No see it’s the duty of the United States to accept these poor innocent refugees who simply had the misfortune of being born on the wrong side of the fence https://t.co/XAZnByputj
— Oilfield Rando (@Oilfield_Rando) November 19, 2023
“It Will Be a Massacre of Millions of People”
I first started researching Tablighi Jamaat almost eighteen years ago, in December of 2005. That was not long after I began investigating Jamaat ul-Fuqra. The results of web searches for both organizations overlapped, due to the commonality of the word “Jamaat” — that’s how I found Tablighi Jamaat.
[“Jamaat” means “community”, or “group”, or “association”. Jamaat ul-Fuqra is the “community of the impoverished”, while Tablighi Jamaat means, roughly, “association of preachers”.]
Back then Tablighi used to skate by without being declared a terrorist group, because it never engaged in any of the wetwork itself. It was billed as an educational group, and the bombing and throat-slitting were always done by some other outfit — Jamaat ul-Fuqra, Al Qaeda, and some years later the Islamic State.
Based on the following investigative report from Italy, Tablighi Jamaat is now a rising star in the world of Islamic supremacism. It is unabashed in its assertion that Islam will eventually conquer Rome and other infidel lands, and that the conquest will require a massive amount of bloodshed.
Many thanks to HeHa for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes and RAIR Foundation for the subtitling:
Video transcript:
BLUF
Was that an intentional campaign to rid the military of critical thinkers?
The U.S. Army is ‘Begging’ Unvaccinated Soldiers to Return
Army forced to reverse course, as people refuse to enlist
Oh, how much the times have changed!
The United States Army is now begging COVID unvaccinated soldiers, who underwent involuntary discharge for their refusal to take the vaccine, to return to service and also permits them to correct their military records!
Just two years ago, in a shameful campaign, the Pentagon was gleefully discharging soldiers who refused to take Covid vaccines:
We were assured that these discharges would “not affect military readiness.”
“I can tell you there are no operational impacts across the force for readiness,” Marine Corps Lt. Gen. David Ottignon told lawmakers. “There’s no one community that has signaled an instance where a [leader], an NCO or another enlisted Marine is not present because of that.”
The Marine Corps has, by far, kicked out the most service members: 1,968 total, 20% of whom received an honorable discharge. That amounts to just under 1% of the total force, which stands at about 215,000.
However, the readiness suffered: thousands of service members were dismissed, and potential recruits declined to enlist in the Armed Services, because, guess what, young healthy men loath COVID vaccines.
More than 17,000 service members balked at taking the shots, citing safety fears linked to the vaccine’s speedy development and spurred by misinformation about messenger ribonucleic acid technology, as well as concern over fetal cell lines used in formulation and testing. The more the controversy raged in the news, the more troops asked to skip the shots, Military Times reporting found.
Thousands were given career-destroying reprimands:
Lt. Col. Terry Kelley, a spokesman for the Army, said that 2,767 soldiers have received “general officer written reprimands” — killing their opportunities for promotions or transfers within the military — and that two battalion commanders as well as four other officers have been relieved of their duties but remain enlisted in the military.
The leadership, sadly, stayed silent. (pictured here is Lloyd Austin)
As a result, the military is missing its recruitment goals by 25%:
BLUF
Post-Bruen, just as what happened after Heller, many federal courts are trying to stymie the obvious results of the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions. A continued effort by Second Amendment advocates will be required to ensure proper enforcement of these landmark rulings.
Seventh Circuit Strains to Uphold Illinois’ Gun and Magazine Ban
At this point, gun owners and other productive Americans don’t anticipate much good news out of Chicago. On November 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit lived up to those expectations when it upheld Illinois’ ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms in Herrera v. Raoul.
In early 2023, Illinois enacted the ill-titled Protect Illinois Communities Act. That legislation, among its numerous anti-gun provisions, prohibits commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms such as the AR-15 and ammunition magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. Current owners of prohibited guns are only permitted to retain their property if they register their firearms with the government. The plaintiffs in the present case challenged Illinois’ statute on Second Amendment grounds.
This may have seemed like an open-and-shut case to some who follow Second Amendment jurisprudence.
In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects ownership of arms “in common use” for lawful purposes. In case there was any confusion about what “arms” that might entail, Heller decision author Justice Antonin Scalia cleared that up in 2015 when he signed onto a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park. In the dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas explained,
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.
Commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms have only become more common since Heller and the Highland Park case. In 2022, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (the firearm industry trade association) estimated that since 1990 more than 24 million modern sporting rifles (their term for commonly-owned semi-automatic rifles) have entered circulation in the U.S. A 2023 Washington Post poll found that “6 percent of Americans own an AR-15, about 1 in 20.” Given compelling research finding that polling systematically undercounts the number of gun owners in the U.S., that number may be far higher.
The standard capacity firearm magazines Illinois prohibits are not just common, but ubiquitous. Many of the most popular handguns and rifles in America are designed to use magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. Americans own hundreds of millions of firearm magazines with a capacity greater than ten rounds.
If Heller weren’t enough, in 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion made clear that in order for a firearm regulation to pass constitutional muster it must fit within the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment right. As the dissent in the present case noted, “’in common use’ is a sufficient condition for finding arms protected under the history and tradition test in Bruen.” However, for a firearm restriction to be permissible it must meet that further burden.
Specifically, the Bruen opinion explained,
[w]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
Given that the concept of an “assault weapons” ban targeting semi-automatic long guns came about in the 1980s only after gun control advocates failed to ban their preferred target (handguns), such prohibitions have no place in the American tradition.
To uphold the Illinois ban, the Seventh Circuit set about contending that the AR-15 falls outside the definition of “bearable arms” discussed and protected in Heller. According to the Judge Diane Wood,
the definition of “bearable Arms” extends only to weapons in common use for a lawful purpose. That lawful purpose, as we have said several times, is at its core the right to individual self-defense.
Wood contended that firearms that are prominent in military purposes fall outside this definition and are therefore not arms covered by the Second Amendment. Wood then claimed that the AR-15, despite its solely semi-automatic function, resembles the fully-automatic military M16 sufficiently for it to also fall outside the Second Amendment’s protection.
Bystander Shoots Someone’s Attacker 5 Times
In North Carolina, a female bystander who was armed came to the victim’s aid after an attacker shot him in the face.
Police in Shelby, North Carolina, said on November 6th that 33-year-old Unterio M. Jolly got into an argument with another man on the street.
The two guys eventually went in different directions, but according to Capt. Seth Treadway, Jolly found the other man and confronted him with a handgun about half an hour later.
Jolly allegedly then shot the man he had been arguing with in the face. A woman with a concealed carry permit stepped in to help him and shot his attacker five times.
“Then they kind of go their separate ways, and about half an hour after, Unterio shows up with a gun and shoots (the man) in the face and the shoulder,” Capt. Seth Treadway said. “Right after he does that… a concerned citizen shoots back, trying to protect (the man) and hits Jolly about five times. She shoots him five times.”
The attacker suffered non-life-threatening injuries, and Jolly’s gunshot wound left him in critical condition.
Jolly is being charged with felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury, possession of a firearm by a felon, and assault.
The Shelby police said, “We will consult with the District Attorney’s Office later in the day to see if those charges need to stay the same,” and continued, “I do not expect any charges on the person that returned fire.”
A Well-Outfitted Militia: German Translation of the Second Amendment Offers Insight
There’s a perennial debate in gun politics in the United States. The gun control side makes various specious arguments claiming that the Second Amendment protects muskets and not modern arms, that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to a select militia like the National Guard, not We the People, and that “well-regulated” authorizes the de facto destruction of our rights via regulation.
Those of us who have studied the copious scholarly research on the text and history of the Second Amendment know that those arguments are bunk. We know that the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on militia service. We know that the right extends to modern arms, much like the First Amendment is applicable to modern forms of communication. We know that “well-regulated” means in proper working order, not choking off that right while pretending to nurture it.
To further support the originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment, there’s insight offered from an uncommon source: the re-translation into English of founding era documents originally translated into German. The following is the abstract from an academic paper published in the American Journal of Legal History:
A Well-Outfitted Militia: German–American Translations of the Second Amendment and Original Public Meaning
By Brandon KinneyThis article seeks to uncover the original public meaning of the Second Amendment by scrutinizing unusual and previously unexamined sources: German–American translations of the Bill of Rights during the Founding Era. Translations offer a unique perspective of political culture, because they served as thoughtful analysis and contextual commentary on the source text.
Using six German–American translations in the Founding Era, this article argues that the public understanding of the Second Amendment during the Founding Era was one that recognized the individual right to own firearms for individual use unconnected to militia service as well as a constitutional endorsement of an armed population as the best bulwark to preserve the liberty of the national people.
Though the exact text of the translations differ across publishers and states, they retain thematic and syntactic similarities that suggest a public consensus over the meaning of the text. The notion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right rather than a collective one is borne out by additional translations well into the mid-nineteenth century.
Printers adjusted their translations of the amendment after the militia as a military institution had fallen into disuse but preserved or strengthened the clause protecting the individual right to arms rather than letting it ‘fall silent’.
November 19
636 – The moslem Rashidun Caliphate defeats the Sasanian Empire, the last non-moslem empire of Persia, at the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah in modern day Iraq.
1493 – Christopher Columbus lands and claims the island he names San Juan Bautista – modern Puerto Rico.
1794 – The United States delegation headed by John Jay, and the Kingdom of Great Britain sign a 10 year treaty which attempts to resolve some of the economic, trade and territory occupation problems left over from the Paris Treaty of 1783 which ended the Revolutionary War.
1863 – President Lincoln delivers the Gettysburg Address at the dedication ceremony for the military cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.
1912 – During the First Balkan War, the Serbian Army defeats in detail the Ottoman Army in Monastir Vilayet near the modern town of Bitola, causing a collapse of the 5 century long rule of Macedonia by the Ottoman Empire
1916 – Samuel Goldwyn and Edgar Selwyn establish Goldwyn Pictures.
1942 – Soviet Union forces under General Georgy Zhukov launch Operation Uranus, a counterattack on Nazi forces at Stalingrad.
1950 – US General Dwight D. Eisenhower becomes Supreme Commander of NATO-Europe.
1955 – National Review publishes its first issue.
1969 – The Apollo 12 Lunar Excursion Module Intrepid lands on the moon at Oceanus Procellarum – Ocean of Storms – and astronauts Pete Conrad and Alan Bean become the third and fourth humans to walk on the Moon.
1979 – Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini orders the release of 13 female and black American hostages being held at the US Embassy in Tehran.
1985 – President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Union General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev meet for the first time at a summit in Geneva.
1996 – United Express Flight 5925, a Beechcraft 1900, and a private Beechcraft King Air collide on the runway at Quincy Regional Airport in Quincy, Illinois, killing all 14 passengers and crew aboard both craft.
1998 – The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee begins impeachment hearings against President Clinton.
2017 – Charles Manson dies in prison, completing his life sentence for multiple murders.
2022 – A man shoots and kills 5 people and wounds 19 more at a nightclub in Colorado Springs before being physically subdued, and later sentenced to 5 consecutive terms of life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus 2,211 years
Think whatever you want about this video (which I regard as quite revealing).
That we only saw the Jan 6 excerpts that Liz Cheney and Adam Schiff wanted us to see, while they hid everything they didn't want us to see (like the below clip), corrupted everything from the start: https://t.co/78oT9JHpVQ
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 18, 2023
The Laws of War
Critics of Israel’s actions in Gaza should keep in mind the principles of international humanitarian law–and hold Hamas to those same standards.
Each day brings new accounts of tragedy from Israel and Gaza. Reasonable people agree that the atrocities Hamas committed on October 7—deliberate, videotaped killings of innocent civilians; maiming in the most gruesome fashion of Israeli women and children; and taking Israelis as hostages into its warren of tunnels—stand as deeply disturbing violations of human rights and the laws of armed conflict. As President Joe Biden made clear, Israel possesses a right of self-defense that legally justifies the use of force against Hamas to prevent further atrocities and missile launches against its civilians. Those who argue Israel does not have a right of self defense make two claims: First, they argue that Israel’s “inherent right” is nullified because it is the “occupying power” of the Gaza Strip; and, second, they argue that the right of self-defense in Article 51 of the UN Charter applies only to force against other states, not non-state actors like Hamas.
Both arguments are unavailing. It is highly doubtful that Israel qualifies as an “occupying” power of the Gaza Strip because once it withdrew all military forces from Gaza in 2005, it has exercised no authority over the territory, which is a requirement under international law before assuming the responsibility of an occupying power. UN groups like the Human Rights Council counter that the status of “occupier” still applies because Israel has imposed stringent limits on travel to and trade with Gaza. And yet Egypt has (mostly) sealed off Gaza’s other border without being termed an occupying power.
In any event, even if Israel were an occupying power, that status would not justify Hamas’ intentional attacks on civilian targets in Israel or prevent Israel from using force to protect itself. For example, it was not considered illegal for the United States, as the occupying power of Iraq in the immediate aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War, to use force against Iraqis who were attacking U.S. forces within Iraq.
The second argument against Israel’s right of self-defense—that it cannot invoke this right against non-state actors like Hamas—is equally untenable. Article 51 of the UN Charter states that nothing shall “impair the inherent right” of self-defense possessed by all member states. In recent years, many governments, including the United States, have adopted the view that this right of self-defense applies against non-state actors like al-Qaeda and ISIS in situations where the government of the state in which the non-state actors are operating is “unwilling or unable” to prevent attacks by the non-state actor. The case of the Gaza conflict is much stronger for Israel than the “unwilling or unable” rationale; Israel is protecting against Hamas’ direct, indiscriminate killing, beheading, torture and hostage-taking of Israeli civilians.
Of course, Israel must exercise its right of self-defense in conformity with international humanitarian law (IHL), also known as the laws of war or armed conflict. This body of customary international law, which was codified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their subsequent protocols, limits the use of force to the following situations: military necessity; where a distinction is made between combatants and non-combatants; and where the use of force is proportionate to the concrete military objective sought to be achieved.
There’s a Federal court case in Texas where a man filed a Form1 to make a MG and ATF (of course) denied it. This keeps up and SCOTUS just may get involved, and I’m not the only one thinking that, at the very least, the 1986 ban on new ‘transferable’ guns may get the axe under the “Bruen test” .
Attorney with local ties takes gun rights case to federal appeals court
An attorney and Nixa resident with ties to the area has a case related to gun rights making its way through the federal appeals court system after it was rejected by the U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, headquartered in Springfield.
The case has been appealed and will now move to the Eighth District Circuit Court of Appeals, primarily based in St. Louis.
Mark Blount, representing himself, is arguing against the National Firearms Act prohibition on possession of ordinary military weapons manufactured after 1986, with the defendants listed as the United States of America; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF); Merrick Garland acting as Attorney General of the United States; and Bernard G. Hansen, acting as Special Agent in Charge of the ATF Kansas City Field Division.
The case background describes Blount’s complaint regarding the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act and the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, all considered by Blount as unconstitutional, based on his argument the laws collectively infringe upon and deprive him of “ancient, inalienable, private, individual, absolute, ancestral sovereign common law right to keep and bear arms, retained by ancestors, the Founders of this country, and enumerated in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, by prohibiting Plaintiff from possessing machine guns of all descriptions manufactured after 1986.”
Blount specifically complains his constitutional rights are being infringed upon because, according to court documents, he “plans on purchasing an M-16 rifle, M-4 rifle, Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW), or other machine gun which comprises the standard issue equipment of a service member in the United States military, manufactured after 1987, to wit, an ordinary military weapon, or converting the AR-15 rifles that he already lawfully possesses to automatic weapons,” and the acts criminalize his “planned course of conduct.”
The case was dismissed by the District Court, in part, on the grounds that Blount’s argument that his rights were being infringed upon was based on a “conjectural or hypothetical interest” rather than an “invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent.”
In other words, it was rejected on the grounds his argument was based on an illegal act he planned on committing rather than the real possibility of prosecution after committing it, and that he failed “to allege anything beyond a speculative fear of prosecution.”
While the judgment didn’t address Blount’s argument of those laws as unconstitutional, he outlined it in an eight-page document sent to the Quill. In general, he says, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right that has been passed down from the founding fathers, and he describes it, in part, as a fundamental right “upon which rights every other right is based, which rights we had inherited as the lineal, legal, and bloodline descendants of the ancestral class of rights-holders, free Englishmen.”
Blount is a Duke University School of Law graduate. He is married to Ashley Huddleston-Blount, whose family is from West Plains. Huddleston-Blount’s family is from West Plains, and her grandparents owned a small cattle farm in Oregon County and were known throughout the area. She is descended from the Huddlestons who were in the West Plains area as early as the start of the 1820s.
Of Course Gun-Control Fails in Practice, but Does it Work in Theory?
The murderer who attacked children in a Nashville Christian school wrote a diary. Parts of it were published and then taken down. This murderer hoped that she was the only one with a gun and that her victims were unprotected. Many people want the same thing.
In theory, disarming honest citizens makes your country safer. Last month, Israelis again confirmed that gun-control is a failure. Gun-prohibition assumes that murderers and terrorists will obey the law, that they will only buy a firearm through legal channels. In practice, disarming your neighbors gives you all the vulnerability of disarmed victims with none of the benefits of actually disarming murderers. Despite those repeated failures both in the US and abroad, anti-rights politicians want ordinary citizens disarmed. So do academics in both the US and in Israel.
Palestinians killed about 1,200 Israelis during their attack on October 7th. That would be proportional in size to Mexican drug gangs entering the US and murdering everyone in Galveston, Texas. The Palestinian attackers deliberately targeted schools and youth centers.
The real and undeniable advantage of armed citizens is that they are there when the attack happens. They can respond immediately. They also have local knowledge of who the innocent victims are and who are the bad guys that don’t belong. In practice, a government response that takes hours to protect unarmed victims is a unilateral surrender to murderers and terrorists.
Israel asked to import 24 thousand rifles from the United States. Biden said no precisely because some of those rifles might end up in the hands of Israeli civilians. We wouldn’t want civilians to be able to stop terrorists, now would we. Biden also stopped the export of all US civilian firearms for 90 days. I suspect that the Israelis forgot to include another “10-percent for the big guy.”
Please note that this is the same Biden administration that abandoned 83-billion dollars of military equipment in Afghanistan. I’d bet that some of that equipment is now in the hands of Hamas terrorists who are fighting Israel.
Girlfriend fatally shoots ex-boyfriend as he broke into her house in Issaquah
ISSAQUAH, Wash. — Investigators say a man was breaking into his ex-girlfriend’s house Friday morning when she shot and killed him.
The shooting happened at 10:25 a.m. at an apartment complex near 2900 NW Steelrake Place in Issaquah.
According to Issaquah police, the woman shot the man once, killing him, after he allegedly broke into her home.
“I’m devastated that this kind of violence could happen right here. From now on, I will be walking the neighborhood with a gun,” neighbor Trina Freatman told KOMO News.
Chief Paula Schwan said the shooter called 911 immediately to report what happened and has been ‘totally cooperative’ with investigators.
Hat Tip to Kevin Baker of The Smallest Minority
Virginia State Congressman Nick Freitas:
That the previous Speaker didn’t do this is damnable
Today, I am keeping my promise to the American people and making all the January 6th tapes available to ALL Americans.
— Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) November 17, 2023
Puppet SloJoe is merely doing what his puppetmasters (the real people running the goobermint) have told him to do to make living more difficult.
Now, to be honest. If I built a new house, it would be 100% electric. I can power a house with a large enough generator and, properly equipped, all I need is a source of gasoline, ethanol, or even wood gas. Natural gas piped in by a utility company can be cut off at their discretion.
Biden Invokes Wartime Powers to Fund Electric Heaters as He Cracks Down on Gas Appliances
President Biden invoked a Cold War-era law in a surprising move Friday to pour taxpayer funds into domestic manufacturing of electric heat pumps, an alternative to gas-powered residential furnaces.
In a joint announcement with the White House, the Department of Energy (DOE) said the federal government would award a “historic” $169 million for nine projects across 15 sites nationwide in an effort to accelerate electric heat pump manufacturing. The significant level of funding was made possible after Biden utilized the 1950 Defense Production Act (DPA) to increase domestic production of green energy technologies.
“Getting more American-made electric heat pumps on the market will help families and businesses save money with efficient heating and cooling technology,” said Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. “These investments will create thousands of high-quality, good-paying manufacturing jobs and strengthen America’s energy supply chain, while creating healthier indoor spaces through home-grown clean energy technologies.”
“Today’s Defense Production Act funds for heat pump manufacturing show that President Biden is treating climate change as the crisis it is,” added John Podesta, the White House clean energy czar. “These awards will grow domestic manufacturing, create good-paying jobs, and boost American competitiveness in industries of the future.”
November 18
326 – The old St. Peter’s Basilica on Vatican Hill in Rome is consecrated.
1095 – The Council of Clermont begins, leading to the First Crusade to the Holy Land.
1626 – The new St Peter’s Basilica is consecrated.
1872 – Susan B. Anthony and 14 other women are arrested in New York for voting illegally in the United States presidential election of 1872.
1883 – American and Canadian railroads institute 5 standard continental time zones, ending ‘local time’.
1901 – The Hay–Pauncefote Treaty is signed by Britain and the United States nullifying the Clayton–Bulwer Treaty and withdrawing British objections to an American controlled Panama Canal.
1903 – The Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty is signed by Panama and the United States, giving the United States exclusive rights over the Panama Canal Zone.
1909 – Due to 2 Americans, being included with 500 Nicaraguan revolutionaries and executed by order of President José Santos Zelaya, the U.S. sends 2 warships, USS Des Moines (CL-17) and USS Tacoma (CL-20) with 700 U.S. Marines aboard, along with other vessels to follow later, to stage an invasion and occupation of the country.
1928 – The animated short Steamboat Willie, noted as the first fully synchronized sound cartoon, directed by Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks debuts; and this date is considered by the Disney corporation to be Mickey’s birthday.
1961 – United States President John F. Kennedy sends 18,000 military advisors to South Vietnam.
1963 – DTMF – Dual Tone Multi Frequency – “Touch Tone” telephone dialing goes into service.
1978 – In Jonestown, Guyana, Jim Jones leads his Peoples Temple to a mass murder–suicide that claims 918 lives.
1993 – In the United States, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is approved by the House of Representatives.
1999 – At Texas A&M University, the ‘Aggie Bonfire’, a long standing annual tradition as part of the college rivalry with the University of Texas at Austin, collapses during construction, killing 12 students and injuring 27 others.
2002 – Under pwers of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, UN WMD weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix arrive in Iraq.
2003 – The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that the state’s ban on homosexual marriage is unconstitutional.
2013 – NASA launches the MAVEN (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution) probe on an Atlas V rocket from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, to Mars.
2020 – The Utah monolith, built sometime in 2016 in northern San Juan County, is discovered by state biologists of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources while carrying out an aerial survey of bighorn sheep