It Can’t Happen Here? Muslim Organization Wants International Law Criminalizing Criticism of Islam

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is made up of 56 nations plus the Palestinian Authority, met Thursday in Jeddah and called for the adoption of an international law criminalizing criticism of Islam. But that kind of law could never be adopted in the United States, could it? Think again.

The OIC’s secretary-general, Dr. Yousef al-Othaimeen, called upon the nations of the world, both Muslim and non-Muslim, to crack down on speech that was “insulting religions or prophets.” It was clear, however, that al-Othaimeen couldn’t have cared less about speech insulting Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism or any of the revered figures of those religions. He cared only about criticism of Islam.

“There are laws against anti-Semitism and racism,” said al-Othaimeen. “So we request a law against mocking religions.” He didn’t explain why laws against racism should lead to laws against criticizing belief systems, since, after all, contrary to the assumptions of Rachel Dolezal, Shaun King, and Elizabeth Warren, one cannot change one’s race, but one can change one’s beliefs, including religious beliefs. Al-Othaimeen likely knows this, but cited racism because he knows how to pull the right strings to get the Western intelligentsia to do what he wants……………

But this muzzling of criticism of Islam could never happen in America, right? Wrong. In fact, this is a lot closer to happening than most people realize. In October 2009, the Obama administration joined Egypt in supporting a resolution in the U.N.’s Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to the freedom of speech for “any negative racial and religious stereotyping” (a highly subjective category). Approved by the U.N. Human Rights Council, the resolution called on states to condemn and criminalize “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton affirmed the Obama administration’s support for this on July 15, 2011, when she gave an address on the freedom of speech at an Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) conference on Combating Religious Intolerance. “Together,” she said, “we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression and we are pursuing a new approach. These are fundamental freedoms that belong to all people in all places and they are certainly essential to democracy.”

But how could both religious sensitivities and freedom of expression be protected?

Clinton had a First Amendment to deal with, and so in place of legal restrictions on criminalization of Islam, she suggested “old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.” She held a lengthy closed-door meeting with OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in December 2011 to facilitate the adoption of measures that would advance the OIC’s anti-free speech campaign. But what agreements she and Ihsanoglu made, if any, have never been disclosed. Still, the specter of an American Secretary of State conferring with a foreign official about how to restrict the freedom of speech in order to stifle communications deemed offensive to Muslims was, at the very least, chilling.

Nor was that a singular case. In July 2012, Thomas Perez — then the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, was asked by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.):

Will you tell us here today that this administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?

Perez could have simply answered yes, and maybe even cited the First Amendment. Instead, Perez refused to answer the question directly. Franks persisted, ultimately asking it four times. Perez at one point responded that it was a “hard question.” He simply refused to affirm that the Obama Justice Department would not attempt to criminalize criticism of Islam.

This is today’s Democratic Party. If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2020 or thereafter, will that president advance the Left’s assault on the freedom of speech and move to implement Sharia restrictions on criticism of Islam in the United States? You can bet on it.

In that eventuality, I hope some of y’all will visit me in prison.

Kavanaugh Joins Gorsuch in Fight To Revive Nondelegation Doctrine
An important development in the legal wrangling over the separation of powers.

Giving the Attorney General – the head of the department that can arrest and charge people with committing a violation of law – the power to literally make a law (even one that deals with the dregs of society) is one of the things the founders were deathly afraid of, as the British Crown was in effect doing just that for the Colonies. Give that power to an Office the Constitution didn’t give it to and even if the current person in that Officer is a ‘good’ man, one day another man will be in that place and when he is not so good……….

A certain bit of a movie comes to mind:


The U.S. Supreme Court narrowly upheld a law in June that, in the dissenting words of Justice Neil Gorsuch, “hand[ed] off to the nation’s chief prosecutor the power to write his own criminal code.” Today, Justice Brett Kavanaugh spoke up in support of Gorsuch.

The June ruling came in Gundy v. United States, a case that centered on a 2006 federal law known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). Among other things, SORNA required convicted sex offenders to register, check in periodically in person, and share personal information with the authorities.

The law also contained this provision: “The Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the applicability of the requirements of this subchapter to sex offenders convicted before the enactment of this chapter.” Translation: Congress gave the attorney general a blank check when it came to dealing with the estimated 500,000 individuals whose convictions predate SORNA’s passage.

It was that delegation of legislative authority to the executive that sparked Gorsuch’s ire. “The rule that prevents Congress from giving the executive carte blanche to write laws for sex offenders is the same rule that protects everyone else,” the justice wrote in dissent. According to Gorsuch, SORNA combined the lawmaking powers of Congress with the law enforcement powers of the executive, and then gave those combined powers to a single federal official. For the Supreme Court to let that outcome stand, Gorsuch argued, marks “the end of any meaningful enforcement of our separation of powers.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh took no part in Gundy, leaving some court watchers to wonder about how he might have ruled. The Court’s newest justice answered that question today. In a statement respecting the denial of certiorari in Paul v. United States—another separation of powers case, which the Court turned down this morning—Kavanaugh wrote in praise of “Justice Gorsuch’s scholarly analysis of the Constitution’s nondelegation doctrine” in Gundy, noting that this “thoughtful” dissent “raised important points that may warrant further consideration in future cases.”

In other words, Kavanaugh seems to have joined Gorsuch’s campaign to put some judicial teeth into the nondelegation doctrine. That’s welcome news for those who think that the Constitution meant what it said when it placed federal lawmaking power in the hands of Congress, not in the hands of the executive branch.

Supreme Court Blocks House Subpoena For Trump’s Financial Records

The U.S. Supreme Court late Monday blocked a House subpoena directing President Donald Trump’s accounting firm to turn over several years’ worth of financial documents, giving the president at least a temporary legal victory.

In a brief order, the court said the subpoena would remain on hold until the president’s lawyers file their appeal and the court acts on the case. The court gave his lawyers until Dec. 5 to file their appeal, a sign the justices intend to move quickly. But if the court agrees to hear the appeal, the stay would remain in effect for several more months.

The Democratic majority on the House Oversight Committee issued the subpoena in April, ordering the accounting firm Mazars USA to turn over Trump-related financial documents covering 2011 through 2018.

Miami Man In Van Guns Down AK-47 Wielding Robber Because He Didn’t Want ‘To Go Out Like A Punk’

MIAMI (CBSMiami) – A 60-Year-old Miami man said he was forced to shoot and kill a gunman who had broken in to his van early Monday morning in an attempt to rob him of his jewelry.

“The guy I killed last night, he put an AK-47 to my damn face,” said Donovan Stewart.

Stewart told CBS4’S Peter D’Oench that he had to act quickly because he was worried about the safety of his 11-year-old son and girlfriend who were in the van with him.

“I am from Kingstontown in Jamaica,” he said, “and I am not going to go out like a punk. So I emptied my Glock in his chest. This man tried to get in my van while I was sleeping and he was surprised to see what I did.”

He demonstrated what he did for CBS4.

“Well, he opened the door like this and pointed his AK-47 and I reached around like this and got my gun. That is how I did this to him,” he said.

Man fires gunshots at robbers in South Nashville

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — A man robbed of his phone and wallet in South Nashville Monday morning pulled out a gun and fired multiple shots at the people who robbed him, Metro police say.

Officers responded around 2:30 a.m. to an armed robbery on Eckhart Drive near Antioch Pike.

When police arrived, the victim told them he was getting out of his vehicle, when two people drove up, called out his name and pointed a weapon at him. The victim handed over his wallet and phone, officers said.

The victim then pulled out a gun and fired several gunshots at the robbers, police explained. The robbers reportedly fled in a smaller, black SUV, but it was not clear if either of them were shot.

Breaking: Navy secretary Richard Spencer resigns amid controversy over Navy SEAL


The defense chief demanded his resignation Sunday after Mr. Spencer attempted to cut a deal with the White House over the case of Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher, Mr. Spencer said.

Mr. Spencer had attempted to make a deal with the White House in which President Trump would allow the Navy to conduct an internal Navy review of Chief Gallagher, but that he would then be allowed to retire with his Trident pin, the revered symbol of his membership in the elite commando force. But Mr. Esper only learned of these efforts after the fact, and thus lost confidence in Mr. Spencer.

“I am deeply troubled by this conduct shown by a senior DOD official.” Mr. Esper said in a statement. “Unfortunately, as a result I have determined that Secretary Spencer no longer has my confidence to continue in his position. I wish Richard well.”

In Virginia, and elsewhere, gun supporters prepare to defy new laws

AMELIA COURTHOUSE, Va. —Families, church groups, hunt clubs and neighbors began arriving two hours early, with hundreds spilling out of the little courthouse and down the hill to the street in the chilly night air.

They were here to demand that the Board of Supervisors declare Amelia County a “Second Amendment sanctuary” where officials will refuse to enforce any new restrictions on gun ownership.

A resistance movement is boiling up in Virginia, where Democrats rode a platform on gun control to historic victories in state elections earlier this month. The uprising is fueled by a deep cultural gulf between rural red areas that had long wielded power in Virginia and the urban and suburban communities that now dominate. Guns are the focus. Behind that, there is a sense that a way of life is being cast aside.

In the past two weeks, county governments from the central Piedmont to the Appalachian Southwest — Charlotte, Campbell, Carroll, Appomattox, Patrick, Dinwiddie, Pittsylvania, Lee and Giles — have approved resolutions that defy Richmond to come take their guns.

It mirrors a trend that began last year in western parts of the United States, where some law enforcement officials vowed to go to jail rather than enforce firearm restrictions, and has spread eastward. In New Mexico, 25 of 33 counties declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries after the state expanded background checks. In Illinois, nearly two-thirds of its counties have done the same.

“My oath of office is to uphold the Constitution of the United States,” Amelia Sheriff Ricky L. Walker said Wednesday night as he waited for the supervisors to meet in this rural county west of Richmond.

If a judge ordered him to seize someone’s guns under a law he viewed as unconstitutional, Walker said, he wouldn’t do it. “That’s what I hang my hat on,” he said.

The ‘X17’ particle: Scientists may have discovered the fifth force of nature
A new paper suggests that the mysterious X17 subatomic particle is indicative of a fifth force of nature.

As strange as it may seem, sub atomic particle physics have been of great interest to me.

In 2016, observations from Hungarian researchers suggested the existence of an unknown type of subatomic particle.
Subsequent analyses suggested that this particle was a new type of boson, the existence of which could help explain dark matter and other phenomena in the universe.
A new paper from the same team of researchers is currently awaiting peer review.

Physicists have long known of four fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force.

Now, they might have evidence of a fifth force.

The discovery of a fifth force of nature could help explain the mystery of dark matter, which is proposed to make up around 85 percent of the universe’s mass. It could also pave the way for a unified fifth force theory, one that joins together electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces as “manifestations of one grander, more fundamental force,” as theoretical physicist Jonathan Feng put it in 2016.

The new findings build upon a study published in 2016 that offered the first hint of a fifth force……………

The discovery of a fifth force of nature would provide a glimpse into the “dark sector”, which in general describes yet-unobservable forces that can’t readily be described by the Standard Model. Strangely, the subatomic particles in this hidden layer of our universe hardly interact with the more observable particles of the Standard Model.

A fifth force could scientists better understand how these two layers coexist.

“If true, it’s revolutionary,” Weng said in 2016. “For decades, we’ve known of four fundamental forces: gravitation, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. If confirmed by further experiments, this discovery of a possible fifth force would completely change our understanding of the universe, with consequences for the unification of forces and dark matter.”

San Diego Sheriff’s Dept. Captain, Lieutenant Busted for Trafficking ‘Off Rostether’ Guns

An exception to the California law that only allows guns on the state roster to be sold at retail, is for LE personnel. While the law doesn’t prohibit a later sale, ‘engaging in the business’ is where these cops get tripped up.

Carrying on in the grand tradition of California public officials such as San Francisco’s Leland Yee, a couple of San Diego County Sheriff’s Office cops have been busted for running a thriving gun trafficking business with the help of a prominent local jeweler.

The two cops were able to get their hands on guns not available to the public because of the state’s ludicrous firearm certification requirements. The enterprising SDCSD officers recognized the potential black market demand for “off roster” guns and worked to fill it.



A Harvest festival observed by the Pilgrims at Plymouth
The most prominent historic thanksgiving event in American popular culture is the 1621 celebration at the Plymouth Plantation, where the settlers held a harvest feast after a successful growing season. Autumn or early winter feasts continued sporadically in later years, first as an impromptu religious observance and later as a civil tradition.

The Plymouth settlers had settled in land abandoned by the Patuxet tribe when all but one had died in a plague. After a harsh winter killed half of the Plymouth settlers, the last surviving Patuxet, Squanto came in at the request of the Abenaki, Samoset, the first native American to encounter the Pilgrims. Squanto taught the Pilgrims how to catch eel and grow corn and served as an interpreter for them until he too succumbed to plague a year later. The Wampanoag Chief Massasoit also gave food to the colonists during the first winter when supplies brought from England were insufficient.

The Pilgrims celebrated at Plymouth for three days after their first harvest in 1621. It included 50 people who were on the Mayflower  and 90 Native Americans.

Two colonists gave personal accounts of the 1621 feast in Plymouth.

Plymouth Plantation Governor William Bradford:

They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were exercised in fishing, about cod and bass and other fish, of which they took good store, of which every family had their portion. All the summer there was no want; and now began to come in store of fowl, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they can be used (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besides waterfowl there was great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison, etc. Besides, they had about a peck a meal a week to a person, or now since harvest, Indian corn to the proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largely of their plenty here to their friends in England, which were not feigned but true reports.

Assistant Governor, Edward Winslow:

Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered the fruits of our labor. They four in one day killed as much fowl as, with a little help beside, served the company almost a week. At which time, amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and among the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which we brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor, and upon the captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.

The Pilgrims held a true Thanksgiving celebration in 1623 following a fast, and a rain which had broken a drought.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving 2023

Attempted home robbery leads to shooting in Miami Beach

MIAMI BEACH, Fla. – Police are investigating after a man was shot Friday in Miami Beach.

The shooting occurred near the area of Second Street and Meridian Avenue. Police believe the shooting victim, a man in his 60s, was attempting a burglary at 208 Meridian Ave.

The person inside the home shot the would-be intruder.

The shooting happened about 5 p.m. The resident is with Miami Beach police being interviewed while crime scene technicians investigate the scene.

Florida state Rep. Michael Grieco lives nearby and told Local 10 News that people in the area said they heard only one shot.

“Everyone that I’ve spoken to, they heard one shot,” Grieco said. “It must have been a pretty good shot.”

The investigation continues.

No charges filed against Polk man in fatal shooting during child custody exchange

Just to make an observation for people to keep in mind if they ever come to the point they use a gun to defend themselves. That deadhead was shot FIVE – (5) times dead center in the chest and he still had the power in him to run several yards before he collapsed. Yes, he was dead, but he didn’t know it yet. The point being that it’s not over just because you’ve successfully pulled your gun and perforated a bad guy. Quite often a motivated thug will have more than enough strength left to take you along with him if he’s of a mind to, so keep you wits about you and your eyes open.
A word to the wise should be sufficient.

LAKELAND — No charges are expected to be filed against a man who fatally shot the father of his girlfriend’s son Thursday during a child custody exchange, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said.

The dead man, 39-year-old Brian Ingram of Gainesville, had driven to pick up his son at the boyfriend’s home on Ewell Road, Judd said at a news conference Friday.

Ingram’s mother, Patricia Ingram, joined him for the exchange because Ingram is prohibited under a court injunction from approaching within 500 feet of the child’s mother, Judd said.

The boyfriend, who was not identified, told Patricia Ingram the child’s mother was at the grocery store and would be home soon. He said he did not feel comfortable handing over the boy, 2, until the mother returned.

Patricia Ingram relayed the information to her son and he called 911 to report that he was being denied access to his son, Judd said. Ingram was told to wait until deputies arrived.

Instead, as surveillance video from the home shows, Ingram ran up to the house, banged on the door, rang the doorbell repeatedly and covered the peephole. The boyfriend opened the door slightly, enabling Ingram to wedge his foot in and push, at one point slamming it into the boyfriend’s head.

“He’s screaming at him to leave,” Judd said. “’If you come in here, I’ll shoot you.’”

Ingram didn’t “follow directions very well, or rules very well,” Judd said.

At that point, the boyfriend opened fire, shooting Ingram five times with a handgun. Ingram turned and ran but collapsed in the yard.

The boyfriend had a right to protect himself in his home and is not expected to face charges, Judd said.

“That there was a forcible burglary and battery,” Judd said, “when the guy banged the door off of his head, broke the door and was trying to get into his house.”

He’s Back! Al Gore Returns With Another Odious Climate-Change Telethon

Former Vice President Al Gore is back in the spotlight (sort of) and looking to capitalize on the sudden hotness of climate change with a 24-hour telethon broadcasting from Vanderbilt University called “24 Hours of Reality,” and a series of appearances on late-night television.

The original climate change activist Gore has, lately, been overshadowed by more extreme environmentalists, including adolescent “climate strike” founder Greta Thunberg and “Green New Deal” author Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) who, unlike Gore, are more interested in encouraging socialism (and, subsequently, crushing industrialization and technological advancement) as a vehicle for curbing carbon emissions.

He’s also run afoul of Thunberg and her followers — at least implicitly — for encouraging a system of climate indulgences, called “climate credits,” to offset egregious consumption rather than cutting that consumption entirely.

Gore’s landmark speech, kicking off 24 hours of activism “across the globe” had a “massive” audience of about a thousand people, according to local news in Nashville.

Former CIA Officer Sentenced to 19 Years for Conspiring With Chinese Spies

“Chinese spies are being found out, abroad and in the United States, in surprising numbers. That means there are even more of them out and about, of course. But for the Chinese, it raises the question of how many we knew about before, and how many we fed bogus information to.”

A former CIA case officer was sentenced Friday to 19 years in prison for conspiring to provide American intelligence secrets to the Chinese government, in an espionage case that some current and former officials say dealt a devastating blow to U.S. intelligence operations.

Jerry Chun Shing Lee, 55, served 13 years as a Central Intelligence Agency case officer in several locations overseas, including China, where prosecutors said he had firsthand knowledge of some of the agency’s most sensitive secrets, including the names of covert CIA officers and clandestine human sources in China.

Mueller lawyer with anti-Trump bias is ex-FBI official facing FISA criminal investigation

The FBI lawyer who is under criminal investigation for allegedly falsifying a document related to the surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser expressed negative opinions of President Trump in messages to colleagues.

Kevin Clinesmith, who once was part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, has been identified as the attorney who could face a criminal charge as part of U.S. Attorney John Durham’s expansive criminal inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation, according to the New York Times.

As part of the Justice Department watchdog’s now-completed investigation into alleged surveillance abuses, Clinesmith was found to have altered an email that was used by officials as they prepared an application renewal to present before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain a warrant to electronically surveil Carter Page, a onetime foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign.

Clinesmith was an attorney with the FBI’s National Security and Cyber Law Branch and worked under FBI General Counsel James Baker and Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson. He had worked on the Clinton email investigation as well as the Trump-Russia probe. Clinesmith was present in the FBI’s meeting with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos in February 2017 in Chicago, Papadopoulos told lawmakers in 2018. An Australian diplomat’s tip about Papadopoulos claiming the Russians had damaging information about Trump’s 2016 rival, Hillary Clinton, effectively prompted the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign, called Crossfire Hurricane, in July 2016.

Horowitz’s investigators found Clinesmith falsely asserted he had documentation to back up a claim while in talks with the Justice Department about the factual basis for a FISA warrant application renewal. He then took an email from an official from another agency that contained multiple factual assertions, added material of his own, and gave it to a fellow FBI official who was preparing an affidavit for the Page case.

Robbery suspect shot dead with own gun by homeowner

Oh, the ignominy.

HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) — A robbery suspect was shot dead by a homeowner in a neighborhood in southwest Houston, police say.

It happened shortly before 3 p.m. Tuesday at 5822 Ludington Dr., near Hillcroft and W. Bellfort Avenue.

Police say the homeowner was in his garage when the suspect approached him and said it was a robbery. That’s when police say the homeowner managed to get the suspect’s gun and shot him.

The suspect died at a nearby hospital, according to police.

The suspect’s identity has not yet been released. Officials say the case will go before a grand jury.

Intruder shot, killed in Berrien Co.; 2nd suspect sought

The second suspect hasn’t been found because he probably hit light speed running away and left the local space/time continuum

BENTON TOWNSHIP, Mich. (WOOD) — An intruder was shot and killed during a home invasion in Berrien County late Wednesday night.

It happened around 11:30 p.m. at the Briarwood Apartments located in the 1900 block of Union Avenue in Benton Township, near Benton Harbor.

The Benton Township Police Department said when officers arrived on scene, residents of apartment said two masked gunmen forced their way into the apartment and ordered the people in the living room to “get down.”

A person inside a bedroom heard the commotion, got a rifle and left the room. The resident saw one of the suspects who was armed with handgun, at which time gunfire was exchanged, according to the BTPD.

The suspects ran from the apartment building. One of the suspects was found laying on the pavement outside of the apartment building with a gunshot wound to the chest. He was pronounced dead at the scene, the police department said.

His was identified later Thursday as Dante Long Jr., 23, of Benton Harbor.

The second suspect was not found. Authorities do not have any further information about the second suspect.

Know the Opposition: Everytown for Gun Safety

New York City/United States – -(
The one group at the forefront of trying to take away our right to keep and bear arms today is perhaps the best-funded such group in history. Despite the attempt to have a grass-roots name, this is a group largely funded by Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor currently running for president.

The Everytown group, which counts Moms Demand Action as its force of grass-roots activists, is proving to be very potent. It’s not hard. Bloomberg’s money has been able to provide a sustained grassroots force that past groups like the Brady Campaign and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence haven’t been able to really build.

Backed by Bloomberg’s billions, Everytown simply will flood a state with wall-to-wall TV advertising. In addition, Bloomberg’s group has a director of “cultural engagement.” In short, if you want to know why the social stigmatization of gun ownership and support for the Second Amendment has taken off, this is the group to thank for it. The fact of the matter is that Bloomberg’s gun-control empire is re-shaping the political landscape – and not in favor of those who support liberty.

Bloomberg’s resources have been a huge game-changer. For the longest time, the biggest strength that pro-Second Amendment groups had was the NRA’s ability to mobilize thousands of grass-roots supporters in a Congressional district to do all of the little things – really, Democracy 101 stuff – that either supported candidates or who helped educate the public in the legislative and political arenas.

The fight is now a full-spectrum fight. Bloomberg has managed to fuse an offensive on not just the political and legislative fronts, but he also leverages Hollywood, and he leverages “research” into gun violence as a public health problem. While the Violence Policy Center long pushed that, Bloomberg has again packaged it in a form that is delivered by Moms Demand Action.

It should be noted that this full-spectrum fight is also being waged with a long-term plan in mind. He is not only an incredibly wealthy anti-Second Amendment extremist, he also is very strategically and tactically astute – far more so than we’ve seen from other anti-Second Amendment groups in the past. Just how good is Everytown’s strategic acuity?

Well, let’s put it this way, the Brady Campaign was dangerous because it used emotional stories well, and it sought to separate gun owners from the NRA – it passed legislation, it made gains, but it was primarily media-driven. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence had more of a religious fervor, but it wasn’t as effective, given its past push for outright gun bans. The Violence Policy Center was too extreme, even as it provided the intellectual underpinnings for the “public health” push for gun control. None had real grassroots strength.

Everytown doesn’t just unite those three “legs” of the stool, it has also shown a cold ruthlessness not seen from other groups. Bloomberg’s group has set in motion a chain of events that poses an existential threat to all pro-Second Amendment groups.

According to court filings, Everytown was involved in pushing Andrew Cuomo’s regime to engage in the politically-motivated abuse of financial regulations to financially blacklist the NRA. The resulting legal battle has since crippled the organization, touching off the infighting that we see today, and the needs of the NRA to fight the lawsuit ended up destroying the NRA/Ackerman-McQueen partnership in a very ugly way. Meanwhile, Bloomberg and Cuomo have taken advantage of the infighting they stirred up to win elections.

How can Everytown be beaten? The first step is unity. The infighting has to stop – and the NRA and other pro-Second Amendment groups need to get their act together. Second Amendment supporters must hang together, or Bloomberg will pick off pro-Second Amendment groups one by one and leave us isolated. Once isolated, our rights will be gone.

The second step is to hit Bloomberg – and his group – where it is vulnerable. There are three areas: One is Bloomberg’s nanny-state tendencies in general, ranging from the size of one’s soda to his environmental agenda. The other is the fact that he is an out-of-touch billionaire who is more than little hypocritical on some of these issues. The third is that his group peddles phony caricatures about gun owners – and those who support the Second Amendment.

The third step is to begin a long-term effort of our own. The fact is, we must build a pro-Second Amendment culture in this country, to make the thought of punishing millions of Americans for crimes and acts of madness they did not commit repulsive. We must work every day to prove Bloomberg is a liar about us, through how we address Americans we are trying to persuade to support our battle for freedom, through the approach we take in defending our rights, and being mindful about how we come across.

If we fail, Bloomberg may well succeed where Sarah Brady, Pete Shields, and others have failed.

Two former Houston police officers arrested over a deadly drug raid

The woman charged, Patricia Garcia, made a false accusation that ended up with her daughter & son-in-law getting killed. I’d bet Garcia and her son-in-law had a ‘personality conflict’ and she figured she had found a way to get back at him. I wonder what she thinks now about the unintended consequences of that, if indeed she didn’t care about the possibility of getting her daughter killed during a SWAT raid out of some twisted spite filled impulse.
These cops deserve everything they’re going to get.
I’ll say again, I’m not anti-cop. I’m anti-stupid (and corrupt) cop. This crap just causes more people to conclude that the LE establishment as a whole has an endemic stupidity/corruption problem and they’re not to be trusted. That really helps with ‘community relations’ when the police deal with the real criminal element and the populace couldn’t care less.

Two former Houston police officers who allegedly provide false information that led to a deadly drug raid earlier this year have been arrested, authorities said Wednesday.

Gerald Goines and his partner, Steven Bryant, along with civilian Patricia Garcia, were taken into custody in connection with the Jan. 28 raid on a home that left two people dead and several officers wounded, the Justice Department said in a statement.

Two Former Houston Police Department Officers Indicted in Connection to Fatal Raid

Three people are now in custody in relation to the fatal raid that occurred in January 2019 on Harding Street in Houston, Texas, announced Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick for the Southern District of Texas and Special Agent in Charge Perrye K. Turner of the FBI.

A federal grand jury returned the nine count indictment Nov. 14 against Gerald M. Goines, 55, and Steven M. Bryant, 46, both former Houston Police Department (HPD) officers. Also charged is Patricia Ann Garcia, 53. All are residents of Houston. The indictment was unsealed this morning as authorities took all three into custody. They are expected to make their initial appearances before U.S. Magistrate Judge Dena H. Palermo at 2 p.m. central time.

The federal indictment stems from the Jan. 28 narcotics raid HPD conducted on the 7800 block of Harding Street in Houston. The enforcement action resulted in the deaths of two residents at that location.

Goines is charged with two counts of depriving the victims’ constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable searches. The indictment alleges Goines made numerous materially false statements in the state search warrant he obtained for their residence. The execution of that warrant containing these false statements resulted in the death of the two individuals as well as injuries to four other persons, according to the indictment.

Goines and Bryant are charged with obstructing justice by falsifying records. Goines allegedly made several false statements in his tactical plan and offense report prepared in connection with that search warrant. The indictment alleges Bryant falsely claimed in a supplemental case report he had previously assisted Goines in the Harding Street investigation. Bryant allegedly identified a brown powdery substance (heroin) he retrieved from Goines’ vehicle as narcotics purchased from the Harding Street residence Jan. 27.

Goines is further charged with three separate counts of obstructing an official proceeding. The federal grand jury alleges Goines falsely stated Jan. 30 that a particular confidential informant had purchased narcotics at the Harding Street location three days prior. He also falsely stated Jan. 31 that a different confidential informant purchased narcotics at that residence that day, according to the charges. On Feb. 13, he also falsely claimed he had purchased narcotics at that residence on that day. The indictment alleges none of these statements were true.

The charges against Garcia allege she conveyed false information by making several fake 911 calls. Specifically, on Jan. 8, she allegedly made several calls claiming her daughter was inside the Harding Street location. According to the indictment, Garcia added that the residents of the home were addicts and drug dealers and that they had guns – including machine guns – inside the home. The charges allege none of Garcia’s claims were true.

If convicted of the civil rights charges, Goines faces up to life in prison. Each obstruction count carries a potential 20-year sentence, while Garcia faces a five-year term of imprisonment for conveying false information.

The FBI is conducting the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Alamdar S. Hamdani, Arthur R. Jones and Sharad S. Khandelwal, and Special Litigation Counsel Jared Fishman of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, are prosecuting the case.

An indictment is a formal accusation of criminal conduct, not evidence. A defendant is presumed innocent unless convicted through due process of law.

Sondland’s Presumptions, And All The Presidents’ Powers

The main point I got from the last two weeks of these shenanigans was that the bureaucraps in the state department and national security council were royally insulted that the President didn’t follow the policy decisions and talking points that they, in their vastly more experienced judgement, had devised and decided that such diminution of their political powers could not stand. Such could been taken as they weren’t necessary and their well paid and prestigious positions might be eliminated.
Previous administrations had almost always let the executive department’s employees perform the behind the scenes background work since the ‘upfront’ work of giving speeches, cabinet & committee meetings, travel junkets and signing documents is so exhausting. /sarc

Despite the establishment media’s declarations that U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland provided the smoking gun proving that President Donald Trump conditioned military aid to Ukraine on its government investigating the energy company Burisma and the 2016 election, Sondland soon told us this was merely his “presumption.”

We already knew from the transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that aid being conditional on investigating the Bidens was a stretch, certainly nothing near the evidence that would be needed in any respectable court.

Witnesses and Democrats on Rep. Adam Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee made much of unofficial channels being used to conduct foreign policy, such as the efforts of Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani – hardly a surprise since these witnesses are all part of the official foreign policy bureaucracy that includes more than 77,000 employees of the State Department alone, each of whom is all too happy to justify their collective existence.

As Assistant Defense Secretary Laura Cooper said in her private deposition earlier in the month, and reiterated on Wednesday, “my sense is that all of the senior leaders of the U.S. national security departments and agencies were all unified … in their view that this assistance was essential.” Cooper added that “they were trying to find ways to engage the president on this.”

The president ultimately agreed it was essential. But why would they be trying to engage the president? Because they wanted to convince the only “official” in the executive branch who really matters, the one who – unlike them – is bestowed by the Constitution with massive power in executing the foreign policy of the United States. The one for whom they work – as advisers whose advice the president is entitled to heed or ignore, or anything in between, at will.

Those who think such near-total control is irresponsible might want to consider the observations of Edward Samuel Corwin, a famed president of the American Political Science Association brought into the Princeton University faculty in 1905 by Woodrow Wilson, and author in 1940 of “The President, Office and Powers.”

As Corwin opined: “A solitary genius who valued the opportunity for reflection above that for counsel, Lincoln came to regard Congress as a more or less necessary nuisance and the Cabinet as a usually unnecessary one.” That’s Honest Abe, not Tweeting Don.

Supreme Court: President Is ‘Sole Organ’ of Foreign Policy

Georgetown law professor for more than 50 years and ex-State Department attorney Don Wallace, Jr., in an article entitled “The President’s Exclusive Foreign Affairs Powers Over Foreign Aid,” noted GOP President Dwight Eisenhower declaring, “As president I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution. I therefore oppose any change which will impair the president’s traditional authority to conduct foreign affairs.”

He also quoted Democratic President James Buchanan’s contention “that the people have ‘rights and prerogatives’ in the president’s execution of his office which each president is under a duty to see ‘shall never be violated in his person’ and shall ‘pass on to his successors unimpaired by the adoption of a dangerous precedent.’”

Those rights and prerogatives are tremendous and unshared when it comes to conducting U.S. foreign policy, as strongly affirmed 7-to-1 by the Supreme Court in the 1936 Curtiss-Wright decision.

The court described them as “the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the president as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations – a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution.” (Emphasis added.)

The court’s reasoning was that, without it getting into the details, the Constitution gives the president full power to conduct foreign policy in stating at the beginning of Article II, section 2 that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”

The question of whether this or that private presidential conversation – listened in on at remote locations by a veritable army of bureaucrats – contains untoward assertions or requests is secondary to another question: How can any president possibly act effectively as “the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations” not requiring “as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress” if those listening can run to a politically hostile Congress with their accusations of impropriety?

When these presidential powers, and the obvious threat to them, are understood, the weakness of basing any case for the impeachment of Trump on what was just served up by Sondland and other presidential servants before Schiff’s committee becomes clear.


Global Warming’s Apocalyptic Path
It comes in waves, and it’s impossible to predict what will happen after the current wave of increasingly unhinged climate change activism breaks.

Unfortunately, like most apocalyptic cults, when prophecy fails, it’s not that the prophet was wrong, it’s the ‘numbers’ were added up incorrectly.

Global warming has been characterized by its critics (and occasionally by followers like Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono) as a religious movement. While this is correct, it is a religious movement of a special kind, that is, an apocalyptic movement. And although it is widely known that apocalyptic movements foretell an end of days, demand huge sacrifices by followers, and demonize dissent, what is less known is that these movements follow predictable patterns. The general “laws” that an apocalyptic movement follows over time explain both its short-term strength and, fortunately, its longer-term vulnerability.

In Heaven on Earth: The Varieties of the Millennial Experience (2011), Richard Landes chronicles recurring apocalyptic eruptions over the last 3,000 years. Typically there is belief in an imminent cataclysmic destruction that can only be averted by a total transformation of society. Precisely because the stakes are so high, a successful apocalyptic movement has extraordinary initial power. Believers are committed, zealous, and passionate, the urgent need for prompt action putting them at a high pitch of emotional intensity.

Landes describes the four-part life cycle of such movements. First comes the waxing wave, as those whom Landes calls the “roosters” (they crow the exciting new message) gain adherents and spread their stirring news. Second is the breaking wave, when the message reaches its peak of power, provokes the greatest turmoil, and roosters briefly dominate public life. Third is the churning wave, when roosters have lost a major element of their credibility, must confront the failure of their expectations, and mutate to survive. Last is the receding wave, as the “owls” — those who have all along warned against the roosters’ prophecies — regain ascendancy.

While Landes does not apply his apocalyptic model to global warming, the fit is obvious. In the 1980s and ’90s, a series of UN conferences on climate launched the waxing wave. This was followed at the beginning of this century by the breaking wave. In 2006, Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth (which later became a classroom staple) persuaded a broad public that man-made global warming threatened doomsday. That same year Sir Nicholas Stern, appointed by Prime Minister Tony Blair to lead a team of economists to study climate change, prophesied it would bring “extended world war” and the need to move “hundreds of millions, probably billions of people.” In 2009, then–UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon told the Global Economic Forum, “We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.”

Remarkably, in November of that same year, 2009, at the height of its urgency, the global warming apocalypse suddenly fell into the churning wave phase. Someone hacked into the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England and downloaded emails exchanged among the top scientific climate roosters. The messages bemoan recalcitrant data that fail to support the claim of “unprecedented warming,” describe the tricks (their term) used to coax the data to buttress the theory, report efforts to keep the views of scientific dissenters out of reputable journals and UN reports, and boast of deletion of data to make it unavailable to other researchers. Given that public belief in the global warming apocalypse depended upon its supposed rock-solid scientific foundation, the scandal, dubbed “Climategate,” was devastating. Beleaguered owls, especially at the Heartland Institute, ground zero of what the mainstream media dismissed as “science deniers,” had high expectations that the credibility of the apocalypse had suffered a fatal blow.

It didn’t. One can only speculate as to the reasons. One major factor may be that political elites had become too committed to go back. Landes writes that elites are typically a hard sell, especially in the case of prophecies demanding a society self-mutilate. In this case they were won over with astonishing ease. Only a month after Climategate, in December 2009, England passed the Climate Change Act, in the works for several years, that mandated an 80-percent cut in six greenhouse gases by 2050 (relative to 1990 emissions). Journalist James Delingpole, a long-time owl, has called it “the most stupid, pointless and wasteful piece of legislation ever passed in British parliamentary history,” with the costs likely to exceed a trillion pounds. It is a mark of the inroads the apocalypse had made in the political class that there were only five dissenting votes out of the nearly 650 cast. Not to be outdone, Germany’s politicians in 2010 passed the Energiewende, a program that looked forward to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80 to 95 percent by 2050.

Whatever the reasons, the churning wave turned out to be a mini-wave. For a few years polls showed greater public skepticism, with the issue ranking low compared to others. But this July, a BBC program called Climategate’: 10 years on, what’s changed? found Climategate (the charges of scientific misbehavior come off in the program as “a smear”) might as well not have happened. Since then, the BBC reports, the public has reengaged, former skeptics have changed their minds, politicians are increasingly concerned, and children are speaking out “authentically.”

Rather than completing the normal cycle by going into a receding wave, the climate apocalypse has come roaring back as a breaking wave, this time with children in the forefront. (The classroom indoctrination of the previous decade paid off.) Led by a 15-year-old (now 16) in pigtails, Greta Thunberg, beginning in March millions of children in over 120 countries skipped school to embark on a series of “climate strikes.” At the March UN climate summit, Thunberg announced, “We are at the beginning of a mass extinction.” Berating the respectful audience of world leaders for having “stolen my dreams and my childhood,” she produced her electrifying (to her followers), “How dare you?”

“Time has almost entirely run out,” say the activists of Extinction Rebellion, a civil disobedience movement launched in England in October 2018 (it expanded to the U.S. this January). Its red-robed adherents have shut down traffic from London to Australia to Washington, D.C. ER, as it is called, demands that governments declare “a disaster and ecological emergency” and reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025. As a think tank sympathetic to the group has pointed out, this requires an end to air travel and taking 38 million cars off the road.

Nonetheless, this second breaking wave is also doomed to give way to churning and eventually receding waves. What eventually dooms apocalyptic prophecies is their failure to materialize. In the case of global warming, true believers are in a bind. The public is likely to accept a major reduction in its standard of living only if it believes “mass extinction” is the alternative. Yet the closer and more threatening the scenarios, the more they are subject to disproof. Believers may postpone the apocalyptic date, but eventually cognitive dissonance becomes too great.