Befuddled Biden: Russians, Hungarians, Ukrainians Are All the Same to Joe

Joe Biden gave some remarks on Tuesday at Lockheed Martin in Alabama about his desire to send more aid to Ukraine.

Biden has asked Congress for $33 billion additional in aid. This was after already getting $13.6 billion last month. Biden claimed that they already had spent that money. Not only that, but he wants to make it a continual thing — to preserve “democracy.” No end in sight as to how much money that might involve. Great concern for Ukraine’s borders, but very little for our own.

But in the process of giving mostly his standard memorized shtick, Biden managed to fumble the delivery in a couple of significant ways.

At one point, Biden claimed that he was arming the Russians before Russia attacked. Yes, he said that.

 

But, that wasn’t the only glaring mistake Biden made when talking about Ukraine. He also confused Ukrainians with Hungarians. During his State of the Union address, Biden confused Ukrainians with Iranians. No, Joe, they’re not the same.

I’d also like to point out another interesting confusion he seemed to have in his remarks made on Tuesday.

In his official written statement, Biden said that the draft opinion meant they needed to get out and vote for pro-choice (Democrats).

Third, if the Court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose. And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November. At the federal level, we will need more pro-choice Senators and a pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe, which I will work to pass and sign into law.

But then, in his off-the-cuff remarks that he made hours after that statement, he was asked, “What does this mean for the midterms? What does this mean for the Democrats’ argument in the midterms?” His reply? “I haven’t thought that through yet.” So he had some thoughts about it earlier in his official statement but hadn’t thought it through when he was asked about it later. In other words, they’re issuing statements about what “he thinks,” when he can’t even say what he thinks later in person.

It was bad enough when he said that there hadn’t been any senators from Delaware on Monday. That prompted more 25th Amendment talk. But it’s continuing to get worse.

Politics vs. Reality: Iron Sharpening Iron ~ or Not

There’s nothing ambiguous or convoluted about it, and it hasn’t been re-written or redefined by “the gun lobby” in recent years, as our opponents like to suggest. Writers going all the way back to the founding have supported our interpretation that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” means what it says and is enforceable against the states as a fundamental right.

I think we can all agree on this, so where’s the problem?

Just because we agree on the basics, doesn’t mean we all agree on the details. Some will loudly proclaim that the right to arms is absolute and limitless. They advocate for no limits whatsoever on any sort of armament whatsoever, from machine guns to missiles, to nukes. If it’s an armament, they say, then it’s covered by the Second Amendment. Others draw a line at typical, man-portable arms commonly found in an Infantry squad, while others draw a wavering line at the typical arms of an average, individual Infantry soldier, sometimes excluding “crew-served” weapons systems or man-portable missiles.

It used to be pretty common to run into “gunnies” who would argue against civilian possession of any full-auto or other NFA items, and some who would defend laws against those “ugly, black guns.” Thankfully most of those folks have now realized their error, but there are still folks who see themselves as on our side, who draw lines and/or limits that you and I would strongly disagree with.

That doesn’t make them evil. It just makes them wrong, misinformed, ignorant, or even possibly, more thoughtful and better educated than you and me. We can’t rule out that possibility until we’ve thoroughly studied their position and their rationale for holding that position. Then there’s the Supreme Court’s tortured definition of the right applying only to arms that are “in common use” among the populace while failing to account for future innovations and the decades of restrictions that kept certain arms and accessories out of “common use.”

Beyond the debate over how far, or not, the Second Amendment extends, there are debates within the community over whether certain, specific policy proposals are justifiable under the Second Amendment, or whether the “obvious good” (as some people see things) of certain policies might outweigh the constraints of the amendment. Then there’s the issue of incrementalism. Some among us will argue that repealing or reforming a portion of a bad law, is still supporting the erroneous foundation the law was originally based upon. For example, under this argument, support for legislation to remove suppressors from the NFA and treat them as firearms under the GCA, would be a traitorous compromise, because, they say, it is unconstitutional to regulate suppressors at all. This sort of “principled opposition” represents a minority, but it’s enough to throw a monkey wrench into efforts to undo restrictions piece-by-piece, the way most of those restrictions came about.

The point is, there are a wide variety of beliefs and opinions among, even very dedicated Second Amendment advocates, and disagreements are unavoidable.

The critical question though, is how do we handle those disagreements?

Continue reading “”

Hmm. I’ve never been ‘reasonable’, and I’ve never been sorry about that either.

Sorry, but gun owners are done being “reasonable”

As gun owners, we often find ourselves as something of a political football. We’re the group that has the most at stake when it comes to many gun control laws.

By and large, we don’t support them. After all, we know that it’s not as easy to buy a gun as it’s often portrayed in the media and we know how criminals actually get their guns.

Many people know that we don’t support these laws. That doesn’t stop them from thinking we should.

I’m not even sure why this is an issue that continues to be debated, argued and defended. Background checks and time limits are not taking away anyone’s rights. To own muskets and flintlock pistols is your right. Even a dueling pistol could be tucked away should the need arise to awaken at dawn for a meeting with your wife’s lover in a field. This event would need to be planned and witnessed, with the winner going to prison of course.

I can’t imagine gun owners not being appalled by what has occurred repeatedly at the hands of the irresponsible few. It seems to me the responsible gun owners would support stricter controls knowing that, if the gun violence continues to play out, severe gun laws will be inevitable for all.

Taking guns out of the hands of unstable and violent shooters would save some of the 38,000 Americans who die from gun violence every year in the United States. That’s worth more than a thought and a prayer.

And yet, how would you take guns “out of the hands of unstable and violent shooters” universally? We already have numerous laws on the books at both the federal level and state level that are meant to do just that, and yet, nothing.

But then again, the author can’t imagine gun owners not being appalled at what happens. Well, we are appalled. No rational human being could look at something like a murder and not be appalled.

Where she goes off the rails is the idea that we should somehow support stricter gun control because of it.

The truth is that we were reasonable in 1934 and in 1968. We set aside our rights for the greater good and gun owners watched as the gun they bought at a hardware store in 1930 become a heavily restricted weapon that they had to get permission to buy. They saw laws passed in 1968 not only not reduce violent crime but seemingly encouraged it to skyrocket.

Time and time again, we played nice. We gave a little ground so that we would seem reasonable. Now we have background checks when we go to buy a gun and we’re told that simply isn’t enough.

Well, you know what? We’re done being “reasonable.”

We’re finished with it because none of this is reasonable. No one wants to stamp out advocacy for communism, despite all the unmitigated evil that philosophy has illustrated and the untold suffering it has dropped on the human race, all because free speech matters. Yet we’re supposed to step aside and allow our right to keep and bear arms to be ripped to shreds in the name of appearing reasonable?

This from someone who still equates the Second Amendment to muskets?

And where’s the fact that none of this stuff has actually worked? We watched gun control be passed at state levels for decades as violent crime soared, yet when gun laws started being liberalized, we saw the rates decline. While correlation doesn’t equal causation, the truth is that if the lack of gun laws caused crime to increase, we should have seen the opposite.

We didn’t.

The truth is that this demand that gun owners acquiesce to every demand by gun control advocates is what is truly unreasonable and we’re done. We’ve long been finished.

Hypocrites
Leftists change their minds so quickly it’s a wonder they don’t  have whiplash

Suddenly the Left Remembers That Men CAN’T Get Pregnant

Reaction to the leak of the draft opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson came in swiftly Monday night. Liberals haven’t been this outraged since Elon Musk bought Twitter. Pro-abortion activists quickly formed a protest outside the court, and politicians released statements that featured fresh new takes on the usual tropes and slogans we’ve heard for decades.

“A woman’s right to choose is not up for debate. A woman’s right to make her own health care decisions is not up for debate,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “We can’t go back. We must not go back. We won’t go back.”

“This is at the expense of tens of millions of women who could soon be stripped of their bodily autonomy and the constitutional rights they’ve relied on for half a century,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said .

“If you think they’ll stop with a women’s right to choose, you haven’t been paying attention. We have to fight like our lives depend on it, because clearly, they do,” tweeted Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.).

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) called for the packing of the Supreme Court, insisting that overturning Roe would “put the lives of women across the country at risk.”

“I’ll always fight to protect a woman’s right to choose,” insisted Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.). “And that will never change.”

Women. Women. Women.

That’s funny. Hasn’t the radical left been telling us that “trans women are women” and that “men can get pregnant, too” suddenly have such a narrow view about the abortion issue that they only see it as a women’s rights issue? Weird, since less than a month ago, the pregnant man emoji was made available on my iPhone. Before the draft opinion leaked, if you asked a leftist to define what a “woman” is, they couldn’t tell you. Now, these non-biologists know precisely what a woman is.

For most of my life, abortion has been framed as a “women’s rights” issue. Yet on plenty of occasions, Leftists typically didn’t even recognize my right even to have an opinion on abortion because I’m not a woman. As Jennifer Aniston put it last year, “No uterus, no opinion.”

It’s impressive how quickly and easily progressives who have long insisted that “trans women are women” and that “men can get pregnant” showed us that even they know deep down that radical leftist gender theory is nonsensical. It may be fashionable in their circles to buy into it, but they know it’s nonsensical.

Sure, when the outrage cools down, they’ll probably go back to saying “men can get pregnant” and refer to biological women as “birthing people,” but that won’t change the fact that, in the wake of this Supreme Court leak, so many said the quiet part out loud about transgenderism.

Well, .277 Fury basically duplicates 270 Winchester (130/135 gr bullet @ 3,000 fps) specs in a smaller length cartridge in a rifle with a shorter barrel. And the rifle is a SiG MCX Spear, so….?

How good is Army’s new gun? We don’t know

XM5 Rifle on display at the Pentagon.

There are a lot of people who look to the United States Armed Forces for a certain degree of guidance on weapons. If the Army uses it, they’re more than happy to pick up the civilian version of the weapon. After all, the military does test their weapons fairly extensively–though that testing has been interesting in the past.

Still, a lot of people trust it.

Now, the Army is looking at a new rifle. However, as Military.com notes, there are questions that we simply can’t get answers to.

The new guns and ammunition the Army just married and is expected to issue to combat arms units within the next decade will require soldiers to carry an even heavier load.

But information on how those weapons should outperform the guns they’re replacing — the justification for troops to shoulder extra weight on top of mountains of gear already injuring soldiers — is classified.

In April, the Army announced that Sig Sauer will produce replacements for the M4 rifle and M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, or SAW, starting with a trial run of about 40 new guns late next year. Production is expected to ramp up when the Army opens a new ammo plant to produce the new 6.8mm rounds for those weapons around 2026.

Army officials have touted that the new XM5, the M4’s replacement, and XM250, set to replace the SAW, pack a much harder punch and will improve the combat performance of ground troops. But thus far, the service has declined to disclose evidence that those weapons outperform the M4 and SAW, including how far they can shoot accurately. And it’s unclear whether the Army has verified the ranges at which those new weapons can engage an enemy before committing to a multimillion-dollar contract.

Throughout history, the average a soldier carried was about 55 lbs. The Roman legionnaire? About 55 lbs. The medieval man-at-arms? 55 lbs.

And so on through history.

Yet, these days, loads of 150 lbs aren’t exactly uncommon. That’s three times the amount troops historically carried.

Granted, we have a lot of technology that helps make those troops much more effective than those of bygone eras had, but someone still has to carry it.

So now they’re going to have to carry even more?

That might make sense if the new weapons are that much more effective, but are they? We know that 6.8 tends to have more of a punch. It looks like accuracy is about the same.

Yet that’s just the ballistics of the round itself. We don’t know if the weapons make good use of that potential or not, which doesn’t really make that much sense to me.

I get keeping at least some of your capabilities classified, but our enemies have long known just how accurate and powerful our various firearms were for years. We openly published this information and the civilian-legal versions of the same rifles backed that information up.

So why is this version classified?

Truth be told, I don’t like it, but I’m not overly worried. While I can’t help but raise my eyebrow at Sig being the provider of both the sidearm used by the military and now the primary weapon system for the Army, the truth is that Sig produces good weapons, as a general rule. It’s unlikely the guns actually suck or anything.

Still, for people who know about firearms, the idea of our troops potentially going into harm’s way with a weapon we know so little about is a point of concern. After all, this is still the Department of Defense. Anyone familiar with the development of the Bradley knows just how that can go.

Then again, since this is basically a variant of the Sig MCX platform, we shouldn’t worry too much.

That doesn’t address the weight issue, though. Our guys are already carrying too much weight as it is. The additional weight from switching from 5.56 to 6.8 for the same number of rounds is something that might end up being too much.

“Rachel” Levine is a sick, twisted man who wants people to believe that there is a medical consensus for transitioning kids so that more people will do it. This is what a predator looks like.

The Brewing Myth of Medical ‘Consensus’ on Transitioning Children

We’ve all heard the oft-repeated myth that 97% of climate scientists agree that manmade climate change is real. This claim has been the go-to response by climate alarmists and activists for years.

If you’re a regular reader of this site, you know that this claim is pure garbage and has been debunked for a long time. Yet the myth prevails. Barack Obama once tried to up the number to 99.5%, but that didn’t catch on. I guess 97% just sounds cooler?

Truthfully, the number itself isn’t important—and not just because it’s phony—because the critical takeaway is that the fake statistic has been used by climate alarmists as proof that, save for a few on the fringe, there is “consensus” that climate change is real, that it is caused by humanity, and that we need to spend billions and billions of dollars on so-called green energy alternatives; otherwise, we’re all going to die yesterday.

Never mind that literally no apocalyptic climate prediction of the past century has ever panned out. New York City isn’t underwater (though sometimes the idea doesn’t bother me), and the only reason food is less available is because of supply chain problems—not massive droughts.

But the myth of consensus is a vital tool of the left to bring more people into their cause and justify all these billions of dollars being spent on green energy technology companies run by their donors. We know how compelling this argument has been; we’ve seen world leaders cite it repeatedly as fact.

So I am more than just a bit concerned that the radical left is now pushing the myth of “consensus” to justify transgender treatments for children.

During a recent interview with NPR, Rachel Levine, the Assistant Secretary of Health, claimed that “there is no argument” about “gender-affirming care” among pediatricians and doctors who specialize in adolescents.

Really? There’s “no argument” at all? None? Zero? Zilch? Nada? There’s 100% agreement? Not a mere 97%?

That’s what he said.

Continue reading “”

Source Inside the Federal Government Reveals Suspected and Known Terrorists Walk Freely in the United States Following Biden Administration’s Pullout in Afghanistan

  • The records obtained by Project Veritas confirm numerous suspected terrorists are currently living throughout the country, many of whom have work visas despite being flagged by the Terrorist Watchlist for violent offenses like murder and using explosive devices and arms.
  • Project Veritas published redacted government records of suspected terrorists who fall under the “Tier 1” threat level which is labelled as “Armed and Dangerous.” Most of these individuals flagged by the Department of Homeland Security were admitted because of an initiative to shelter fleeing refugees called Operation Allies Welcome.
  • The whistleblower inside the Federal Government has identified numerous cases. The suspected terrorists verified by Project Veritas appear to only be a small sample size. These threats live throughout the country including the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C.
  • Project Veritas also published never-before-seen video of the current Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Ur Jaddou, touting their efforts to expedite the adjudication process of Afghanistan refugees. USCIS is a division within the Department of Homeland Security.

[WASHINGTON, D.C. – Apr. 26, 2022] A source within the Federal Government has come forward to reveal suspected and known terrorists are roaming freely in the United States following the Biden administration’s exit strategy in Afghanistan, and subsequent initiatives launched by the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] to shelter fleeing refugees, known as Operation Allies Welcome.

According to records obtained and published by Project Veritas, numerous violent refugees, previously flagged by DHS for a wide range of offenses the agency describes as terrorism, are living in the United States.

Continue reading “”

New Maine GOP Platform Includes Banning Sex Education, Critical Race Theory in Schools

AUGUSTA, Maine (WGME) – Maine Republicans adopted new positions Friday that could change what kids learn in school.

The Maine GOP laid out its platform on several issues over the weekend during the Republican State Convention, including gubernatorial candidate Paul LePage’s proposal to eliminate state income tax. Also outlined Friday were Republicans’ long-standing goals, including welfare reform and enactment of “right to work laws” that limit the power of labor unions.

It was culture war issues in schools that dominated the changes to the state party platform. Some of the specifics include banning sex education and critical race theory in schools, as well as banning teaching genders other than male or female, with the party calling it “child sexual abuse.”

Lawmakers also want to ban books that encourage students to choose their own gender, sexual orientation or pronouns.

The Maine Democratic Party slammed the Republican Party’s new platform, calling it hateful and anti-LGBTQ, but members of the GOP say they are sticking up for families.

Speaker of the House Ryan Fecteau accused Republicans of attacking their fellow Mainers.

New Maine GOP platform includes banning sex education, critical race theory in schools (WGME)

“It shows that they are more interested in attacking fellow Mainers and relaunching culture wars from the last decade than actually dealing with real issues affecting Maine’s hardworking families,” he said.

And I have a bridge in New York to sell you.

Relax: Mayorkas Says His New Thought Police Won’t Monitor U.S. Citizens

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas made the rounds of the talking head shows on Sunday to do some damage control and address concerns that the Biden administration’s new Disinformation Governance Board within the Department of Homeland Security signifies an all-out war against the freedom of speech. Those concerns were only exacerbated by the revelation that the chief of Old Joe’s Thought Police, Nina Jankowicz, is an enthusiastic fascist who is so excited about censorship that she sings musical comedy numbers about it in an affected English accent. Mayorkas, however, is telling us now that there is really nothing, nothing whatsoever, to worry about. But his soothing claims show some signs of being yet more of that disinformation he claims he wants to fight.

We’ve already gotten disinformation about the Disinformation Governance Board. Jen Psaki claimed Friday that it wasn’t the sainted President Dementia at all, but the hated Trump, who set up the Board. There doesn’t appear to be a shred of truth to this, as even Mayorkas had announced the Board as “new,” and on Sunday, CNN’s Dana Bash asked Mayorkas, “Would you be okay if Donald Trump were president, if he created this Disinformation Governance Board or if it is in place in 2024, that he’s in charge of such a thing?” Mayorkas didn’t echo Psaki and answer that Trump had actually created the Board. Instead, he insisted “that we’re safeguarding the right of free speech, that we’re safeguarding civil liberties.” Sure they are.

Continue reading “”

Depression-Era foods that are weirdly making a comeback.

The Great Depression lasted a decade, but its effects changed a generation. Echoing events of 2020, the Depression caused widespread unemployment and food shortages of meat, milk, and other pantry staples. Cooks during the unprecedented economic downturn learned eating simple meals without waste could stretch their dollar. The popularity of home gardens, foraging for food, and alternative recipes emerged as a way to work around high food costs of fresh produce, meat, and dairy products. Although 2020, fortunately, didn’t see the same long-term impacts as the 1930s, home cooking doesn’t appear to be going anywhere and Depression-era foods are making a comeback.

During the height of the pandemic, The New York Times reported empty shelves across the country and the inability of grocers to keep staple pantry items and fresh produce in stock. Essentials such as beans, rice, pasta, and peanut butter became hot commodities. Hot dog sales also spiked. Thanks to modern food shortages — and farmers being forced to destroy food — pared-down cooking habits are once again being embraced. Home cooks are turning to Depression-era foods made with affordable and shelf-stable ingredients to feed the whole family.

Continue reading “”

Well, Whaddya Know… Stats Validate What Gun Owners Have Been Saying For Years

A common narrative from anti-gun activists asserts that more guns equal more crime. But those of us who own guns have known this storyline to be false all along. It never made sense, and now we have data to prove it.

According to a recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, there is a direct correlation between gun ownership and crime, but that correlation doesn’t align with the storyline from the “guns are bad” crowd. In fact, shocker… it shows just the opposite.

The NBER analysis used Tennessee’s database for handgun carry permit holders, and then cross-referenced that data with crime statistics in those zip codes. It was determined that once information from the database was publicized, in areas where gun ownership was highest, burglaries were correspondingly lower. Conversely, in areas with relatively low gun ownership, burglaries were considerably higher:

“Our analysis suggests a post-publicization relative decrease – both in absolute and in percentage terms – in burglaries in zip codes with higher numbers of gun permits, relative to zip codes with median numbers of permits, and a post-publicization relative increase in zip codes with fewer gun permits: our estimates suggest an 18% relative decrease of burglaries in those zip codes with the largest number of gun permits.”

Well, who could have guessed such a sharp contrast? Anyone with half a brain, that’s who.

If a criminal is considering what areas and homes they want to target, there are a few factors they will weigh. Certainly, a burglar is going to want to focus on a residence that will have valuable belongings which they can take, but the first thing they’re going to assess is their own well-being. It’s human nature.

A house or apartment with a big Rottweiler or Dobermann Pincer? That could certainly deter a burglar. The same can be said regarding a residence with a sophisticated security system. Burglars certainly want to avoid getting bitten by a big dog or having police arrive at the scene of a burglary while it’s in progress. But as much as criminals dislike dog bites and jail time, what deters them most is the prospect of getting their heads blown off in an attempted burglary.

Responsible gun ownership is a good thing. Gun owners give criminals a serious reason to reconsider burglarizing someone’s home. Government officials thinking of becoming overly tyrannical must remember that they have an armed populace; and in some cases, that populace is heavily armed. Even foreign adversaries can be deterred by America’s gun-toting public, as was the case with both the Japanese in World War II and the Soviet Union years later.

It turns out that bad guys avoid messing with good guys who have guns.

By Jordan Case

“There’s a bigger problem here about how we’re going to control the channels of communications in this country.”

Bingo.

That’s what this is all really about. All of the leftist demoncraps sitting there aren’t concerned about ‘online harassment’ or ‘disinformation’.
This is about who controls the narrative.

America Needs a Return to First Principles
How to revive U.S. vitality and confidence? Economists John Cogan and Kevin Warsh offer a way to think about what made the country prosperous. Pay attention to the ‘three I’s’—ideas, individuals and institutions.

The 21st century so far hasn’t been the best of times for America. First 9/11, then a financial crisis and deep recession, then a global pandemic without recent precedent. The economy has suffered, and politics has been upended. American self-confidence has been badly bruised, and public trust in institutions has plummeted. What can we do about it?

That’s the question that John Cogan and Kevin Warsh, both policy veterans and Journal contributors, asked themselves in September 2020 when prompted by former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice. She had just taken over as director of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, where both men are affiliated, and she made a pained but probing observation.

As Mr. Warsh tells it, Ms. Rice said that while “people know what we conservatives believe about economic policy, it doesn’t seem like we’re winning. It doesn’t seem like we’re persuading people.” American policy makers and businesspeople, and leaders around the world, “are less sure why we believe what we believe, and they’re less sure why they should believe it, too.”

The two men treated Ms. Rice’s lament as a challenge and set out to write what Mr. Cogan describes as “a call to action.” Titled “Reinvigorating Economic Governance” and just released, it outlines a policy framework based “on our nation’s foundational principle of natural liberty.” Governments at all levels, Mr. Cogan says, aren’t dealing effectively with America’s challenges: “It’s because economic policy has strayed from what I think of as the first principles.”

The two are well suited for the role. Mr. Cogan, 75, is an economist at Hoover who served in Ronald Reagan’s budget office and is the author of an encyclopedic book on the history of U.S. entitlement programs. Mr. Warsh, 52, worked in the George W. Bush White House and was a governor at the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis.

Their paper is optimistic, almost revivalist, in tone, even as it highlights the many faults with American policy. The U.S. economy, it states, “is among the most powerful forces for good in the history of humankind.” The authors credit the “micro-foundations of the economy” for having driven living standards “to heights unimaginable at the nation’s founding.”

Continue reading “”

Chicago shooting: Would-be robber shot, killed in Calumet Heights; 1 in custody

CHICAGO — One person was taken into custody after a man was shot to death while trying to commit a robbery Saturday afternoon in Calumet Heights on the South Side.

Two men were walking back to their vehicle from a store about 3:45 p.m. in the 1500 block of East 95th Street when they began talking with the 32-year-old, Chicago police said.
The pair then entered their Volkswagen SUV and the man got into the backseat, struck one of them with a handgun and demanded their belongings, police said.

One of the men then pulled out their own gun and shot the would-be robber, striking him in the forehead, left leg and chest, police said.

He was transported to the University of Chicago Medical Center where he was later pronounced dead. He was identified as Xavier Johnson by the Cook County medical examiner’s office. One person was taken into custody.

Biden Administration Tops Orwell with ‘Disinformation Governance Board.’

Communism comes in various stripes.

The Soviets had their version, the Chinese have theirs—these days quaintly called “Socialism with Chinese characteristics.” The North Koreans have “Juche!” The Cambodian Khmer Rouge had theirs (thankfully short-lived) and the Cubans a pretty traditional Marxist-Leninist state with the creepy addition—they have long embedded secret police in the neighborhoods to keep an eye on everybody.

But they all have in common what they most loathe: freedom of speech.

Joining them in this abhorrence of the cornerstone of democracies is now the current U.S. administration that is about to install, through its Department of Homeland Security, a “Disinformation Governance Board.”

How Orwellian can you get!

But to call that Orwellian is both an understatement and an insult to the great George Orwell whose “Ministry of Truth” was a far more clever construction that contained the ironic overtone intended by the author.

There’s nothing ironic about the bureaucratic Biden era locution that seems thought up by the totalitarian dullards of our Deep State as a warning lest we peons get out of line and think for ourselves. It owes more to Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels than to the author of “Animal Farm” and “1984.”

We could also call it—using Chinese rhetoric, since it is their form of communism ours most now resembles—“Socialism with American Characteristics.”

As in China, this allows for an oligarchic class to continue to enrich itself without untoward intrusions from the lowly serfs.

That this comes from Homeland Security and its chief Alejandro Mayorkas is more than slightly ominous. Adding to the threatening intent of the initiative is his choice to lead this assault on the First Amendment, Nina Jankowicz.

Jankowicz was such an “expert” in the field of “disinformation” that she was one of those most loudly calling the Hunter Biden laptop story Russian disinformation, which makes her either an idiot or a liar. I’ll go with the latter.

She was also involved in “strategic communications” (“Deep Statish” for propaganda) in Ukraine during the days all the hanky-panky was going on with Burisma.

But it’s worse still. Via Breitbart, we learn that the “talented” Ms. Jankowicz recorded a song on YouTube with the lyrics “Who do I have to [world’s most well-known expletive deleted] to be rich, famous and powerful?”

Well, we now know the answer: the American people. Second answer: the Bill of Rights.