The author is a Harvard Professor, so you can see the low level that a university education has sunk to, when you have teachers who so openly lie. And what’s amazing is that they still lie in the age of the internet where just a little searching can find the facts of a matter.

While I have had my problems in the past in conversation with Attorney Branca on a gun control related subject (in reference to the definition of a ‘bullet core’ in relation to M855 ‘green tip’ ammo and federal law definitions of ‘armor piercing’ handgun ammo), his video reply to this article is on point.

Rittenhouse Verdict Flies in the Face of Legal Standards for Self-Defense

In a two-week trial that reignited debate over self-defense laws across the nation, a Wisconsin jury acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse for shooting three people, two fatally, during a racial justice protest in Kenosha.

The Wisconsin jury believed Rittenhouse’s claims that he feared for his life and acted in self-defense after he drove about 20 miles from his home in Antioch, Illinois – picking up an AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle in Kenosha – in what he claimed was an effort to protect property during violent protests. The lakeside city of 100,000 was the scene of chaotic demonstrations after a white police officer shot Jacob Blake, an unarmed, 29-year-old black man, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down.

In delivering its verdict, a Wisconsin jury decided that Rittenhouse’s conduct was justified, even though the prosecution argued that he provoked the violent encounter and, therefore, should not be able to find refuge in the self-defense doctrine.

As prosecutor Thomas Binger said in his closing argument: “When the defendant provokes this incident, he loses the right to self-defense. You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create.”

The Wisconsin jury disagreed, and its decision may portend a similar outcome in another high-profile case in Georgia, where three white men are on trial for the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery after they claimed the Black man was a suspect in a rash of robberies. Like Rittenhouse, the three men claimed they were acting in self-defense.

Self-defense arguments are often raised during trials involving loss of life. Juries are then asked to determine whether a defendant’s conduct is justified by principles of self-defense or whether the offender is criminally liable for homicide.

Complicating matters is that each state has its own distinct homicide and self-defense laws. Some states observe the controversial “stand your ground” doctrine, as in Georgia – or not, as in Wisconsin – further clouding the public’s understanding on what constitutes an appropriate use of deadly force.

Five elements of self-defense

As a professor of criminal law, I teach my students that the law of self-defense in America proceeds from an important concept: Human life is sacred, and the law will justify the taking of human life only in narrowly defined circumstances.

The law of self-defense holds that a person who is not the aggressor is justified in using deadly force against an adversary when he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. This is the standard that every state uses to define self-defense.

To determine whether this standard is met, the law looks at five central concepts.

First, the use of force must be proportionate to the force employed by the aggressor. If the aggressor lightly punches the victim in the arm, for example, the victim cannot use deadly force in response. It’s not proportional.

Second, the use of self-defense is limited to imminent harm. The threat by the aggressor must be immediate. For instance, a person who is assaulted cannot leave the scene, plan revenge later and conduct vigilante justice by killing the initial aggressor.

Third, the person’s assessment of whether he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury must be reasonable, meaning that a supposed “reasonable person” would consider the threat to be sufficiently dangerous to put him in fear of death or serious bodily injury. A person’s own subjective view of this fear is not enough to satisfy the standard for self-defense.

Fourth, the law does not permit a first aggressor to benefit from a self-defense justification. Only those with “clean hands” can benefit from this justification and avoid criminal liability.

Finally, a person has a duty to retreat before using deadly force, as long as it can be done safely. This reaffirms the law’s belief in the sanctity of human life and ensures that deadly force is an option of last resort.

‘Stand your ground’

The proliferation of states that have adopted “stand your ground” laws in recent years has complicated the analysis of self-defense involving the duty to retreat.

Dating back to early Anglo-American law, the duty to retreat has been subject to an important exception historically called the “castle doctrine”: A person has no duty to retreat in his home. This principle emerged from the 17th-century maxim that a “man’s home is his castle.”

The “castle doctrine” permits the use of lethal force in self-defense without imposing a duty to retreat in the home. Over time, states began to expand the non-retreat rule to spaces outside of the home.
“Stand your ground” laws came under national scrutiny during the trial of George Zimmerman, who was acquitted in the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

In that case, Martin, 17, was walking home after buying Skittles from a nearby convenience store. At the time, Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer who called police after spotting Martin. Despite being told by the 911 operator to remain in his car until officers arrived, Zimmerman instead confronted Martin.

It remains unclear whether a fight ensued, who was the aggressor and whether Zimmerman had injuries consistent with his claims of being beaten up by Martin. Zimmerman was the sole survivor; Martin, who was unarmed, died from a gunshot wound.

In the Zimmerman case, for example, under traditional self-defense law, the combination of first-aggressor limitation and duty to retreat would not have allowed Zimmerman to follow Martin around and kill him without being liable for murder.

But, in a stand-your-ground state such as Florida, Zimmerman had a lawful right to patrol the neighborhood near Martin’s home. As a result, during his trial, all Zimmerman had to prove was that he was in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.

In Wisconsin, Rittenhouse was also able to put in evidence that he was in reasonable fear of death. “I didn’t do anything wrong,” Rittenhouse testified. “I defended myself.”

The prosecution was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was not reasonably in fear for his safety. This represents a high bar for the prosecution. They were unable to surmount it.

Ronald Sullivan is Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.

The reaction to the Rittenhouse verdict will be a sorting hat for America

And the Governor of California:

These men know that happened and have an army of lawyers that could explain it to them in detail.

The point is the narrative uber alles.

This will be used to sort Americans.

Did you watch the trial and come to your own conclusions based on the evidence?

Or

Did you accept the narrative and engage in the 14 month Two Minute Hate against the target designated?

Are you still one of those knuckle draggers who has to see things with their own eyes and have their own thoughts?

Or

Are you one of the Good People who accepts the opinions of the Credentialed Experts™?

This is the same sorting we saw with mask mandates and COVID compliance.

When all the data came out, do you still doggedly believe in masks and gloves and performative COVID ablutions, or did you go back to your normal life?

We know that people who supported Kyle before the trial were punished on social media and elsewhere, just like those who propagated “COVID misinformation.”

The ultimate goal is to sort us into the compliant and free thinkers with punishments and rewards dolled out accordingly.

No charges in deadly shooting in Casselton; case of self defense prosecutors decide

FARGO, N.D. (KFGO) – The Cass County State’s Attorney’s Office has decided not to file criminal charges against a man who shot and killed a man in Casselton late last month.

Prosecutors decided they could not prove that 54-year-old Edwin Kester Jr. intended to kill 58-year-old Randell Burton in an apartment connected to Club 94, a bar and restaurant on October 18.

In a report obtained by KFGO News, prosecutors said, “under the totality of the circumstances, the State is unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Kester’s use of deadly force in self-defense and/or defense of others was unjustified.”

Under North Dakota law, an individual is justified in using deadly force to protect the life of themselves or others.

Burton broke into the apartment where his girlfriend was living. Kester was staying with the woman because she feared that Burton may try to hurt her.

The investigation determined that Burton had threatened the woman’s life days before the shooting and was arrested for terrorizing and domestic violence. He had been released from jail the day before the shooting and was under court order not to contact the woman.

Kester shot Burton in the chest with a handgun when he broke through two locked doors and was headed toward the woman’s bedroom. Kester called 911 shortly before 2:00 a.m. Burton later died at the hospital.

Employee reportedly shoots suspects in armed robbery at cannabis store in Spanaway

SPANAWAY, Wash. – Two teens were shot Thursday night during an alleged armed robbery at a cannabis store in Spanaway.

The Pierce County Sheriff’s Office says a store employee called 911 around 9:30 p.m. to say that their business, Blessings Cannabis, had been robbed by four or five males with guns who were wearing hooded jackets and masks.

The employees told deputies that the suspects pointed guns at them while they stole money and marijuana. At one point, an employee retrieved a gun and shot at the suspects.

A short while later, two 19-year-olds showed up at a local hospital with gunshot wounds. They were arrested and booked into jail for robbery in the first degree, the sheriff’s office says.

The investigation is ongoing and the search for the other suspects continues. Anyone with information is asked to contact the sheriff’s office.

Facts over feelings in Kyle Rittenhouse verdict: He was acting in self-defense.

When Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, and injured Gaige Grosskreutz, he was acting in self-defense. So says a jury from Kenosha, Wis., and their verdict is correct because that’s what the facts showed. But facts don’t always line up with feelings.

The trial started out on a sour note when Judge Bruce Schroeder blocked prosecutors from referring to the victims as “victims” — but allowed the defense to call them “rioters,” “looters,” and “arsonists.” Some said this was the judge being biased, but judges routinely impose restrictions on prosecutors that aren’t imposed on defense attorneys. And judges regularly ban the word “victim” in many jurisdictions, including in Massachusetts, disproportionately so in rape cases.

Banning words is silly, and sometimes unconstitutional, but judges have been doing it a lot since the idiot judge in the Kobe Bryant case notoriously ordered everyone in the case not to use the word “victim” when talking about the woman Bryant attacked. (Where was the outrage for that victim?)

Defense attorneys say the word “victim” is unfair because it presumes guilt. But if that were true, the word “witness” would be banned, too, because it presumes that a person actually saw what they say they saw. It’s all nonsense. If there is a legitimate concern about a word, the judge can instruct the jury not to use it unfairly.

The same people who complained about the word “victim” being banned in Rittenhouse’s case didn’t care about the five child “victims” Rosenbaum was convicted of raping. This evidence would have been admissible against Rosenbaum under Massachusetts law, even though it’s not relevant, but those who supported the prosecution said it was unfair even for the media to mention it. They should remember this the next time a defense attorney tries to use a rape victim’s past against her.

While the defense demonized Rittenhouse’s victims, the prosecution did the same to Rittenhouse by suggesting that he went to Kenosha with an assault weapon because he was planning to kill people. Rittenhouse said he wanted to help protect the public after riots broke out when police shot a black man named Jacob Blake seven times — hitting him in the back four times. Cops were cleared of wrongdoing, but people were upset because Blake was shot only a few months after George Floyd was killed.

Prosecutors said Rittenhouse was guilty of murder because he was the aggressor, but video evidence showed that Rittenhouse was leaving the area before he shot any bullets, and that he only started shooting when Rosenbaum and others started chasing him. Rosenbaum lunged at Rittenhouse and grabbed his gun. Rittenhouse said he shot Rosenbaum to stop him.

Video evidence also showed that Rittenhouse shot Huber only after Huber started hitting him in the head — and tried to take his gun.

Grosskreutz, who was armed, also put his hand on Rittenhouse’s gun before he was shot.

The prosecution claimed Rittenhouse provoked his victims by openly carrying a large weapon, and that this nullified any self-defense claim, but video evidence showed the victims were also provoking Rittenhouse. Provocation does not justify murder, but it does bolster Rittenhouse’s claim that he was acting in self-defense.

To assert a valid self-defense claim in a murder case, evidence must show that the defendant “exhausted all reasonable means to avoid killing someone.” Once that evidence is presented, however weak it is, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. The prosecution had no hope of meeting that burden in this case. It’s not that the victims deserved to be shot, it’s that the law permits jurors to find defendants not guilty if they kill in response to a threat of death or serious bodily harm.

It was a highly emotional case, with strong feelings on both sides. The defense says it was a big political farce, and that Rittenhouse never should have been charged. The prosecution says Rittenhouse had no business bringing a rifle to a riot, and that he is responsible for the violence that followed.

Both sides are a little bit right.

[No they aren’t, but I think this is just the author trying to salve his butthurt at having to acknowledge fact over his feelings]

Hypocrisy O’ The Day

Hypocrisy, thy name be Fauci

Oh my: Fauci caught unmasking at indoor D.C. event this week?

We’ve all been waiting for a sign from the experts that the pandemic is really, truly over and it’s time to get back to normal.

I think we’ve found it.

This isn’t just a case of Fauci declining to follow his own public guidance. If true, he was breaking the law. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser lifted the city’s indoor mask mandate a few days ago but that policy won’t take effect until this coming Monday.

Incidents like Gavin Newsom’s French Laundry dinner and the double standard in masking at the Met Gala have led many Americans to believe that the elite view COVID rules as something for the great unwashed to follow, not for them personally. This Politico report about Fauci won’t change any minds:

Mask on, mask off. That [was] the name of the game for ANTHONY FAUCI at JONATHAN KARL’s book party Tuesday night at Café Milano. As gawkers tried to snap pictures of him indoors not wearing a mask, America’s doc would put it on and take it off depending on whom he was around. SALLY QUINN — who’s known Fauci since his days as a young NIH doctor, when he inspired a love interest in one of her erotic novels — asked him why he was at a party with a mask in hand, not on face. “I said, ‘You seem pretty ambivalent about your mask’ because no one else was wearing one,” Quinn told Playbook. “He said, ‘I just decided that if anyone came up that I didn’t know, I would put my mask on.’”

Quinn added that “paparazzi” were surrounding Fauci trying to get that “gotcha moment” of the Covid czar without a mask on. Guests had to show proof of vaccination to enter the party. “He was being safe,” Quinn said in his defense. “He knew everyone was vaccinated. If it was someone we knew, he would trust them, and if it was somebody else, he didn’t.” Another guest observed Fauci’s mask on/mask off dance, but said that the mask was firmly on when he came to the rescue of a guest who had collapsed. We reached out to Fauci via NIH but didn’t hear back Thursday night.

“I don’t need to take precautions because I’m acquainted with this person” is so stupid that I’m struggling to believe Fauci would say it, even though Quinn has no reason to lie. If he wanted to concoct an excuse for eschewing a mask, he could have said that he was recently boosted and therefore at little risk at the moment of being infected or of infecting others. That wouldn’t get him off the hook for breaking D.C.’s rules but it would have the virtue of being true. The idea that you don’t need to worry about being infected when you’re around someone from a different household because you know them personally is completely fatuous. The likely truth: Fauci unmasked around people whom he knew because he assumed they wouldn’t rat him out to the press. He masked up when speaking to people whom he wasn’t sure about.

Evidently he misjudged Quinn.

Continue reading “”

Observation O’ The Day
The difference between them and us is that we want Law to be the guardian of Justice for the People. They want Law to be the guardian of their Absolute Power.

This is the proggie notion that exercising the natural right of self defense and the right to keep and bear arms is wrong because the state has the purported ‘monopoly of violence’.
In other words: Self Defense Killing Bad – Government Killing Good.

Oh, and when you read crap like this, make notes.

Kyle Rittenhouse’s Defense Was Strong. It’s Also a Threat to the Rule of Law. 

In August 2020, Kyle Rittenhouse brought an AR-15 to downtown Kenosha, Wisconsin, in the name of law and order. As protests and riots raged in the wake of the police shooting of Jacob Blake, the 17-year-old Blue Lives Matter enthusiast felt called to serve as an amateur armed guard for a Kenosha car dealership. He ended up shooting two unarmed protesters dead and blowing off another’s right bicep — without committing a crime.

Or so a Wisconsin jury found on Friday. After three and half days of deliberation, the jurors found that Rittenhouse was not guilty of reckless homicide, intentional homicide, or recklessly endangering public safety. This verdict was legally defensible. Yet it also exposed the anarchy latent in America’s peculiar combination of lax gun regulations, expansive self-defense rights, and mass gun ownership.

Continue reading “”

David French’s Irrational Fear of Guns is No Reason to Outlaw Open Carry.

Instead of asking why a then-17 year-old was there helping to guard a business and putting out fires, the question should be why the governor didn’t call out the Guard in the same way he is before this verdict. The question should be how elected officials failed to protect the community they represented and made a teenager feel like he needed to go and offer what protection he could as a substitute. My grandfather was Kyle Rittenhouse’s age when he signed up to serve on the USS Alabama in WWII. Men a year older can openly bear arms to fight overseas but not to defend their own communities when rioters are allowed to turn a town into a war zone?

Rittenhouse had every right to be in Kenosha. His father lives there. His grandmother lives there. He works there. His rifle was there too, (not driven across state lines) despite media’s best intentions to turn Rittenhouse’s short 20 minute drive from his mom’s house in Antioch to Kenosha into the modern journey of Odysseus. In fact, you might argue Rittenhouse had more of a reason to be in Kenosha than the rioters from California or Oregon.

It makes no sense that [David] French is arguing against open carry by citing the case of a teenager (the court determined he was legally open-carrying a rifle) who can’t carry concealed because a) how do you carry a rifle concealed and b) he’s too young to purchase and carry a handgun, much less carry it concealed.

No law-abiding person should feel persuaded to forfeit their rights because someone harbors an irrational fear of the inanimate object they possess. A person’s comfort level doesn’t determine the extent to which a right can be exercised. If you dislike open carry then carry concealed, but no one has the right to determine for others how they may lawfully carry.

— Dana Loesch in Kyle Rittenhouse Isn’t a Villain and There Is Nothing Wrong with Open Carry

Comments O’ The Day

It would be awesome if nothing happened in Kenosha, proving again online outrage isn’t the real world.

Given the precedent, I suspect some folks will not risk instigating crimes of violence and intimidation owing the chance of getting shot. “It’s gettin’ real, folks.”

Defeat the Lies of Gun Control with Facts

MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace went on a rant that targeted conservative media and the Second Amendment. It’s one that Second Amendment supporters should pay some heed to, even though Wallace these days is little more than a Beltway version of Regina George.

Wallace may be a NeverTrump “mean girl” these days, but she also was – at least putatively – a one-time Second Amendment supporter (and she worked for a President who appointed two of the five justices in the Heller majority). She also was a White House communications director, and as much as we may want to dismiss her, dummies don’t become White House communications directors. People who show loyalty and competence usually get that job.

This is why her claim that America has a gun crisis needs to be taken on, forcefully. Like David Frum’s lie about responsible gun ownership and the phony bologna claims about the origins of the Second Amendment from Carol Anderson (via the ACLU), we must push back. These lies are not small potatoes.

How do we fight back? With the facts.

Some of these facts come from looking over the latest FBI stats. In 2020, a total of 455 homicides were carried out with rifles, with another 203 carried out by shotguns. To put that into perspective, “personal weapons” (hands, fists, feet, etc.) killed 662 people or more than rifles and shotguns of all types combined. Handguns and “firearms, type not stated” were used in 8,209 and 4,863 homicides, respectively.

There are roughly 150 million handguns in the United States, according to an NRA-ILA Fact Sheet. That means in 2020, .0054 percent of handguns were used in homicides or one in 18,272.627603. It should be noted that since the landmark Heller ruling in 2008, the Supreme Court has held that handgun bans are unconstitutional.

The next fact that Wallace ignores is that we know what has caused the latest upswing in violent crime: No prosecuting the violent offenders. Take some of the outrageous decisions from Chicago, for instance, or for the prosecutors whose campaigns George Soros has funded. Even if authorities can’t get murder charges perhaps some of the rarely-used provisions of 18 USC 922 and 18 USC 924 could make a dent. The problem is, these aren’t used, and similar state-level provisions also aren’t used.

Second Amendment supporters can debate the wisdom of various gun laws, but the laws that Project Exile enforced can and would make a huge difference in the places that are seeing the worst of violent crime. Part of the way dishonest hacks and anti-Second Amendment extremists will sell the false notion of a ”gun crisis” (especially in the “public health” arena) is to point to murder rates and violent crime.

The ultimate task for Second Amendment supporters is to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local level – not to mention in corporate boardrooms and elsewhere. However, to do that, they need to not only prove claims of a “gun crisis” are phony, they need to show that the solution to the real crisis is not found in attacking the Second Amendment.

If you haven’t figured this out yet for yourself, you’re behind.

THEY ARE AFTER OUR CHILDREN

The precepts of Critical Race Theory are only taught to law school students, right? Sure. And also to pre-schoolers. Check out this new program from the University of Texas called GoKAR!. KAR stands for Kids Against Racism. UT is looking for parents “caregivers” who have preschool children ages four to five. They must “identify as white.” This is so the four and five year olds can be subjected to an “anti-racism” curriculum. In particular, “GoKAR! creates opportunities for caregivers to engage in dialogue about anti-Black racism with their preschool-aged children at home.” How about if we read them Winnie the Pooh instead? Please?

Click to enlarge, via Minding the Campus:

One stated objective of the GoKAR! program is to “increase awareness of racism.” I have no doubt that this goal will be achieved. These four and five year olds probably have little or no awareness of racism, but when the University of Texas is done with them, race will be front and center in their lives. Liberals think that is a good thing. God knows why.

That’s race. Now on to gender. In California, public school teachers’ union members are stalking middle-school kids on the internet, identifying potential 12- to 14-year-old kids whom they can groom into the LGBTQ life through school organizations. Seriously. Abigail Shrier has the story, obtained through audio recordings from a conference of California’s largest teachers’ union. Here, as is generally the case, the teachers’ union is a source of great evil.

Last month, the California Teachers Association (CTA) held a conference advising teachers on best practices for subverting parents, conservative communities and school principals on issues of gender identity and sexual orientation. Speakers went so far as to tout their surveillance of students’ Google searches, internet activity, and hallway conversations in order to target sixth graders for personal invitations to LGBTQ clubs, while actively concealing these clubs’ membership rolls from participants’ parents.

You really should read Ms. Shrier’s post in its entirety. It includes lengthy quotes from union members that support that summary. For example:

Middle school kids, apparently, did not have endless interest in sitting around with their teachers during lunch discussing their sexual orientations and gender identities. “So we started to brainstorm at the end of the 2020 school year, what are we going to do? We got to see some kids in-person at the end of last year, not many but a few. So we started to try and identify kids. When we were doing our virtual learning – we totally stalked what they were doing on Google, when they weren’t doing school work. One of them was googling ‘Trans Day of Visibility.’ And we’re like, ‘Check.’ We’re going to invite that kid when we get back on campus. Whenever they follow the Google Doodle links or whatever, right, we make note of those kids and the things that they bring up with each other in chats or email or whatever,” Baraki can be heard to say. Beyond electronic surveillance of kids’ internet use, “we use our observations of kids in the classroom—conversations that we hear—to personally invite students. Because that’s really the way we kinda get the bodies in the door. Right? They need sort of a little bit of an invitation,” Baraki says in the clip.

It turns out that very few middle school kids are actually interested in being gay, trans or whatever. So radical teachers “stalk what they [are] doing on Google”–their words, not mine–and “use [their] observations of kids in the classroom” to identify children who might be vulnerable to the gay message, and entice them into the queer–their word–“movement.” All of this is at taxpayers’ expense, and, as one of the teachers caught on audio tape exults, they can’t be fired for stalking and grooming children.

However concerned you may be about the Left coming after your children, you can’t be paranoid enough.

SAF: SURVEY SHOWS PUBLIC TRUSTS GOP MORE THAN DEMS ON GUNS

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today pointed to a new Morning Consult/Politico survey finding that the public trusts Republicans more than Democrats on gun policy as an acknowledgement that Americans are rejecting the Democrats’ radical gun control agenda.

The survey of almost 2,000 registered voters was conducted Nov. 5-7 and revealed that in the top five areas of concern—national security, the economy, gun policy, immigration and jobs—polling results show Democrats trailing.

“These survey results are revealing, especially on firearms policies,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “After years of failed gun control policies, the public has finally concluded that Democrats have only worked to disarm law-abiding citizens and make us more vulnerable to criminal attack. Policies advertised as keeping guns out of the hands of criminals have actually only been tough on their intended victims.

“The survey found that 46 percent of all American voters think Republicans do a better job on gun policy, while 39 percent still cling to the notion Democrats have the right approach, but a significant 15 percent are still in the middle,” he continued. “When the survey numbers focus on important suburban voters, the numbers get even worse. Forty-seven percent of voters in the suburbs believe Republicans are better on gun policy, while only 37 percent support Democrat schemes, and 16 percent remain undecided.

“The ten percent margin in the suburbs is extremely important for the upcoming 2022 midterm elections,” Gottlieb said. “That is where almost all the swing congressional districts are. This could cost the Democrats between 40 and 60 seats in the House.”

SAF has run more than 1,000 national TV spots on over 24 cable networks, along with radio advertising and millions of impressions on the Internet have helped educate the public on gun policy and the survey reflects the impact.

Gottlieb pointed to the election results in Virginia, which signaled a “new direction in the Old Dominion.” Commonwealth voters filled all statewide offices with Republicans, and put the House back in GOP control following two disastrous years.

“I anticipate Virginia gun owners will press the new administration and legislative majority to quickly undo the policies adopted by Ralph Northam and his cronies in 2020,” Gottlieb predicted. “Those policies, specifically the destruction of state preemption which guarantees uniformity of gun laws statewide, and the one-handgun-per-month purchase restriction, penalize honest citizens and do nothing to reduce violent crime.

“Democrats may have forgotten that right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution,” he concluded. “Rights are not up to a public vote, but people who attempt to infringe on those rights certainly are. Voters made that clear in Virginia and are poised to do it again in November 2022.”

 

BLUF:
Now Big Pharma, Fauci and Co. and their media shills say we need to take their boosters to keep ourselves protected (which we never really were). The boosters, however, will likely be as ineffective as the original failed shots. The CDC has recently approved a fourth shot for the vulnerable. This is an indirect admission on their part that the previous three shots have failed. Why in the world would anyone believe that the fourth injection will work?

The Covid vaccination travesty must be stopped now and paused until effective, reliable, and safe alternatives are found.

Fauci Finally Admits Vaccines Don’t Protect Against Serious Covid or Death

Last week Dr. Anthony Fauci made perhaps the most damning confession in the Covid vaccine saga. So far-reaching are the implications of his statement that the interview in which he made it may well prove a turning point in the fight against the vaccine fraud that is being perpetrated on the peoples of the world.

In a November 12 podcast session with the New York Times, Fauci was forced to admit the fact that the vaccines do not reliably protect their recipients from serious Covid or death.

Called upon to explain the data coming from Israel – a country with one of the highest vaccination rates in the world – Fauci said the following:

“They are seeing a waning of immunity not only against infection but against hospitalization and to some extent death, which is starting to now involve all age groups. It isn’t just the elderly” [emphasis added].

In other words, the vaccines’ protective efficacy wanes not only in regard to the threat of infection, but also in regard to severe Covid and death. Speaking about the effectiveness of the vaccines in countries with high vaccination rates, Fauci admitted:

“It’s waning to the point that you’re seeing more and more people getting breakthrough infections, and more and more of those people who are getting breakthrough infections are winding up in the hospital.”

Even though Fauci tries to palliate the hard impact of his answer in soft language, the harsh truth behind his words is painfully evident.

Fauci’s words amount to the admission that the vaccinated are getting infected and more and more of them are ending up in hospital where they keep succumbing to Covid at increasing rates.

This is what data from Israel and other highly vaccinated countries has indicated for some time now. In the United Kingdom, for example, between February and September of this year, 72 percent of all Covid-related deaths were among the vaccinated. In Scotland the situation was even worse: 80 percent of Covid deaths occurred among those who had been injected with the vaccines.

Continue reading “”

The Media’s Verdict on Kyle Rittenhouse

Here is what I thought was true about Kyle Rittenhouse during the last days of August 2020 based on mainstream media accounts: The 17-year-old was a racist vigilante. I thought he drove across state lines, to Kenosha, Wisc., with an illegally acquired semi-automatic rifle to a town to which he had no connection. I thought he went there because he knew there were Black Lives Matter protests and he wanted to start a fight. And I thought that by the end of the evening of August 25, 2020, he had done just that, killing two peaceful protestors and injuring a third.

It turns out that account was mostly wrong.

Unless you’re a regular reader of independent reporting — Jacob Siegel of Tablet Magazine and Jesse Singal stand out for being ahead of the pack (and pilloried, like clockwork, for not going along with the herd) — you would have been served a pack of lies about what happened during those terrible days in Kenosha. And you would have been shocked over the past two weeks as the trial unfolded in Wisconsin as every core claim was undermined by the evidence of what actually happened that night.

This wasn’t a disinformation campaign waged by Reddit trolls or anonymous Twitter accounts. It was one pushed by the mainstream media and sitting members of Congress for the sake of an expedient political narrative—a narrative that asked people to believe, among other unrealities, that blocks of burning buildings somehow constituted peaceful protests.

Take this, for instance, from CNN:

 

Continue reading “”

NSSF PRAISES SENATE BIPARTISAN OUTDOOR RECREATION ACT

NEWTOWN, Conn. — The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®), the firearm industry trade association, praised the introduction of the bipartisan Outdoor Recreation Act. This legislation, introduced by U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), would increase and improve outdoor recreation opportunities across the nation while improving infrastructure and driving economic growth in rural communities.

“The National Shooting Sports Foundation commends Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Sen. Joe Manchin and Ranking Member Sen. John Barrasso for introducing this vitally important outdoor recreation package,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “In particular, NSSF appreciates the bipartisan measures included in this legislation that would require the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to ensure that both agencies have at least one qualifying recreational shooting range in each National Forest and BLM district. Recreational shooting is tied to approximately 85 percent of the Pittman-Robertson excise taxes currently being paid by firearm and ammunition manufacturers, making it a major driving contributor to wildlife conservation. This legislation would ensure that recreational marksmanship can be practiced in accessible and safe environments while also benefiting conservation.”

Senator Manchin explained in a press release that the Outdoor Recreation Act would support outdoor recreation economies and provide an economic boost to local communities while preserving public lands for future generations. Sen. Barrasso added that the bill not only establishes public access to shooting ranges on USFS and BLM lands, but also ensures access to public lands and modernizes campgrounds.

Specifically, the legislation would direct the Forest Service to issue guidance for recreational climbing in designated Wilderness Areas and require the Forest Service and BLM to designate many new shooting ranges on National Forests and BLM land.

William A. Jacobson-
My appearance on Chicago’s Morning Answer:
“if you can’t defend yourself in those circumstances and the full weight of the state and the full weight of the media is going to come down on you, then we are in a really bad place”

 

Free States Must Defend the Right to Self-Defense

The jury is still out as I write this; I wish I could be confident that our justice system will provide what it promises and that the unjustly accused will leave the courthouse wearing a smile instead of handcuffs. Kyle Rittenhouse, who went into the void created by the cowardly leftist officials who refused to protect decent citizens from the militarized wing of the Democrat Party, might well be convicted.

He got dragged through a legal nightmare, and if that’s all that happens to him, then that’s the best-case scenario. Us lawyers understand that evidence and law are not what determine jury verdicts; they are merely factors in a much bigger picture. Instead of facing life in prison, Kyle ought to get a medal for taking out several degenerates, including a promising potential Lincoln Project intern.

If you are looking for justice, you won’t necessarily find it in a courthouse.

Continue reading “”

This was clearly ‘something personal’ as we can see the deadhead was waving out of the way what turned out to be an off duty cop that TCOB.
‘Stupid is as Stupid does’

Also, lesson learned from other’s experience?
‘Check 6 isn’t just for fighter pilots’

Hero off-duty Baltimore cop kills gunman who fatally shot barber

The gunman, identified as Carlos Ortega, entered The Bladi Style barbershop in Baltimore’s Medford section Saturday afternoon with a handgun and “fired it at one of the barbers” working there, killing him, Police Commissioner Michael Harrison told reporters Saturday.

An off-duty cop in plainclothes who was getting a haircut from another barber reacted immediately and “with great bravery produced his firearm” and fatally shot the attacker, Harrison said.

Cops identified Ortega, 38, early Monday as the man who killed barber Rafael Jeffers, 33, the Baltimore Sun reported.

Investigators believe Ortega was tied to two earlier Saturday shootings, including one that left one person dead. Another victim was listed in critical condition following gunfire near the city’s Greektown section.

‘I’m not gonna read that’: We don’t know what President Biden just signed because he gave up reading it

ABC News reported earlier that President Joe Biden was holding a signing ceremony Thursday of bills aimed at protecting first responders; we already showed you the clip where Biden takes an uncomfortable interest in a 7-year-old boy next to him and offers to show him around the White House. Maybe some people thought it was cute, but to us, it just came across as creepy … as usual.

Here’s a clip from later on in the ceremony, where Biden gives up on reading the name of the amendment he’s signing.

More SloJoe cluelessness. That rig starts at $110,000

While they’re being simplistic when it comes to actual ‘use of force’ and do the standard clueless journalist bit about confusing “Self Defense” with “Stand Your Ground”,  at least they’re acknowledging that self defense and concealed carry are ‘normal’.

Amid crime surge in Seattle, some take steps to defend themselves

Reports of violent crime this year in Seattle have already surpassed the historic high number that were reported in the city last year.

It is perhaps not a coincidence then that more people are turning to ways to defend themselves and opting to stand their ground.

From self-defense classes to skyrocketing gun sales, more people are looking for ways to defend themselves amid concerns that they are on their own when it comes to random street crime.

Just a few weeks ago, Morgan Zion, who lives in Seattle, could be heard on cellphone video standing her ground from an attacker.

“I hate to be the person who says, ‘Oh Seattle has gotten so much worse,'” she said. “But it has.”

Continue reading “”