Yes, they know. They’ve always known. They just approve.

Project Veritas Torches the New York Times and Explodes the January 6 Narrative
Serious journalists know that our oligarchs used Jan. 6 as a Reichstag fire, to target political dissidents.

A Pulitzer prize-winning New York Times reporter has been caught in a video by the conservative group Project Veritas admitting his colleagues vastly exaggerated the danger of the election integrity protest on Jan. 6.

The reporter, Matthew Rosenberg, also called his colleagues names that questioned their courage and manliness.

January 6 Was in Fact “No Big Deal”

Rosenberg, the national security correspondent for the New York Times, said the media’s coverage of the Capitol riot was “overblown” and that the events of Jan. 6, 2021 were “no big deal,” according to undercover video released Tuesday by Project Veritas.

In print, Rosenberg and his colleagues have described the claim that there were FBI plants instigating the protestors outside of the U.S. Capitol a year earlier as a “reimagining” of the “attack.” But in the Project Veritas video, which appears to have been recorded without his knowledge, Rosenberg paints a different picture. Here he admits that “there were a ton of FBI informants amongst the people who attacked the Capitol.”

warning, some foul language

This is how ridiculous weapon laws are in Merry Olde Englande

Pennsylvania man returns home to find armed burglar, shootout erupts

COATESVILLE, Pa. – Authorities say a Pennsylvania man had a brief shootout with a burglar who stole two guns and a video game console from the victim’s apartment Friday morning.

Officers from the City of Coatesville Police Department were called to a property on East Lincoln Highway for reports of a shooting.

According to investigators, the victim returned home to find a man armed with an AR-15 standing in his doorway.

After a brief struggle, police say the suspect fired at least 7 shots and the victim returned fire with his legally-owned firearm.

No one was struck during the brief shootout, according to police.

The AR-15 used in the shooting was stolen from the victim’s home along with another gun and a Playstation 5, police said.

Authorities did not provide a description of the suspect.

WaPo columnist says “fans of Florida’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill have a new favorite word: ‘grooming'” … and I think someone hit a nerve.

You can always tell how insular a person has become in their politics when a term that has been used regularly regarding a topic that has been in the news for years strikes them as something “new.”
Of course, people who don’t share columnist Monica Hesse’s Bryn Mawr value system have actually been using the word for some time.
Okay, I shouldn’t be so hard on Bryn Mawr. After all, it has a politically diverse student body with only around 42% identifying as “liberal” and the rest identifying as Marxists.
Not only that, but, you know, grooming happens.
A lot.
Do a quick search and you find stories like these.
So, you’ll excuse us if we’re a tad sensitive about the teacher grooming issue.
I’m sorry, did I say “sensitive?” According to Hesse, it’s an obsession.
Anti-gay activists are obsessed with talking about “grooming.”
People wouldn’t be obsessed with talking about grooming if leftists weren’t obsessed with talking about sex with five-year-olds.
Elite NYC school is using the creepiest video of all time to teach first graders about masturbation and I have questions.

Of course, the most obvious question is, will there be an AP Program for the advanced students?

And note the term she uses to defame proponents of the Florida bill: “anti-gay activists.”
As is well known outside MSNBC newsrooms and the confines of blue-city newspapers, the word “gay” does not appear anywhere in the bill. Nor does “LGBTetc.”
Were Hesse truly interested in knowing what was in the bill, she would have bothered to read it. It’s very short and easily found. (pdf)
Of course, had she done that you know what would have happened.
Not only does the bill not have the word gay in it, but search for the words “gender” and “sex” (and its variations) and you’ll find they appear only twice each.

Continue reading “”

BLUF:
The problem, in an age of political polarization, is that about 40% of the population will automatically believe anything a Democrat tells them, even if it contradicts the most basic principles of economics, and there is a vast media establishment which won’t even question Biden’s bizarre counterfactual claims about inflation, energy policy, etc. All that matters to them is the cynical question, “Cui bono?” Who benefits from a particular belief — Democrats or Republicans?……..

Thus does “truth” become a partisan prize, over which one party claims a monopoly. By selling their souls to advance this belief system, the media destroy their own credibility. Then they wonder why we don’t trust them.

‘Simply Not True.

Joe Biden believes he is honest, and that anyone who disagrees with him is lying, or is ignorant, or has been deceived by liars.

So deeply convinced is Joe Biden of his own honesty that he thinks his very name is synonymous with truth-telling:

“I give you my word as a Biden: I will never stoop to President Trump’s level.”
— Nov. 20, 2019

“I give you my word as a Biden: If I am elected president I will do everything in my power to protect our children from gun violence.”
— March 10, 2020

“I give you my word as a Biden: When I’m president, I will lead with science, listen to the experts and heed their advice, and always tell you the truth.”
— March 18, 2020

When I first noticed him using this “my word as a Biden” phrase during the 2020 campaign, I was puzzled. Has the Biden family been so prominently associated with honesty that when Joe says this, most Americans say, “Well, that settles it”? Of course not. In fact, Biden’s first presidential campaign, in 1988, collapsed in disgrace specifically because of Joe’s dishonesty, when he was caught plagiarizing others — most notably British Labour leader Ne0l Kinnock — in his speeches:

Democratic presidential candidate Joseph R. Biden Jr., a U.S. senator from Delaware, was driven from the nomination battle after delivering, without attribution, passages from a speech by British Labor party leader Neil Kinnock. A barrage of subsidiary revelations by the press also contributed to Biden’s withdrawal: a serious plagiarism incident involving Biden during his law school years; the senator’s boastful exaggerations of his academic record at a New Hampshire campaign event; and the discovery of other quotations in Biden’s speeches pilfered from past Democratic politicians.

Joe Biden lies about a lot of things, including his own biography. It is fair to say he is notoriously dishonest, and yet he seems to believe that nobody knows this, and that he enjoys a reputation as a truth-teller.

[Well, that ‘he seems to believe’ goes along with the delusions of senile dementia and SloJoe believing his own propaganda. Sucks for us to have a Commander In Chief who for the time, is no more than a meat puppet, It makes you wonder what might happen if one day Joe decides that his handlers are wrong and he’s going to do something other than what they want him to, and Jill – and the secret service – decide to back him up.]

Continue reading “”

Oregon and Washington lift mask requirements today

PORTLAND — After spending a majority of the pandemic under statewide indoor face covering requirements, Washington and Oregon will be lifting their mask mandates Saturday — marking a significant step in restoring normalcy.

The milestone, which comes two years after the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, is on trend with the rest of the country as public health orders were dropped in droves. Oregon and Washington are among the last states to lift mask requirements.

“We’re turning a page in our fight against the COVID virus,” Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said during a recent news conference.

Last month — as COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations drastically declined, following a surge caused by the omicron variant — Oregon and Washington’s Democratic governors announced that they would be lifting rules requiring masks in indoor public places and schools on March 12.

Continue reading “”

Quip O’ The Day
“Hope we spend more time on propulsion than on pronouns.”

Moon battle: New Space Force plans raise fears over militarizing the lunar surface.

The battle is on for the moon.
The U.S. military is investing in new technologies to build large structures on the lunar surface. It’s designing a spy satellite to orbit the moon. And it just announced plans for a surveillance network — what it calls a “highway patrol” — for the vast domain between Earth’s orbit and the moon, known as cislunar space. Top military strategists and documents, meanwhile, now consistently refer to this region as a new realm of operations.
The funding is also starting to flow. The government spending bill passed by Congress this week added $61 million for the military to pursue projects in cislunar space.
“That’s basically the first significant chunk of money that we’re putting towards this,” said Space Force Col. Eric Felt, commander of the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Space Vehicles Directorate at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico.
He likened it to “putting the toe into the water, but we think this is an important potential future tech area.”
“From the Space Force’s perspective,” he added, “they don’t know how big of a deal this is going to be in the future, but it could be a big deal.”
The Pentagon maintains these new pursuits, all launched since the creation of the Space Force three years ago, are primarily designed to help secure a growing private space economy and safeguard civilian astronauts. In all, the newest branch believes nation-states and commercial companies will fly nearly 100 missions — both crewed and uncrewed — to the moon between now and 2030.
But space policy and security experts also fear that the armed forces could outstrip NASA in space exploration and thrust what has largely been a peaceful competition into a military contest.
Aaron Boley, co-director of Outer Space Institute at the University of British Columbia, says the Pentagon already plays an outsized role in Earth orbit, where satellites are used to support military operations and global security.
“But once we move to the moon, this should really be driven by civilian organizations to ensure that peaceful purposes are maintained,” he said.
Some leading military strategists, however, say there is simply too much at stake in the space race to leave it to civilians, and that the Pentagon will likely be compelled to take on a bigger role.
China’s space agency has made significant strides in its plan to develop the moon, including landing the first spacecraft on the south pole in 2019. It also plans at least three additional robotic missions, beginning in 2024, to build a lunar base, with missions involving taikonauts to follow.
Proponents for a more muscular U.S. military say they fear China cannot be trusted to pursue only peaceful aims and could use its space program for both economic and military advantage, including a new partnership with Russia to build a moon base.
“Power abhors a vacuum,” said Peter Garretson, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and space strategist who is now a senior fellow in defense studies at the American Foreign Policy Council. “You should expect that other actors will act in ways that favor their interests to the exclusion of others.”
“I think we all hope that NASA will rise to the occasion again and be able to perform that traditional exploration role,” he added. “But with the slipping of budgets and slipping the timelines, I think there is some concern as to whether or not NASA is scaling its efforts and will be able to rise to the occasion.”
The Space Force maintains it is interested only in developing the means for “domain awareness,” not exploration.

Continue reading “”

Comment O’ The Day

As much as I was starting to enjoy Ms. Stadtmiller’s anti-trannies on women’s teams rant, she completely ruined it when she wrote:

“If you’re a female athlete you are defying the patriarchal odds.”

It was then that I thought to myself: nonsense, sister, you’ve missed the point entirely. It was the patriarchy that had men and women competing in separate sports leagues in the first place. And it’s feminism and its logical conclusions that have led us to our present situation, in which women are forced to compete with athletes with penises and substantial strength and hormonal advantages over them, and to refer to such athletes with penises as “she” or get kicked off the team, and in which women’s sports are being destroyed.

As the patriarchy might say (if it were a human individual): “Miss me yet?”
—JPL

University of Pennsylvania Systemically Abuses Young Women By Forcing Them to Compete with and Undress In Front Of a Man Who Physically Humiliates Them and Makes Them Call Him a Woman.

I’m doing my best to be kind. –Mandy Stadtmiller

This is a man. I am a woman who knows what a man looks like. You cannot scare me out of my instincts into saying otherwise. I know what reality is. This is what a cheating man who enjoys cheating against women looks like.

Do you remember what it is like at all to be a young woman?

Just how overwhelming and mortifying and embarrassing so much of it all is?

Embarrassment can feel like death. Banishment from a social circle is death. Sex and puberty and bodily changes cause so much shyness and nerves and uncertainty and stimulation.

And then sometimes…a miracle occurs.

Sometimes a young woman finds something instead of consumerism and hypersexuality and the light glossy sociopathy of modern life.

Sometimes she becomes a female athlete.

If you are a young woman who competes in sports, there is a certain thrilling power that comes with it.

You learn confidence and leadership and even where you are weaker and where it might be up to you to work harder, to see if you can push yourself that much more, to get out of your own way.

If you’re a female athlete you are defying the patriarchal odds.

You’re standing out as a woman for physicality that is not sexual but instead based on pure force and performance and strength and POWER that comes from taking your own biological body to the limits of training and perseverance and domination and self-belief.

Fair competition is an indisputably glorious thing.

Fair competition is female bodies competing against female bodies.

As everyone knows and understands, women compete against women because otherwise competition would be patently unfair.

Women do not have the same athletic advantages as the male body and the benefits of a male puberty and the strength that comes from a male body.

“Male bodies have 10-30 percent greater muscle strength, greater bone density, better oxygen efficiency, larger heart and lungs, more efficient pelvic Q-angle and elbow angles, as well as 10 percent more overall body mass,” explains Ross Tucker, of the Science of Sport podcast.

Can you imagine the psychological travesty if we were to force young women to compete with men and tell them to simply “try harder”?

And that their eyes and inner knowledge is wrong?

That the man with the penis undressing in front of them is actually a woman?

What institution could be so torturous and cruel as to punish elite female athletes by forcing them to shower and change next to a man who doesn’t cover up his intact penis and is stealing medals that rightfully belong to women—and then also be forced to call that man with the penis undressed in front of you a “woman”?

That would be abusive and insane, cruel and unusual.

Except it’s exactly what is happening in the Ivy League right now.

That’s what Penn is doing. They don’t want you to know.

I’m begging you: Know.

Continue reading “”

It’s like the goobermint’s policies depend on which way the politics might affect the next election (which is really all that most politicians worry about anyway…keeping that cushy seat on the .gov gravy train)

From “After 2 Years of Pandemic Life, Turn Toward Normalcy Is a Shake-Up/As the Omicron variant recedes, cities and states with the longest mask and vaccine mandates are rapidly lifting them. The abrupt shift has unsettled the most vigilant Americans” (New York Times):

“Several people said they felt whipsawed as Democratic mayors and governors who once championed safety measures as a public good and emblem of civic virtue now seemed ready to turn the page…”

“… on a pandemic that, while easing, is still killing more than 1,000 people every day across the United States…. ‘It feels like we’ve truly been left to die,’ said Elizabeth Kestrel Rogers, a writer in Mountain View, Calif., with cystic fibrosis. ‘It seems too much too soon, like people are giving up because they can’t be bothered anymore.’… ‘We just haven’t learned,’ Dr. David Goldberg, 32, an internal medicine physician, said as he and his wife took their 1-year-old daughter, Isabel, for a walk through their neighborhood in Richmond, Va. Parents of children younger than 5, who are not eligible to be vaccinated…. He said he was standing in line at a grocery store recently when a man next to him complained that he did not feel well. ‘I was like, Dude, what are you doing?’ Dr. Goldberg said. ‘I feel for parents who are just waiting. They feel left behind. Kids can get sick and they can die.'”

 

BLUF:
My guess is that the Russian infantry massing around Kiev isn’t even going to enter the city. They know what sort of losses they’d take in urban combat; there’s no reason to think they could outfight the Ukrainians on their own streets. More likely is that they’re going to lay siege to the capital a la Mariupol and wait for a surrender. The outcome of the war may turn on whether Russia is capable of doing that successfully or whether Ukrainian troops outside the city can mount the sort of counteroffensive described above to break the siege. If they can, the Russians will be faced with a scenario in which they can neither starve the Ukrainians into submission nor overpower them in combat. Maybe that’s when Fukuyama’s prediction of morale “vaporizing” comes true.

But it’s also when things would get really dangerous.

Is Russia going to lose?
One way to answer the question in the headline is “It already has.” Even to a rank amateur like me, it was clear by *day three* that Putin was facing a strategic debacle. He misjudged Ukraine’s desire and ability to resist, he misjudged the strength of his military, and he misjudged the west’s willingness to paralyze Russia’s economy with sanctions. “No Russian leader since Tsar Nicholas II has done his country so much harm, so fast, as Vladimir Putin,” David Frum tweeted a few days ago, marveling at how diminished Russian power has been by Putin’s folly in the span of a few weeks.

Nothing that happens in Ukraine from this point will undo that. It’s a fiasco.

But a strategic defeat is distinct from defeat on the battlefield. Even optimists have assumed that Russia would eventually brute-force its way to controlling Kiev and other major Ukrainian cities. The “real” fight for Ukraine would come after that when Russia’s occupying forces and Ukraine’s insurgency would wage a war of attrition. Eventually Moscow would run out of patience and withdraw, but “eventually” could take months. Years. Decades, conceivably.

But what if the optimists were too pessimistic? What if Russia is facing near-term defeat on the battlefield as well?

Realistically, there are three ways in which the Russian army might lose:

Continue reading “”

“Appear strong when you are weak.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

What If Everyone Is Wrong About The Russian Military?

As a kid, the only thing close to as tough as the United States military was those communist bastards they were protecting us from. We were tougher, of course, but since we were the good guys we didn’t even consider invading them. Should they invade us, which we knew they wanted to do, we’d be ready to kick some commie ass! At least, that’s what we told ourselves, mostly to avoid thinking about the complete, total and world-wide nuclear annulation. Times have changed, and so has the Russian military…or has it?

We always assumed they were as strong militarily as we were, but mostly because of parades and their size. Everyone has seen the footage of battalions marching through Red Square, huge intercontinental ballistic missiles rolling along with them in a sea of soldiers and tanks. They sure projected strength and readiness. But maybe they weren’t ready?

All we really had to go on was the Soviet Union’s word, their propaganda videos, and the fact that they could push around so small countries. But maybe they were a super-power based solely on their huge nuclear arsenal?

We never really saw the Soviets take on another organized military, their power was largely acquired through propping up dictators and intimidation – they were very good at disappearing the disloyal and beating up the weak.

We were told they were strong, minus the nukes, mostly because they were big, and that assumption continues to this day. But their actions in Ukraine are not that of a world-class military, not by a long-shot. It’s more like a drunken douchebag indiscriminately launching rockets, quite possibly because they lack anything with precision. We can drop a missile down a chimney with the accuracy of Santa Claus, but what if the Russians couldn’t even hit a brick in a brick factory?

Remember what we were told about the Republican Guard in Iraq? They were the “best of the best.” Pick your Gulf War, when they started the story was about how we’d have no real issues with the regular Iraqi troops, but when we encountered the Republican Guard things would get hairy. They never did. The Republican Guard was as insignificant as the regular army. Both times the people in charge were completely wrong about what we were up against, the RG folded like a cheap tent. Could history be repeating itself with Russia?

Continue reading “”

Why do laws that restore rights take so long to come into effect, but laws that restrict rights, quite often go into effect immediately?

Virginia Switchblade Ban Repeal Bill Signed!

Knife Rights’ Virginia Switchblade Ban Repeal Bill, SB 758, that passed with broad bipartisan support, has been signed into law by Governor Glenn Youngkin. We sincerely appreciate Gov. Youngkin signing this bill after nearly 5 years of effort to repeal the ban.

NOTE: Repeal does not become effective until July 1st. Until that date, possession of automatic knives remains illegal in Virginia.

NOTE: The concealed carry knife bans in Virginia, including of switchblade (automatic) knives, will still remain in effect: “If any person carries about his person, hidden from common observation, (i) any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, machete, razor, … or (v) any weapon of like kind as those enumerated in this subsection…”

Knife Rights will never stop until all archaic knife restrictions in Virginia are repealed.

Our sincere thanks and congratulations to sponsor Senator Todd Pillion for his efforts that have resulted in the repeal of Virginia’s longstanding irrational switchblade ban.

With the repeal in Virginia, only five states remain with a complete ban on civilian possession of switchblade (automatic) knives. Knife Rights has led the effort to repeal switchblade bans or restrictions in 19 states, starting with New Hampshire in 2010. Repeals have since been enacted in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin and now in Virginia.

Altogether, Knife Rights’ efforts have resulted in 36 bills enacted repealing knife bans in 25 states and over 150 cities and towns since 2010.

“The best of hands………..”

UPDATE…….

As per Standard Operating Procedure, the White House transcript ‘clarifies’  the foot-in-mouth.

Remarks by Vice President Harris at the DNC Winter Meeting

“So I will say what I know we all say, and I will say over and over again: The United States stands firmly with the Ukrainian people >>[and]<< in defense of the NATO Alliance.”

The “and” was added after the fact, as indicated by brackets.

Rocket attack confirmed in Northern Iraq:

Multiple rockets have targeted Erbil in northern Iraq early on Sunday, the state news agency has reported quoting Erbil’s governor.

More than three explosions were heard but the city airport was not believed to be the target, Deputy Minister Hiwa Afandi said.

Lawk Ghafuri, head of Kurdistan’s Foreign Media Relations, also said more than three explosions were heard, He added that security forces are investigating the incident and updates will be available shortly.

As is consistent with previous attacks instigated by Iranian-backed militia, media channel Sabreen posted videos of the attack moments after its occurrence.

Rolling Stone: “there are better, cheaper ways of powering our world with oil, gas, and coal”

According to Rolling Stone, the best way to defeat Putin is renewable energy, which despite being cheaper than coal seems to be taking a long time to manifest.

Putin Is a Fossil-Fuel Gangster. Clean Energy Could Cut Him Off at the Knees

Putin’s war on Ukraine is financed by Russia’s vast oil-and-gas wealth, but the conflict may signal the endgame for the carbon mafia

For decades, world leaders and Big Oil CEOs were happy to turn a blind eye to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s autocratic impulses and fantasies of empire building. They were all fossil-fuel junkies, hooked on the easy money of oil and gas, and Putin had plenty of it.

They helped finance pipelines and drilling rigs, and then bought as much oil and gas as he would sell them. For Putin, the cash from fossil fuels fired up his darkest ambitions.

It not only helped him build the military force that he sent into Ukraine, it also gave him the means to stash billions in offshore banks that he believed would allow him to weather any economic fallout from the war.…

Among other things, Putin miscalculated how fast the world is changing. Industrial nations are in the midst of what energy geeks like to call “a great transition” away from fossil fuels and toward clean-energy sources. It is driven by the simple and brutal understanding that if the rich, Western world continues to burn fossil fuels in the future the way it has in the past, we will literally cook the planet, making it uninhabitable for life as we know it today.

If there is any good news to come out of the horrific carnage inflicted by this war, it’s this: Instead of slowing the transition to clean energy, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine may well have supercharged it. And however the war ends, Putin will pay the price. Russian oil and gas is now forever linked to autocracy, war crimes, and human carnage. “The war marks the end of Russia as an energy superpower,” says Tsafos.…

Predictably, Republicans and their corrupt band of climate crooks and deniers immediately used the invasion of Ukraine as an excuse to deepen our dependence on fossil fuels, not free ourselves from it. They willfully ignored the simple truth that there are better, cheaper ways of powering our world with oil, gas, and coal. To them fossil fuels are the energy equivalent of testosterone. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio tweeted that Biden’s “war on American oil and gas” made Putin stronger. South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem told Fox News that “from the very day [Biden] got into the White House, he gave Putin all the power.”…

Read more: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/putin-russia-ukraine-fossil-fuels-climate-change-1319417/

If renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuel, where is it? How many trillions have been wasted on useless renewables in Europe? Yet that Russian gas still keeps flowing.

Putin gets the joke. So long as European rulers and their cheerleaders cling to the delusion that renewable energy has anything to offer in terms of independence from the Russian gas teat, Putin will have a stranglehold on Europe.

 

It really doesn’t have to be this way. If Europe ditched their delusional belief in renewables, and embraced energy solutions which actually work, like scaling up coal mining and fracking in the short term, and a French style nuclear programme for the medium to long term, they would not be in the pathetic position begging Putin to maintain the flow of gas, even as Russia’s armies destroy one of their fellow European nations.

Why is this happening? Why are European nations finding it so difficult to behave rationally about energy policy, and take obvious countermeasures in the face of Russia’s energy blackmail, and the very real chance the Ukraine is just the beginning of Putin’s territorial ambitions?

I don’t have a good answer to those questions. But history contains plenty of examples of nations which responded irrationally to problems, and didn’t take obvious measures to counter external threats. Such nations are described in painstaking detail, in books whose titles start with “The fall of…”.

New Reports Suggest Russian Losses in Ukraine Are Absolutely Catastrophic

How many Russian soldiers have been killed in Ukraine? It’s tough to know. We have Ukrainian sources saying their land has become a killing field for Russian forces, with at least 11,000 killed since the start of the war.

It is true that the Russian offensive has become stuck in the mud. Tanks are running out of gas. That 40-mile Russian convoy outside of the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv has yet to move. What’s going on? Other estimates of the Russian war dead are in the 4,000-6,000 range which is probably a tad more accurate. Still, that’s more Russians killed in less than two weeks in Ukraine than all American losses during the entirety of the Iraq War and occupation. The Ukrainians are holding on, mounting a dogged defense against a superior adversary. We’ll see how long that lasts after the Russians clinch air superiority which they have so far been unable to do.

Yet, let’s circle back to the 10,000-plus Russian war dead figure. Keep an eye on it. We have reports of hospitals in southern Belarus that are totally filled with Russian bodies. There’s allegedly not enough refrigeration. Bodies are starting to rot. This also circles back to the story about the Russian military wheeling in mobile crematoriums to cook the books on their casualty rates. We may never know the true death toll. There’s also the suspicion that mass graves for dead Russian soldiers are also being dug to hide the true body counts.

Continue reading “”

One thing to remember, South Benders once elected Pete ButtJudge™ as their mayor. If that doesn’t tell you the proggie political bent of the majority there, nothing else will

Police, South Bend leaders urge veto of bill eliminating gun permits

South Bend, Ind. — “This is choosing extreme ideology over common sense,” James Mueller (D), Mayor South Bend.

South Bend leaders are raising major concerns over a controversial bill that could be signed into law by Governor Eric Holcomb. The bill will no longer require someone to have a permit for their handgun.

Mayor James Mueller, Police Chief Scott Ruskowski, Prosecutor Ken Cotter, and community activist Isaac Hunt all spoke out today believing this bill would make South Bend more dangerous.

Continue reading “”

The problem is that the Michigan Goobernor is still none other than DerGrëtchënFührer herslef, and I can’t see her signing a bill into law that would diminish goobermint power.

Michigan: House Passes Pro-Gun Bills

Yesterday, the House passed House Bills 5187 and 5188, to ensure that Second Amendment rights remain protected during a state of emergency, and House Bill 4003, to reduce the penalty for law-abiding citizens who forget to renew their Concealed Pistol License in certain instances. They will now go to the Senate for further consideration. Please contact your state senator and ask them to SUPPORT House Bills 5187, 5188, and 4003.

House Bill 5187 and House Bill 5188 passed by votes of 61-40 and 62-39 respectively. They prohibit the state government from restricting the lawful carrying of firearms and ammunition, seizing firearms or ammunition, restricting firearm businesses and shooting ranges, and restricting hunting and fishing activities during a declared state of emergency, or as an emergency response to an epidemic. Further, the legislation provides legal recourse for people who experience unjust infringements.

During the state of emergency in 2020 for COVID-19, Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued an executive order for all nonessential businesses and activities to cease, which purposefully referenced an outdated list of such industries, rather than the most updated federal guidelines that designated firearm and ammunition retailers as essential. In addition, many anti-gun officials around the country, at both state and local levels of government, took the opportunity to unilaterally suspend Second Amendment rights by actively shutting down gun stores and ranges. HB 5187 and HB 5188 protect the exercise of a constitutional right from such politically motivated attacks and ensure that citizens have those rights when they need them most.

House Bill 4003 passed by a vote of 74-27. It reduces the offense of carrying a handgun on an expired CPL from a felony, under current law, to a civil fine of $330, as long as it’s within one year of expiration and the person is still legally eligible for a CPL. Permanently stripping Second Amendment rights from an otherwise law-abiding citizen who forgets to renew their CPL does not improve public safety.

Don’t let the ‘perfect’ be the enemy of the good. The gun grabbers got us where we are today by winning step by step, and we’re winning by using the same process, because it does work.

SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT
Bill passes House, but not all gun rights supporters approve

CHEYENNE — A bill reinforcing individuals’ Second Amendment rights passed on a 43-15 vote in third reading in the Wyoming House Wednesday.

Despite gaining approval of the majority of the House, the bill divided gun-rights-supporting representatives, with several saying it did not go far enough to protect individuals’ rights.

Senate File 102, or the Second Amendment Protection Act, prohibits the enforcement of federal regulations of firearms by local law enforcement. The bill says if the federal government ever restricts firearms, law enforcement would be violating state law if they confiscated weapons from local gun owners.

Those who violate this section would face a harsh penalty. Any officer guilty of the misdemeanor will face imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of $2,000 or both.

Several legislators expressed concerns the bill “didn’t have teeth” and argued law enforcement couldn’t be trusted to protect citizens’ second amendment rights.

Continue reading “”

Permitless Carry Homicide Increase Claim Refuted by Cited Study

“A Republican permitless carry gun law will bring Ohio more death,” writer Craig Calcaterra asserts in a Tuesday Columbus Alive article. “Researchers have found that states with permitless carry laws have experienced an 11 percent increase in handgun homicide rates after enactment.”

The topic could not be timelier. At this writing, the legislature has passed Senate Bill 215 up to Governor Mike DeWine and it is awaiting his signature, his veto, or his silence, in which case it becomes law after 10 days without his participation.

DeWine has been a mixed bag for gun owners. At one time was called “a principled statesman” by the Brady Campaign, until he decided NRA’s endorsement worked better for his political ambitions. But recently he’s been making noises about distancing himself from that and going back to supporting gun laws like the so-called STRONG Act.

As expected, he’s being hammered by both sides, with the major, well-funded gun-grab groups and influential lobbyists like the Fraternal Order of Police getting the lion’s share of sympathetic headlines. Prominent among those is the aforementioned Columbus Alive article, especially influential because the outlet is part of the powerful Gannett Publications empire with its far-reaching USA Today network, and because Columbus is Ohio’s state capital, and politicians take note of what’s being said about them in the media.

An 11 percent increase in handgun homicides attributable to permitless carry is significant enough to make anyone sit up and take notice. If the figures bear out, gun owners can expect a governor (who at times appears to be working up the guts to chicken out) to set his speechwriters to work on excuses. And making that claim, right under the headline, is certainly an attention grabber.

“[P]ublic health researchers have found that states with permitless carry laws have experienced an 11 percent increase in handgun homicide rates after their enactment,” the article elaborates, providing a link to an August 2017 American Journal of Public Health abstract titled “Easiness of Legal Access to Concealed Firearm Permits and Homicide Rates in the United States.”

The curious thing is, I couldn’t find their subhead-“worthy” assertion substantiated. Perhaps readers here can check my work by following my methodology and see if they get different results.

First, I read the abstract. Nothing.

Then I decided to do a word search, starting with (since it’s the percentage quoted) the number “11.” That returned 18 results, for dates, footnotes, and stuff, with the only one coming close to relevancy being a claim that “firearm homicide rates … were 11.7% higher in ‘shall issue’ states.”

That’s very different from permitless carry. It also recalls a noteworthy deceptiveness of relying exclusively on rates over numbers:

“For example, in 1880 Dodge City, one person out of 996 was killed. However, 100 years later in Miami, 515 people out of 1.5 million were killed. Although more people were murdered in Miami, statistically speaking the city has a lower homicide rate — just 32.7, compared to the 100.4 of Dodge City in the 1880s.”

Relying on that abstract observation also neglects a significant and fundamental admission that it makes:

“At least 10 national studies have examined the relationship between shall-issue concealed-carry laws and firearm-related or total homicide rates at the state level. In 2 studies, shall-issue laws were found to decrease homicide rates. In 2 studies, these laws were found to increase homicide rates. Six studies reported no clear impact of shall-issue laws on homicide rates.”

That’s hardly “settled science,” and note it (unsurprisingly) makes no mention of the other side of the coin, lives saved by armed citizens.

Continue reading “”