The Gun Joe Biden Doesn’t Want You To Have Just Protected His Own Granddaughter

Secret Service reportedly opened fire Sunday night on three suspects attempting to break into an unmarked government vehicle parked in front of the Georgetown home of Naomi Biden, President Joe Biden’s granddaughter. Reports allege that the three offenders fled the scene after the gunfire started.

These types of scenarios are exactly why Americans advocate for the Second Amendment, but unfortunately, not all citizens have the same protection the Biden family is afforded.

Residents of Washington, D.C., are forced to navigate an onslaught of regulation and red tape before they can use firearms for self-preservation. According to D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department, residents have the “authority to carry firearm[s]” only in “certain places and for certain purposes.” Concealed carry requires a variety of applications and training, while “open carry is prohibited.”

MPDC / DC POLICE DEPARTMENT WEBSITE

Continue reading “”

State Rep. Dan Caulkins files petition to U.S. Supreme to review Assault Weapons Ban decision

DECATUR, Ill. (WRSP) — State Representative Dan Caulkins (R-Decatur) has petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to review the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision on Illinois’ weapons ban law on due process, equal protection, and Second Amendment grounds.

Caulkins believes the issue is the denial of due process under the 14th Amendment arising from Justices Elizabeth Rochford and Mary Kay O’Brien participating in the case despite overwhelming reasons they should have recused themselves.

He feels that both justices received disproportionate contributions from the leaders of the co-equal branches of government in the aggregate sum of more than $2.5 million calling into question their impartiality and independence.

He says that both justices received the endorsement of G-PAC, which states: “Each endorsed candidate supports our #1 legislative priority when the General Assembly is called into session: banning assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.”

Both Justice Rochford and O’Brien received disproportionate campaign contributions, and both made a commitment to support the legislative policy of banning assault weapons,” Caulkins said. “Additionally, the donations to these justices came from Gov. JB Pritzker and House Speaker Chris Welch which calls into question the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers.

Given the size of the campaign contributions and who gave the contributions, there not only is a question of fairness and impartiality, there also is a question of the independence of the Justices which calls into question the validity of the state court decision.

Caulkins said the due process under the 14th Amendment argument calls into question the fairness of the proceedings at the Illinois Supreme Court, but the petition also asks for a review of the substance of the case which centers on the three readings requirement in the Illinois Constitution, the Second Amendment, and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The petition states:

There exists no rational basis to criminalize one person indistinguishable in any manner based on conduct from another immunized from the criminal liability or to speculate that the prohibited present a greater risk for mass shootings than the grandfathered based on the date an assault weapon was acquired.

The grandfathered who are immunized from criminal liability for possession have no greater training than the prohibited merely because the grandfathered already possess an assault weapon. Or, if the grandfathered are presumed to be safe (lawful) to possess assault weapons by mere possession, then the prohibited would satisfy the same safety presumption if allowed to acquire and possess.

The fortuity of time of acquisition bears no connection to safety or danger. The resulting arbitrary classification on the face of the Assault Weapons Partial Ban fails all levels of scrutiny test and should be invalidated on this additional basis.

This petition is about the thousands of plaintiffs who joined my lawsuit and were denied a fair proceeding at the Illinois State Supreme Court,” Caulkins said. “The Illinois Supreme Court does not have an objective standard for recusals. The Court relies on individual justices to determine if there is a conflict. The end result is an unfair process that leads to biased outcomes. We are asking the U.S. Supreme to review this case based on the lack of fairness as well as the merits of our arguments against the weapons ban law.

Czech News Crew Covering APEC Robbed at Gunpoint in Stringently Gun-Controlled San Francisco

A news crew from the Czech Republic was robbed at gunpoint Sunday evening while in the Bay Area to cover the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that “Czech TV journalist Bohumil Vostal was capturing what he thought would be a majestic shot — San Francisco’s iconic City Lights bookstore, steeped in the gathering dusk — when three masked assailants approached with guns pointed.”

The suspects were able to get away with over $18,000 worth of equipment before fleeing the scene in a sedan.

Vostal indicated that by taking the equipment, the suspects also managed to take footage which had been shot while the Czech crew traversed San Francisco.

KTVU noted that Bay Area stations “often send armed guards with reporters and photographers” as their crews cover stories in San Francisco.

San Francisco is located in California, the state with the most gun control of any state in the Union.

California has universal background checks, an “assault weapons” ban, gun registration requirements, a 10-day waiting period on gun purchases, a limit on the number of guns a law-abiding citizen can buy each month, a ban on campus carry for self-defense, a ban on K-12 teachers being armed for classroom defense, strict regulations on firearms Democrats refer to as “ghost guns,” strict regulations on firearm marketing practices, a background check requirement for ammunition purchases, and numerous other gun and ammunition controls.

While California is No. 1 for gun control, FBI figures showed the state was also No. 1 for “active shooter incidents” in 2021.

When some jihadi makes a spectacle of himself, don’t forget to put the blame where it belongs; a goobermint and its open border policy

FBI Director Confirms Hamas-Led Threats Against Americans in the U.S. Now at ‘Whole Other Level’

FBI Director Christopher Wray testified Wednesday before the House Committee on Homeland Security and revealed that, due to the Israel-Hamas war, “The threat of an attack against Americans in the United States” has been raised “to a whole other level.”

In his prepared remarks, Wray provided more context to those threats: “Since October 7th, we’ve seen a rogue’s gallery of foreign terrorist organizations call for attacks against Americans and our allies. Hizballah expressed its support and praise for Hamas and threatened to attack U.S. interests in the Middle East. Al-Qaida issued its most specific call to attack the United States in the last five years. Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula called on jihadists to attack Americans and Jewish people everywhere. ISIS urged its followers to target Jewish communities in the United States and Europe.”

In short, Americans are under threat both at home and abroad; not surprisingly, Jews are most at risk from these threats.

During questioning from the House panel, Wray admitted that the threats could be tied to pro-Hamas elements and global bad actors.

WATCH:

TRANSCRIPT:

Certainly we’re in an environment where a number of tips and threats that are being reported to us have gone up significantly since October 7. We are already, as I testified earlier, already at an elevated threat environment even before October 7, and it’s gone to a whole other level since October 7.

The biggest chunks of the threats that have been reported in to us, but a good margin, are threats to the Jewish community. Synagogues, Jewish prominent officials, things like that. We also have a large number of tips and leads related specifically to Hamas and radicalization and recruitment.

As RedState has previously reported, Jews make up 2.4 percent of the total U.S. population but are the target of more than 50 percent of the religiously motivated hate crimes reported to the FBI. And this was before the October 7 massacre.

Worryingly, Wray also admitted at the Wednesday hearing that there are individuals on the terror watch list who may have slipped into the U.S. illegally and whose whereabouts are currently unknown. Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) asked Wray, “Are there people that you don’t where they are that the FBI is searching for today? Yes or no?” Wray responded with a simple, “Yes.”

Despite Wray’s confirmation that threats against Americans by Hamas sympathizers have seen a dramatic rise in the past six weeks, the official threat level of the United States has not been raised since May 24:

The United States remains in a heightened threat environment. Lone offenders and small groups motivated by a range of ideological beliefs and personal grievances continue to pose a persistent and lethal threat to the Homeland. Both domestic violent extremists (DVEs) and those associated with foreign terrorist organizations continue to attempt to motivate supporters to conduct attacks in the Homeland, including through violent extremist messaging and online calls for violence.

It’s worth reading Wray’s entire prepared statement; surprisingly, there are a lot of good nuggets in there about the precise nature and targets of these threats.

And on the other hand, there’s a subset of people who understand that when SCOTUS restores fundamental rights as they should be, they follow right along, like they should.
Now, I don’t advise cheating Uncle, or driving while intoxicated, but goobermint needs to stop with restricting rights by any piddly means it can devise.

Judge Nixes Lifetime Gun Ban for Non-Violent Misdemeanor Offense

In a case very reminiscent of Range v. Garland, in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Bryan Range’s conviction for lying about his income on a food stamp application decades ago should not have resulted in a lifetime prohibition on keeping or bearing arms, a federal judge in Pennsylvania has ruled that a man’s 2005 DUI arrest and conviction on misdemeanor charges cannot disqualify him from exercising his Second Amendment rights.

Though Edward Williams was convicted of a misdemeanor offense, it was also a crime punishable by up to five years in prison. Williams didn’t serve any time behind bars, however. Instead, he was sentenced to 90 days of house arrest and ordered to receive treatment for drug and alcohol abuse. Since the potential sentence was more than a year in prison, however, the misdemeanor conviction meant that Williams was considered a prohibited person going forward, and he was no longer allowed to possess or purchase a firearm.

Williams first tried challenging the statute in question back in 2017 and was denied, but applied for a re-hearing after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Bruen last year. This time around, in a case argued by 2A attorney Joshua Prince and supported by the Firearms Policy Coalition,  U.S. District Judge John M. Younge applied the Court’s text, history, and tradition test to the Williams case, as well as the Third Circuit’s decision in Range v. Garland, and found that Williams cannot be denied access to his right to keep and bear arms as a result of a non-violent misdemeanor conviction, even if it was punishable by years behind bars.

The Government has not met its burden in proving that the prohibition on Plaintiff’s possession of a firearm due to his DUI conviction is consistent with historical firearms regulations.

Finding a historical tradition of similar firearms regulations “requires that the government identify a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin.”

A modern regulation that would not have been contemplated during the Founding Era can be found relevantly similar to then-existing regulations by considering “how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense.

That federal law has, over the past century, allowed for the disarmament of certain types of convicted criminals does not satisfy the constitutional issues raised by applying Section 922(g)(1) to all convictions punishable by more than a year of imprisonment.

Instead, the Court must consider more longstanding limitations on firearm possession to “demarcat[e] the scope of [the] constitutional right.”

The historical firearms regulations provided by the Government are not sufficiently analogous to the case considered here to satisfy its burden.

Younge noted that while he remains “quite concerned about the prospect of granting access to firearms to persons who have demonstrably abused alcohol”, he remains unconvinced that “the general dangerousness of drunk driving and of combining firearm use and alcohol consumption establishes that DUIs must therefore be considered sufficiently analogous to historical examples of ‘dangerous’ conduct that have previously served as grounds for disarmament.”

Younge acknowledged the government’s citing of laws that prohibited the carrying of firearms while intoxicated, but argued that none of those regulations “allude to disarmament lasting beyond the individual’s state of intoxication, and none provided for permanent disarmament, as Section 922(g)(1) does.”

I agree with Younge that drunk driving is a serious concern, and not something that should be easily dismissed, but the fact is that Williams wasn’t barred forevermore from getting behind the wheel of a car because of his misdemeanor conviction. He can obtain a driver’s license and purchase a vehicle despite his DUI conviction that’s now nearly 20 years old, but he can’t legally purchase or possess a firearm. That’s a punishment that doesn’t fit the crime, as far as I’m concerned.

I’m sure the DOJ will appeal this case to the Third Circuit, but given their decision in Range it’s unlikely that Merrick Garland is going to get the response he’s looking for from the appellate court. By the time Williams v. Garland gets to SCOTUS the justices will have had a chance to weigh in on Bryan Range’s case, and if the Court does adopt a “dangerousness” standard for depriving individuals of their Second Amendment rights in Rahimi, then both Range and Williams have an excellent chance of having the lower court decisions in their favor approved by a majority of Supreme Court justices as well.

Surprise, Surprise! Guess What Was Found in Yet Another Gaza Hospital

As Israel Defense Forces continued clearing out Hamas terrorists around Gaza City this week, they made their way to the Al-Shifa Hospital, long believed to be a base of operations for the Iran-backed terrorists, and found exactly what they expected: weapons caches, bastardized hospital equipment, and all the signs of a Hamas HQ hidden within a hospital to use Gazan civilians as human shields.

Jihadis R Us

IDF Spokesman Jonathan Conricus released a video of his survey of just one area inside the Al-Shifa hospital, an apparent MRI center. Explaining that the IDF had secured the area, Conricus said what the IDF found has “totally confirmed, without any doubt, that Hamas systematically uses hospitals in their military operations in violation of international law.”

Even in just the MRI area, Conricus said “what we have found, I think, is only the tip of the iceberg.”

Continue reading “”

There’s a subset of people in the U.S. who hate the idea of RKBA and the Supreme Court’s rulings and will do anything possible to sabotage them

Federal Judge Declares No Right to Acquire a Gun

If we possess a right to keep and bear firearms, it stands to reason that we must also have the right to acquire one, but according to a federal judge in Colorado no such right exists.

U.S. District Judge John L. Kane, an 86-year-old appointee of Jimmy Carter back in 1977, made the eyebrow-raising decision in a case known as Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis, which challenges Colorado’s newly-enacted three-day waiting period on all gun sales. Kane denied the group’s request for an injunction that would have halted enforcement of the waiting period while the litigation continues, ruling the plain text of the Second Amendment only covers the right to keep and bear a firearm, not to purchase or acquire one for lawful purposes.

Plaintiffs contend that the words “keep” and “bear” in the Second Amendment are implicated by the waiting period required by the Act. In Heller, the Supreme Court examined the “normal meaning” of those words at the time of the Nation’s founding, reviewing definitions from contemporaneous dictionaries. As the Court explained, the 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language “defined ‘keep’ as, most relevantly, ‘[t]o retain; not to lose,’ and ‘[t]o have in custody.’”.

 The Court then turned to the word “bear” and determined that it means to “carry.” The Court clarified that, when “bear” is “used with ‘arms,’ however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation.” So, putting all the pieces together, the Court found that the text of the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

From this reading of the plain text, it is clear the relevant conduct impacted by the waiting period—the receipt of a paid-for firearm without delay—is not covered. Still, Plaintiffs attempt to equate the words “obtain” and “possess.” But these terms are not equivalent. To “keep,” under the definitions provided in Heller, meant to retain an object one already possessed. It did not mean to receive a newly paid-for item, and it certainly did not mean to receive that item without delay. Likewise, “hav[ing] weapons” indicates the weapons are already in one’s possession, not that one is receiving them.

So you have the right to possess a firearm but not the right to obtain one? Kane’s reasoning would leave the door open for all kinds of restrictions on the acquisition of arms. Why not a six-month waiting period? How about a $500 administrative fee for every firearm purchase, or mandating purchasers come up with a half dozen character references before a gun can be sold. Taken to its extreme, Kane’s position would leave open the possibility of a complete and total ban on gun sales. It’s ridiculous to separate the right to obtain a firearm with the right to keep and bear it, but that’s exactly what the judge did here.

Kane went on to say that even if commercial sales of firearms are protected by the Second Amendment’s language, Colorado’s waiting period is likely to withstand court scrutiny because there were no “Guns-R-Us” outlets at the time the Second Amendment was ratified. It could take days, weeks, or even months for a would-be gun owner to acquire a firearm while they waited for a shipment of muskets to be delivered to their nearest city or town. Of course, there was no law requiring people to wait before purchasing a firearm if one was readily available, nor were there any prohibitions on private transfers of arms. If your neighbor had a fowling piece that you wanted to purchase, you could walk or ride to his farm and make a trade or a cash transaction without the possibility of punishment from the state.

Further, says Kane, though there aren’t any statutes in the historical record that mirror Colorado’s modern waiting period, there are some old laws that he believes are a close enough analogue to allow the state’s three-day waiting period to pass muster; laws forbidding the carrying of firearms while intoxicated.

Perhaps the state could impose a more narrowly tailored requirement, but that is not the inquiry here. The intoxication laws prevented all individuals from becoming intoxicated and engaging in the prohibited conduct. They did not apply only to those people who would have certainly used a firearm irresponsibly while intoxicated. Despite Plaintiffs’ arguments, the “how” and the “why” of the intoxication laws and the Waiting-Period Act are sufficiently similar to demonstrate that the Act is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The purpose of the waiting period, according to Colorado’s legislature, is to “help prevent impulsive acts of firearm violence, including homicides and suicides.” According to Kane, because the ostensible reason for the waiting period is similar to the rationale on historical prohibitions against carrying while under the influence, that’s enough to make the two laws analogous. Of course, under that theory, virtually any gun control measure could be deemed a part of the historical tradition, so long as lawmakers contend that its purpose is to prevent “impulsive” acts of gun violence.

If the majority in Bruen believed that opinion would put a stop to the Second Amendment shenanigans in the lower courts, it should be clear to them by now that is most certainly not the case. We’ve seen judges declare that commonly owned arms like semi-automatic rifles are not protected by the Second Amendment, wide swathes of public spaces can be deemed “sensitive” and off-limits to lawful carry, and the right to keep and bear arms does not encompass the right to obtain one.

Each of these decisions is a gross misreading of Bruen as well as a green light for fundamental infringement on our Second Amendment rights, but until SCOTUS intervenes these abuses will continue.

Here we go again
Same old *stuff* again…..

Gunman suspected of killing Texas SWAT cop and 2 hostages was reportedly on FBI terror watchlist.

The gunman who killed Texas SWAT Officer Jorge Pastore in a shootout that also left two hostages dead was wearing body armor and night vision goggles — and was on the FBI’s terror watchlist, according to reports.

A search warrant for the suspect’s south Austin home — the scene of Saturday’s deadly shootout — unearthed bomb-making materials inside, calling for help from the FBI’s Evidence Recovery Team, according to KXAN.

“Cutting instruments, body armor and any tactical gear to include firearms were all said to be worn or used by the suspect,” reads the warrant, which noted that it’s “not uncommon for people with a gun, body armor or night vision to make homemade explosives.”

Neither the suspect nor the dead hostages had been officially identified as of early Wednesday.

However, a local organization called the Round Rock Area Muslims said they were all family members of a “beloved brother” who was well-known in the local community.

Continue reading “”

While Hamas Planned Its Attack on Israel, Biden’s Intel Community Was Focused On Climate Change

While the Hamas terror group was working with Iran to launch its Oct. 7 attack on Israel, the Biden administration’s intelligence community was ramping up efforts to combat climate change, raising questions about America’s failure to detect the terror attack.

As the Israel-Gaza conflict enters its second month, congressional leaders are beginning to examine whether the Biden administration’s intelligence shift—which included adding a climate scientist to his Intelligence Advisory Board, a task force that tracks national security issues, and executive orders that required the intelligence community to assess security threats posed by climate change—may have contributed to America’s failure to spot Hamas’s planning beforehand. Hamas had been planning the attack for over a year, according to reports.

“The world faces unprecedented threats from Communist China, the Iran regime, and Russia yet the Biden administration is shifting intelligence and defense assets to focus on climate change,” Rep. Mike Waltz (R., Fla.), a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told the Washington Free Beacon. “Just this past March, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines testified before Congress that climate was an intelligence priority. The blatant political posturing on climate change within our intelligence community endangers the U.S. and our allies by sidelining other threats.”

In January, President Joe Biden signaled his administration’s shift to climate change when he appointed the first-ever climate scientist to his Intelligence Advisory Board, a decades-old task force that tracks national security issues across the globe. Brown University professor Kim Cobb, an “expert on climate extremes and coastal flooding,” was tasked with reviewing “the work of U.S. spy agencies to make sure they are considering threats from all angles,” as well as policing the board “to make sure that the intelligence offered to the president is taking into account climate-related security issues,” the Washington Post reported.

Biden followed this with several executive orders that reportedly “required the intelligence community to assess the national security threats posed by climate change.” Biden’s focus on climate change also extended to the American military, with the Pentagon classifying these issues in 2021 as “a critical national security issue.”

Continue reading “”

And With That Remark, Nikki Haley Just Went Full Totalitarian

The explosion of antisemitism has been something of a shock. Not that it never went away or didn’t exist, but the viciousness of it all has been jarring. It’s one thing to peddle the age-old stereotypes about Jewish control of the media and finance. It’s another thing to outright call for all Jews to die. The Left used to hide their true intent regarding Israel with political-based language. The ‘we’re not antisemitic; we’re anti-Zionist’ was a big talking point from this group.

It’s a nasty pot of brew brewing for quite some time, and it’s not just an American thing. The British Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn was rife with antisemites; Corbyn couldn’t denounce Hamas as a terror group recently. Yet, if there’s one thing we know that won’t work in snuffing out vicious antisemitism and calls for Jewish genocide on social media, it’s to censor it like Oceania’s Thought Police.

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, a hopeless 2024 candidate, suggested a new protocol that is downright Orwellian. It also might not be legal. For starters, she wants everyone on social media to be verified; no anonymous accounts can be permitted to use these platforms. She bypasses the legal debate by saying this is a national security issue.

Look, I can’t stand these pro-Hamas clowns either. But this would be a massive propaganda win for the terrorists. It’s what they want us to do, Nikki. We also don’t need to drive these people underground, some of whom will be top recruits in carrying out terrorist attacks.

Using social media has been essential in exposing antisemites recently, so I say fight fire with fire. They’re the ones losing their jobs right now.

 

November 15

1532 – Commanded by Francisco Pizarro, Spanish conquistadors under Hernando de Soto meet Inca Empire leader Atahualpa outside Cajamarca, and arrange a meeting on the city plaza the following day.

1777 – The 2nd Continental Congress approves the Articles of Confederation and sends them to the states for ratification.

1806 –  While on mission to explore the south and western sections of the Louisiana Purchase, Lieutenant Zebulon Pike espies a distant mountain peak while near the Colorado foothills of the Rocky Mountains, later named for him.

1849 – Boilers of the steamboat Louisiana explode as she pulls from the dock in New Orleans, killing more than 150 people.

1864 – Union General William Tecumseh Sherman begins his ‘March to the Sea’, leaving Atlanta to attack towards Savannah.

1889 – Brazil is declared a republic by Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca as Emperor Pedro II is deposed in a military coup.

1920 – The first assembly of the League of Nations is held in Geneva, one of its first acts being to establish Danzig, Prussia, (now Gdansk Poland) as a Free City under its protection.

1926 – The NBC radio network opens with 24 stations.

1938 – Nazi Germany bans Jewish children from public schools in the aftermath of Kristallnacht.

1939 – President Roosevelt lays the cornerstone of the Jefferson Memorial.

1942 – The Naval Battle of Guadalcanal ends in a decisive Allied victory over the Imperial Japanese Navy with the sinking of a Japanese battleship, destroyer and 4 transports.

1943 – SS Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler orders that Gypsies are to be put “on the same level as Jews and placed in concentration camps”.

1949 – Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte are executed by hanging at Ambala Central Jail, Haryana state, India, for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.

1965 – Craig Breedlove drives his General Electric J79 turbojet engine powered Spirit of America – Sonic 1 car at the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah to a land speed record of 600.601 mph which stands for nearly 4 years before being exceeded.

1966 – Gemini 12 completes the program’s final mission, splashing down safely in the Atlantic Ocean.

1967 – The only fatality of the North American X-15 program occurs during the 191st flight when Air Force test pilot Michael J. Adams loses control of his aircraft which is destroyed midair over the Mojave Desert.

1969 – At a depth of 200 feet, the Soviet submarine K-19 collides with the U.S. submarine USS Gato in the Barents Sea with no casualties reported, but heavy damage to the Soviet boat.

1971 – Intel releases the world’s first commercial single chip microprocessor, the 4004.

1979 – American Airlines Flight 444, a Boeing 727 flying from Chicago to  Washington National Airport makes an emergency landing at Dulles International Airport after a bomb sent by Unabomber Ted Kazinski partially detonates in the cargo hold, damaging the plane and causing 12 passengers to be treated for smoke inhalation.

1985 – A research assistant and the intended recipient, a psychology professor at the University of Michigan are injured when a package from the Unabomber explodes.

1987 – Continental Airlines Flight 1713, a Douglas DC-9, crashes during takeoff from Stapleton International Airport in Denver, Colorado, killing 28 of the 82 passengers and crew aboard.

2001 – Microsoft launches the Xbox game console.

2013 – Sony releases the PlayStation 4 game console.

2022 – The world population reached 8 billion.

FBI accused of targeting Trump types; agents who served in military deemed ‘disloyal’

More whistleblowers have stepped forward to tell Congress that high-ranking FBI officials are targeting agents, specifically former military members, for their political beliefs and trying to force them out of the bureau.

A Marine and other military veterans at the FBI have been accused of disloyalty to the U.S. because they fit the profile of a supporter of former President Donald Trump, according to two disclosures sent to lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee.

The Washington Times obtained copies of the disclosures.

The whistleblowers said Jeffrey Veltri, deputy assistant director of the bureau’s security division, and Dena Perkins, assistant section chief, specifically pursued employees who served in the Marine Corps or other military branches.

They stripped the agents of security clearances, which sidelined them on the job and pushed them toward the exit, according to the disclosures.

The whistleblower disclosures say Mr. Veltri and Ms. Perkins either declared or attempted to declare the Marine and other veterans as “disloyal to the United States of America.”

“In these cases there was no indication that any of the individuals had any affiliation to a foreign power or held any belief against the United States,” it said.

Other signs that an employee was a “right-wing radical and disloyal to the United States,” according to Ms. Perkins and Mr. Veltri, were failure to wear a face mask, refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccination and participating in religious activities.

Continue reading “”

Fire them.

400 Government Officials Sign a Letter Objecting to Biden’s Israel Stance.

Many years ago, after a hard day of radio journalism and program directing, I stopped at my favorite brewpub for an IPA and some chicken wings. I noticed a few friends who worked for a government agency and struck up a conversation. I mentioned having seen a story on TV at the gym about the federal government offering free health care to illegal immigrants. I opined that there were plenty of Americans who should receive that consideration before it was extended to people who entered the country unlawfully. One of the women looked at me, blinked, and said, “Well **** you!”

Alright, then. Good talk. It wasn’t the response I expected but considering the fact that people in the federal ecosystem function in an echo chamber, I guess I should not have been surprised. Mike Lee once told me that the people inside the Beltway are essentially unaware of the America or the world outside the Beltway. And with the advent of curated media, it should not be an eye-opener that the same mentality extends to many federal employees. That may go some ways to explaining the letter sent Tuesday to President Joe Biden that was signed by over 400 government officials.

The New York Times obtained a copy of the letter, signed by appointees and staffers across 40 agencies. It began by denouncing the Hamas attack on Israel but also stated:

We call on President Biden to urgently demand a cease-fire; and to call for de-escalation of the current conflict by securing the immediate release of the Israeli hostages and arbitrarily detained Palestinians; the restoration of water, fuel, electricity, and other basic services; and the passage of adequate humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.

The signers cited an October poll by the group Data for Progress, which claims that 66% of Americans agree that “The U.S. should call for a ceasefire and a de-escalation of violence in Gaza. The U.S. should leverage its close diplomatic relationship with Israel to prevent further violence and civilian deaths.” That percentage includes 80% of the Democrats who were surveyed, 57% of Independents, and 56% of Republicans. The complete set of questions and responses can be found here.

Some signatories mentioned they felt that signing the letter could put their jobs at risk. The Times article noted that some officials have said they welcome disagreement but added that employees need to come to terms with the fact that they will not always see eye-to-eye with some policies.

Also worth mentioning is the fact that the majority of those who signed the letter are in their 20s and 30s. This means not only are they living in the federal and left-wing echo chambers, but they are closer in age to college students. So, their “academic” experiences are still relatively fresh in their minds. In addition to whatever matriculation indoctrination they may have received, they tend to take that information and use it to view the world as they wish it to be, not as it truly is. Hence, the misguided notion that if Israel were to stop the offensive, doves of peace would descend from the sky, and we could buy the world a Coke and keep it company. (Kids, ask your grandparents about that.) And they are frustrated that their version of events is not the one that is unfolding.

One can ignore reality all one wants, but it has no plans to go away. And while letters and protests may have served these people well in college, real life and real war are very different than campus demonstrations.