cases against it were going well before the repeal resolution passed the House, and the repeal effort losing a 50-49 vote in the Senate is unlikely to sink its legal prospects.

Four federal courts have already issued injections blocking the ATF from enforcing the rule against millions of Americans. A Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel got the ball rolling just before the ATF’s grace period for registering the affected guns ended at the beginning of the month by protecting Firearms Policy Coalition members from arrest and prosecution as it prepared to hear the case on the merits. A second court in the same circuit followed up by blocking enforcement against Second Amendment Foundation members. A third extended an injunction to all Gun Owners of America members. The National Rifle Association, which has a separate case in the Eighth Circuit, has asked for a Fifth Circuit judge to extend protections to its members.

The number of people protected under those injections has already grown since they were handed down. The affected gun-rights groups have seen their membership numbers rise, with the Second Amendment Foundation claiming 20,000 new members in the first week after it got its injunction.

A ruling on the merits of the case will probably still come soon. To issue a preliminary injunction against the rule, the Fifth Circuit panel had to conclude that the ban was likely unconstitutional. The Senate’s repeal rejection probably won’t force them to reconsider that conclusion as they begin to hear oral arguments on June 29th. And, as much as it doesn’t help things, the safe money is still on the panel striking the rule down.

Legal action still is, and always was, the most viable path for gun-rights advocates to bring down the brace ban. But the failure to get the repeal resolution through the Senate, even if it would have been doomed by a veto anyway, represents a notable setback nonetheless.

‘The Nation Can’t Stand’: John Durham’s Response to Harriet Hageman’s One and Only Question Portends a Chilling Truth

Special Counsel John Durham testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday for nearly six hours. The Democrat members of the committee trotted out their standard barrage of sly accusations and sinister insinuations, while the Republicans, for the most part, sussed out the highlights (or lowlights) of the most critical findings contained in Durham’s report. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) shook things up a bit, going right after Durham and accusing him of essentially serving as the Washington Generals to the Swamp’s Globetrotters.

For his part, though he appeared somewhat ill at ease, Durham kept his composure, even lobbing a brushback pitch at Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). He took some affront to Gaetz’s accusations. But it was his response to Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) at the very end of the hearing that served as a chilling portent for the nation’s future.

Hageman utilized most of her allotted five minutes to address Durham, reading prepared remarks:

 

Mr. Durham, in reviewing your report, I sincerely wanted to understand the work that you did and decipher the various investigations that we have been discussing: the origins, the history, the backstory, the whos, the whys, the whats, the what ifs, and the hows.

I desperately wanted to figure out what happened to what was once our flagship law enforcement agencies — the FBI and the DOJ — to determine what went wrong and to evaluate how we can go forward from here. I have listened with great interest, hoping to find some answers to the burning questions of the day. And I have reached a few conclusions that I do not believe are subject to dispute or debate.

Now, I truly appreciate your regard for the agency you have dedicated your career to. I am sure that as your investigation progressed, you must have been truly saddened by what you found. What you have exposed, however, is that we are dealing with something so corrupt and so rotten that no amount of face paint, deflection, or whitewashing can fix this. You have been asked lots of questions about predicates, protocols, the Steele dossier, the Australian connection, Mr. Papadopoulos, Mr. Carter, the FISA court, and Crossfire Hurricane, among others. Your responses have been enlightening, but let’s get to the brass tacks: None of those people or documents or reports were relevant to the FBI when it identified Donald Trump as Public Enemy Number One.

What do I mean? The accuracy and veracity of the Steele dossier was irrelevant to the FBI. The accuracy and veracity of the reports coming from the Australian embassy were irrelevant to the FBI. The fact that the Russian experts in the CIA, FBI, NSA, and other agencies had no evidence of any kind of relationship between Mr. Trump and Putin or Russia was irrelevant to the FBI. And the fact that there was no verifiable evidence, such as testimony, documents, videos, or recordings of Russian collusion was irrelevant to the FBI.

Hageman continued, laying out her theory of the motivation behind the whole endeavor.

 

Nothing — and I repeat, nothing — that the FBI did was designed to show that Donald J. Trump was a Russian asset. That wasn’t the purpose of the entire charade. How do I know this is true? Because they told us so. The very people who cooked this up, and the ones who ran this entire operation: Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, Clinesmith, Steele, the DNC, Perkins Coie.

It was never their purpose to prove Russian collusion, and in fact, from the very beginning, they knew that no such thing actually existed. They knew that the entire Russian collusion narrative was fabricated by the Clinton campaign to deflect attention from her mishandling of classified materials and destruction of official emails.

They didn’t need to prove Russian collusion. They just had to keep the investigation alive. And so long as they had a complicit press, and so long as they had people in this very body, who has been here — one of the gentlemen, who has been here much of the day, who would go on TV every night and lie about the smoking gun — they could further their personal and political agendas.

Oh no, the purpose of Crossfire Hurricane wasn’t to prove Russian collusion — it was to destroy Donald J Trump, and they told us that with the text messages that are set forth on page 49 and 51 of your report — 49 and 50 of your report.

And then, if they failed at blocking Mr. Trump from being elected as president, well, they had a backup plan — they had their “insurance policy,” to use Strzok’s terminology — which was to make it impossible for him to govern; to use whatever tools were available to taint his presidency, the legitimacy of his election, his ability to work with foreign leaders, and to make everything about “Russia, Russia, Russia.”

And then, Hageman drilled down to the heart of the matter.

 

And how has this corruption and rot manifested itself in our everyday lives? In our national culture? In our ability to solve the problems we are facing? It has destroyed some of the key foundations of this country, a foundation built on equal protection, on the belief that justice is blind, on the belief that you will be held accountable if you commit a fraud of the magnitude of what we have been discussing here today, on the belief that due process, justice, and constitutional rights are more than mere words.

It has left a smoldering hot volcanic mess where the soul of this country used to be — all because a few people in the FBI decided they wanted to destroy a political candidate and ultimately a president and anyone associated with him. While these folks set out to destroy a presidential candidate and later a presidency, the fact is that they destroyed so much more — and that will be their ultimate legacy.

One casualty is America’s faith in our institutions, and another casualty is the erosion of a justice system that is supposed to apply equally to all Americans, but that has been weaponized to protect the favored few elites — the Clintons, the Bidens — while targeting political enemies. That is the current legacy of the FBI and DOJ,

Now at the end of her allotted time, Hageman asked her one and only question of Durham — though Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) did his level best to cut her off:

Mr. Durham, here is my question: How long do you think that this country will survive with a two-tiered justice system that seeks to persecute people based on their political beliefs?

Whatever one’s takeaway of Durham’s report and his testimony might be, it would be difficult to doubt the sincerity (or the foreboding accuracy) of his response:

I don’t think that things can go too much further with the view that law enforcement, particularly the FBI or Department of Justice, runs a two-tiered system of justice. The nation can’t stand under those circumstances.

‘FBI and DOJ’s Dishonest Tactics Are Their Calling Card’ Now.

FBI whistleblower Steve Friend reacted to allegations of government misconduct published by PJ Media, saying the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) “willingly operate outside the boundaries of policy and law to achieve [their] ends.”

Friend, an FBI whistleblower and fellow at the Center for Renewing America, told me in exclusive comments, “In recent years, the FBI and DOJ’s dishonest tactics are their calling card.” He was partly reacting to new evidence and allegations from former Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ), who exclusively revealed the previous prosecutorial misconduct of Donald Trump’s prosecutors to PJ Media. Renzi and Trump, however, are not the only targets of a weaponized DOJ and FBI.

Renzi was convicted on bribery and extortion charges, to which he pleaded “not guilty.” He was later given a full presidential pardon by Trump. While a 2019 complaint and request for investigation filed on Renzi’s behalf by respected legal firm Mayer Brown claim to provide evidence  of prosecutorial misconduct, current Trump prosecutors Jack Smith and David Harbach were more directly implicated in the misconduct allegations than previously revealed. The allegations of misconduct involving Smith, Harbach, and other members of both the DOJ and FBI included illegal wiretaps, a witness payoff scheme, introduction of false testimony, and tainting the jury.

As Friend noted, Renzi’s and Trump’s cases are two instances of a worrying communistic pattern from the federal government. “In recent years, the FBI and DOJ’s dishonest tactics are their calling card. Instead of investigating legitimate violations of law, these agencies employ Stalin’s approach: ‘show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.’ And they willingly operate outside the boundaries of policy and law to achieve these ends,” he said.

Friend listed other examples of federal, particularly FBI, misconduct. “They offered Christopher Steele $1 million to prove his fictional dossier claims,” he said. “They targeted General Michael Flynn for a process crime investigation and pressured him to plead guilty by threatening his family. They reinterpreted an Enron accounting law to charge January 6th subjects with felonies. They manipulated and withheld evidence during the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”

And besides more well-known public figures, the FBI and DOJ have targeted and continue to target pro-lifers, traditional Catholics, and parents concerned about woke curriculum. Renzi and Trump, sadly, are not exceptions.

Friend ended by emphasizing that the federal government is deliberately and unjustly targeting Americans. “These are all intentional acts the FBI and DOJ effected to persecute American citizens instead of protect them,” he said.

I don’t buy Durham’s excusing FBI agents as good people

I have not spent any time today listening to John Durham’s testimony, which I find fundamentally uninteresting. He managed to craft a report that, even as it hinted at a damning coup attempt within the government against the duly elected president, nevertheless gave everyone involved what amounted to a pass. Maybe it’s that jaundiced attitude that leaves me unimpressed with the fact that Durham claims that most FBI agents are really good people.

As I often do, I turned to the Daily Mail, which is more honest than the American news outlets:

Former special counsel John Durham revealed that FBI agents have apologized to him for their handling of the Trump-Russia probe as he confirmed he saw bias among key officials in charge of the investigation like Peter Strzok.

‘I have had any number of FBI agents who I’ve worked with over the years, some are retired, some are still in place, who have come to me and apologized for the manner in which that investigation was undertaken,’ Durham revealed at the top of the high-profile Judiciary hearing.

To him, that proved that a majority of the FBI are ‘good, hard-working people’ who ‘swear under their oaths to abide by the law.’

‘Our findings are sobering,’ said Durham. ‘Having spent 40 years plus as a federal prosecutor, they are particularly sobering to me.’

First of all, “any number” is a meaningless statement. That could be three. Second, their secretive little apologies to Durham mean nothing. What we’re learning is that, from the top down, the DOJ and the FBI are corrupt. And we’re also learning that the men and women who work for it, or who retired during this corrupt era, are either complicit in the corruption or too afraid to do or say anything.

If the DOJ/FBI were the law firm I once worked for, where a corrupt partner bilked clients, and everyone stayed silent, it’s easy enough to give a pass to the ones who stayed silent. After all, this was one law firm, which wasn’t going to change the world, and the employees who knew what was going on had families that relied on them, student loans (which, in those days, had to be paid off), mortgages, health problems, etc. The downside risk of squealing on one attorney just didn’t seem worth it.

However, the DOJ and FBI are not one little law firm, one school, or one corporation. They are at the very heart of the federal criminal justice system; they sit on more secrets than we can imagine (Jeffrey Epstein’s little black book and, theoretically, whatever is making Chief Justice John Roberts jump when required, etc.); and they used their massive, unfettered authority to try to take down the president of the United States.

Under those circumstances, when we’re staring at a festering carbuncle at the very heart of the American government, it’s not okay to stay silent. This is bigger than an individual’s needs. This requires moral courage, patriotism, and decency—and not a single one of those agents who quietly whispered into Durham’s ear did a damn thing. They didn’t blow the whistle when these historic crimes were being committed, and they haven’t come forward since then to say, “Yeah, it’s true. Something really is rotten in the State of Denmark.”

So, no, Mr. Durham, I’m not impressed. Those agents who apologized to you may be hard-working but, given the corruption lying at the center of our constitutional republic, they are not good.

UPDATE: Within a short time of publishing the above, I was strongly reminded of DOJ/FBI issues when I listened to the opening monologue in Matt Walsh’s video podcast which reminded me, in turn, of Tucker’s podcast about the DOJ’s and FBI’s treatment of Hunter Biden.

 

SloJoe’s relationship with the truth was always nonexistent but now his lies don’t even make sense.

Joe Biden Is Not OK.

There is nothing unique about being a scatterbrained 80-year-old. But a scatterbrained 80-year-old should not be president.

The other day, Joe Biden ended a big gun-control speech in Connecticut with the words, “God save the queen, man.” Why did the president express adoration for the departed Brit monarch? Was he confused about royal succession? Is he a Sex Pistols fan? Who knows.

When asked about the incident, White House aides offered nonsensical and conflicting answers — because they have absolutely no idea, and neither does the president. It’s likely that the octogenarian spontaneously used a cool-sounding phrase, much like when your elderly neighbor tells you to “keep on truckin,’” for no apparent reason. It happens.

Yet, Axios writer Alex Thompson points out that Biden “has an arsenal of wacky phrases.” And the president’s “quirky aphorisms,” he contends, “are sometimes weaponized by Republicans to insinuate the 80-year-old president is in mental decline.”

There is no need for insinuation. Biden’s mental acuity, never impressive, has considerably deteriorated. Sure, he also tends to botch “old-timey” sayings like, “lots of luck in your senior year,” which he says is a gibe from his Corn Pop days. But most reporters who pretend perceptions of Biden’s decline are due to his propensity for homespun maxims or previously unknown stuttering problems almost surely wouldn’t find him fit enough to babysit their kids.

Every week, the president of the United States says something completely bonkers, and everyone goes on with their day. We’re not talking about his propensity to lie about politics or his blustery lifelong fabulism (his “folksiness,” The New York Times recently explained, “can veer into a personal folklore” with “the factual edges shaved off to make them more powerful for audiences.”) We’re talking about his inability to articulate simple ideas without notes — and often with notes. There are rarely any fact-checks of these statements. How can there be? They don’t even make sense as lies. There is no handwringing about the role of competency in our democracy. There is no discussion about the 25th Amendment.

Just listen to any one of his speeches. “Put a pistol on a brace, it turns into a gun — makes it more — you can have a higher-caliber weapon, higher-caliber bullet coming out of that gun,” the president explained before wishing Her Majesty his best. This was also complete gibberish. There is so much gibberish.

Only a couple of days before his “God save the queen” comment, Biden informed a crowd gathered for a League of Conservation Voters endorsement that “we” have “plans to build a railroad from the Pacific all the way across the Indian Ocean,” which must have really impressed everyone in attendance. “We have plans to build in Angola one of the largest solar plants in the world,” Biden went on. “I can go on, but I’m not. I’m going off-script. I’m going to get in trouble.”

A few days before the railroad comment, Biden couldn’t remember Winston Churchill’s name when speaking to the prime minister of Britain. Listen, I’m not great with names myself, and I’m sure as an 80-year-old I’d have trouble recalling world leaders … but I’m confident I wouldn’t think myself competent enough to be the most powerful man in the world. Nor should Biden.

That same week, when asked why a Ukrainian FBI informant referred to Biden as the “Big Guy,” the president lashed out for being posed “dumb questions.” He does this often in frustration. When the president isn’t flubbing canned lines to the rare tough question, he yells things like “c’mon, man!” A few years ago, this kind of rhetoric was considered democracy-shattering. Now, it’s quirky and folksy.

The week before he couldn’t remember Churchill’s name, the president also tripped and fell on stage after a commencement speech at the Air Force Academy. Biden’s surrogates pointed out that there had been a sandbag right there, as if no one, whether young or old, could possibly be expected to walk over a small bag without falling to the floor.

You might recall that after the former president gingerly navigated a ramp after giving a speech at West Point in 2020, The New York Times’ headline the next day was: “Trump’s Halting Walk Down Ramp Raises New Health Questions.” The president, the Times went on, “also appeared to have trouble raising a glass of water to his mouth during a speech at West Point a day before he turned 74, the oldest a president has been in his first term.”
The sitting president is now six years older than Trump was at the time — he would be a decade older should he finish a second term.

Of course, everyone ages differently — John Fetterman, only 53, can barely put together a thought while some septuagenarian is out there writing his literary opus right now. Nor is there anything wrong with or especially unique about being a scatterbrained and tired 80-year-old. In this case, maybe Americans who elected a scatterbrained and tired 80-year-old deserve to be governed by him — good and hard, as Menken might say. But please stop pretending Biden is OK. He’s not.

The Strange Idea That a Cabinet Officer Should Report to the President

A Trump administration agency head’s struggle against bureaucracy illuminates the need to subordinate executive agencies to the president’s will.

David L. Bernhardt, former U.S. secretary of the interior, deputy secretary, solicitor, and an independent agency commissioner, lets us in on an intriguingly strange secret about what insiders like him would recognize was an exceptional command he received from a U.S. president.

In 2018, President Donald Trump called in Deputy Bernhardt and informed him that, “You’re going to be running the ship [at Interior] for a while,” as acting secretary. And the president added, “Do you have any questions?” The savvy Bernhardt only asked one: “Who do I report to?” He tells us that “President Trump looked at me quizzically. ‘You report to me,’ he said.”

Bernhardt had earlier served under President George W. Bush and tells us in his new book, You Report to Me: Accountability for the Failing Administrative State, that even cabinet secretaries normally had to fight through the White House Office bureaucracy to get access to the president himself. To some extent, the same has been true under most modern presidencies.

So, Bernhardt replied to President Trump: “I know that’s what the Constitution says,” choosing his words “carefully,” “but who do I actually report to?’ ‘You report to me,’ he repeated. He could not have been more clear: I reported directly to him and to no one else!” Bernhardt then tested the offer, both as acting and permanent secretary, and it actually worked!

Why is access so important? Bernhardt explains that his direct access to the president

avoided the massive periods of inactivity that plagued much of my prior experience in the Department of the Interior under President George W. Bush. Far more critically, Trump’s expectation that those serving in the executive branch actually report to him reflected a reality about the presidency and his view of it. The Constitution of the United States confers all the executive power on the president.

As I see it, as director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under Ronald Reagan during his first term, this critical relationship justifies the seemingly strange book title You Report to Me. Interestingly, William P. Barr, in his book on his experiences as attorney general under presidents George H. W. Bush and Trump, also raises this matter of reporting. It is clear between the lines that he had much more access to Trump than he did to Bush. This is an attribute of the more recent president that has not been widely reported, especially by the mainstream media.

Open cabinet access to the president had been the norm since George Washington, but it violates most modern Washington insiders’ presumed knowledge that the White House Office and the Office of Management and Budget expert staffs should and actually do run the modern presidency. The fundamental administrative fact is that, if the traditional direct presidential relationship fails, it is replaced by irresponsible bureaucracy, both careerist and political.

Bernhardt explains how the government today does not generally work as the Constitution expected. Congress now leaves most of the policy-making to the bureaucracy, the real Article III courts leave legal-policy interpretations mostly to bureaucratic bodies in the executive branch, and the careerist bureaucracy actually performs the major executive functions of the national government — leaving the bureaucracy pretty much unaccountable to anyone.

A big part of the problem with today’s 2 million civil servants (and the generally ignored 20 million contractors) is the enormous growth of government and how that has made managing it so much more difficult over time. Bernhardt says he is generally pleased with the competence of the civil servants he has had contact with but is frustrated with the cumbersome procedures required for the removal of poor performers and the number of ways dysfunctional employees have available to frustrate removal. Only “8 percent of civil service managers with poor-performing employees even attempted to discipline or fire them.”

Continue reading “”

Is the international Counterterrorism Law Enforcement Forum a work-around of Americans’ rights?

The Second Annual Counterterrorism Law Enforcement Forum occurred on Tuesday June 6th, 2023, which the United States co-hosted. Last year was the inaugural event in Berlin, Germany and the 2023 forum took place in Oslo, Norway. The idea of multiple law enforcement agencies getting together to think tank their way around some of the world’s problems with terrorism, or any crime for that matter, is not that radical. Where things get concerning are when we read between the lines. The DOJ release masqueraded the forum as a meeting of the minds on combating acts of terror, however remarks from the U.S. Assistant Attorney General show a clear focus on “domestic” terrorism.

The Justice Department’s Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training (OPDAT) and the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Counterterrorism (State CT) co-hosted the second annual meeting of the Counterterrorism Law Enforcement Forum (CTLEF) with the Government of Norway in Oslo from June 6 to 7.

The CTLEF, which focuses on countering the global threat of racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism (REMVE), brought together law enforcement, prosecutors, and other criminal justice practitioners from Europe and North and South America, as well as specialists from INTERPOL, Europol, the International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law and other multilateral organizations to discuss how to effectively address and counter REMVE threats.

Drilling down on what REMVEs there are, our Assistant Attorney General, Matthew G. Olsen, did not hold back on discussing his ideas when he delivered the opening remarks for the forum.

Last May, we gathered in Berlin, for our inaugural meeting. I departed the forum daunted by the scale of the problem, but heartened to see the partnership of so many likeminded countries.

I returned to D.C. from Berlin on a Thursday. Two days later, on Saturday afternoon, I received the first alerts from the FBI that there was an active shooter in Buffalo, New York. What we would come to learn over the next hours and days was that an individual espousing white supremacist ideology took a semiautomatic weapon into a grocery store and murdered 10 people.

This tragedy in Buffalo – just over one year ago – is part of an alarming trend.

What’s the alarming trend that Olsen is really talking about? What were some of the threats that Olsen identified in his speech? “In particular, we face an increasing threat from racially and ethnically motivated violent extremist groups, including white supremacists and anti-government groups,” Olsen said. Who are classified as “anti-government groups”? Would people that are critical of the United States Government, in particular overreaching agencies, be considered anti-government?

Doubling down Olsen identified obstacles to being able to effectively police these groups of individuals.

The simple truth is that the ability of violent extremists to acquire military-grade weapons in our country contributes to their ability to kill and inflict harm on a massive scale. A recent article in The Washington Post noted that about a shocking number of Americans – one in 20 adults, or roughly 16 million people – own at least one AR-15 assault rifle.
…
It is important to be clear, the Department of Justice investigates violent extremists for their criminal acts and not for their beliefs or based on their associations, and regardless of ideology. In the United States, upholding our core values means respecting First Amendment rights and safeguarding the exercise of protected speech, peaceful protests, and political activity. We hold those rights sacred.

Olsen had no problem pairing the roughly 16 million law-abiding citizens with violent extremists, lumping them into the same category of hateful and murderous actors. The numbers should be staggering to Olsen that we do have 16+ million alleged owners of AR variant – not “assault” – rifles, and have such an incredibly small amount of issues with those arms.

The other obstacle naturally is the First Amendment. It’s grand that Olsen says that the DOJ et.al. respects and holds “those rights sacred,” but he really means that for only some people. It’s clear that if there’s an individual or group that does not align with the ideologies of the current swamp, they become an enemy of the state. When there’s “mostly peaceful” acts of extremism, that’s alright as long as it’s the correct flavor of extremism.

Whatever may stand in the way between the government and combating domestic terrorism, Olsen has the solution.

We have to be united in confronting domestic extremism within our countries. Collaboration and information sharing is essential to understanding and countering the threats that terrorist and violent extremist groups pose.

International partnerships are especially important where we observe transnational linkages in domestic violent extremism. We have seen some U.S.-based supporters of domestic terrorism attempt to establish links with likeminded foreign individuals and organizations. In some cases, U.S.-based domestic terrorists have traveled overseas to link up with counterparts who espouse the same beliefs.

These trends are one reason why international forums like this are so valuable. This is an opportunity to hear from foreign partners about the violent extremist groups and networks that are most concerning; where transnational linkages exist; how these actors are raising and moving funds; how groups are recruiting and training new members; how they are communicating and spreading their messages and propaganda; and the sources and drivers of radicalization to violence.

The Assistant Attorney General of the United States stated that in order to combat domestic extremism it’s important to “establish links with,” collaborate with, and find out how groups are “raising and moving funds; how groups are recruiting and training new members; how they are communicating and spreading their messages and propaganda,” from foreign governments. In short, Olsen wants foreign countries to do what our CIA can’t do; spy on Americans. There are no Fourth Amendment protections for American citizens when it’s a foreign entity doing the infringing.

Who all could this reference though? Bad guys, right? Those “anti-government” types. Olsen brought up the events that transpired on January 6th. Regardless of one’s view on what happened during January 6th, what occurred was not as bad as it’s been purported by mainstream media, nor were the actions completely benign.

Olsen spoke extensively about all the arrests and charges that sprung up in the wake of that day, “The January 6 investigation is the largest in the history of the Justice Department. We have arrested and charged more than 1,000 individuals who took part in the Capitol assault. Nearly 500 people have pled guilty or been convicted at trial.”

Olsen further observed concerning January 6th:

We have brought serious charges, including seditious conspiracy against numerous defendants – members of extremist groups who plotted to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power in our country.
…
We believe our success in this case serves as a stark warning to those who would seek to violently attack our government and our democracy. It makes clear our determination that the rule of law will prevail.

Not that we needed any confirmation that the DOJ would aggressively go after those that don’t help serve the bigger picture of what’s desired of the Biden-Harris administration, but this is the Assistant Attorney General saying as much in black and white. The “members of extremist groups who plotted to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power in our country” includes a whole lot of people that got arrested, charged and in some cases convicted, for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The issues involving anything January 6th are so multi-faceted, to even bring the date up is flirting with disaster. Do what we say or you’ll end up like them.

On a small scale, Olsen found it problematic that 16+ million people have access to semi-automatic rifles. He clearly pegged that as an obstacle to being able to do the proper police work needed to fight “extremism” or those who are “anti-government.” Olsen further opined that our civil liberties are an issue, as there’s nothing they can do about people expressing their opinions, which the government “respects.” But alas, they found their solution in the form of partnerships with other countries, id.est., having other nations do the spying on the American people.

These events and little get-togethers that American officials attend sure seem like they’re “for the better good.” Really, no one wants extremism or terrorism, domestic or otherwise. However, if we read between the lines, eh, I’m going to say that maybe these trips on the taxpayers’ dime are not in the best interest of the people. Could this be a misread? Sure. But they kind of make it clear that they’ve adopted a Conan approach; “crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.” But, clearly it’s the AR’s that are the problems…

The Department of Justice is corrupt. No one should trust it.

‘TWO-TIERED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE:’ GOP Presidential Candidates React To Hunter Biden’s DOJ Deal.

Several Republican 2024 presidential challengers weighed in Tuesday on the deal between President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) on federal gun and tax charges.

Hunter Biden will plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors and enter a probation agreement with the DOJ for a felony gun possession charge; Biden has been under investigation in the Federal District of Delaware since 2018 over allegedly failing to pay taxes and lying on a federal firearm application. Many of the 2024 GOP contenders criticized the deal as letting Hunter Biden off easy, as the younger Biden was able to avoid jail time, contrasting the legal treatment with that of former President Donald Trump.

“Today proves there is a clear two-tiered system of justice—one for Democrats and one against President Trump,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung told the DCNF. “As President Trump predicted earlier this month, Hunter was given a sweetheart deal that sweeps his crimes under the rug in a blatant attempt to interfere with the 2024 election. All the while, Joe Biden continues to be given a pass by his weak special counsel for his classified documents strewn all across his garage and in his Chinatown office building. The Biden Crime Family continues to show they are willing to sell out America to dangerous foreign actors in order to line their pockets with millions and millions of dollars.”

“Looks like Hunter received a sweetheart deal and is not facing any charges on the massive corruption allegations,” DeSantis wrote in a tweet. “If Hunter was not connected to the elite DC class he would have been put in jail a long time ago.”

Continue reading “”

No morals. No ethics. No self respect. No respect for others…
Standard Leftist LIEberal

Fact Check: White House Press Secretary Falsely Claims ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Lowered Gun Violence

CLAIM: White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the 1994-2004 federal “assault weapons” ban lowered gun violence while speaking from Air Force One on Monday.

VERDICT: False. The Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) issued a report, noting that any impact the ban had on crime was negligible.

Jean-Pierre said, “You’ve heard the President say this, and I’ll just repeat what he said. When he was able to get this done, in the 90s, to ban “assault weapons,” you saw it have an effect on lowering…violence in that first ten years.”

On February 19, 2018, Breitbart News referenced the NIJ study, which was written just as the federal “assault weapons” ban was ending.

In 2004, the Washington Times quoted University of Pennsylvania professor Christopher Koper, an author of the NIJ report, saying, “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

The authors of the NIJ report observed that “The ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

They further explained that the “assault weapons” ban was not impactful because “assault weapons” are not the firearms of choice for day-to-day criminals.

On October 10, 2022, Breitbart News reported FBI figures showing that over two times as many people were stabbed to death with knives and cutting instruments than were shot and killed with rifles of any kind. And on January 18, 2013, Breitbart News reported that “assault weapons” were “tied to less than .012 percent of [U.S] deaths in 2011.”

Jean-Pierre’s claim that the “assault weapons” ban lowered gun violence is false.

Chicago shootings:75 shot, 13 fatally, in weekend gun violence across city

CHICAGO (WLS) — Chicago shootings over the holiday weekend have left more than 75 shot, 13 fatally, police said.

The latest shootings attacked groups of teenagers.

Gunfire erupted in the West Garfield Park as three teens were standing on a front porch in the 3800-block of West Gladys Avenue when someone in a dark-colored car opened fire, police said.

A 17-year-old girl was rushed to the hospital in critical condition with a gunshot wound to the right eye. A 17-year-old girl was shot in the leg and buttocks and a 19-year-old man was shot in the arm and both were transported to hospitals in good condition.

Just a few hours earlier and less than two-miles away, police said a 14-year-old boy walking down the block in the 100-block of North Francisco Avenue when an unknown gunman opened fire on him. He was struck in the right arm and right leg and transported to a hospital in fair condition.

On the South Side, 32-year old father of four Brian Ross, was gunned down along with another men during a large Father’s Day gathering at Smith Park in the Roseland community.

Relatives said he was not the intended target.

“They literally stopped where they were at, open fired on them, didn’t care about the kids being around or nothing. And, by the grace of God, no kids get hit,” Kandace Ross, the victim’s husband, said. “They didn’t care about nothing or nobody because there were kids out there. There were women out there, there were grandmas, anybody. They just came and just shot it up just so they can, I don’t know, brag about it.”

Police are looking into if social media played a role in the attack.

The violence happened on almost every side of town including the Bucktown neighborhood

Continue reading “”

Saving Our School Children from Tennessee Politicians

Tennessee politicians left our students defenseless, and we have to save them. A celebrity-seeking mass murderer killed students in a Nashville private school. That should be a wakeup call that the Republican controlled legislature and Governor have failed us again. We need angry parents to change the status quo and save our kids. As grim as this sounds, there is plenty of good news. We also know how to reduce and to prevent mass murder in our schools. Tennessee parents have been ignored for too long.

The gun-control politicians say we should disarm honest citizens to protect our children. Other politicians say they will put armed deputies in the schools to save our kids. Both have been lying to us for years. Gun-control fails and the legislature never funds enough school resource officers to protect our kids. I understand the problem because mass-murders are rare and even a small school needs several defenders. The solution is simple, but it is not politically easy.

I want our children protected at school the same way our kids are protected by their parents at home. I want our children protected the way our politicians are protected at the capital, and I want it now. Unlike some proposals that sound good in theory, we know this solution stops mass-murderers. Don’t listen to what politicians and celebrities say they want. Instead, look at what they do.

Politicians are protected by men with guns. Celebrities are protected by men with guns. The spouses and children of politicians and the spouses and children of celebrities are protected by men with guns. When a celebrity-seeking mass-murderer comes to school, even the advocates of gun-control shout that we should call men with guns. The only debate is about when the armed defenders should arrive. I want our kids defended now.

Continue reading “”