Category: Crap For Brains

Biden Admin Gave Hamas $75 Million While Knowing Terror Attack Was Imminent

Democrat President Joe Biden’s administration gave Hamas $75 million in early October, just days before the group launched an assault against Israel and after learning that a terrorist attack was imminent.

The aid was pushed through in a quiet move bypassing Republican obstructionism.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken approved the release of $75 million in funding for Hamas-controlled Gaza.

Blinken diverted the cash to Hamas just hours before the funds were set to be redistributed elsewhere.

The move was hushed through with little attention in early October, just days before Hamas launched its terrorist attacks against Israel, slaughtering, raping, and kidnapping hundreds of innocent civilians.

However, the funding was approved after the U.S. government learned that Hamas was likely planning an upcoming terror attack against Israel.

Blinken’s decision came after months of pressure from Democrat lawmakers and dozens of civil society groups.

They warned that blocking the aid would create a humanitarian disaster for over one million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

The aid had been held up by Republican Senators who were pushing back against the release of the funds.

Senator Jim Risch and Representative Michael McCaul, the top Republicans on the Senate and House of Representatives Foreign Relations Committees, have since late July been blocking the State Department from providing funds to the UN’s Palestine refugee agency (UNRWA).

After he assumed office, Biden reversed President Donald Trump’s efforts to squeeze off funding to the UN agency and Hamas.

UNRWA thanked Blinken for the funds that will sustain its food distribution through early 2024.

“Thank you [Blinken] for providing $75 million in food assistance to Palestine refugees in Gaza!” said UNRWA

“This generous support from the American people will allow UNRWA to continue this critical aspect of its humanitarian and human development work through the end of Q1 2024.”

Meanwhile, more details have emerged the Biden admin also sent $33.7 million from the American Rescue Plan.

The spending bill was meant for Americans to combat Covid during the pandemic.

It was sent to a Palestinian relief organization that has previously been accused of providing safe harbor to terrorists in Gaza.

Burning Down (The Economic) House?
Food Prices UP 20% Under Bidenomics, Credit Card Delinquencies Now Higher Than During Covid As Credit Card Debt Grows To All-time High To Cope With Inflation

Is Biden trying to burn down the economic house? Under Bidenomics, America’s middle class and low wage workers are suffering from a wild, wild life in terms of inflation.

First, food prices are up 20% since December 2020. Talk about destruction of middle class wealth!

That is in addition to gasoline prices are up 64% under Biden while rent growth is up 252%. Well, Biden waived through millions of illegal immigrants and rent had to rise. Biden and Washington DC’s broken borders is Livin’ La Vida Loco.

To cope with inflation (that Paul Krugman claims is over but the last inflation report showed that the tinders of inflation are hard to extinguish), consumers have turned to credit cards to survive. In fact, credit cards have expanded 38% since April 2021 despite rapidly rising interest rates. And credit card delinquency rates are rising and are now above Covid-era economic shutdown levels.

Despite Krugman and Yellen’s screaming that inflation has been crushed, US household are anticipating FASTER inflation. To paraphrase the Emperor of Austria from “Amadeus,” “You are passionate Krugman and Yellen, but you do not persuade.”

And Billions Biden has just recorded the third largest deficit in history.

demoncrap SOP for decades; Throw money at the problem.

Appeasement in Real Time
Biden and Blinken pay the Dane-Geld

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:–

For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”

Rudyard Kipling, Dane-Geld (closing verses).

LESSONS OF MUNICH – WEAKNESS INVITES AGGRESSION.

Showing weakness has long been regarded as an invitation to aggression and war. Perhaps the most infamous example in modern history is Neville Chamberlain’s sit-down with Adolph Hitler in Munich in 1938, where he agreed to appease Hitler by agreeing to Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland, in exchange for “peace for our time.”

But history has taught us that, like paying the Dane-Geld, such appeasement is more likely to cause war and indescribable suffering than it is to prevent it.  Despite those blood-soaked lessons, the appeasement gene continues to proliferate among cowardly politicians. 

There are countless examples of this in modern history, but it is beyond the scope of this short article to attempt to catalogue them here.  Each reader will think of examples.

Often the end results of policy decisions and statements, and how they invite more aggression and war, are not fully apparent until sometime later when it is too late because the damage has already occurred.  Joe Biden’s statement that a limited Russian invasion of Ukraine might be somewhat tolerable or at least met with dissention among the Western allies, is a good example.  Predicting what Russia would do, he said, “it depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and we end up having to fight about what to do and not do.” Even though Biden and his handlers tried to “walk back” (the press’ euphemism of correcting a dumb statement) that invitation, the damage was already done – Biden had sent a signal to Putin of his thinking, and it was a signal of weakness.

To the extent that we can, it therefore is important to call out such projections of weakness and appeasement in real time, as they are occurring. Because of the homicidal intent of the Islamists in the Mideast – indeed, across the globe – it is of over-riding importance to shine a light – no, to focus, focus and focus – on the most recent examples of this appeasement that are certain to cause more bloodshed, not only in Israel and the Mideast, but in the United States, Europe, and other countries worldwide.

I am referring to the blatant lies and craven cowardice by U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and his ostensible boss, Joe Biden, which have further encouraged Iran in its support for its and its proxies’ murderous jihad against Israel (and potentially the U.S. and Europe) about the supposed non-involvement of Iran in the barbaric atrocities Hamas is perpetrating upon Israeli civilians. These are not civilian “collateral damage” caused by bombing, when Hamas attempts to hide among civilian shields or has situated its arms caches near hospitals and mosques.  And, contrary to some attempts by our media to equate the two, they most decidedly are not in any way comparable to the IDF’s targeting and killing of the barbaric Hamas fighters terrorists.

Blinken led off on Sunday, October 8, with his claim that our government has no evidence that Iran is behind Hamas’ bloody and barbaric attacks on women, girls, babies, and other civilians. And his weasel-worded statement encourages both Iran and Hamas with its blatant evasions and flat-out lies.

BLINKEN’S WEASEL-WORDED EVASIONS AND DENIALS

 Sunday, on NBC’s Meet the Press, and CNN’s State of the Union.  Blinken said, “In this moment, we don’t have anything that shows us that Iran was directly involved in this attack, in planning it or in carrying it out.” “In this specific instance, we have not yet seen evidence that Iran directed or was behind this particular attack.”

What a weasel-worded evasion.

Continue reading “”

Secretary of State Blinken Accidentally Admits Biden Admin Funded Attack on Israel

It took little time for people to connect the dots between Joe Biden’s unfreezing of $6 billion in Iranian assets last month — part of a prisoner swap — and the Hamas attack on Israel. Hamas gets funding from Iran, and all the restrictions on how Iran can spend their money are meaningless. In fact, Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad told the BBC that Iran did give financial support to Hamas for its surprise attack on Israel, and a senior adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, confirmed this.

That hasn’t stopped the Biden administration from desperately trying to absolve itself of responsibility for the deadly attack, which has set off yet another war in the region.

“Let’s be clear,” State Department spokesman Matthew Miller wrote on X. “The deal to bring U.S. citizens home from Iran has nothing to do with the horrific attack on Israel. Not a penny has been spent, and when it is, it can only go for humanitarian needs like food and medicine. Anything to the contrary is false.”

Variations of this talking point have been repeated ad nauseam by various members of the Biden administration. One of them was Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who did the rounds on the Sunday morning talk shows to defend the Biden administration. He claimed on ABC’s “This Week” that “not a single dollar from that account has actually been spent to date, and in any event, it’s very carefully and closely regulated by the Treasury Department to make sure that it’s only used for food, for medicine, for medical equipment.”

Cute story, right? Well, that may be the line the administration is pushing, but when Blinken appeared on “Meet The Press,” he let slip some actual truth.

“What do you say about the argument that money is fungible — so Iran may have known this money is coming and used other funds to help fund this attack?” asked host Kristen Welker.

“Iran has unfortunately always used and focused its funds on supporting terrorism, on supporting groups like Hamas,” Blinken replied. “And it’s done that when there have been sanctions, it’s done that when there haven’t been sanctions, and it’s always prioritized that.”

That admission completely undermines the talking points that the Biden administration has been pushing. They unfroze $6 billion for Iran, and Iran funded the Hamas attack. It’s that simple. Per Blinken’s own words, the condition of the money only being used for humanitarian purposes is meaningless. Iran will always use money to fund terrorism.

So if the Biden administration knows Iran funds terrorism, why did it unfreeze $6 billion as part of the prisoner exchange last month? There’s no good answer to that — or to the question of why the Obama administration and now the Biden administration are so intent on giving the Iranian regime a pathway to nuclear weapons.

Gun-grabbing New Mexico governor will not give in

Just a few weeks back, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham declared a public health emergency to attain what she believed was the legal justification to override the 2nd Amendment. Her public health emergency was created out of thin air to give herself the power to mandate a 30 day ban on the public carry of firearms in Albuquerque and the surrounding county. She said, “No Constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute.”

The backlash was swift as police departments denied her support in enforcing the rule, the public defied the governor by carrying openly in public to make a point, and even the media, along with some of her fellow Democrats ridiculed her by saying she was overreaching her power. Apparently, this corrupt governor did not care and continued to demand that the police departments enforce her unconstitutional rule regardless of its unconstitutionality, She created an unjustified “health emergency” as a vehicle to push her “one woman dictate” over the people of New Mexico.

Grisham used the death of an 11-year-old boy in an attempt to create irrational fear and hype in her pursuit to violate the rights of the citizens she represents.  Standing on the graves of dead children has been an effective tool for gun-grabbing politicians, as it drums up irrational fear among parents and directs anger toward gun owners. The implication is that these heinous killings wouldn’t happen if gun owners would “compromise-away” their rights. In Grisham’s case, it would appear she used the tragedy to portray herself as the hero.

In response to the overreaching rule, A Federal Judge temporarily blocked Gresham’s ban on carrying guns in Albuquerque and its surrounding county. Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said, “This order will not do anything to curb gun violence other than punish law-abiding citizens who have a constitutional right to self-defense.”

In defiance of the law and the Constitution, Grisham recently revised her public health order prohibiting firearms in parks, playgrounds and other public places where children go in Albuquerque. The governor also added a provision that tasks the state Department of Public Safety with organizing safe surrender events — also known as gun buybacks — in Albuquerque, Española and Las Cruces within a month. According to Maddy Hayden, a spokeswoman for the governor, the renewed order will remain in effect until Nov. 3.

As an additional slap in the face to New Mexicans, Grisham said, “We’re not letting up, and I’m continuing to make investments that drive down violence in our communities and protect our children.”

Throughout this entire battle, Grisham has failed to offer any solutions to solve the problem of “human violence,” and only seems to be focused on gun control. As usual, and like other gun-grabbing governors, Grisham appears to be avoiding responsibility for the violence that is created as a direct result of failed Democrat policies.

After several lawsuits last month in response to the Governors’ 30-day gun ban, U.S. District Judge David Herrera Urias issued the initial restraining order but has delayed a decision on whether to order a preliminary injunction against the edict. Grisham seems to be taking full advantage of every bit of power she can dig up in the meantime.

Michelle Lujan Grisham is the exact type of person our Founding Fathers warned us about. Her attempt to unilaterally suspend the right to carry is why the 2nd Amendment was written, and why so many New Mexico gun owners stood up and defied her unconstitutional order.

Yes, there does actually seem to be people this dense and ignorant.
“…shared cultural norms…”

Karn v. U.S. State Department found that computer code is protected speech. But this judge decided that, because cad files can communicate with the machines directly, they are not protected…really.

Ahhhh. So does that mean ASCII files are no longer free speech after some judge realizes they can be sent directly to an inkjet printer?

These old, activist judges will learn quickly that you can’t stop the signal.

Federal Judge Rules Gun CAD Files are Not Protected Speech

A federal judge in New Jersey ruled that computer code that lets someone produce firearms is not protected speech under the First Amendment.

In the case, Defense Distributed v. Platkin, Federal District Court Judge Michael A. Shipp dismissed the lawsuit that Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation ( SAF) brought against New Jersey’s law banning the sharing of gun computer-aided design files (CAD). Even before the law was passed, New Jersey issued a cease-and-desist letter to the company in early 2018, demanding it stop publishing firearms information that New Jersey residents could access. Defense Distributed has been posting CAD files on its Def Cad website that allow users to print firearms using 3D printers. New Jersey claimed publishing these files broke the state’s public nuisance and negligence laws.

Continue reading “”

From the First Sentence, You Knew This Was Going to Be a Funny WaPo Article About Guns

Let’s be fair for a second: this Washington Post piece on firearms in Texas could have been worse. It could have read like something from a Moms Demand Action pamphlet, but it’s probably as fair as possible for the publication. Maybe I’m being too nice, but the first sentence had me wondering whether this piece would go off the rails. Also, do these people live under a rock?

First, the headline: In Texas, guns are everywhere, whether concealed or in the open.

And the opening sentence: To live in Texas is to live surrounded by guns.

Yes, and yes, Washington Post. The piece is peppered with statistics about gun ownership, carry laws, and interviews with various individuals of all races in New Braunfels, Texas, which rests outside San Antonio. White, black, and Latino residents all offered quotes explaining the culture here, which may seem like an alien world but has been commonplace for generations.

The piece did at least acknowledge that, but a quick review of gun laws would point to some shocking revelations for anti-gun liberals, specifically since while the article frames Texas as gun land, Virginia is just as heavily armed. In fact, for years, Virginia’s carry laws and reciprocity agreements were just as good, if not better, than in the Lone Star State. It’s not just Texas, folks (via WaPo):

Each morning, men here strap guns inside suits, boots and swim trunks. Women slip them into bra and bellyband holsters that render them invisible. They stash firearms in purses, tool boxes, portable gun safes, back seats and glove compartments.

Neighbors tuck guns into bedside tables, cars and trucks. They take guns fishing, to church, the park, the pool, the gym, the movies — even to protests at the state Capitol. The convention center hosts gun shows where shoppers peruse AR-15s and high-capacity magazines outlawed in other states. Texas billboards offer an endless stream of advertisements for ammunition, silencers and other accessories.

It has been legal here to openly carry long guns like rifles for generations. But Texas’s gun-friendly attitude isn’t just a relic of the Old West and ranching: Many restrictions on handguns were loosened only recently. Two years ago, state lawmakers gave those 21 and older the right to carry handguns without a permit; in 2015, they gave those with concealed handgun permits the right to carry on public college campuses. […]

Unlike California and some other blue states, Texas has no state firearm sales registry, no required waiting period to buy a gun, no red flag law guarding against the mentally ill or violent having weapons, no restrictions on the size of ammunition magazines and no background checks for guns purchased in a private sale.[…]

New Braunfels includes one of the top urban Zip codes in Texas for new handgun licenses per capita last year: About 213 per 10,000 people, according to state records; overall, the surrounding county had 155 permits issued per 10,000 people.

By contrast, most San Francisco-area counties had issued fewer than six concealed handgun licenses per 10,000 residents since 2012, according to the most recent California Department of Justice data from last year, although applications surged late in the year following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling against local restrictions in New York, and California lawmakers responded earlier this month by passing a law that further restricts who can receive a permit.

The interviews with the residents, probably meant to cast them as paranoid or crazy, are rather mainstream. Their reasons behind owning guns are also not out of the ordinary. Some quoted in the piece owned AR-15 rifles, which means in the eyes of liberals, these people are paranoid. Again, these are law-abiding citizens who own firearms, which isn’t abnormal, no matter how hard the Left tries to make it so. San Francisco is a crime-ridden hell hole, with hordes of homeless people and drug addicts defecating all over the city. These aren’t areas to compare when it comes to public safety.

If you want to glean how law-abiding gun owners live in Texas, this piece has some good insights, but we all know that probably wasn’t the intent. We have a Second Amendment, liberal America. Tens of millions of Americans own a ton of firearms, and there’s nothing you can do about that.

Also, it’s funny how they tried to make this place seem like a lawless enclave of America with no red flag laws, waiting periods, or gun registries. Most states don’t have any of those laws on the books. Red flag laws have had mixed success. They sound like good policy, but constitutional guardrails are still lacking. Most states have no gun registry requirement, and waiting periods are also uncommon. If you pass a background check, you get the gun. It’s as simple as it should be for law-abiding Americans.

Group to host “die-in” to push guns as public health issue

Violent crime is an unfortunate fact of life. From the time Cain slew Abel, violence has just been a part of the world. Some people don’t know how to live without trying to hurt others, either out of anger, greed, or some other base emotion.

Guns were never required for people to be horrible to one another.

Just go on X, formerly Twitter, for a glaring example.

Yet many want to change that. In and of itself, this is a noble goal. The problem is that they push narratives that seek to punish the innocent and do nothing to inhibit those who represent the actual problem.

For example, we have this stunt out of Iowa.

Cardboard tombstones with the names of real victims and demonstrators laid out, covered in what looks like blood, filled Washington Park in Dubuque on Wednesday. Demonstrators from the Dubuque Coalition for Non-Violence hosted the event, calling it a ‘die-in’. They say it’s meant to highlight the dangers gun violence presents.

“[Gun violence] is at least as much of a public health issue as for dying for lack of seatbelts,” Tim Moothart, President of the Coalition, said. “Or dying with tobacco and we were able to change our culture in order to correct those issues.”

*sigh*

OK, here we go yet again.

Both the lack of seatbelts and tobacco involved people making unwise choices. They believed they were making a smart one, though, or they figured they weren’t hurting anyone else so who cared? Making an effort to teach them the error of their ways so as to reduce negative health outcomes such as, you know, death makes a great deal of sense and sure, can constitution a public health issue.

The problem with so-called gun violence is that the violence is something one person does to another. They do it knowing what the results will be. Those results are the intention, in most cases. Guns aren’t killing by themselves or because bad things just happen that are beyond someone’s control. Guns are used to kill by people who are seeking to kill someone else.

That’s a whole different matter.

Now, is there room for public health approaches to violence? Yeah, there really are. Interventions designed to break the cycle of violence, for example, can make a huge difference and yes, reduce violent crime. Breaking the revenge cycle is a big step in the right direction.

Especially as it doesn’t focus on guns exclusively and looks at the underlying issue.

And this group could work toward that end without their silly “die-in” that simply tries to make people feel bad.

Yet that’s not what they really want.

Dubuque state senator and Senate Minority Leader Pam Jochum stopped by the park during the event. She says events like this highlight the importance of gun control.

“I do support the effort to bring about common sense gun safety measures in our state and throughout our country,” Senator Jochum shared. “Clearly this shows us that far too many people die every day because of gun violence.”…

However while they want to bring awareness to the issue, Moothart says the battle for gun control in Iowa is one they’re losing.

Rather than focus on something that might actually work, Moothart and his buddies are going to try and infringe upon your right to keep and bear arms. They want to restrict guns because they can’t seem to separate guns and violent crime.

As such, they’re not worth taking seriously.

‘Tent Cities’ out in the field? Sounds like how we lived during FTX (Field Training eXercises) in the Army. (and it’s strange that so many of these loner illegals are what we called ‘Military Age Males’.)

Are National Parks the Next Destination for Illegal Immigrant Tent Cities?

As the endless illegal immigration crisis continues with upwards of 11,000 people crossing into the United States each day, Democrats are proposing National Parks as places to build tent cities and “temporary” housing for individuals breaking the law.

The plans were detailed during a House Natural Resources Committee hearing Wednesday.

During an interview with Fox News, Republican Congressman Michael Waltz pointed out the Biden administration’s policy discrepencies when it comes to how public lands can be used.

Meanwhile, a bipartisan lawsuit has been filed to prevent housing of illegal immigrants in New York parks and recreational areas.

“Today Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis (NY-11) announced she’s joined Councilwoman Joann Ariola (R-Queens), Assemblywoman Jaime Williams (D-Brooklyn) and a bipartisan group of elected officials in filing a lawsuit to block New York City from using Brooklyn’s Floyd Bennett Field or any other park that’s part of the Gateway National Recreation Area (which includes all of Staten Island’s federal parks) to house migrants,” Malliotakis’ office released in a statement. “The lawsuit was filed in Staten Island Supreme Court along with eleven other members of the City Council and State Assembly and 24 Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island residents.”

BLUF
“These poor liberals. They spend their lives righteously defending minorities from conservatives — not realizing that minorities can be conservative themselves.”
Liberals believe the price Muslims should pay for sticking up for them is giving up their religious beliefs.
HAHAHA.
The real story of course is that Christians and Muslims have found a common ground. Both want to protect their children from LGBT indoctrination in schools.

LBGT vs. Muslims: Libs baffled to learn Islam is actually a religion.

The LA Times reported, “For months, hundreds of religious parents have regularly rallied outside a Maryland school board building, aghast at curriculum featuring books that portray LGBTQ+ families to elementary school kids.

“Waving American flags, they have chanted against indoctrination of children. They’ve sued to pull their kids from lessons and argued their case on Fox News.

“In battles against LGBTQ+ acceptance [the paper’s way of saying grooming kids], it is often white evangelicals pushing for book bans [no books are banned] or boycotts over beer brands or bathing suits. In this case, Muslims are leading the fight.

“The controversy in an overwhelmingly blue Washington, D.C., suburb highlights a shift. For decades, Muslims have been focused on fighting back against accusations of terrorism. But now, in clashes in left-leaning, diverse areas from the coasts to the heartland, they’re speaking out about what they see as intolerance of their faith.”

Sounds like the left is having some buyer’s remorse. It was OK when Hillary was branding those deplorable Trump supporters as Islamophobic, but now they are discovering that Trump supporters are not as Islamophobic as she said they were. In fact, they have found common ground; both Muslims and Christians are tired of being bullied by fanatic LGBT operatives who have taken over sex education in schools and expanded it to kindergarten.

CAIR — once heralded by the left as the sole arbiter of what is Islamophobic — organized a protest against a schoolboard in suburban Washington.

Zainab Chaudry, the Maryland director of CAIR, told the LA Times, “The school system believes it is being inclusive toward LGBTQ parents and students. But in doing that, it is not being inclusive toward another set of parents and students.”

One man’s inclusion is another man’s exclusion.

Continue reading “”

Newsom signs bills forcing gun owners to pay “sin tax” and curbing the right to carry

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed three new gun control measures into law on Tuesday afternoon in a ceremony full of lies, mistruths, and hostility towards both gun owners and the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Attorney General Rob Bonta took a break from getting his rear end handed to him by federal judges who’ve recently ruled against several of the state’s gun laws (including its ban on “large capacity” magazines, microstamping and other “safety” requirements, and a law punishing those who create marketing materials that could appeal to minors) to kick off the press conference with the telling statement that you “can’t be tough on crime if you’re not tough on guns”.

Of course, it’s gun owners, not guns that these bills are cracking down on. Bonta claimed that the right to carry increases violent crime by 29%, even though violent crime rates have plunged across the country for the past 30 years even as a majority of states have adopted first shall-issue and now permitless carry laws.

State Senator Anthony Portantino made it clear that California gun owners are the real target of these bills when he said the state legislature is defining what it means to be “law abiding” through SB 2; the Bruen response bill that imposes a wide variety of “gun-free zones” as well as new criteria for obtaining a carry license.

“If you can’t get three character references to say you’re an upstanding citizen, you shouldn’t have a gun,” Portantino told reporters while gun control activists nodded in agreement.

Continue reading “”

Well, he’s bizarre, so……

Biden’s comments on gun violence truly bizarre

After nearly three years in office, there are a lot of things I’ve come to expect out of the Biden administration. Coherent comments by the president aren’t among them.

Yet in announcing his new Office of Gun Violence Prevention, Biden had to open up and discuss so-called gun violence more broadly. He couldn’t just announce the office and leave it there, he had to explain to the press–the same guys who wanted this for years, mind you–why it was supposedly needed.

In discussing “gun violence,” however, Biden was his typical self, saying things that raised more than a few eyebrows.

On Friday, while touting his strict gun control laws, Biden continued his trend of lying when he claimed he has been to “every mass shooting.”

Biden furthered his support for restricting the Second Amendment, saying, “If you need 80 shots in a magazine, you shouldn’t own a gun.”

Yeah, buddy. That happened.

First, no, Biden hasn’t been to every mass shooting. Especially if you consider the definition of mass shooting that his party tends to prefer, which is the Gun Violence Archive definition that is just based on the number of people shot, not killed.

This definition inflates the number of mass shootings into a huge number, one that would make it impossible for Biden to visit every mass shooting.

Further, Biden offered no real qualifiers on those mass shootings, so even if we use the more traditional definitions that are based on the number of people killed, it’s unlikely he visited every mass shooting that ever happened in the US, much less the planet as a whole.

Because while people like Biden tend to pretend that mass shootings are uniquely American, they happen everywhere.

Then we get to the whole “if you need 80 shots in a magazine, you shouldn’t have a gun.”

First, there aren’t any 80-round magazines out there, though I suspect a company like Palmetto State Armory might be cooking up one right about now.

Yet even if there were, so what?

There is nothing in our Second Amendment that seems to support such a supposition. If we need X number of rounds, we shouldn’t have a firearm? Why is that? Under what criteria would we be allowed to have a gun? Is the limit 79 rounds? Five rounds? What exactly?

Now, generally speaking, people haven’t needed that many rounds for any lawful situation they might find themselves in. Many defensive gun uses take place with zero rounds being fired.

But many others take a lot more than some might think.

The truth is that no one who has survived a gunfight has ever said, “Gee, I wish I’d had less ammo.”

See, the problem with Biden’s myopic comment–and this is me trying to be charitable here–is that it doesn’t account for individual circumstances. There’s a difference between some guy pulling a gun on a mugger and someone who has angered an organized mob that wants their head.

Further, let’s remember that the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting or even muggers, specifically. Yes, the Tyranny of the Thug is a thing, but the amendment was essentially penned as an insurance policy on the rest of our rights. It was meant as a bulwark against tyranny as a whole.

Our Founding Fathers had just fought a war that started when the tyrannical government marched on a town to seize arms from them. It’s really unlikely that they intended to make it easier for a tyrannical leader to do the same again.

So no, there are no exceptions to the Second Amendment, no matter how many rounds you need in a magazine.

But since Biden clearly has never read the Second Amendment and definitely dismissed the Bruen decision, we’ve clearly got a long fight on our hands.

Support
About
Terms
Privacy

Pushback: California county sued for using cellphones to track movements of church-goers

They’re coming for you next: Santa Clara county in California is now being sued by Calvary Chapel San Jose and its pastor Mike McClure for using without warrant the GPS data from the cellphones of the church’s members to track their movements without their knowledge.

On August 22, 2023, a lawsuit was filed by Advocates for Faith and Freedom on behalf of Calvary Chapel San Jose against Santa Clara County, California, for utilizing geofencing methods to spy on church members during the COVID-19 pandemic. Earlier this year, Santa Clara County imposed a $1.2 million fine against the church for not abiding by the State’s and County’s COVID-19 restrictions.

Santa Clara County utilized an investigative method known as geofencing. Geofencing is a technological tool the government uses to track people relative to their location and likely locations. This tool is typically used in police investigations of criminal activity and, in these instances, requires a warrant– which is not always granted.

The lawsuit complaint can be read here [pdf]. As it notes:

Unbeknownst to the public, Defendants embarked on an invasive and warrantless geofencing operation to track residents in the County. The Defendants used this tool under the auspices of researching so-called superspreader events and activities.

Geofencing is a location-based tool used by the government to track individuals through their cell phone data. This tool is generally used in police investigations of criminal activity and requires the government to obtain a warrant, which is limited in time and scope.

The Defendants specifically targeted Calvary Chapel San Jose (“CCSJ”) to demonstrate the church was a large superspreader. The County hoped to use this information in its ongoing state enforcement action against the church. To this day, the County cannot trace one COVID-19 case to the church.

The Defendants put multiple geofences around the church’s property so they could track when and where individuals were on the premises. This operation took place over a year with seemingly no oversight, boundaries, or limitations – meaning the Defendants could track churchgoers in the sanctuary, prayer room, or bathroom.

This type of expansive geofencing operation is not only an invasion of privacy but represents a terrifying precedent if allowed to go unaddressed. As it stands, the Defendants are effectively arguing that, as long as they call it research, any level of government can target and spy on any individual or group at any time for any duration, and, if they so choose, they can wield the collected data against said individuals or groups who oppose their orders. This is not just un-American; it is downright Orwellian. [emphasis mine]

The highlighted sentence is the bottom line. Despite imposing a $1.2 million fine against the church for continuing its regular meetings during the COVID lockdowns, the county has yet to document any evidence that the church’s defiance caused COVID to spread at all. If anything, the county’s illegal data-gathering proved it did not, unequivocally.

Of course, any rational person could have told the county this. The lockdowns did nothing to stop COVID, so there was no reason for the church to stop its Sunday services. In fact, the county’s attempt to forbid religious services (while allowing many other group activities to go on), its totalitarian fining of the church, and its illegal surveillance all strongly suggest that county officials had no interest in stopping COVID, but were actually implementing an anti-religious campaign to suppress religious expression.

The county can deny this accusation, but the evidence tells us it is true. Santa Clara County officials decided to use COVID as an excuse to squelch the religious freeom and first amendment rights of this church and its members. In doing so, it is also attempting to establish a precedent that will allow the government to spy on any citizen for as long as it wants, without warrant and for any reason, and then use that data to condemn that citizen.

Note too that the surveillance was without cause, and could not have gotten a warrant even if the county had tried. The church members were not committing any crimes by going to church. If anything they were simply exercising their first amendment rights, guaranteed from this kind of government interference by the Constitution itself.

The lawsuit demands nominal and compensatory damages as well as attorneys’ fees, claiming the county violated the church’s first and fourth amendment rights. I hope a jury gives the church an award that exceeds the county’s fine by many millions.

Never, ever place any trust in “The Internet of Things” “IOT”

BLUF
If we ponder that relationship for a moment, we might conclude that many of the things that we believe we control are really on loan as a means of controlling us.

The Man Amazon Erased.

On Thursday, May 25, Brandon Jackson, a software engineer in Baltimore County, Maryland, discovered that he was locked out of his Amazon account. Jackson couldn’t get packages delivered to his home by the retail giant. He couldn’t access any files and data he had stored with Amazon Web Services, the company’s powerful cloud computing wing. It also meant that Jackson, a self-described home automation enthusiast, could no longer use Alexa for his smart home devices. He could turn on his lights manually, but only in the knowledge that Amazon could still operate them remotely.

Jackson soon discovered that Amazon suspended his account because a Black delivery driver who’d come to his house the previous day had reported hearing racist remarks from his video doorbell. In a brief email sent to Jackson at 3 a.m., the company explained how it unilaterally placed all of his linked devices and services on hold as it commenced an internal investigation.

The accusations baffled Jackson. He and his family are Black. When he reviewed the doorbell’s footage, he saw that nobody was home at the time of the delivery. At a loss for what could have prompted the accusation of racism, he suspected the driver had misinterpreted the doorbell’s automated response: “Excuse me, can I help you?”

Submitting the surveillance video “appeared to have little impact on [Amazon’s] decision to disable my account,” Jackson explained on his blog on June 4. “In the end, my account was unlocked on Wednesday [May 31, six days later], with no follow-up to inform me of the resolution.” By now, many months later, Amazon’s investigation into the matter appears to have concluded though the issue remains far from resolved. Contacted for a response, the company wrote: “In this case, we learned through our investigation that the customer did not act inappropriately, and we’re working directly with the customer to resolve their concerns while also looking at ways to prevent a similar situation from happening again.”

It was only Jackson’s technical skills and particular automated home setup that saved him from what could have been a larger lockout. “​​My home was fine as I just used Siri or [a] locally hosted dashboard if I wanted to change a light’s color or something of that nature,” he explained. His week of digital exile amounted to a frustrating inconvenience only because, as a tech-savvy user and professional software engineer, he had the ability to set up his own locally hosted network that acted as a failsafe. But Jackson’s experience is a warning to the vast majority of Alexa users and smart home dwellers who, lacking his particular skills and foresight, are increasingly at the mercy of the tech they have embedded into their lives and bedrooms.

“I came forward,” Jackson told Tablet, “because I don’t think it’s right that Amazon could say, ‘I know you bought all these devices, but we think you are racist. So we’re going to take [you] offline.’” On one side, critics lambasted Jackson as a dupe for having smart devices in the first place; others said his criticisms of Amazon implied that he didn’t support a company protecting its employees. “People missed the main point,” he said. “I don’t really care who you are, what you do, or what you believe in. If you bought something, you should own it.”

Jackson’s story of being temporarily canceled by the tech behemoth spread across the internet after it was discussed in a YouTube video by Louis Rossman, a right-to-repair activist, independent technician, and popular YouTube personality. Right to repair, or fair repair, is a consumer-focused movement advocating for the public to be able to repair the equipment they own instead of being forced to use the manufacturer’s repair services or upgrade products that have been arbitrarily made obsolete. In the early 20th century, fair-repair advocacy began with automobiles and heavy machinery, but its tenets have spread as computer chips have come to undergird contemporary life.

Following Rossman’s initial video about Jackons’s case, Amazon alleged that Rossman had abused its affilate marketing program and placed restrictions on the YouTuber’s business account, leading him to speculate in a follow-up video that the corporate giant was retaliating against him for covering Jackson’s travails. Rossman alleges that this was the first time Amazon made any allegation against him of abusing its affiliate marketing program since he enrolled in the marketing program 7.5 years ago.

Jackson’s experience is a warning to Alexa users and smart home dwellers who are increasingly at the mercy of the tech they have embedded into their lives and bedrooms.

The number of households adopting smart home devices in the United States is expected to reach 93 million by 2027 and most consumers rely on cloud services for their daily online use. But the cloud is not just a metaphor to explain a connected network; it describes the complete reorganization of digital life under the power of remote centralized databases. Light switches, lightbulbs, locks, thermostats, coffee makers, air conditioners, speakers, exercise equipment, and virtually every other piece of equipment you can find in the average home can now all be operated as interconnected pieces of a single digital network, run by an outside host, such as Amazon, which operates the massive server banks that make up “the cloud.” For consumers, this arrangement offers convenience and optimization. You can turn on the heat in your house from another state, or reorder a household good with a simple voice command. But the cost of that convenience is that consumers no longer independently control how their tech—or their homes, since the two are increasingly integrated—is operated. As Kyle Wiens, CEO of iFixit and another right-to-repair activist put it, “Who really owns our things? It used to be us.”

Brandon Jackson

Brandon Jackson

Alexa’s terms of use includes a clause stating that Amazon is permitted to terminate “access” to Alexa at the company’s discretion without notice. Jackson was told by a customer relations executive over the phone that he needed to assure the company that he would not ridicule or put future delivery drivers in harm’s way. Nearly a month later, Amazon admitted no wrongdoing, only apologizing for “inconveniences.” Given absolute power over its users, there is no pressure on Amazon to explain its decision. Indeed, the company used the same statement Tabletreceived for an earlier June Newsweek article regarding Jackson’s lockout.

Amazon’s claims of being concerned about the safety of blue-collar workers strain credibility. According to a 2021 article published in Vice, when minority delivery drivers faced violent threats and racial harassment, the company’s penchant for efficiency took priority over worker safety. Unsustainable demands from delivery drivers have translated to drivers peeing in bottles and defecating in garbage bags, a problem Amazon internally acknowledged even as it publicly denies the allegations. Inside its “fulfillment centers”—the term the company uses for its warehouses—workers suffer 5.9 serious injuries for every 100 workers, an 80% greater injury rate than competitors. Indeed employee turnover is so high in these facilities that a leaked company memo from 2022 warned that the company was on track to deplete its number of available workers by 2024.

Amazon’s intrusion into Jackson’s life, then, should not be understood within the context of protecting workers—which might begin by giving them adequate time to use the restroom—but rather as part of an emergent regime of technological control. The culmination of years of debate about political and civic norm moderation on social media and in public discourse has created a new normative standard in which “innocent until proven guilty” is now viewed as an oppressive and antiquated relic. As the new unelected masters of public discourse, tech giants like Amazon, Google, Twitter, and Facebook, have been encouraged to execute summary punishments of users for mere accusations of racism or “disinformation.”

Amazon’s enormous power in the global economy and ubiquitous presence in the U.S. supply chain and cloud computing sectors allows the company to take the power of surveillance and cancellation even further. Unlike purely social media companies like X (formerly known as Twitter), Amazon’s suite of smart home gadgets and services gives it a direct physical presence inside of people’s homes. That means that when Amazon wades into cultural issues, or decides to punish people based on offensive speech, its political values are mapped onto objects and processes used in the real world.

In Jackson’s case, in order to regain access to things he had already paid for, he was forced to submit the surveillance video from his home to Amazon to prove his innocence. Somehow, in the new cloud-based networked world these corporations are building for us, the solution to every problem always involves individuals handing over more of their private data.

Debates over censorship, free speech and its limits typically revolve around social media use. But Hayley Tsukayama, a senior legislative activist for Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group, suggested to Tablet that Jackson’s case shared a similar architecture to conversations around content moderation. Companies can choose not to allow certain forms of speech, but in doing so they can no longer be treated as neutral platforms. Tsukayama argues that social media users are offered a recourse, even if the process is stacked against them. “If [Amazon] is going to look at customer behavior as being part of the terms of service,” she said, “they [should] make that clear and set up a process that’s perhaps not unlike what we see at Facebook, YouTube or others who deal with content takedown.”

But, of course, we now know that millions of social media users had their accounts censored or banned without explanation or recourse for posts, including many that were classified as “disinformation” at the time of the alleged offense but contained statements that authorities later acknowledged as true. In that light, placing more trust in a content moderation model seems like a dangerous gamble. It could also lead to even more surveillance online as companies like Amazon claim a need to monitor their customers’ every move so they can judge them “fairly.”

Like many digital technologies, the smart home offers connectivity at a steep price—it makes individuals passive subjects of the products that surround them, including the things they own. Few of us have any real understanding of the “terms of service” on the devices and services that we rely on. Consider how streaming services replaced physical media and how the arrival of smartphones, with all their wonders, also meant that the owners of such phones became incapable of replacing their own batteries, SIM cards, and physical storage. If we ponder that relationship for a moment, we might conclude that many of the things that we believe we control are really on loan as a means of controlling us.