Remember; he has the launch codes.

How does he not know this is completely untrue?
He’s brain dead, that’s how.

Question:
When will children under 12 be able to get ‘vaccinated’?
Answer:
Duuuuuuuhhhh

 

Just may be me, but I think they don’t see that as a ‘bug’ but a ‘feature’.

Bloomberg’s ‘The Trace’: The ATF Can’t Handle Regulating Pistol Braces as NFA Items

Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun agitprop shop, The Trace, is trumpeting the fact that if the Biden administration’s pistol brace proposed regulatory rule ever becomes ATF policy after the public comment period and process is complete, the federal firearms regulatory agency won’t be able to keep up with the demand to register the millions of braces that are owned by people who never signed up for the expense and bureaucracy of NFA regulation when they bought them.

The Trace, of course, frames this as due to a chronic lack of resources — read: federal tax dollars — going to the ATF. In their wold view, we can’t possibly devote enough money to the job of regulating civilian firearms. And the fact that the ATF never seems to have enough money is all part of a deep dark conspiracy by the gun industry and their minions in D.C. to hamstring the regulator.

But Mike’s minions build their prediction of NFA gridlock on one very big assumption. They’re expecting that the millions of owners of brace-equipped pistols will 1) hear about the regulatory change, and 2) choose to comply with it. Registration will include paying a mandatory $200 tax for each brace, an amount that’s more than most of them paid for them in the first place.

Judging by compliance rates for registration schemes enacted in places like New York and California (compliance that would have cost gun owners there nothing), good luck with that.

The rules, which were proposed in June, would bring stabilizing braces under the purview of the National Firearms Act, an 87-year-old law that imposes tight restrictions on machine guns, silencers, rifles with short barrels, and other weapons deemed by Congress to pose an acute threat to public safety.

If the rules come into force, gun owners seeking to attach a stabilizing brace to their pistol would have to obtain approval from the ATF’s NFA Division. That process can stretch more than a year and entails filing an application, undergoing extensive vetting, paying a $200 tax, and registering the weapon with the federal government. Violations can result in a 10-year prison term. 

Mark Jones, a former ATF special agent who held various supervisory positions before retiring in 2011, said the rule change could trigger an avalanche of NFA applications for a division that is underprepared.

“ATF’s been so poorly funded and resourced over the decades that it doesn’t have the people it needs,” Jones said. “If they just snapped their fingers and said, ‘Tomorrow all of you have to register these weapons or you’re felons,’ it would fail in a huge way.”

— Jennifer Mascia in Alain Stephens in Biden’s Pistol Brace Rule Would Put Pressure on an Already Strained ATF Division

Gun and ammo sales started going through the roof in mid 2020 and are just in the last month beginning to look like they’re slowing…a little.

Hrmmmm, summer 2020? Where we had riots and building being in looted and burned while the media called it “mostly peaceful protests.”?

The bug was the excuse given by goobermint to release thousands of prisoners back into the populace ?

Police come under attack, were defunded by city goobermintss and a significant number of officers decided to take early retirement and leave the city’s residents to their own devices ?

You can’t turn on the news and not hear about weekends in major metro cities where 50 or more people are shot.

A lot of eyes have been opened.  When the police have been defunded and the ‘woke’ prosecutors refuse to prosecute for reasons of “equity,”  it becomes crystal clear that nobody is coming to save you and you better be ready to protect yourself.

But Chipman has nothing but contempt for law abiding Americans who want to be able to defend themselves. Of course he’s like that, he’s a career bureaucrap at the ATF and they simply hate law abiding American gun owners.

McCarthy Pulls His Five Republicans From Riot Commission After Pelosi Rejects Conservative Reps

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected two of Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s five choices to sit on the select committee that will investigate the riot at the Capitol on January 6.

Pelosi said that Ranking Judiciary Committee Member Jim Jordan — a close ally of Donald Trump — and Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Banks cannot be on the committee because they might jeopardize “the integrity of the investigation.”

She said it with a straight face so I guess she thinks it’s true.

For his part, McCarthy threatened to pull all the GOP members from the Committee unless Pelosi changed her mind.

“With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives Banks and Jordan to the Select Committee,” Pelosi said in a statement. “The unprecedented nature of January 6th demands this unprecedented decision.”

The appointment of Trump supporters would ruin everything. No one is supposed to defend Trump or the Republicans. The GOP members will be present in order to give a patina of “bipartisanship” to the proceedings.

As CNN points out, because there is one Republican who has agreed to be on the committee — Liz Cheney — it will still be “bipartisan.” McCarthy won’t be able to pull her off the committee.

The committee will still have Republican representation from one member: Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, an outspoken critic of former President Donald Trump who was one of Pelosi’s eight choices to serve on the committee. Cheney’s participation keeps the committee bipartisan even without anyone appointed by McCarthy.

It’s still bipartisan even though no real Republicans will be there because CNN says so.

So there.

McCarthy issued his own statement, taking the high ground and saying, “We will not participate.”

“Denying the voices of members who have served in the military and law enforcement, as well as leaders of standing committees, has made it undeniable that this panel has lost all legitimacy and credibility,” he said. “Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts.”

Washington Post:

A senior Democratic aide familiar with caucus deliberations said many Democratic members were concerned about Banks and Jordan sitting on the committee, based on their past actions and statements. Particularly, members expressed outrage with Banks’s statement in which he blamed “the Left’s authoritarian agenda” for politicizing the committee’s scope. Reports that Jordan had aided then-President Donald Trump in strategizing about how to overturn the election, and the possibility of him testifying before the committee because he spoke to Trump on Jan. 6, made him an unreliable panelist, according to the aide.

Like CNN, the media will claim the proceedings are still “bipartisan” because Cheney — who was appointed to the committee by Pelosi, not McCarthy — will continue to serve. It’s one thing to stand up for your beliefs but quite another to actively seek to undermine your own political party.

This is not about impeachment. It’s about the integrity of Congress, which is threatened by this partisan attempt to destroy Trump and the Republican Party. That Cheney can’t or won’t see that should result in her being kicked out of the Republican caucus.

Would-be robbers shot by armed shoppers in Los Angeles

A man armed with a handgun defended himself during an attempted robbery in Los Angeles, and left two suspects with bullet wounds to the legs, police say.

“Words were apparently exchanged, and the victim ultimately produces a handgun, apparently to defend himself and others in his group from the would-be robbery suspects. The victim fired his weapon towards the suspects and then all parties immediately fled the location,” the Los Angeles Police Department recounted in a press release Tuesday.

The attempted robbery unfolded Monday on Melrose Ave. when two men exited an idling Dodge Avenger, with one of the men producing a handgun.

Video footage shows the men confronting a man with a shopping bag and two women who were standing on the parking lot.

The male victim, who was reportedly the target of the robbery, produced his own handgun and sent the two suspects running as he opened fire.

Police arrested and identified the two suspects as Nicholas Brown and Markeil Hayes, both of Los Angeles, and said they were both booked on attempted robbery and are currently on parole.

Brown sustained a gunshot to the upper left thigh while Hayes was shot in the right calf. Police are still searching for the third suspect and asking the public for help tracking him down.

“The Los Angeles Police Department is aggressively addressing a rise in violent crime in the Melrose area over the past year and is pursuing all leads involved in this and other crimes,” police added in the press release.

Police did not immediately return Fox News’s request for additional comment on the crime.

Homicides in Los Angeles are up 25% this year, with South Los Angeles seeing a 50% increase in killings.

The LA Times Gets It Wrong on Gun Rights

The Los Angeles Times had an editorial yesterday whose title pretty much says it all: “18-Year-Olds Shouldn’t Have the Right to Buy Guns.”

So, let me see if I correctly understand the Times’s position. An 18-year-old woman is walking down a dark street at night. She is accosted by a much bigger, stronger man who violently grabs her. He is armed with a gun and threatens to kill her if she resists. She isn’t armed because of the Times‘s gun-control law that prohibits 18-year-olds, including women, from buying guns. He proceeds to tear her clothes off and rape her. Hoping that she won’t be killed, she submits to the rape. 

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, in its editorial the Times failed to answer an important question: How is that 18-year-old woman supposed to defend herself against that rapist?  

What the Times is essentially advocating is a law that prevents people from defending themselves against rapists and murderers. That 18-year-old woman might not be physically strong enough to resist that rapist, but with one Glock 19 that she pulls out of her purse, things are now equalized. Now it doesn’t matter how much bigger and stronger her rapist is. She can stop him from raping her with just one bullet fired into his abdomen.

Why shouldn’t that 18-year-old woman have the right to defend herself against that rapist? Why should she be required to submit to the rape or else be murdered?

The Times writes:

True, the right to puff on cigarettes or drink alcohol is not written into the U.S. Constitution. But neither is a guarantee that the right to bear arms goes with being a particular age.

Lamentably, those two sentences reflect a woeful lack of understanding of people’s rights and the Constitution. Rights don’t come from the Constitution. They preexist both the Constitution and the federal government that the Constitution called into existence. 

Remember: We just celebrated the Fourth of July, the day on which the Declaration of Independence was published in 1776. That document expressed the revolutionary truth that people’s rights come from nature and God, not from government and not from some document that calls government into existence.

The Constitution never purported to establish people’s rights. It simply called into existence a government whose powers were limited to those few powers that were enumerated in the Constitution itself. If a power wasn’t enumerated, it could not be exercised.

Extremely leery about this new government, the American people demanded the enactment of the Bill of Rights, which expressly protects the citizenry from the federal government. Contrary to popular belief, however, especially in the mainstream press, people’s rights also don’t come from the Bill of Rights. The First and Second Amendments, for example, do not give people the rights of free speech, religious liberty, freedom of assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms. Instead, they prohibit the federal government from infringing on these fundamental rights. 

In fact, what many in the mainstream press fail to recognize is that if the Bill of Rights had never been enacted, people would still have the rights of free speech, religious liberty, freedom of assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms. That’s because people’s natural, God-given rights preexist government.

Oddly, in its editorial the Times didn’t advocate a minimum age of 21 for military service. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the military permit 18-year-old men to handle guns and even orders them to use automatic weapons to kill people in faraway lands who have never committed any act of violence against the United States? Why does the Times trust those 18-year-olds with guns and not private 18-year-olds?

Finally, in its editorial the Times unfortunately failed to call for an end to the root cause of much of the violence in American society — the much-vaunted war on drugs that unfortunately much of the mainstream press continues to support, notwithstanding the massive violence it has been producing for some 50 years. Rather than prohibit 18-year-olds from defending themselves, why not end this horrific government program and then see if gun violence is still a major problem in America?

 

 

Anthony Fauci Is Immune to Answering Questions

Are you tired of Anthony Fauci yet?
Here he is yesterday, giving Rand Paul the runaround again:

Stephen “Not the Trump Guy” Miller goes into Fauci’s rhetorical tricks on his latest podcast. Fauci plays these little games whenever he testifies about this stuff. When he gets a question he doesn’t want to answer, he pretends not to know what his interlocutor is talking about, he parses and nitpicks the technical language, he blusters, and other cheap obfuscatory tricks. Subterfuge. He is shady as hell.

I agree with Miller that Paul is making a mistake by going straight at Fauci so aggressively, because Fauci just puts up his defenses. He makes himself out to be some sort of victim, with the eager help of the media. That’s not the right approach. You need to let Fauci feel comfortable, so he drops his “aggrieved scientist” act and keeps talking until he accidentally says something true.

Not that the partisans on either side care, because they just want “their team” to win, but some of us actually want to know how and why this has been happening to us for the past 18 months. We want Fauci to stop playing these games and just tell the truth.

And if Rand Paul doesn’t know what he’s talking about, if he’s got the definition of gain of function wrong… then what is gain of function? Paul read out the definition during that hearing. If that’s not the correct definition, what is?

Are any journalists going to ask Fauci for his definition of gain of function? If not, why not?

Ha ha, just kidding. There are very few journalists left, and the real ones are ever allowed anywhere near Saint Anthony.

And how’s this for a pullquote:

This is, of course, a lie. Fauci is first and foremost a politician, and politicians lie. He lied to us about masks because he thought we couldn’t handle the truth. He lied to us about herd immunity because he thought we couldn’t handle the truth. And now it sure sounds like he’s lying about gain of function research. He doesn’t act like a guy who’s being honest.

I don’t trust Anthony Fauci anymore, and I don’t trust anybody who expects me to trust him. I want nothing to do with the weird little cult these freaks have built around him. They have the right to their religious beliefs, but it’s not science.

 

Veterans no longer required to pay fees for concealed carry

ONESBORO, Ark. (KAIT) – Veterans will now have an easier time getting their concealed carry license, thanks to a new law that goes into effect next week.

Beginning July 28, veterans and active-duty military will no longer have to pay fees to obtain their concealed carry license.

Logan Lee, the owner and head instructor at 141 Shooting Range, says he has taught several veterans over his career and believes that this decision from Arkansas lawmakers is a no-brainer.

“I feel like carrying a handgun is a God-given right protected by our Constitution,” Lee said. “And that’s what our service members do. They go out there and help preserve our government, our constitutional rights, and if we can make it a little easier for them; they already paid an awesome price for us, why not extend that olive branch out a little bit and let’s take away the fee for them.”

The law is one part of the Arkansas legislature’s effort to reinforce Second Amendment rights, paired with the new Stand Your Ground law that Governor Asa Hutchinson signed in May.

Lee also said that veterans still must go through background checks and the appropriate training but hopes it will help service members across the state.

Deceitful, corrupt, bureaucraps…but I repeat myself

It Sure Looks Like the FBI Basically Orchestrated the Gretchen Whitmer ‘Kidnapping’ Plot.

In news that’s flying below the radar a bit, more evidence of just how corrupt and compromised the FBI has become emerged today.

You may recall the much-ballyhooed plot to supposedly kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer last year. Arrests were made in October of 2020, with the claim being that the FBI had stopped the kidnapping plot as well as a plan to overthrow the government. After it came out in the weeks following the bust that one of the participants was anti-Trump and a Black Lives Matter supporter, the story quickly died down.

All of this was intertwined at the time with the politics of Whitmer’s controversial COVID policies. Earlier in the same year, there had been demonstrations at the state’s capital that drew lots of press attention and condemnation. The insinuation pushed by the media was that those demonstrations had provoked the kidnapping plot.

But now, a big curveball is being thrown into the mix regarding what actually happened. Apparently, the FBI didn’t just have informants within the group where the arrests were made. Rather, FBI operatives played a key role in the planning of the entire ordeal and were also seemingly instrumental in birthing the plot.

Would there have been a Whitmer kidnapping plot without the FBI taking such an active role and egging people on to join in? That’s a question that’s tough to answer without more information, but it certainly shows a level of questionable behavior on the part of the FBI, with agents and superiors going much further than just gathering evidence. As to whether this qualifies as entrapment, I recognize that’s a complicated legal question and won’t attempt to opine on the matter, but man, does this entire thing feel dirty.

Continue reading “”

This week’s global warming predictions.

Every single day, there is something alarming in the news about climate change.  Click on any headline about a natural disaster like a forest fire or a flood or a hurricane, and there will be dire warnings in the article about how this particular phenomenon is worse than ever before because of climate change.  Google the words “climate change,” and you can learn about how it is making poison ivy itchier, glaciers smaller, and the world generally less pleasant to live in.  It is even being theorized that there could be a connection between earthquakes and climate change.

What I don’t understand is why climate change is seen as a bad thing.  It’s normal for the climate to change.  Millions of years before the dinosaurs, the Earth was a solid ball of ice.  During the time of the dinosaurs, there was no ice at all.  The planet continued to cool off and warm up, all without human intervention, and when humans did come along, they adapted to changes in the climate.  Up until the 20th century, nobody thought that a change in the weather warranted prophesying the end of the world.

Today, there is constant alarmism.  The media trumpet melting glaciers and how the rising sea levels will wipe out whole countries, ignoring the fact that 30% of the Netherlands was once underwater.  Is it only in the Netherlands that water management can maintain human habitation?  I think not.  Polar bears are seen to be of special concern, with fears that melting ice will cause them to go extinct, yet according to the World Wildlife Fund, they still exist in their original habitat, range, and natural numbers.  Such being the case, I take leave to doubt that climate change is wiping out polar bears.

In short, not a single horror that has been predicted for the 21st century because of a changing climate has come to pass.  The human race is adapting, as it has always adapted, to new weather conditions.  The planet may warm up, as it has done in the past, and after it warms up, it will cool off, as it has done in the past.  There’s nothing frightening about that simple fact of nature.  The only thing I’ve ever found disconcerting about climate change is the number of people who accept the distressing predictions, without noticing how those predictions get pushed back several decades when they don’t come to pass.

Wait till they figure out that ruining us means their economy tanks, since we won’t buy their crap. Appears that buying SloJoe was probably the stupidest thing they could have done.

China Threatens Nuclear War if U.S. Continues Investigating COVID-19 Origins.

The Chinese are warning about an impending nuclear war if the United States does not cease its investigation into the origins of the COVID pandemic. They warn that the Americans must call off their probe into the sources of the disease — a warning which has prompted many American analysts to conclude that the leaders in Beijing fear discovery of the truth: that they — the Chinese Communists — are the source of the pandemic.

The Chinese Communists have long experimented with bioweapons, and have apparently continued the nasty habit, both recruiting Western scientists and putting them to work on Chinese projects, and smuggling Westerners into projects within China itself. One of the world’s top China experts, British citizen Roger Garside, foresees a mounting crisis, since Beijing will have to confront a triple whammy:  a financial crisis, a moral vacuum, and widespread corruption. In an interview he gave recently about his new book, Garside summarized the situation grimly: China is outwardly strong but inwardly weak.

Continue reading “”

Below The Radar: The PISTOL Act

A while back, we discussed the difference between the ideal and the achievable. It is a conundrum that many Second Amendment supporters have, whether it is legislation or candidates. Our enemies often have the same problem, so we can take some small comfort.

Just as Dianne Feinstein has introduced a fallback measure to the semiauto ban she really wants, the same approach is being taken with regards to the Biden-Harris regime’s attack on AR-15-type pistols (among others). We have discussed the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act on multiple occasions, and it is the ideal solution to address that attack.

However, as Second Amendment supporters have often learned, the ideal solution isn’t always possible.

In this case, removing short-barreled rifles from the purview of the National Firearms Act may not be possible at the present time. In fact, to be very blunt, seeing the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act become law in this Congress is a pipe dream, given who controls the committees and subcommittees.

This is not to say it’s a bad idea – introducing legislation and tracking the cosponsors is a good way to gauge what sort of support there is for efforts to restore our rights. That makes having a fall-back option a good idea. Enter HR 3823, the PISTOL Act.

What this bill, introduced by Representative Bob Good (R-VA), does is to maintain the status quo by stating that firearms like the AR-15 pistols with a stabilizing brace may not be placed under the National Firearms Act. This would end the present threat for the short term – provided that anti-Second Amendment extremists don’t increase their numbers in Congress.

This doesn’t come without trade-offs.

On the one hand, if the PISTOL Act were to be passed into law (say as an amendment to the appropriate appropriations bill), it may make it more difficult to pass the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act in the future. But given the realities that surround passing legislation, even taking a majority in the future won’t make passing the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act a given.

For one thing, the same filibuster that currently is preventing anti-Second Amendment extremists from packing the court and ramming through extreme legislation will be wielded by the likes of Chuck Schumer, Chris Murphy, Dianne Feinstein, and other anti-Second Amendment extremists to block pro-Second Amendment legislation. It cuts both ways, and before Second Amendment supporters contemplate nuking the filibuster to pass such improvements, remember that Harry Reid’s use of the “nuclear option” for nominations backfired to the tune of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett on SCOTUS.

The fact is, the PISTOL Act may be a suitable incremental measure in lieu of passing the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act, and Second Amendment supporters should contact their Senators and Representative and polite urge them to support this legislation. However, it is no substitute for defeating anti-Second Amendment extremists at the ballot box at the federal, state, and local levels.

Cruz and 24 Senate Republicans file amicus brief defending Second Amendment right to carry

Sen. Ted Cruz and two dozen Senate Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, filed an amicus brief Tuesday in a Second Amendment case the Supreme Court is set to hear this fall, arguing that New York gun law violates the right to bear arms under the Constitution.

Cruz and his GOP colleagues filed a brief in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which the Supreme Court granted cert for in April.

The high court, in its October 2021 term, is set to consider whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.

Continue reading “”

Biden launches first airstrike in Somalia targeting Al-Shabaab terrorists

  • The US military command for Africa (AFRICOM) conducted the airstrike in coordination with the Somali government
  • The airstrike was conducted n the vicinity of Galkayo, Somalia about 430 miles northeast of Mogadishu today against al-Shabaab
  • The strike is the first conducted by the U.S. military in Somalia since January 19, when AFRICOM announced it had killed three Shabaab jihadists in two strikes

Continue reading “”

[Kansas] AG Derek Schmidt to U.S. Supreme Court: Second Amendment rights extend outside the home

TOPEKA – (July 20, 2021) – The Second Amendment’s protection for the individual right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms applies outside a person’s residence, Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt today told the U.S. Supreme Court.

Schmidt joined with 25 other state attorneys general in filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the justices to reverse a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that upheld a New York law requiring law-abiding citizens to provide documentation of “proper cause” as to why they should permitted to carry a weapon for protection or other legal use outside the home.

The attorneys general said the New York law is in direct conflict with a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment includes the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear weapons in self-defense, including legally carrying such a weapon outside the home and across state lines. Laws similar to the New York system have been invalidated in several cases in recent years, including a Hawaii law struck down by the 9th Circuit in 2018.

Schmidt said the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the matter would provide clarity that the Second Amendment rights of Kansans and all law-abiding citizens to carry a weapon outside the home is constitutionally protected.

New York’s system for issuing permits runs contrary to Kansas and 41 other states that maintain a “shall issue” licensing regime based on objective criteria for granting a permit, which can include background checks, fingerprinting, and training in firearms handling and/or laws regarding use of force. The attorneys general argue in their brief that New York’s system creates a fundamental burden on citizens without advancing the objectives of public safety and crime prevention, leaving firearms in the hands of a select, chosen few who can demonstrate to the government a “special need.”

The amicus brief in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., v. Bruencan be found at https://bit.ly/3znJSgZ.