What will Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s latest investigation reveal? Will Congress hold hearings about it? Will former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe actually get indicted? After all, it’s said that a motivated prosecutor can “indict a ham sandwich” if he really wants to.
We’re so wrapped up in the daily tick-tock, we could be losing sight of a big picture that’s come into focus over the past two years. For the first time in our nation’s history, an inspector general — one appointed by President Obama — has determined that at least two men who sat in the top spot at the FBI committed multiple violations that warrant possible prosecution. That in itself is a scandal with national implications deserving of headlines, congressional hearings and promises to overhaul a broken system.
Of course, the complicating factor in the whole mess is that the government entities responsible for addressing any wrongdoing are the same ones inextricably tied to the alleged wrongdoing.
You’d think if he was going to lie like that, he could do a better job.
Either he’s sliding into Alzheimer’s, or he actually thinks were that stupid.
I know, I know. Embrace the mighty power of ‘and‘.
A noble aspiration, but this is a condition of the heart and mind of fallen man and that won’t change until we have a new Heaven and Earth.
Undoubtedly the worst day in any family’s life is when a police officer arrives at their residence to inform them that a loved one has been killed either in a mass shooting or in a senseless act of violence at work or driving or walking to or from their place of employment.
The family’s grief would be palpable; their anger would be understandable because no human being’s life should be ended by an act of violence. Unfortunately, there are violent human beings in every society who because of mental illness or are just plain evil — harboring resentment against “others” whether they are members of any easily identifiable racial, ethnic, or religious group.
The recent spate of mass shootings has brought into focus the AR-15 rifle used in virtually all the horrific acts of violence that have claimed hundreds of lives across America. In response, many media pundits, anti-Second Amendment activists, and virtually all Democratic presidential candidates decry the private ownership of the AR-15 “assault rifle,” and call for a “government buyback” of these firearms or outright confiscation of the rifle as their solution to ending mass shootings in America.
The AR does not stand for “assault rifle,” a gross mischaracterization of a firearm that was created in the 1950s by the ArmaLite Company that branded it. The AR-15 is a semiautomatic, lightweight rifle and has the same capabilities as a semiautomatic handgun. This means that only one round can be fired at a time when the trigger is pulled, unlike a machine gun, which is capable of firing bullets repeatedly by holding the trigger down. Since 1986 civilians can no longer purchase machine guns.
In short, the term assault rifle is a politically loaded term based on federal and state law definitions. The government defines an assault weapon as a semiautomatic rifle, pistol and shotguns that have the capability to use detachable magazines. Nevertheless, why would any citizen want to own a firearm that looks like a military weapon? The AR-15 is typically used for target shooting, hunting, home defense and competitive matches. In other words, 99%-plus of lawful AR-15 owners are peaceful, given that 5-10 million AR-15-type rifles are owned by private citizens.
But the advocates of banning the private ownership of so-called assault weapons assert that “Enough Is Enough,” and that to stop the carnage in America the government — which is supposed to protect our safety and security — must not kowtow to Second Amendment defenders who believe that there is a fundamental right to self-defense.
Have the “gun grabbers” thought through their proposal to ban the AR-15 or similar type firearm? Apparently not, because if they did, a ban on so-called assault weapons would, yes, increase shootings. In other words, the law of unintended consequences would kick in.
Prohibition of any substance or item leads to black markets. Our experience with alcohol prohibition during the 1920s and early 1930s and drug prohibition today are the quintessential examples of policies that increase violence — and corruption — in our society.
The violence that would ensue after a ban of so-called assault weapons would turn our cities — and rural communities — into killing fields as black market gangs would vie for turf to sell their contraband to individuals who would defy the government’s “assault” on their Second Amendment rights. In addition, law enforcement officers would have to be armed to the teeth to eliminate the assault weapon black market. Funerals for police officers would skyrocket.
But instead of a knee jerk reaction to mass shootings, maybe, just maybe, federal elected officials and presidential candidates would reflect how their actions have contributed to mass shootings.
A common trait of most mass shooters is that they served in the military, had been rejected to serve or came from a military family. In an essay, “Wars and Domestic Massacres,” Libertarian Lew Rockwell makes the compelling argument that our foreign policy of unending global conflict that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of individuals in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, promotes a “culture of violence” in America that cannot be dismissed.
In sum, banning rifles would not end mass shootings, but a foreign policy of peace and commerce with all would be the humane way of leading by example. Maybe then we will be safer at home instead of eviscerating the Second Amendment.
Background checks for gun sales, concealed-carry permits, and security spiked in August as congressional Democrats renewed their push for expanded gun control in the wake of several mass shootings.
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System recorded a 15.5 percent uptick in background checks last month, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
The jump in gun sales appears to have been spurred by a desire to secure self-protection amid an epidemic of mass shootings in the U.S., before Congress potentially approves stricter gun-control measures such as an assault-weapons ban, universal background checks, or limits on ammunition.
The NSSF also pointed out that some states saw a particularly steep jump in background checks last month, with Alabama’s NSSF-adjusted number jumping over 100 percent from August of last year, and Minnesota’s number increasing 68.9 percent.
London, 16 September: An international opinion poll published today reveals that half of the UK population and most European citizens are sceptical about the conventional climate alarm.
Despite blanket coverage of the antics of Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion on the BBC and elsewhere in the media, just 51% of Britons think that mankind is the main cause of climate change.
And as the poll reveals, a majority of Europeans, including two thirds of Scandinavians, are dissenters from the climate “consensus”.
According to GWPF director, Dr Benny Peiser, the general public is hard to fool:
“The public can tell when they are on the receiving end of a hard sell. The more climate alarmists scream about emergencies, the more the mainstream media shut down any dissent, the less convinced the man in street will be.”
And although the results have been met with incredulity, according to Dr Peiser, they merely confirm earlier polls, like the British Social Attitudes Survey, which also found that climate scepticism was thriving among the public.
As Dr Peiser explains:
“According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Britons are actually becoming happier and wealthier. When they are being told that there is a climate emergency, that they must tighten their belts and that nobody seriously disagrees, people naturally assume that they are being conned.”
California Senate passed a resolution telling Christian clergy to accept and support LGBTQ ideology, even if doing so violates their Christian beliefs.
Assembly Concurrent Resolution 99 (ACR-99) was introduced by Democratic state Assemblyman Evan Low of San Jose on June 4 as a way to gather support for LGBTQ identity and behaviors.
CBN News previously reported that more than two dozen doctors, counselors, former homosexuals, and other Christian leaders signed a letter condemning the resolution, which they said violates religious freedom.
The resolution also condemns counseling for unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion, known as conversion therapy.
The bill says “California law recognizes that performing conversion therapy on young persons is ineffective, unethical, and harmful. Conversion therapy has been rejected as ineffective, unethical, and harmful by leading medical, mental health, and child welfare organizations in the United States.”
Several Christian leaders are speaking out against the resolution saying it infringes upon their free exercise of religion.
This unexpected conclusion was reached by studying that precious source of evidence in modern archaeology: ancient garbage.
Specifically, a team of researchers analyzed slag, the waste left over from metal smelting, at ancient copper production sites in the Aravah Valley, a region that spans the southern deserts of Israel and Jordan and was once the heartland of the Edomite nation.
The team of American, Israeli and Jordanian archaeologists found that people at different sites in the Aravah were producing metal using the same standardized techniques, which improved and advanced in parallel, more than 3,000 years ago. This, the archaeologists say, is a sign that there was a strong, centralized entity that coordinated copper production over vast distances: in other words, a state.
And this in turn would mean that the Edomite kingdom was already formed by the mid-11th century B.C.E., some 300 years earlier than previously thought, the archaeologists conclude in a paper published Wednesday in the scientific journal PLOS One.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently suggested Miami would disappear in “a few years” due to climate change. The United Nations is convening a “Climate Action Summit” next week. And climate activist Greta Thunberg is on Capitol Hill this week telling lawmakers they must act soon.
But while data from NASA and other top research agencies confirms global temperatures are indeed rising, a newly compiled retrospective indicates the doomsday rhetoric is perhaps more overheated.
The conservative-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute has put together a lengthy compilation of apocalyptic predictions dating back decades that did not come to pass, timed as Democratic presidential candidates and climate activists refocus attention on the issue.
The dire predictions, often repeated in the media, warned of a variety of impending disasters – famine, drought, an ice age, and even disappearing nations – if the world failed to act on climate change.
An Associated Press headline from 1989 read “Rising seas could obliterate nations: U.N. officials.” The article detailed a U.N. environmental official warning that entire nations would be eliminated if the world failed to reverse warming by 2000.
Then there were the fears that the world would experience a never-ending “cooling trend in the Northern Hemisphere.” That claim came from an “international team of specialists” cited by The New York Times in 1978.
Just years prior, Time magazine echoed other media outlets in suggesting that “another ice age” was imminent. “Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest,” the magazine warned in 1974. The Guardian similarly warned in 1974 that “Space satellites show new Ice Age coming fast.”
In 1970, The Boston Globe ran the headline, “Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century.” The Washington Post, for its part, published a Columbia University scientist’s claim that the world could be “as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age.”
Some of the more dire predictions came from Paul Ehrlich, a biologist who famously urged population control to mitigate the impacts of humans on the environment. Ehrlich, in 1969, warned that “everybody” would “disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years,” The New York Times reported.
Prosecutors presented evidence in court that defendant Abdul-Majeed Marouf Ahmed Alani has a brother in Iraq with potential ties to ISIS and lied about visiting him in the country in March. A search of Alani’s phone by prosecutors turned up a “disturbing” ISIS video of someone being shot in the head. Alani allegedly sent the video to someone along with a message that Allah should take revenge against non-Muslims, but it’s unclear if the video was texted, emailed or transmitted by another electronic method.”
At the beginning of the month, the story was framed as Alani being arrested “on a sabotage charge accusing him of disabling a navigation system on a flight with 150 people aboard before it was scheduled to take off from Miami International Airport earlier this summer. The reason, according to a criminal complaint affidavit filed in Miami federal court: Abdul-Majeed Marouf Ahmed Alani, a veteran employee, was upset over stalled union contract negotiations.
Do you ever get the feeling that climate change is a cult? Does it ever seem like its adherents are immune to reason as they vindictively lash out at anyone who questions their beliefs? Wouldn’t it be nice if they just left you alone and let you live your life?
Well, too bad. You live in 2019 and you use modern technology and conveniences. You eat food that actually tastes good. You’re guilty and you need to confess. Repent, sinner!
Just to point out:
I’m convinced that after years of studying the phenomenon, global warming is not the real issue of temperature,” said Klaus, an economist by training. “That is the issue of a new ideology or a new religion. A religion of climate change or a religion of global warming. This is a religion which tells us that the people are responsible for the current, very small increase in temperatures. And they should be punished…………..
Dear Blue State America: This is what we do for fun. Now please, follow through on your threats to come and take our guns away. Good night and sleep tight!
Very truly yours,
Red State America
How you can tell that Proggies know transgenderism is a con.
Even as Proggies push transgenderism, telling us a trans woman or man is a real woman or man, their own behavior shows they know this is a scam.
Well, we’ve known for a long time that proggies and demoncraps are past masters at the con-game.
Leftists repeat endlessly that those people whom they call “transgender” are really the sex they claim to be, rather than the sex their genes cause them to be. A man named Julia Serano, who thinks he’s a woman, wrote an entire very, very long post entitled Debunking “Trans Women Are Not Women” Arguments to this effect.
I’m cherry-picking here, but the following is my understanding of a few of the arguments Serano makes to establish that he and those like him are women. I consider each nonsensical, but won’t debunk them now, because I have a different goal for this post:
- When he goes out looking female, he experiences sexism, which means he is having “very real life experiences as a woman.”
- He’s a feminist!
- You can’t tell people’s sex chromosomes by looking at them.
- Some biological women can’t get pregnant.
- Pointing to women’s biology as a reason for saying men aren’t women is sexist because people have historically pointed to women’s biology as a reason to keep them barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. (He doesn’t use those words, but that’s the best way to summarize his argument.)
- The socialization argument (e.g., Bruce Jenner can’t be a woman because he lived most of his life as a man and was therefore never socialized as a woman) is wrong because. . . . Okay, I admit, I can’t make heads or tails of the analogy Serano makes to rebut this. Maybe you can figure this one out: “I ask you to consider the following scenario: A young girl is forced against her will to live as a boy. Upon reaching adulthood, after years of male socialization and privilege, she comes out about identifying as female and begins to live as a woman. Do you accept her as a woman? If your answer is yes, then it is hypocritical of you to not also accept trans women as women.” Huh? Is it me or did that ignore biology entirely?
- Men who think they’re women don’t retain their male energy and male privilege and this sacrifice proves that they’re really women.
- You’re being sexist if you claim that men who think they’re women are just caricatures of women. Remember, these men are feminists!
There are more “arguments” to be found at the link, but you get my point. Serano isn’t trying to convince us that he’s more to be pitied than censured because he suffers from a mental illness that makes him believe he’s a woman. Instead, he is insisting that he is, in fact, a woman.
The above is from a self-published post at Medium. Don’t let that fool you into thinking, though, that Serano is just a lone voice in the LGBTQ+ wilderness. During June (Gay Pride Month), the New York Times gave some of its rarefied real estate to Serano, publishing an op-ed he wrote assuring us that the “science of gender is rarely simple.” That’s gobbledygook.
Why Soft-on-Crime Democrats Are Tough on ‘Gun Violence’
By embracing the magical thinking behind gun control, the Democrats remind us they would rather punish society and label law-abiding citizens wrongdoers than confront the criminal class.
At their third primary debate, nearly all of the Democratic presidential contenders offered full-throated support for gun control. In the very recent past, gun control measures bowed to prudence by respecting the rights and expectations of law-abiding gun owners—even the Clinton “assault weapons ban” grandfathered weapons and magazines manufactured and purchased before the ban took effect.
Now, however, the rhetoric has shifted and become even more radical and uncompromising.
For example, supposed moderate Joe Biden said, “Over 90 percent of the American people think we have to get assault weapons off the street—period. And we have to get buybacks and get them out of their basements.” Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said we should “start” with a gun buyback aimed at assault weapons. Former U.S. Representative Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) took things further: “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47!”
He’s so proud of himself that he put his quote on a t-shirt.
The Rhetoric of “Gun Violence” Obscures the Reality of Violent Crime
At first glance, these appear to be tough statements by Democrats who want to tackle the problem of mass shootings. Everyone is frustrated by these costly and random crimes. But these high profile shootings are not increasing, and their rarity is obscured by disproportionate media coverage ……….
As I wrote last year, “the right to bear arms also comes at a price, and that cost has arguably become more pronounced as our society has become more fractured and disorderly. The honest argument in favor of the Second Amendment is that it’s worth it.”
Today, September 18, 1947, the US Air Force was “born” with the implementation of the National Security Act of 1947. This was a major restructure of the nation’s military after World War 2. It created the National Military Establishment (later remodeled as the Department of Defense), the Department of the Air Force as a sub-department, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Council. The Army Air Forces became the United States Air Force.
In the fall of 1989, the peoples of Eastern Europe rose up against their Communist oppressors. The tyrants ruling these nations had no moral compunction about shooting their subjects down, but fortunately, they couldn’t count on their armed forces to do it. So the Iron Curtain fell, and two years later, even the mighty Soviet Union was brought down when the Red Army, sent into Moscow, refused the orders of those attempting to brutally reinstate Stalinist rule.
But imagine what might have occurred had those soldiers been not human beings but robots, lacking in any sympathy or humanity, ready, willing, and able to reliably massacre anyone the authorities chose to be their targets.
This is the threat posed by the emerging technology known as “autonomous weapons.”…………….
This danger is illustrated by a recent paper written by a committee of artificial-intelligence experts, which included both strong advocates for autonomous weaponry and some with more cautious attitudes. Reaching a compromise, the group proposed that:
States should consider adopting a 5-year, renewable moratorium on the development, deployment, transfer, and use of anti-personnel lethal autonomous weapon systems . . .
The moratorium would not apply to:
Anti-vehicle or anti-materiel weapons
Non-lethal anti-personnel weapons
Research on ways of improving autonomous weapon technology to reduce non-combatant harm in future anti-personnel lethal autonomous weapon systems
Weapons that find, track, and engage specific individuals whom a human has decided should be engaged within a limited predetermined period of time and geographic region.
One cannot help but note that most of the applications called out to be excluded from the moratorium are those directed against civilians, rather than opposing armed forces.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) — A man accused of robbing another man at gunpoint was ultimately shot by the victim, Providence Police said.
The robbery and shooting happened on Simmons Street shortly before 11 p.m. Monday night.
Tyrelle Palmer, 26, was charged with armed robbery after being located by police at Rhode Island Hospital, according to a police report.
According to the report, the alleged victim told officers he was outside his home smoking when Palmer “came up to him and placed a firearm to his head and said, ‘run your pockets.’”
According to the victim, Palmer wasn’t “satisfied” with what was in his pockets and pushed him inside the apartment. A physical altercation ensued, and the victim was able to reach his own gun and shoot Palmer, according to the report.
The report says Palmer fled the home, and the victim returned his gun to his safe.
Major David Lapatin said the robbery victim is not being charged with shooting Palmer, though the incident is still under investigation.
Why do Democrats want to take away your AR-15? The fact that such a weapon was used by the Odessa shooter was the basis for Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke’s infamous declaration: “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47!” But this is like banning cars because automobile accidents kill more than 40,000 Americans a year, or banning tall buildings because more than 35,000 Americans die each year from accidental falls. O’Rourke is advocating what might be called the Instrumental Theory of Evil: The cause of our problems is not bad people, but bad things. Therefore, ban the evil things!
Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke dismissed criticism and “hang-wringing” about his much-discussed debate statement that “Hell yes” he wants to confiscate assault weapons, saying those concerns “just show you how screwed up the priorities in Washington, D.C., are.”
“I refuse to even acknowledge the politics or the polling or the fear or the NRA,” O’Rourke told “NBC’s Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd on Sunday. “That has purchased the complicity and silence of members of Congress.”
See, according to O’Rourke, the reason we have not yet banned the evil AR-15 is because, unlike him, other people lack courage and integrity. Democrats believe guns are evil, and therefore only bad people own guns, which means that prejudice against gun owners is a virtue. This explains why the campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination has become a contest to see who hates gun owners the most. Does it matter that the premise of their argument is demonstrably wrong?
In 1994, a ten-year prohibition on the manufacture, possession, and transfer of certain “semiautomatic assault weapons” was signed into law.
And what was the result of this ban? . . . A Justice Department report examining the impact of the ban was underwhelming at best. “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement,” the report states.
The report goes on to explain that the law’s larger impact on overall gun violence was minimal, because the banned weapons were rarely involved in criminal acts in the first place. According to the FBI, rifles — a broader category that lumps together your grandpappy’s hunting rifle with military-style rifles — constitute an average of 340 homicides per year. Though any loss of life is tragic, these numbers don’t exactly rise to the occasion in solving what is commonly characterized as a national epidemic. . . .
Between 2007 and 2018, 173 people were killed by mass shooters using an AR-15, according to a New York Times analysis — roughly, 15 per year. (For perspective, 13 people die per year from vending machines falling on them.) The fearmongering regarding this weapon becomes even more apparent when one considers the estimated 8 million AR-15s currently in circulation — the vast majority of which will never be involved in a crime.
So, just to make sure everybody’s got this in proper perspective: According to the FBI, there were 17,284 murders in the United States. Also, according to the FBI, in an average year, rifles are the weapons used in 340 homicides. Simple math tells us that rifles — all rifles, of every kind — are used in less than 2% of U.S. murders, and AR-15s account for only a tiny fraction (0.09%) of U.S. murders.
Even if we banned all rifles, 98% of murders would still happen, and banning AR-15s wouldn’t even reduce murders by one-tenth of 1%! Yet the audience at the Democrat debate erupted in applause when O’Rourke promised that “we” (i.e., Democrats) are “going to take your AR-15.”
Democrats hate you. They really, really hate you.