“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 “”

Comment O’ The Day
It cracks me up when they tell him to act mad so everyone thinks he really means it.


Biden Loses It Over Americans Correctly Knowing the Cause of Inflation

Speaking to House Democrats at their winter retreat in Philadelphia Friday afternoon, President Joe Biden started yelling at Americans who pin inflation on excessive government spending.

“I’m sick of this stuff!” Biden screamed, throwing his arms in the air. “The American people think the reason for inflation is government spending more money. Simply not true.”

But it is true. Take a look at the rise in inflation after Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan was passed and signed.

This week’s Consumer Price Index report not only showed inflation at the highest level since 1982, but broke historic records for price increases on essential goods.

During an interview with CNBC Thursday afternoon, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned inflation is here to stay.

It wasn’t for the benefit of the children, but the state


Why Government Schooling Came to America.

In the first two essays in this series on the relationship between government and the education of children (“How the Redneck Intellectual Discovered Educational Freedom—and How You Can, Too” and “The New Abolitionism: A Manifesto for a Movement”), I established, first, how and why the principle of “Separation of School and State” is both a logical and moral necessity grounded in the rights of nature, and then I demonstrated how and why America’s government schools should be abolished as logical and moral necessities.

In this essay, I’d like to drill down more deeply into the nature and purposes of government schooling in order to further demonstrate how and why a system of government-run education is anathema to the tradition of American freedom and therefore immoral. Let me be clear (if I haven’t been so already): I regard the government school system to be the single worst and most destructive institution in America. It cannot be “reformed,” and it cannot be tolerated. Period. It must, therefore, be abolished.

To that end, it is important to understand how and why government schooling came to the United States in the first place. Most Americans today assume that the “public” school system is as American as apple pie, that it has been around since the first foundings of Britain’s North American colonies in the seventeenth century or at least since the founding of the United States of American in 1788. But this is not true.

In the longue durée of American history from the early seventeenth century to the present, the government school system is actually a relatively recent phenomenon. A system of nation-wide government schools was not fully implemented in this country until about 100 years ago.

Let’s begin with a brief journey through the early history of American education to see when, why, and how the American people gave up their unalienable right to educate their children and turned it over to government officials.

Early America’s System of Education

For almost 250 years, the education of children, first in England’s North American colonies and then in the United States of America up until the Civil War, was almost an entirely private affair. Parents had the freedom to choose the education, ideas, and values that they wanted for their children. The government was not involved in educating children. This is the great forgotten story of American history.

During this quarter millennium, children were typically educated in one of four ways. They were either homeschooled or they attended one of three different kinds of schools: 1) tuition-charging private schools; 2) charitable or “free” private schools established by philanthropists and religious societies; or 3) semi-public “district” schools (later known in the nineteenth century as “common schools”).

The so-called “district” schools of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries are held up today by proponents of government schooling to suggest that government-run education has existed in America since the seventeenth century. But this is not true.

Existing mostly in New England, these “district” schools were what we might call “neighborhood” schools that were built and monitored by the parents of the children who attended them, and they were financed by a combination of tuition charges, local taxes, and mutual-aid societies. These neighborhood schools were controlled entirely by parents, who chose and supplied the textbooks and who hired and fired teachers. Though partially funded by local taxes, these neighborhood schools were not government schools in any meaningful way. The government did not determine who was hired, nor did it determine what was taught.

In all instances, schooling in America until the twentieth century was highly decentralized. Many if not most of the tuition-charging or “free” schools, particularly those in more populous areas, were run by individual men or women who simply hung out a shingle, advertised for students, and ran a school out of their home. Some of these schools taught only the Three R’s, while others offered classical curricula where students were taught classical Greek and Latin. It was in one of these “home” schools that John Adams first learned the ancient languages.

This decentralized, parent-driven form of schooling was how the generation of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison was educated. Not a single one of America’s founding fathers attended a government school. The very idea is and was anathema to a free society.

It is therefore imperative that we understand why government schools were ever established in the United States.

One thing is certain: America’s system of government schooling was not established because the extant system of private schooling was failing to educate America’s children. Quite the opposite.

American schooling in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was highly democratic, in the sense that virtually all children received some kind or degree of education. They did so because that’s what their parents wanted for them, thereby dispelling the calumny that parents won’t do whatever it takes to make sure their children are educated in a free-market system of education or schooling. In economic terms, the supply met the demand.

Not surprisingly, Americans educated their children to a very high degree—indeed, to such a high degree that America had the highest literacy rates of any country in the world!  European visitors to the United States were astonished by the levels of education achieved in the United States. In his National Education in the United States (1812) published forty years before the introduction of government schooling, Pierre Samuel Du Pont de Nemours expressed his astonishment at the extraordinary literacy rate he saw amongst ordinary Americans.

Likewise, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America that the Americans were “the most enlightened people on earth.” Even on the frontier where schools and libraries were in short supply, Tocqueville noted that one-room cabins hidden deep in the woods typically contained a copy of the Bible and multiple newspapers.

All of this was achieved without government schools.

And then, everything changed.

Government Schooling Comes to America

America’s experiment with universal compulsory education (i.e., government schooling), which began in earnest in the years immediately before the Civil War and picked up steam in the postbellum period, was created with different purposes in mind than just teaching children the Three R’s and a body of historical, moral, and literary knowledge to help them live productive, self-governing lives.

The early proponents of government schooling in nineteenth-century America imagined new and different goals for educating children. The advocates for forced schooling took the highly authoritarian, nineteenth-century Prussian model as their beau idéal.

The leading proponent of government schooling in Prussia and the man from whom the Americans learned the most was the philosopher Johann Fichte (1762-1814), who, in his Addresses to the German Nation (1807), called for “a total change of the existing system of education” in order to preserve “the existence of the German nation.” The goal of this new education system was to “mould the Germans into a corporate body, which shall be stimulated and animated in all its individual members by the same interest.” This new national system of education, Fichte argued, must apply “to every German without exception” and every child must be taken from parents and “separated altogether from the community.” Fichte recommended that the German schools “must fashion [the student], and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than you wish him to will,” so that the pupil might go “forth at the proper time as a fixed and unchangeable machine.” Children should therefore be taught “a love of order” and the “system of government must be arranged in such a way that the individual must . . . work and act, for the sake of the community.”

The highest purpose of Prussian education was summed up by one of its later proponents, Franz de Hovre:

The prime fundamental of German education is that it is based on a national principle. Kulture is the great capital of the German nation. . . . A fundamental feature of German education; Education to the State, Education for the State, Education by the State. The Volkschule is a direct result of a national principle aimed at the national unity. The State is the supreme end in view.

This kind of education was virtually unknown to Americans until the nineteenth century, and it was anathema to everything that the founders’ liberalism stood for.

We know America’s earliest proponents of government schooling were enamored with the Prussian model because they were explicit in saying so. Some of them went to Germany to see exactly what the Germans were doing, and they became advocates of Prussian schooling when they returned to America.

Continue reading “”

What Did She Say? Here’s the Braindead Remarks DC Offered About the Latest Fatal Carjacking in the City

What did DC Mayor Muriel Bowser just say? I had to do a double-take. The recent carjacking in Washington DC that left a man dead was…not intentional. The killing wasn’t on purpose. That’s the line here? It doesn’t matter, Bowser. It really doesn’t. You can still be charged and sent to jail for accidentally killing people. What reality are Democrats living in here? Soft on crime has rotten the Left’s brains where they think if a crime was committed by accident, then it’s not a crime. Nope. It’s a crime. In the real world with real people and real laws, committing a crime is bad and people get sent to jail for it. At times, probation and penalties are involved. In severe cases, the state puts the perpetrator to death. This is not deep stuff, mayor.

Here’s the backstory that prompted this heinous remark from the mayor (via Fox5DC): MedStar doctor is dead after police say he was struck and killed by his own vehicle that had just been stolen from him in Northwest D.C. That MedStar Doctor has been identified as 33-year-old Rakesh Patel, of Silver Spring. His parents drove from Ohio to identify his body.

The incident began a little after 8 p.m. Tuesday in the 1800 block of Vernon Street NW. Officers say Patel’s vehicle was left running in that area. A close friend of the victim’s girlfriend, Kristine Froeba, told FOX 5 Patel went to drop off something to his girlfriend that night. The two were hugging goodbye when Froeba said the couple saw Patel’s vehicle start to move.

Police say an unknown suspect entered the Mercedes and drove off east on Vernon St. Patel apparently pursued his stolen car.

He “probably didn’t intend to kill anybody,” Bowser said regarding the incident.

How have we come to this? Mayor, this may be hard for a liberal Democrat like yourself to understand, but criminals are bad people. This car thief is a murderer. He should be sent away for a long time if caught. How is this hard? He didn’t mean to kill anyone. That is beyond irrelevant in this case. He stole a car and killed someone. This person is criminal trash. End of story.

There’s this addiction among liberals that seeks to refrain from calling criminals out for who they are in society.

Gun Banners Struggling To Find Relevance In A World Prepping For War

When all is said and done, the conflict in Ukraine, will have been responsible for putting more guns into civilian hands than Barack Obama and Joe Biden combined.

For the American gun-ban industry, these world events hit at a particularly difficult period of time. Make no mistake, they still get up every morning, have a cup of coffee, and then decide how best to strip you of your constitutional rights.

But nowadays, it’s not as easy for them to find someone who is willing to listen to their inane pleas. They’re desperate for an audience – any audience – so they have changed-up the way they message their anti-gun campaigns. They’ve resorted to quick-hits – single messages of short duration – so when one fizzles, they can quickly pivot to another, all to keep their donors mollified and their money flowing in.

Things were not always this way. Before the plague, Gabby Giffords or Shannon Watts had only to snap their fingers and they’d get the lead story for an entire news cycle. Michael Bloomberg actually wrote his own headlines. The Trace – the propaganda arm of his anti-gun empire – successfully embedded its paid anti-gun activists into newsrooms across the country. It was a major coup for the diminutive demagogue. His stooges in the mainstream media still haven’t realized how badly they were hoodwinked and used. But COVID, the lockdowns, and a series of violent riots across the country put an end to all of this.

When Americans saw their neighborhoods going up in flames, more than 5 million bought firearms and apparently a lot of ammunition.

Continue reading “”

[Michigan] State House Passes LaFave’s Firearms Transport Bill

The state House today passed Rep. Beau LaFave’s plan to expand the rights of gun owners to transport their firearm unmolested while on private property.

The bill would allow uncased firearms in any vehicle, including an ATV or UTV, on private land as long as they are accompanied by or have permission from the landowner or lessee.

“This is a huge win for Michiganders all over the state,” said LaFave, of Iron Mountain. “This will help keep individuals from being unnecessarily prosecuted. Right now, you can carry a loaded pistol in or upon a vehicle with a CPL, but getting caught with a .22 long rifle subjects you to three months in jail.”

“This common-sense reform does not impact public safety,” LaFave said. “The bill simply decriminalizes a statute that makes criminals out of law-abiding citizens.”

Similar legislation passed the House with the support of LaFave in 2018. That law, now Public Act 272 of 2018, allowed a bow or crossbow to be transported without a case.

LaFave said: “Michiganders are entitled to their right to bear arms, more so on their own property than anywhere else. I remain committed to protecting the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. But let’s not forget, this is also a private property issue. Nobody should face three months of jail time for transporting firearms on their own property. This is a DNR regulation that does not help public safety, and the government has no business telling you what you can or cannot do on your own land with firearms, so long as you aren’t endangering the public.”

House Bill 4078 now heads to the Senate for further consideration.

Democrat Spending Bill Contains ‘Serious Expansion of Federal Gun Control’: Gun Rights Group

Democrats’ $1.5 trillion omnibus spending package, unveiled early Wednesday, includes provisions that constitute “a serious expansion of federal gun control” according to the National Association for Gun Rights.

Specifically, the omnibus bill includes the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

Though there is bipartisan consensus that violence against women is bad—more limited forms of the bill have passed through bipartisan votes since the first draft was introduced in 1994—more recent forms of the legislation have been controversial with Republicans for provisions relating to gun ownership.

Due to continued efforts by Democrats to include gun control measures in the legislation, the bill was last passed into law in 2013, and has faced steep opposition from pro-Second Amendment Republicans since then.

Currently, almost all firearm sales require a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Purchasers who are tagged as having a criminal background barring them from possessing a firearm are tagged in the system and are not allowed to carry out the purchase.

However, VAWA takes this system much further.

Under its provisions, the attorney general is required “to issue a notice to State, local, or Tribal law enforcement and prosecutors if an individual has attempted to purchase a firearm and been denied pursuant to the national instant criminal background check system.”

In other words, an attempt to buy a firearm while legally barred from owning one can be met with criminal investigation.

In a statement, the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) warned that this system is dangerous.

“Over 95 percent of all NICS denials are false positives, which means all local and state police would be required to investigate law-abiding citizens when they’re wrongly and unconstitutionally denied the right to purchase a firearm,” NAGR said.

“Make no mistake—the NICS denial reporting embedded inside the Violence Against Women Act constitutes a serious expansion of federal gun control,” said Dudley Brown, president of the NAGR. “Not only does it rapidly expand federal gun control policy, it would actually endanger women, not keep them safe.”

Continue reading “”

Yes, If America Is Ever Invaded, You Must Take Up Arms and Fight
When asked whether they’d flee or fight an invading force, far too many Millennials and Gen-Zers give the wrong answer.

As part of a recent survey of attitudes toward Russia’s execrable invasion of Ukraine, the polling firm Quinnipiac asked Americans whether they would stay and fight if the United States were invaded by Russia. The results make sobering — and often disgraceful — reading. Sixty-eight percent of Republicans said that they would “stay and fight,” with 25 percent indicating that they’d run away.

Among independents, those numbers are 57–36. Among Democrats, they’re in negative territory, at 40–52. Among 50- to 64-year-old men and women, the stay/leave numbers are 66/28. Among 18- to 34-year-olds, they are 45/48. Or, to put it another way: A majority of the prime-aged Americans whom the United States would need were such a crisis to arise imagine that they would flee if that crisis ever came.

For shame.

Lest the excuse-makers try to find nuance where none exists, let us note for the record that this is the most elemental question that a free man can ever be asked. There are no caveats or complexities here, and there is barely any politics, either. If the United States were to be invaded by Russia, America’s defense of itself could not plausibly be construed as “imperialism” or as “interventionism” or as a “foreign war” or “conflict of choice.” Nor could skeptics, à la Rupert Brooke, meaningfully complain that they were being asked to fight and die in a “corner of a foreign field.”

Continue reading “”

January ’23? Why wait so dadgum long?


Alabama Goes Permitless

Allowing concealed gun-carry without a permit is now the most common policy in the country.

A joint conference committee of Alabama state Senators and Representatives came to an agreement on a version of a permitless carry bill on Thursday. The bill was then sent to Governor Kay Ivey (R.), who immediately signed it into law.

“Unlike states who are doing everything in their power to make it harder for law abiding citizens, Alabama is reaffirming our commitment to defending our Second Amendment rights,” Governor Ivey said in a statement. “I have always stood up for the rights of law-abiding gunowners, and I am proud to do that again today.”

The move makes Alabama the 22nd state in the country to enact a permitless gun carry regime, officially making the practice more common than both “shall-issue” and “may-issue” permitting policies. Following Ohio and Indiana, Alabama is the third state to pass a permitless carry bill in 2022. It’s the first to sign it into law.

Alabama state representative Shane Stringer (R.), the bill’s primary sponsor, applauded the law’s passage.

“I am deeply thankful to my colleagues in the Legislature for passing this constitutional carry measure, which allows Alabamians to exercise their fundamental rights without first having to pay a gun tax in the form of permit fees,” Stringer said in a statement. “Those who still wish to purchase a permit for reciprocity with other states or other reasons continue to retain that option under this law.”

The law was signed over vocal opposition from certain law enforcement groups, including the Alabama Sheriff’s Association, who said permitless carry would jeopardize public safety. Individual sheriffs in Alabama also voiced concern that doing away with permitting would remove a major source of revenue.

The final version of the law provides a $5 million fund to replace lost revenue.

National gun-control advocacy groups decried the bill after it cleared the state legislature.

“One thing has been made crystal clear — Alabama lawmakers will stop at nothing to appease the gun lobby,” Paula Wilson, a volunteer with the Alabama chapter of Moms Demand Action, said in a statement. “They’re willing to do the bidding of extremists, even if it means jeopardizing the lives of our families and first responders. They have chosen violence over public safety.”

The NRA, which backed the bill, called it “the most significant pro-Second Amendment measure in Alabama history.”

“As law enforcement is being defunded and criminals aren’t being prosecuted, it is more important than ever that law-abiding Americans’ right to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their homes is fully recognized,” NRA-ILA Executive Director Jason Ouimet said in a statement. “NRA will continue to champion this God-given right until every state in the nation is a constitutional carry state.”

The law will go into effect in January of 2023.

The law requires school districts to adopt procedures that “reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children.” It prohibits classroom instruction – not casual discussion – on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” with children in third grade or younger, “or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

It prohibits classroom instruction – not casual discussion – on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” with children in third grade or younger (that’s 5 to 8 year old kids) 

You know what that means, right? Florida parents found out that schools proggie indoctrination centers had teachers pedophile groomers teaching kindergarten through third grade students about ‘transgenderism’, homosexuality, pornography, and sexual degeneracy in the classroom, and telling the kids not to tell their parents.

and what does Peppermint Psaki have to say about it?


Florida’s parental rights bill is not a ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill. It is a full-throated defense of moms and dads against the state-sponsored progressive brainwashing of their kids.

On March 8, Florida’s Republican-controlled state legislature passed the Parental Rights in Education bill.

But you may know it better by the media’s smear name, ‘The Don’t Say Gay Bill.’

It’s a measure that gives parents more control over what their children are taught in public schools.

But that’s not how the White House, Democrats, Hollywood and the media portrayed it.

In fact, they completely mischaracterized it.

President Joe Biden called an early version of the bill ‘hateful.’

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg claimed it will increase suicides among LGBTQ+ youth.

On Tuesday’s episode of ‘Watch What Happens Live’ Bravo host Andy Cohen called the bill’s passage ‘personally disturbing,’ and told Florida Republicans that they’re pretending to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

‘This is one big dog whistle. You’re scaring people into spewing hate and discrimination at the LGBTQ community,’ he said.

On Wednesday, the White House doubled down again.  Press Secretary Jen Psaki called the bill ‘discriminatory,’ ‘horrific,’ and ‘a form of bullying’ against LGBTQ children and families.

On the eve of the bill’s passage, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (who is now expected to sign the bill into law) confronted a local reporter, who framed the legislation as anti-gay.

‘I want to ask about the Parental Rights in Education, what critics call the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill,’ said Evan Donovan.

DeSantis was having none of it, and snapped, ‘Does it say that in the bill? You are pushing false narratives…’

So does the bill prohibit teachers’ from saying the word ‘gay’?

In a word – no!

Continue reading “”

Oh to those people pushing the vaxx because it ‘safe’ or something? This is from The Lancet, which is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal.


Comment O’ The Day (from a GP MD)

1% of those who had a reaction to the vaccine are dead.
Sorry if that was not made clear. But remember the cut off at the CDC for pulling a vaccine or medicine from the market is 50 deaths. Hit that magic number and it is off the market.

The jabs in all their glory are far above that. And this is all being done under a EUA for a disease that is not that lethal. So you get a reaction to the jab, depending on the type of one given, you stand a 1% chance of dying. Remember, the VAERS data is skewed to make those numbers lower. The vaccine is not safe given the usual definition per the CDC.

My biggest problem is they had this data and it was not disclosed to people in terms of informed consent. How many people would have taken the jab if they were told: “The vaccine is considered safe, but 1% of those who get a reaction are dead.”

Mind you, the vaccine failed to contain the disease and was considered not effective in preventing morbidity after 6 months. Why was this data not discussed earlier? Well that is pretty clear in that when it came to consent time, most would have said “I’ll just take my chances.”


Safety of mRNA vaccines administered during the initial 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme: an observational study of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and v-safe

PDF download

Table 1 Characteristics of reports received and processed by VAERS for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines
Both mRNA vaccines (n=340 522)

BNT162b2 vaccine (n=164 669) mRNA-1273 vaccine (n=175 816)
Category
Non-serious 313 499 (92·1%) 150 486 (91·4%) 162 977 (92·7%)
Serious, including death 27 023 (7·9%) 14 183 (8·6%) 12 839 (7·3%)
Serious, excluding death 22 527 (6·6%) 12 078 (7·3%) 10 448 (5·9%)
Death 4496 (1·3%) 2105 (1·3%) 2391 (1·4%)

Summary

Background

In December, 2020, two mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines were authorised for use in the USA.
We aimed to describe US surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive system, and v-safe, a new active system, during the first 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme.

Continue reading “”