Category: Crap For Brains

“I’ll take ‘Totally Lacking Due Process” for $500, Alex

On Trump and Colorado

By now most readers will have heard that Donald Trump was disqualified from the ballot in the state of Colorado, by the Colorado State Supreme Court, for what amounts to a criminal offense neither proven nor charged. Fifth Amendment, Schmifth Amendment, apparently.

This is a major escalation of the lawfare phenomenon that’s zoomed from simmer to boil in the seven short years since Trump was first elected in 2016. The glee of #Resistance dolts like Robert Reich and Dean Obeidallah at this decision shows that this was a move dreamed up at the very center of the bubble-within-a-bubble-within-a-bubble that is the blob of the modern Democratic Party. Racket readers, I had a piece planned for later on a quasi-related subject, but I’ll try to get it out in the day or so now.

 

The Self-Described “Subversive” Dance Group the Bidens Invited to the White House.

Yesterday I posted a short note about the dance company that the Bidens invited to the White House to perform as part of their Christmas celebration. I simply linked to Jill Biden’s video of the performance with a short note that observed that this was how the Bidens, who profess to be Catholics, celebrate the birth of Christ. I had intended to let the video speak for itself and to let the viewers draw their own conclusions. I still want that. But I was prompted by a comment from one of my subscribers to do a little research into Dorrance Dance, the dance company featured in the White House performance. What I found was a surprise, although perhaps it should not have been.

I learned that the Dorrance Dance is not just another entertainment group that happens to specialize in tap dancing. Rather, it is an ultra-radical political organization that designs and intends its performances to be “subversive.” The company’s statements and recommendations on its website provide the context that explains what it means when it says that its dancing is meant to be “subversive.” I summarize this below.

Mrs. Biden’s post says that the video is a “playful interpretation of The Nutcracker Suite.” Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker Suite was first performed as a ballet in 1892. It was centered around a young girl’s Christmas eve and her adventures with her nutcracker doll, who came alive as a charming prince. With its performances including Christmas trees, toys, candy, snowflakes and, the joy in seeing a young child’s wonderment at the ideal of a symbol of love come to life, it naturally has become famous as a celebration of Christmas.

The abbreviated jazzed-up tap dance version of Tchaikovsky’s masterpiece performed by the Dorrance Dance company, and on display at the Biden White House, is not intended as a celebration of Christmas. Rather, it is intended to subvert traditional values, such as Christmas.

Don’t take my word for it – Dorrance Dance says on its own website that “At its core, tap dance is a subversive form.” “Subversion” has been defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “trying to destroy or damage an established system or government.”

The White House almost certainly knew that Dorrance Dance was a subversive company and intentionally so. Public performers at the White House are vetted for security reasons. One of those reasons, presumably, is to identify potentially subversive actors who should be scrutinized closely. Certainly, at a minimum, the White House staff and Secret Service would scrutinize the web site of a company such as Dorrance Dance. They would want to know the identity and backgrounds of the performers who would be coming to the White House.

When the Secret Service and the White House staff checked out Dorrance Dance, this is what they would have found (among other things) that provides the context for its pledge to be “subversive”:

· “It is our job to tell the history of tap dance as a celebration of Black culture and also the never-ending struggle against systemic racism and white supremacy in this country – the origin story of appropriation in American culture.” [All bolded emphasis is added.]

· “The answer to police violence is not ‘reform.’ It’s defunding.”

·     White people should “Join fights to defund the police.”

And statements by the founder of the company, Michelle Dorrance:

·     “I am a white tap dancer with Black cultural ancestors in a society that privileges white people and whiteness.”

·     “It is from this place of white privilege that I invite you to join me in lifelong antiracism work. Understanding how deeply embedded white supremacy, racism, and colonialism is in our culture is paramount to understanding our role (as white people) in perpetuating it and embracing our job to dismantle it.”

In short, even a casual look at Dorrance Dance’s website would have revealed its constant references to “whiteness,” “white privilege,” “white supremacy,” “systematic racism,” and the like. Any reviewer also would see that Dorrance Dance has sounded the call to do away with prisons and policing, and that it has endorsed the likes of Ibram A. Kendi “(who has argued that “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”), as well as racist ideas such as the 1619 Project (which has been discredited for, among other things, its false argument that one of the principal reasons for the American Revolutionary War was to preserve slavery). All this makes clear that its agenda is one of radical and political activism and the “subversion” of traditional – and necessary – values and institutions (such as the police!).

We must presume that the Secret Service brought these red flags to the attention of the President, the First Lady, and/or their senior staffs. There is no other possible conclusion other than, perhaps, sheer incompetence. Yet, they went forward with the Dorrance Dance performance anyway. Why? Because it is what they wanted.

The Bidens and their staffs plainly agreed to a White House Christmas celebration that was intended to be “subversive” of traditional American values.  That should not be a surprise because it was a decision aligned with numerous other well-documented Biden policies and initiatives that are trying to subvert — “to destroy or damage”— the traditional American “system,” — a system that has brought unprecedented wealth and security to millions of people of all races and origins.

Bill to Ban Gun CAD Files Nears Vote In The Senate

A bill to ban computer-aided design (CAD) gun file sharing could be voted on in the United States Senate any day.

The bill reads: “It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally distribute, over the internet or by means of the World Wide Web, digital instructions in the form of Computer Aided Design files or other code that can automatically program a 3-dimensional printer or similar device to produce a firearm or complete a firearm from an unfinished frame or receiver.”

Senate Bill 1819 is known as the 3D Printed Gun Safety Act and was introduced by Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) and co-sponsored by 28 other Democrats, including Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Chris Murphy (D-CT), and the late Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). It also has support from most of the other Democrats in the Senate.

“Let me be clear: We aren’t just talking about water pistols here,” said Co-sponsor Senate Kristin Gillibrand (D-NY). “We’re talking about real, fully operational semi-automatic firearms like AR-15 rifles and Beretta M9 handguns. Because many of the 3D printed guns are made of plastic, they can bypass metal detectors commonly used at…secure public areas. People are going into these public spaces and using these ghost guns to commit crimes, and law enforcement is finding it more and more difficult to stop them.”

The bill will prevent the sharing of gun CAD, which is hosted on sites such as Defense Distributed’s Def CAD website. The CAD files let anyone with a 3D printer print a firearm receiver. The affordability of 3D Printers that can be purchased for as little as a few hundred dollars has led to an explosion of DIY gun builders that design and print firearms. The 3D print revolution has made gun laws obsolete.

Due to the lack of action in Congress, President Joe Biden ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to issue a rule banning 80% kits and changed the classification of unfinished frames to be considered firearms. The ATF rule change did not address the 3D printing of guns.

Some states have proposed radical laws to try to cut down on the printing of firearms. New York has proposed a law that would require background checks to buy a 3D printer. Anyone the government prohibits from owning firearms would also be prevented from acquiring a 3D printer.

The proposed federal law raises constitutional questions beyond just the Second Amendment. Many believe that computer code is protected speech, and this law would run afoul of the First Amendment. Many books and resources exist that teach people how to make drugs and bombs, like the Anarchist Cookbook. Some in the gun community reason if that is protected by freedom of speech, then computer code that allows someone to make a gun must also be covered by the First Amendment.

A companion bill in the House of Representatives is currently in the House Judiciary. The House bill is expected to fail due to a lack of support from Republicans. It is doubtful that the Senate bill will have enough votes for a supermajority, but the Democrats have been able to pressure the Republicans into passing anti-gun bills such as the Bi-Partisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA).

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”
– George Santayana

1-in-5 Young Americans Say Holocaust Was a Myth, Twice as Many Democrats as Republicans

A new poll sheds light on why so many college-aged Americans aren’t worried about expressing antisemitism: Twenty percent of those between the ages of 18 and 29 believe the Holocaust is a myth.

Specifically, as The College Fix reports, the YouGov/The Economist poll shows eight percent of that age group “strongly agrees” that the World War II Nazi  Jewish genocide program is bogus, while 12 percent “tend to agree.”

Thirty percent neither agreed nor disagreed the Holocaust happened, The Hill reports.

In addition, twenty-three percent said the Holocaust “has been exaggerated,” and 28 percent believe Jews “wield too much power” in the U.S.

More blacks and Hispanics than whites agreed with the three statements, and the Holocaust “myth” results held steady across all education levels.

In comparison, no Americans over age 65 said the Holocaust is a myth, only two percent “tend to agree” it’s exaggerated, and six percent believe Jews have too much power.

“Why do some young Americans embrace such views?” The Economist asks.

Continue reading “”

Biden/Buttigieg DEI Policies Endanger the Country. They Don’t Care.
The FAA is seeking people suffering from “severe intellectual and psychiatric disabilities” to be air traffic controllers.

The country currently is in the throes of an epidemic of mass insanity and irrationality. The manifestations of the disorder are too numerous to cite, but the explosion of the DEI plague being pushed by the government, many businesses, and the intellectual pigmies in most of the media, must be included in any list of the most egregious. As currently advocated and practiced by our leftist “elites,”1 it is incompatible with rationality, common sense, and morality, among other things, and, as the Wall Street Journal, not to mention the Supreme Court, have pointed out, the U.S. Constitution.

There is a brand of this particular wokeness that is relatively unknown to the general public, but that is particularly irrational and dangerous.  It is the Federal Aviation Administration’s relatively young DEI mandates. These Biden/Buttigieg DEI commands now apply to the employment of FAA air traffic controllers in an insidious way, a way that threatens the safety of our skies and of anyone who flies.

WHAT DO AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS DO?

To understand how insidious and dangerous the FAA’s DEI policies are, it is necessary to examine briefly just what air traffic controllers do and the nature of the job. The description that follows includes some detail about their tasks. Bear with me because it shows that being an ATC is not a job for dummies, or even for intellectual giants who cannot make crucial decisions in a short amount of time while under great stress.

First, just to be considered for possible employment, an ATC candidate must first pass a battery of seven tests covering numerical calculations, progressively difficult memory tests, problems involving rapidly changing image relationships, visual computer problems simulating collision avoidance, reading comprehension, logical reasoning, and a personality test. A description of the tests and sample problems are here. Take a stab at some of the sample problems to see how difficult they are and the built-in time limitations and pressures.

By the time they finish their training, ATCs must be experts in a number of areas that affect safety. These include weather, types of aircraft and their characteristics, navigation and the use of multiple types of navigational aids, effective communications with pilots, and radio and radar operations. To ensure pilot and passenger safety, ATCs must be skilled in, among other things, math, including the ability to make quick calculations in a dynamic environment, problem-solving, effective communication, and split-second decision making.

Continue reading “”

This CNN Reporter Just Had a Come to Jesus Moment About Hamas.

A veteran CNN Middle East reporter with two decades of experience now admits that “too many of us treated the group more like an opposition party with occasional violent outbursts than a terrorist organization.”

“Journalists working in conflict zones,” Ilene Prusher wrote in a CNN op-ed this week, “too often pull punches in the interest of appearing neutral, or perhaps to ensure that they stay in the good graces of the gunmen in charge.”

Prusher concludes that “if journalists continue to interview members of Hamas, we should report their words more critically and not take their comments at face value. We should provide context that notes how unverifiable their information is and how poor their track record for accuracy has been.”

There’s a word for that: journalism. Let’s give Prusher two cheers for encouraging her colleagues to actually commit some for a change.

I might fairly ask Prusher, “What took you so long?” It isn’t as though she were ignorant of the Middle East and its major players. But since it’s my policy never to interrupt someone when they’re busy talking their way over to my side of an issue, I’ll leave her be.

“By and large, we reporters ate it up,” she explained without prompting, in no small part because “Our editors wanted us to have access to this shadowy group.”

What is access, anyway?

Last month when I was in Miami for the previous GOP presidential debate, Yours Truly (and the rest of the Townhall crew in town that night) were granted access to the post-debate spin room. That meant we would have the chance to speak one-on-one with the candidates or maybe their managers and surrogates.

Please note: It’s called the spin room because that’s where the candidates, their managers, and their surrogates go to put their spin on what just happened. Spin can be anything from putting a friendlier face on a fierce debate performance to literally (not really) polishing a turd and hoping some know-nothing reporter will pick it up and run with it.

But getting and keeping access can be a whole lot more complicit than anything that happens in a spin room between candidate and reporter.

Infamously, CNN used to downplay Saddam Hussein’s atrocities against the people of Iraq to maintain the network’s access to the Hussein regime. That was a case where the appearance of reporting the news — “Hey, we’re talking to all these Iraqi officials, so it must be real news!” — was more important to CNN than actually reporting the news. They were happy to be lied to and to repeat those lies because it filled airtime and sold commercials.

The mainstream media’s dirty little secret is that so much reporting involves little more than getting and maintaining access to important people by giving them the airtime they desire.

And yet, “How often did that stop us from reporting what they told us?” as Prusher asked in her come-to-Jesus column. “That dynamic was on display last month when many mainstream media outlets immediately repeated Hamas’ claim that an Israeli air strike had devastated a hospital and killed a big round figure of 500 Palestinians.”

Prusher and so many others are — or in her case, was — happy to trade integrity for the allure of access to a “shadowy group” who expertly preyed on their vanities.

Except, of course, for the mainstream media’s reporters and stringers who are all-in with Hamas to begin with and never had any integrity to begin with.

What we know about the deceased UNLV gunman, ABC News reports
ABC News reports that 67-year-old Tony Polito is the gunman who killed three and hospitalized 1 at UNLV.

LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — 67-year-old Tony Polito is the deceased gunman of the UNLV shooting that took place Wednesday afternoon, ABC News reports.

ABC has been able to verify a LinkedIn page and a website that is believed to have been operated by Tony Polito.
ABC says Polito is the gunman, armed with a handgun, who killed three and hospitalized one. The news outlet says there are multiple victims of the shooting. Reports came around 11:59 a.m.

Polito’s home is believed to be in the 300 block of Arroyo Grande, where the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department was granted a search warrant to continue investigating.

ABC says detectives have retrieved his phone and are now examining it for contents of clues about what could have motivated the killer’s attack. Since the victims killed were not students, it suggests to investigators that the rampage was not random and could have been targeting certain people because of some previous relationship or interaction.

AP reported that Polito unsuccessfully sought a job at the school.

Polito is said to have ties to North Carolina and Georgia, where he previously worked as a college professor.

On his personal website, Polito has published a 15-page document on the Zodiac Killer, claiming to have decoded some of the cryptic messaging from the Zodiac Killer. The website also lists the various courses he seems to have taught, with syllabi and schedules, the most recent one being a Business class from 2017 at East Carolina University.

On the website, Polito also has writing about Las Vegas; although it is not clear when these were written. He wrote that he had the pleasure of making more than two dozen trips to Vegas in the last 15 years.

He also shared numerous links to news articles and references to travel guides for Vegas on his website.

On LinkedIn, Polito describes himself as a “Semi-Retired University Professor” living in Las Vegas. His most recent and only listed position is an Associate Professor at East Carolina University, where he listed that he worked between 2001 and 2017. Polito has also listed his Ph.D. in Philosophy and his Master’s in Business Administration from the University of Georgia and Duke University, respectively.

He has numerous endorsements from his colleagues at East Carolina University for his skills in student affairs, public speaking and teaching.

Channel 13 is working to confirm additional information about the four known shooting victims.

Continue reading “”

Another gambit by the anti-gun crowd. These nuns bought some shares of S&W and Ruger too

Activist Nuns, With Stake in Smith & Wesson, Sue Gun Maker Over AR-15 Rifles
Groups argue the company’s leaders put shareholders at risk by making a popular gun often used in mass shootings

A group of activist nuns filed an unusual shareholder lawsuit to pressure gun maker Smith & Wesson to drastically change the way it markets, makes and sells its popular version of the AR-15 rifle.
The so-called shareholder derivative action, which the nuns filed in Nevada state court Tuesday against publicly traded Smith & Wesson, alleges that company leaders are putting shareholders at risk. They argue the leaders are exposing the company to liability by the way they have made and sold the rifle, which has been used in several mass shootings in recent years.
Smith & Wesson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment about the suit.
This type of lawsuit is brought by a group of shareholders against the company’s leadership claiming they have breached their duties. Such suits are common with publicly traded corporations, but lawyers said it appeared to be the first time one has been brought against gun makers over the manufacture and marketing of guns.
The legal action by the nuns, who aren’t major shareholders and collectively own about 1,000 shares of the company, comes amid a flurry of lawsuits against gun companies that were spurred by a $73 million settlement between the families of those killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and Remington in a suit over its marketing practices.
Though the 1,000 shares is a small portion of Smith & Wesson shares, it allows the group to raise governance questions as shareholders.
Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents gun makers, called the lawsuit frivolous.
“This same group has been filing shareholder proposals and losing so I guess they’re trying a new tactic,” Keane said.
Jeffrey Norton, a partner with the New York law firm of Newman Ferrara and the lead attorney for the nuns on the case, said that the approach has worked in other industries.
“The theory we are pursuing has been successful in a lot of different situations, but it’s novel in pursuing it with the gun industry,” Norton said.
Joe Kavan, a lawyer who represents firearms companies, said it was an unusual legal tactic and the case will be watched closely.
“It will get a great deal of publicity initially and if they get an activist judge it may survive summary judgment,” said Kavan. “But with most judges I can’t see how it will survive. It’s just too speculative.”
The nun groups—the Adrian Dominican Sisters in Adrian, Mich.; the Sisters of Bon Secours USA, based in Marriottsville, Md.; the Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia, based in Aston, Pa.; and the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary, U.S.-Ontario Province, based in Marylhurst, Ore.—filed the 47-page suit in Clark County District Court in Las Vegas.

Continue reading “”

Biden Just Kneecapped Israel and Gave Hamas New Life on Ceasefire

Even as hostages were finally released on Friday, marking the start of a four-day ceasefire, President Joe Biden was already hard at work kneecapping Israel and giving Hamas new life.

Hours after a press conference in which he claimed Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th because he was about to secure peace in the Middle East, Biden spoke to reporters again. This time, he directly stated that the first ceasefire was “just a start” and claimed that there was a “real” chance the truce could be extended.

US President Joe Biden said Friday’s release of a first group of hostages taken by Hamas was just a “start” and that there were “real” chances to extend a temporary truce in Gaza.

Speaking to reporters in Nantucket, Massachusetts, where he was spending the Thanksgiving holiday with his family, Biden also said it was time to “renew” work on creating a two-state solution to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

In other words, Biden is now pushing for an outcome that would allow the remnants of Hamas to escape Northern Gaza and regroup to carry out new attacks. Any long-term truce is simply a new lease on life for the terrorist government.

Biden’s choosing to promote such nonsense has given Hamas the green light to pursue a strategy of trickling out hostages in order to keep a one-sided ceasefire going for possibly months. The ultimate goal would be for the fighting to stop long enough that international pressure would prevent Israel from reigniting the fight to finish off Hamas.

Long story short, Biden is a coward. He does not have the stomach to finish off Hamas, and he wants to prevent Israel from doing so in order to secure his domestic political fortunes. His base of far-left, pro-Hamas lunatics has been screaming bloody murder for a month-and-a-half, and the president is trying to find a way to give in to them but save face at the same time. A prolonged ceasefire that preserves Hamas gives him the out he needs.

As to this “two-state solution” nonsense that the administration keeps pushing, there can be no two-state solution with Hamas. Anyone continuing to suggest that is either a mental invalid or being deeply dishonest. The idea that Israel could allow a terrorist state to exist on its doorstep is laughable given what happened on October 7th.

Hamas leaders have pledged to keep attacking until they kill all the Jews in the area. They aren’t going to stop, and they certainly aren’t going to accept a “two-state solution,” even if Israel were dumb enough to offer it. All Biden had to do was stand strong here, but he doesn’t have it in him. He’ll always try to take the easy way out to save his own skin. Hopefully, Israel tells him to pound sand.

No one needs an AR-15 for protection

Dear Editor: At the front and center of the debate on firearm possession and use is the AR-15 style weapon, where a line of demarcation has been drawn.

One side wants to own and use those guns publicly. The other side wants them banned publicly and for protection purposes. The AR-15 style weapon is essentially a weapon for war. There is no war in our country. No one needs to have those guns for protection.

I ask myself why proponents for owning a weapon of war deride a ban of those weapons. Is there an invisible war? And I seriously doubt they really believe a second ban of the AR-15 style would just be the beginning of a new assault on the Second Amendment. Nor that 77,000 newly hired IRS agents will be coming to take their guns.

This leaves me to think they just do not want anyone telling them what guns they can have, how they use them or the qualifications for possession.

Public safety and gun laws play second fiddle to unfettered want of individual liberty. I don’t know about you, but it sure seems to me the anarchy movement is alive and well in our country.

Bill Walters
Fitchburg

Nebraska has state preemption of gun control laws. This is simply virtue signaling and will result in a waste of taxpayers money

Omaha Mayor Signs Ban on ‘Bump Stocks,’ Gun Kits

Omaha, Nebraska, Mayor Jean Stothert signed two gun-control measures this month, one that bans “bump stocks” and the other that bans gun-building kits.

Nebraska’s elections are nonpartisan, but Stothert identified as Republican “in her filing for the 2017 election,” Ballotpedia reported.

The Nebraska Examiner noted that Stothert signed the ban on “bump stocks” Thursday, and she signed the ban on gun-building kits November 9.

The gun controls signed by Stothert appear to be leading to legal challenges against Omaha. Those readying the legal challenges point to legislation Gov. Jim Pillen (R) signed earlier this year removing the “local charter authority” Omaha had used to pass stricter controls than exist at the state level.

In the spring of 2023, Stothert issued an executive order prohibiting concealed carry in “every building owned or leased by the city,” according to WOWT. She did this in response to Nebraska’s shift to constitutional carry.

Anti Constitutional Carry Study Assumes Gun Laws Stop Criminals

A John Hopkins study critical of constitutional carry rests on the assumption that gun laws and/or regulations deter criminals from being armed in the commission of crimes.

The study was conducted by researchers at the John Hopkins/Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for Gun Violence Solutions.

Researchers began the presentation of their study by pointing to various means of concealed carry permit issuance, specifically “may issue” and “shall issue,” noting that a “may issue” scenario allows a local sheriff or other issuing authority the discretion to deny a concealed carry permit even if the applicant has no criminal record. On the other hand, in a “shall issue” state, the issuing authority must approve a concealed carry application if the applicant has no criminal or mental health history preventing issuance.

The researchers note certain requirements/regulations tied to “shall issue” that they view in a positive light:

Some states require applicants to undergo live firearm training, requiring a certain number of hours at a firing range and/or proficiency (e.g., applicants must hit a designated target with 70% of their shots). These provisions ensure all CCW permit holders have demonstrated that they can safely discharge a gun prior to carrying a loaded handgun in public. Other shall issue states prohibit those with violent misdemeanor convictions from obtaining a CCW permit.

The researchers then make the leap and, in the second paragraph of the study, reveal their belief that gun laws and/or regulations deter criminals from being armed: “In the absence of a state law prohibiting the purchase or possession of guns by violent misdemeanants, these provisions serve as the only legal means from keeping previously dangerous individuals from carrying a loaded handgun in public spaces.”

There are immediate problems with the researchers’ assumption. One such problem is that the state with the most stringent gun control–California–is also the state that had the most “active shooter incidents” in 2021. Moreover, it is the state in which over 17 percent of annual firearm deaths in the United States occur.

Additionally, CNN noted that California had four mass shootings during one week in January 2023.

The gun violence in California appears to counter John Hopkins researchers’ assumption that gun laws deter criminals from using guns.

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.”

Continue reading “”

These people somehow believe a foreign entity has some kind of say.

International Tribunal Lawsuit an Unconstitutional Attempt to Subvert Second Amendment

“If the US can’t fix its gun policy, maybe an international lawsuit can,” attorney and Global Action on Gun Violence (GAGV) President Jonathan Lowy declares in an opinion piece in The Boston Globe. “Lax US gun policy has caused an international public health and safety crisis, and blatantly violates human rights laws.”

Lowy, former Chief Counsel and VP Legal for Brady, “filed papers … under the Foreign Agents Registration Act to provide legal and consulting services to the government of Mexico and plans to work with other nations on similar efforts,” Time reported in 2022. “Lowy has already worked with the government of Mexico and lawyers in Canada to file three lawsuits against U.S. gunmakers in the last four years.” (The Mexican government argued that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) does not extend to damages caused in Mexican territory and tiled an appeal after its $10B complaint was dismissed in a Boston federal court last year).

“Joaquin Oliver v USA was filed in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an independent legal body of the Organization of American States,” New York advertising agency Zulu Alpha Kilo announced in September. “The lawsuit argues that Inter-American human rights law requires the United States to prevent firearms manufacturers, distributors, and dealers from recklessly making and selling guns in ways that cause deaths and injuries.

“The US, like other nations, is obligated to protect the exercise of these human rights; a State cannot simply tolerate its people to be systematically and repeatedly deprived of their lives,” the publicity release elaborated. “The suit explains that US gun policies and the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions are inconsistent with the human right to live that the US is required to respect, and enable the gun industry to profit from crime throughout the region.”

The ones truly profiting, of course, are corrupt Mexican officials and their cartel patrons, who aren’t getting actual military equipment and grenades from U.S. gun shops and onesie-twosie “straw purchasers.”

That Lowy’s shakedown effort is being managed by professional ad agency spin doctors says much in terms of Astroturf vs. grassroots. Gun owners have seen before the misinformation that results from high production value “PSAs” representing themselves as reliable documentation instead of what they really are – scripted commercials engineered to get the viewers to “buy” something. So where’s the money coming from?

Continue reading “”

Analysis: ‘One Weird Trick’ to Uphold Gun Restrictions Returns to Federal Court

particularly flimsy legal theory has reappeared in federal Second Amendment litigation.

On Monday, US District Judge John L. Kane upheld Colorado’s three-day waiting period for gun purchases. He ruled the sales restriction didn’t violate the Second Amendment. His reasoning? The Second Amendment doesn’t actually protect gun sales at all.

“After examining the language of the Second Amendment using the Supreme Court’s analysis in Heller, I find, for the purposes of Plaintiffs’ Motion, that the plain text does not cover the waiting period required by the Act,” he wrote in Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis. “This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the Act is a regulation on the commercial sale of firearms and thus is presumptively permissible.”

Judge Kane, a Jimmy Carter appointee, said the state’s restriction passes the Second Amendment test established in the Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision by effectively short-circuiting it. Instead of examining the historical record for analogs to the modern waiting period, he argued that was unnecessary because the “right to keep and bear arms” doesn’t directly mention a right to buy, make, or sell them.

“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,” he wrote. “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.”

As I said when a judge in the Ninth Circuit employed the same logic to uphold a homemade gun ban last year, this is like a “one weird trick that plaintiffs hate” theory of Bruen. There’s no need to perform the analysis the Supreme Court requires if you cut the case off before it even really begins.

“Though it leads with a recognition of the primacy of Bruen’s ‘plain text’ point, [the plaintiff] seeks in its opening brief to jump ahead in the analysis to a historical/tradition assessment (and to jump ahead in Bruen to that decision’s discussion of how to conduct such an assessment),” Judge George H. Wu wrote in his ruling rejecting a request for a preliminary injunction against California’s ban on unserialized homemade guns. “But it has effectively attempted to avoid the necessary threshold consideration – does the ‘Second Amendment’s plain text’ cover the issue here? No, it plainly does not. AB 1621 has nothing to do with ‘keep[ing]’ or ‘bear[ing]’ arms.”

There has been a lot of disagreement among the lower court as to how best to implement the Bruen test. Judges have come down on different sides of whether the same restrictions have relevantly similar historical analogues. That disagreement will likely continue until the Supreme Court steps in and further clarifies how lower courts should carry out its test–a process it’s expected to start in its current case United States v. Rahimi.

But the idea that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms but not the right to make or acquire arms isn’t likely to be part of that clarification. It’s simply too cute by half. The argument makes you wonder what exactly Judge Kane and Wu think the point of protecting keeping and bearing arms is if the government can simply ban their manufacture or sale.

Judge Kane seemed to realize this because he did go through an attempt to do the actual Bruen analysis. He ruled that the law would still stand even if the Second Amendment protects sales. He argued colonial-era laws that disarmed intoxicated people were relevantly similar to the waiting period because both aimed at “preventing impulsive acts of firearm violence.”

“These measures are sufficient to show that our Nation had a historical tradition of regulating the carrying and use of firearms by intoxicated individuals,” Judge Kane wrote. “Plaintiffs do not seem to dispute this determination, but instead focus on whether those regulations are ‘relevantly similar’ to the Waiting-Period Act. For the purposes of this proceeding, I hold that they are.”

That line of argument doesn’t seem much more likely to persuade the Supreme Court–if it ever makes it that far up the ladder. But it at least engages with the test the Court handed down. The idea that the Second Amendment provides no protection at all to the act of acquiring arms is little more than an attempt to hand wave away Bruen.