Nancy Pelosi: House Members Who Carry Guns for Self-Defense Are the ‘Enemy Within’

H/T Breitbart.

San Fran Nan has lost her last active brain cell.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) referred to House members who carry guns for self-defense as the “enemy within” on Thursday.

Breitbart’s Joel Pollak reported Pelosi’s statement, wherein she was given a chance to put forward her stance on House Members who want to be armed for self-defense.

Pollak tweeted:

 

Lauren Boebert (R-CO) is the co-chair of the House of Representative’s Second Amendment Caucus and has been outspoken about her commitment to carry a gun in D.C.

In a December 23, 2020, exclusive interview with Breitbart News, Boebert said, “I am my security.”

 

She added, “Washington, DC, like most Democrat-run cities, has a violent crime problem, so I certainly need a way to protect myself and I will be carrying each and every day.”

Following the January 6, 2021, Capitol riots Breitbart News reported that Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), the other co-chair of the Second Amendment Caucus, talked about how comforting it was to be armed when the rioters struck.

Massie said, “The next member who argues Congressmen shouldn’t be allowed to carry firearms at work needs to be laughed out of the Capitol.”

Multiple Democrats Beg Biden, to Rescind Recent Executive Order

H/T Western Journal.

How many more DemocRats will start cringing as Comrade Biden continues to rule by executive orders?

Some facts of life are too stubborn for liberals to ignore.

Even now, in the heady first days of a new administration with a president of their own party, some Democrats are clearly looking ahead to the next midterm elections.

And four members of Congress from Texas, at least, must not like what they see

As BizPac Review reported Thursday, four Lone Star State Democrats wrote to President Joe Biden on Wednesday to ask that he rescind Executive Order 3395, which he signed on his second day in office and puts a pause on new leases for drilling for oil and gas on federal lands.

It also asks Biden to drop plans like those reported by Fox News on Tuesday to ban new leases for a year as part of his administration’s war on fossil fuels.

Such measures, the lawmakers wrote, would not only put jobs in danger; they would cost the government “billions” in revenue.

“Media reports indicate that the administration plans to announce a new proposal to ban responsible energy leasing, including oil and gas leasing, from our federal waters and lands indefinitely,” the letter said. “A federal ban for any period of time will certainly imperil hundreds of thousands of jobs, entire communities, and billions of dollars in royalty revenues to the Federal Treasury and eliminate funding for important conservation programs such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).”

Well, maybe Reps. Henry Cuellar, Lizzie Fletcher, Vicente Gonzalez and Marc Veasey were sleeping through the last presidential campaign, when Biden made no secret of his sympathy for the leftist antipathy toward the fossil fuel industry.

Or maybe they’re just now grasping what a Democratic president at war with fossil fuels, and costing countless jobs, will mean to Democratic lawmakers running for re-election in a state that relies heavily on oil and gas production for jobs and revenue.

As Fox reported Wednesday, Republicans are already targeting Democrats in states like Texas who voted in 2019 for a House resolution that tried to push then-President Donald Trump into rejoining the Paris climate agreement he took the country out of in 2017.

In the #Resistance heyday of 2019, that vote might have looked like risk-free virtue signaling for fun and political profit for Democratic representatives. But with a Democratic president in the White House actually carrying out policies that are destructive to their constituents’ livelihoods, it might not look so risk-free anymore.

While Veasey and Cuellar cruised to re-election in November, things were closer for Gonzalez (who was specifically mentioned as a target for Republicans in the Fox report) and Fletcher, who each won by about 3 percentage points. Considering the 2022 campaign isn’t going to have Donald Trump on hand to push Democratic turnout by standing in as the party’s Emmanuel Goldstein, that’s probably closer than either representative wants to risk.

The Texas Tribune noted that the federal government owns only about 1.9 percent of the land in Texas, unlike in other Western states where the percentage owned by the federal government can be much higher, but there’s no denying the message the Biden administration’s actions are sending to the fossil fuel industry.

And all four Democrats, according to the Houston Chronicle, “represent districts with big oil and gas footprints.”

Hence Wednesday’s letter:

“As the United States works to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, which has killed more than 400,000 Americans and destroyed the livelihoods of many more, now is not the time to jeopardize American jobs, or the critical tax and royalty revenues that federal leases generate for local, state, and federal government that need funds now. Instead, we should invest in our nation’s infrastructure and create the jobs that will help our nation emerge stronger after this pandemic.

“We were pleased to see your Administration rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement on Day 1, and we want to work with you on your Build Back Better agenda. We urge you to rescind this order and to reject policies that would ban responsible oil and gas leasing on federal lands and federal waters.”

“Thank you to these Texas Democrats,” Crenshaw wrote in a Twitter post. “There is now bipartisan support for energy jobs, against the radical pseudo-environmentalism of the Biden-Harris administration.”

It’s way too early yet to predict what effect the Biden presidency is going to have on his party in the November 2022 midterms, but it’s a fact of political life that the party of the president tends to do poorly.

Then-President Donald Trump’s Republicans lost their House majority in the 2018 midterms. Then-President Barack Obama’s Democrats lost their House majority in the 2010 midterms. Then-President George W. Bush’s Republicans avoided that fate in the 2002 midterms, but it caught up to them in 2006.Then-President Bill Clinton’s Democrats, of course, set the modern standard for disaster in 1994 when they lost the House of Representatives for the first time in nearly 40 years as well as a Senate majority.

It’s also a fact of life that presidents who cost their countrymen their livelihoods deserve to — and inevitably will — lose voter support.

Four Texas Democrats have evidently gotten that message already.

It’s a good bet more members of the party aren’t going to be far behind.

Beto O’Rourke ‘Thinking About’ Losing Race for Texas Governor

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Little Bobbie Francis O’Rourke(Delusional-TX)wants to become a three time loser Senator,President and Governor.

Failed Senate and presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke is “going to think about” launching a failed bid for governor of Texas in 2022, the Houston Chronicle reported Thursday:

Democrat Beto O’Rourke has left no doubt that he’s weighing a run for governor next year.

“You know what, it’s something I’m going to think about,” O’Rourke said in an exclusive interview on an El Paso radio station earlier this week.

And in case anyone missed the interview, supporters of a political action committee O’Rourke started called Powered By People is circulating it on social media.

Beto, who became a political celebrity after losing to Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) in 2018, entered the Democratic presidential primary in 2020 after telling Vanity Fair he was “born to be in it.” He dropped out eight months later, having failed to find a viable constituency for his central campaign message of unapologetic gun confiscation.

If not senator or president, perhaps Beto was “born to be” governor. But probably not. By launching a (competitive but ultimately unsuccessful) campaign to defeat incumbent Gov. Greg Abbott (R., Texas) in 2022, Beto could achieve a rare trifecta of political failure. Few other politicians in American history have tried and failed to be elected senator, governor, and president within a span of four years.

In the interview with the El Paso radio station, Beto criticized Abbott for his “complete indifference” to saving lives during the COVID-19 pandemic. “I want to make sure we have someone in the highest office in our state who’s going to make sure that all of us are OK,” he said.

Texas currently ranks 25th in COVID-19 deaths per million, well behind large Democratic-run states such as New Jersey (1st), New York (2nd), and Massachusetts (3rd).

Senate Judiciary Chairman Says Gun Control Is ‘Top Priority’

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

 Senator Dickless Turdbin(Delusional-IL)want the failed gun control laws for the nation that have failed miserably in his home state of Illinois.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) plans to make gun control a “top priority” for the Senate Judiciary Committee under his leadership.

After winning control of the committee chairmanship on Wednesday, Durbin said he had met with a group of activists and promised to prioritize action on guns.

“Today I had the chance to speak with a group of gun violence prevention advocates from across the country,” Durbin tweeted. “I told them that reducing gun violence will be a top priority of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And I will never stop fighting for gun safety.” 

Democrats enjoy a slim majority in the Senate with Vice President Kamala Harris able to cast tie-breaking votes, a partisan split that makes sweeping, new gun-control legislation difficult to pass. Durbin’s control of the Judiciary Committee, however, will allow him to shape America’s legal landscape. His ability to shepherd President Joe Biden’s judicial nominees to federal courts could play a decisive role in numerous gun-rights cases. The committee also oversees federal law that regulates firearms, including the federal gun background check system.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), the committee’s top Republican, said he hopes Durbin will pursue similar gun initiatives to the past Congress instead of attempting to push through sweeping liberal changes.

“Unduly abridging or regulating those rights, especially if it’s through a strictly partisan process, is wrong,” Grassley told the Washington Free Beacon. “I hope, if Senator Durbin chooses to focus on this issue, it will be with a bipartisan, consensus-building approach.” 

Durbin’s office did not respond to a request for comment. 

Grassley pointed to the Fix NICS bill as an example of the bipartisan approach on guns he championed while chairman of the committee. In 2017, the committee held hearings on the bill in an effort to improve the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) after the Sutherland Springs church shooter’s criminal records were left out of the system allowing him to buy a gun. It eventually became law with support from both parties.

Durbin has a long history of supporting new gun-control legislation, including bans on the sale of AR-15 rifles and opposing judges with a history of questioning strict gun-control laws. Durbin criticized Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett during her confirmation hearing for an opinion she wrote arguing the lifetime-gun-ownership ban for nonviolent felons is unconstitutional. He told Barrett the categorical ban was appropriate because it is “totally impractical” to go “case by case” to determine if a felon is violent or not before stripping them of their gun rights. 

Grassley pledged to defend the Second Amendment in the committee and hold judicial nominees accountable for their views on guns regardless of how Durbin decides to run things.

“I have always been and will continue to be a steadfast defender of the Second Amendment rights of Iowans and all Americans,” he said.

 

Virginia House of Representatives Passes Anti-Gun Bills

H/T AmmoLand.

Just remember Virginia you voted this silly bastards in to office.

It will be your responsibility to vote the silly bastards out.  

 

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- On January 27th, the Virginia House of Delegates quickly passed the anti-gun bills that they had received from committees just days prior. They will now go to the Senate for further consideration.

House Bill 2128 allows for a five business day delay to be imposed on firearm transfers. Current law allows state police up to three business days to complete background checks on prospective firearm buyers. If three business days elapse without the state police making a determination, a licensed firearm dealer may, at their discretion, proceed with a sale. Virginia’s existing three business day delay for what is supposed to be an instant background check done by computers was considered appropriate to the technology level when it was created decades ago. It is also what federal law considers appropriate for firearm dealers in other states that use the federal NICS background check system.

 

House Bill 2276 essentially ends the centuries-old practice of manufacturing firearms for personal use by imposing requirements that far exceed those in federal law. It prohibits private individuals from possessing certain unregulated components commonly used by hobbyists to make their own firearms. It also prohibits private individuals from possessing firearms that do not have a “serial number issued by a federal firearms importer or federal firearms manufacturer in compliance with all federal laws and regulations.” While the bill was amended to exempt pre-1968 firearms, it still bans existing home-built firearms made in the five decades since that are currently legal under federal law.

House Bill 2295 bans firearms from Capitol Square and any building or parking facility owned or leased by the Commonwealth. Last year, Governor Ralph Northam used an emergency declaration to fence-off Capitol Square and make it a gun-free zone, claiming it was necessary during a peaceful demonstration against anti-gun bills. Without that emergency declaration, Capitol Square is simply an open, publicly accessible part of the city of Richmond. Citizens regularly go there to conduct business or see tourist attractions. It is unreasonable for the law to create an arbitrary boundary for such an open area where law-abiding citizens are disarmed, while zero measures are taken to prevent criminals from entering.

Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org and your email inbox for further updates.

Snow Blowers

H/T This Old House.com.

A look at the history of snow blowers.

Snow blowers have come a long way from their humble origins.

See the best of today’s models

Ingenious Invention

Photo by

Shoveling snow in the freezing cold is no fun chore. So naturally, it was a mechanically inclined teenager from regularly white-powdered Boston, Massachusetts, who first tinkered with a way to make the task of clearing his home’s 100-foot-long driveway a little easier. Pictured here is William P. Murphy, now an award-winning medical engineer, using the blower he invented in 1941.

Homemade Machine

Photo by

To power his invention, the then 17-year-old Murphy acquired a small, one-cylinder Briggs and Stratton gas engine that was commonly used in lawnmowers and other motorized landscape equipment. He then put some of his basic woodworking and metalworking tools to use and built a chassis for the motor and a centrifugal clutch for the blower, which weighed more than 100 pounds.

Mass-Market

Photo by

While Murphy’s homemade machine had some local success (he sold his design to a lawn mower company in Columbus, Ohio, for $1,500), snow blowers didn’t have any real commercial success until Minnesota-based Toro, a company then known mostly for its lawnmowers, invented the first mass-marketed residential snow blower in 1953.

Snow Hound

Photo by

Priced just under $200 and dubbed the Snowhound, Toro’s machine could plow through 1-foot-high white powder to create a 17-inch-wide swath of walking space. With a 2.5-horsepower, two-cylinder motor, it could throw snow up to 15 feet away.

Petite and Powerful

Photo by

While today’s compact snow throwers like Toro’s Power Max 1028 OXE are much more expensive, their motors can clear larger areas and throw up to 2,100 pounds of snow more than 40 feet every minute. The Power Max’s chute control also lets the operator adjust the deflection angle, so you’re not throwing snow to a spot that will need to be flurry-free later. Perfect for clearing that driveway before your hot cocoa cools. About $1,800; Toro.

Luxury Edition

Photo by

Some new models try to make the chore of snow removal as comfortable as possible, with built-in hand warmers, quick electrical starts, and handles large enough to accommodate a warmly mittened hand. Arien’s Professional Series 2-Stage Snow Blower comes with all of that, plus reversible skid shoes for plowing through uneven surfaces. About $1,950; Arien

Power Shovel

Photo by

If you’re just looking to clear the walkway, though, a souped-up shovel might be your best bet. Toro’s Power Shovel has a 7.5-amp motor that can take on snow as deep as 6 inches and throw it up to 20 feet. The 13-pound machine requires no oil or gas, but does need to be plugged in to do its sweeping.

About $110; Toro.

Bargain Blower

Photo by

For locales that just get the occasional dusting of powder, a single-stage mower—like this one from Troy Bilt—is a relatively inexpensive option that will do the trick. Its four-cycle engine and 21-inch clearing width can easily tackle snow accumulations of up to 10 inches.

About $480; Troy Bilt

Safer Snow Throwing

Photo by

Along with all-wheel-drive capabilities and multiple speeds, some new snow throwers are also equipped with safety features. The new Storm 3090 XP from Troy Bilt, which can clear a 30-inch swath of snow, features in-dash headlights and reflective strips with its 12-inch serrated steel auger, adjustable, reversible skid shoes, and push-button electrical start. Plus, its four-way joystick chute control and power steering makes controlling your snow removal both easy and fun.

About $1,100;Troy-Bilt

Can President Trump Run For President Again After Being Impeached Twice But Not Convicted?

Jim Campbell's

By Jim Campbell

January 30th, 2021

Face Book is trying to delete Candace Owens for suggesting that Donald Trump should not have been impeached.

They picked the wrong woman.

Remember he was impeached by the House of Representatives, but not the U.S. Senate.

There are those on the left who wrongfully believe that since the President has been impeached in the House by leftists he can no longer run in 2024.

They of course are wrong and typical for those on the left have likely never read the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Being impeached by the House, even for a second time, is not enough to prevent Trump from seeking the White House or any other federal office in the future.

That power rests in the U.S. Senate.

Article I of the Constitutionrequires a 2/3 majority to preclude him from running again if he…

View original post 560 more words

New Study Makes Discovery About Controversial Drug Hydroxychloroquine

H/T Western Journal.

The only reason hydroxychloroquine is controversial is President Trump sadi it helped.

A new study out of New Jersey shows that the controversial antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine could help people with mild symptoms of COVID-19.

Hackensack Meridian Health published a new study that found outpatients who received the anti-inflammatory drug last year were much less likely to be hospitalized, NorthJersey.com reported.

Andrew Yip, the director of the Division of Outcomes and Value Research at the John Theurer Cancer Center, cautioned people against jumping to conclusions about the drug, as it needs to be studied further before it is approved for use.

“If you’re going to say it’s a cure, that’s definitely crazy,” Ip said.

He did point out that the study found “less hospitalizations and not much toxicity” in patients who receive hydroxychloroquine, but “you still need to validate these findings” in a clinical trial.

Hydroxychloroquine became a political controversy last year when former President Donald Trump touted it as a cure for COVID-19.

“The nice part is, it’s been around for a long time, so we know that if it — if things don’t go as planned, it’s not going to kill anybody,” Trump said, according to ABC News.

The drug was used in the early months of the pandemic as clinicians were desperate to help patients.

Physicians throughout the Hackensack Meridian Health system reported that of over 100 people who received the drug from March to mid-May, one in five ended up in the hospital.

One in three people who did not receive the drug were hospitalized.

Ip added that there are also no reports of cardiac arrhythmia after using the drug, which is a potential side effect.

“I’ve gotten messages from doctors saying [the study] supports what they are seeing in their clinics,” he said.

North Jersey doctor Stephen Smith said he was “encouraged” by the new study, adding that he has had trouble finding help analyzing available information because of the stigma against the drug after the political debate.

“[I]t’s harder to show that something works than to show that it doesn’t,” he said.

Ip added that while the study shows promise for people with acute symptoms, further studies need to be done before the drug can be approved for use.

“We make it clear we can’t recommend it to be given,” Ip said.

“This is only an observational study. We can only recommend it in the context of a clinical trial. There may be a benefit for using this drug in an outpatient setting.”

Concealed Carry Holder Kills Would-Be Robber In Seattle Suburb

H/T Bearing Arms.

Unfortunately for this would be robber his intended victim was armed also.

A 31-year old man waiting on a tow truck in the Seattle bedroom community of Des Moines, Washington shot and killed a man who attempted to rob him at gunpoint in what police are calling a crime of opportunity.

According to the Seattle Times, the 31-year old from Renton, Washington had reported his car stolen back on January 18th. A couple of days later, police in Des Moines alerted the man that his car had been found. Rather than having his car impounded, the man told police he would have it towed himself, and drove to where the car had been located on his motorcycle.

 

While he was waiting on the wrecker to arrive, an SUV pulled up beside him, and 45-year old Randle Cody, Jr. got out and began talking with the man.

The 45-year-old then pulled a gun and demanded the younger man’s backpack, pocketing his weapon as the Renton man handed over the bag, said Mohr. The 31-year-old then pulled out his own gun and the 45-year-old grabbed his gun and fired once, missing the 31-year-old; the 31-year-old returned fire, striking the 45-year-old multiple times, according to Mohr.

The 45-year-old was treated at the scene but died soon after arriving at Seattle’s Harborview Medical Center, Mohr said.

The 31-year-old Renton man and the SUV’s driver were both interviewed by officers and Des Moines police have since sent their case to King County prosecutors to be reviewed. The Renton man was not arrested or booked into jail.

“To my knowledge, it’s just an odd coincidence,” Mohr said of the encounter, adding there’s no evidence the 45-year-old was involved in stealing the Renton man’s car. “The 31-year-old was just a victim of opportunity for the two in the SUV.”

Police say the 31-year old possess a valid concealed carry license, and while the case is being reviewed by prosecutors, it would appear to be a clear-cut case of self-defense.

The attempted robbery and defensive gun use comes as lawmakers in Washington are debating a ban on ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds, and is a pretty good example of why that law would hurt legal gun owners far more than it would impact violent criminals.

In this particular robbery attempt, the armed citizen faced only one attacker, though the driver of the vehicle could also have posed a threat to the man. Criminals don’t care about a fair fight, and we’ve seen plenty of instances of late where multiple assailants have targeted lone victims.

Gun control activists might wonder “why do you need more than ten rounds?” The answer is simple.

I don’t know how many rounds I might need if I’m ever forced to act in self-defense, but I’d rather have too much ammunition on me than not enough. I can’t guarantee that I will ever need to fire more than ten rounds in self-defense, but anti-gun activists can’t guarantee that I won’t need to do so if I’m targeted by multiple attackers, armed robbers, or home invaders.

I believe that magazine bans like the one currently being debated in Washington State are unconstitutional (and at the moment the Ninth Circuit agrees with me), but I don’t think many Democrats in the state legislature really care whether the ban is constitutional or not. They might not care that their proposed law would put legal gun owners at risk either, but Second Amendment activists understand that a magazine ban would be more harmful than helpful in terms of public safety and our civil rights.

FLASHBACK: Biden Promised Not to Raise Taxes Is That About to Change?

1H/T Town Hall.

With Joe Pee Pads Biden promises are like pie crust easily broken.

Bend over here comes the tax hike shaft.

President Joe Biden promised over and over again on the 2020 campaign trail that he would not raise taxes on any American making less than $400,000 per year. 

 

“None of you will have your taxes raised. Anyone making less than $400,000 will not see a penny in taxes raised. You will actually see your standard of living go up and your costs go down,” Biden said during an interview with ABC News. “No new taxes. There would be no need for any.”

Americans for Tax Reform has put together a compilation of his statements and promises:

But that promise could soon be broken. Incoming Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg suggested an increase in the gas tax just last week. 

Transportation Secretary nominee Pete Buttigieg expressed an openness to a federal gas tax increase in order to pump more money into the suffering Highway Trust Fund.

During his confirmation hearing on Thursday, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., was asked about a tax hike to help fund infrastructure by Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla.

“Well, I think all options need to be on the table,” Buttigieg said. “As you know, the gas tax has not been increased since 1993, and it’s never been pegged to inflation. And it’s one of the reasons why the current state of the Highway Trust Fund is that there’s more going out than coming in.”

Biden’s nominee for Commerce Secretary did the same this week during her Senate confirmation hearing, justifying a tax increase in order to pay for a “climate” agenda and new infrastructure projects. 

Further, Biden promised to repeal the Trump tax cuts, which will force a tax increase on the middle class. 

The Tax Policy Center estimates that 65 percent of people paid less under the law and that just 6 percent paid more. (The rest saw little change to their taxes.)

Other analyses reached similar conclusions. The Joint Committee on Taxation — Congress’s nonpartisan team of tax analysts — found that every income group would see a tax cut on average. So did the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning think tank that was sharply critical of the law. In fact, that group went even further: In a December 2017 analysis, it found that every income group in every state would pay less on average under the law in 2019.