Grandma Foils Intruder’s Plans: “I reached over and got my shotgun, and I cocked it”

H/T Concealed Nation.

I bet when the punk got to jail he had to clean his pants after he crapped in them when grandma cocked her shotgun.

SPANAWAY, WASHINGTON — There isn’t much that’s better than an armed citizen being able to defend themselves when trouble comes to their door. This Grandma did just that, and she relied on her shotgun to help her get the job done.

The 78-year-old came face to face with an intruder, and she jumped into action.

Sandy said her neighborhood has been plagued by crime recently, resulting in her car being prowled twice. When she came face to face with the intruder, she wasn’t about to let him run away.

“I reached over and got my shotgun. And I cocked it, and I told him to stay right there,” she said. “Told him to go sit on the steps. I followed him out, and I just stood here with the shotgun waiting for the police to come.”


Years ago, Sandy says she got the shotgun to protect her family. When faced with a real threat, she says that she was scared at first, but then a sense of calm came over her.

“But then I was totally calm, really and truly. I thought, ‘This is amazing!’ I said, ‘You know, I’ve got grandchildren your age!’”

Sandy did a great job here, but I will critique one action that she took: She declined to press charges against the intruder.

After police arrived, they found that the suspect was not impaired and ‘did not seem distressed.’ And since Sandy didn’t want to press charges, police had no choice but to let the suspect go.

I understand that Sandy is in the line of thinking that this man had learned his lesson after having a gun pointed at him, and I truly hope that’s the case. Thousands of stories tell us otherwise, however, but we can only hope that this man is the exception.

One thing is almost certain; he won’t be coming back to Sandy’s house looking for an easy target.

New York Times Claims POTUS Paid Only $750 in Taxes During First Year in Office, Trump Lawyer Says NYT Facts Are ‘Inaccurate’

H/T Western Journal.

If the New York Slimes said day was light and night was dark I would not believe the lying bastards.


President Donald Trump is disputing a New York Times report that he paid just $750 in federal income taxes the year he ran for president and in his first year in the White House.

Trump, who has fiercely guarded his tax filings and is the only president in modern times not to make them public, paid no federal income taxes in 10 of the past 15 years, The Times reported Sunday.

More recently, the president’s financial disclosures indicated he earned at least $434.9 million in 2018, but the tax filings reported a $47.4 million loss.

The report, which the Times said comes from tax return data it obtained extending over two decades, comes at a pivotal moment ahead of the first presidential debate Tuesday and weeks before a divisive election against Democrat Joe Biden.

Speaking at a news conference Sunday at the White House, Trump dismissed the report as “fake news” and said he has paid taxes, though he gave no specifics. He also vowed that information about his taxes “will all be revealed,” but he offered no timeline for the disclosure and made similar promises during the 2016 campaign.

The president has fielded court challenges against those seeking access to his returns, including the U.S. House, which is suing for access to Trump’s tax returns as part of congressional oversight.

During his first two years as president, Trump received $73 million from foreign operations, which in addition to his golf properties in Scotland and Ireland included $3 million from the Philippines, $2.3 million from India and $1 million from Turkey, The Times reported. The president in 2017 paid $145,400 in taxes in India and $156,824 in the Philippines, compared to just $750 in U.S. income taxes, according to The Times.

Trump has taken tax deductions on personal expenses such as housing, aircraft and $70,000 in haircare. Losses in the property businesses solely owned and managed by Trump appear to have offset income from his stake in the television show “The Apprentice” and other entities with multiple owners.

During the first two years of his presidency, Trump relied on business tax credits to reduce his tax obligations, according to the report. The Times said $9.7 million worth of business investment credits that were submitted after Trump requested an extension to file his taxes allowed him to reduce his income and pay just $750 each in 2016 and 2017.

Trump, starting in 2010, claimed and received an income tax refund that totaled $72.9 million, which The Times said was at the core of an ongoing audit by the IRS. The president has declined to release his taxes because of the audit.

A lawyer for the Trump Organization, Alan Garten, told The Times that “most, if not all, of the facts appear to be inaccurate.”

He said in a statement to the news organization that the president “has paid tens of millions of dollars in personal taxes to the federal government, including paying millions in personal taxes since announcing his candidacy in 2015.”

The New York Times said it declined Garten’s request for the tax filings in order to protect its sources.

During his first general election debate against Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016, Clinton said that perhaps Trump wasn’t releasing his tax returns because he had paid nothing in federal taxes.

Trump interrupted her to say, “That makes me smart

Republicans Prepare for Accelerated Supreme Court Confirmation

H/T  The Washington Free Beacon.

The Republicans need to just say screw it and go right to the confirmation vote as hearings are not required by the Constitution.

Senate Republicans and the White House are laying the groundwork for an accelerated confirmation process for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, culminating with a late October confirmation vote.

Sources close to the process anticipate a final confirmation vote before the presidential election during the week of Oct. 26. A hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee would come the week of Oct. 12 at the latest, and conceivably as early as Monday, Oct. 5. Supreme Court nominees generally appear before the panel for three days. Introductory statements are delivered on the first day, followed by consecutive days of questions from senators.

“She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution,” President Donald Trump said of Barrett before an ecstatic crowd in the Rose Garden.

“This should be a straightforward and prompt confirmation,” he added.

Nominees usually meet with as many lawmakers as possible before the confirmation vote. Those so-called courtesy meetings are expected to begin almost immediately after the nominee is named.

White House lawyers and Barrett will also have two logistical gauntlets to clear. The nominee must complete a lengthy questionnaire for the Judiciary Committee disclosing past writings, speeches, professional activities, and relevant legal experience. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s completed questionnaire ran over 100 pages. Lawmakers can also submit supplementary questions, called questions for the record or QFRs, for the nominee. Senate Democrats sent almost 1,300 QFRs to Kavanaugh, and may do the same to delay progress on Barrett’snomination.

A team of lawyers intimately familiar with the nominee will be on hand to complete both the questionnaire and the QFRs. Overwhelming the nominee with written questions may only buy a couple of days in a best-case scenario, but on a tight confirmation timeline even minor holdups could be decisive.

Rachel Bovard, policy director for the Conservative Partnership Institute and a Senate procedure maven, told the Washington Free Beacon that Democrats can blunt progress by forcing procedural votes or leveraging institutional rules. One such move might be to invoke an arcane rule requiring that committee work end no later than two hours after the Senate gavels into session, but Bovard said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could break that move on his own. Democrats might also make motions to adjourn, which must be voted on.

“The GOP can easily overcome them, it just takes 51 votes. But you have to have 51 people there to do it,” Bovard said.

All told, a strong-arm approach from Republicans can overcome whatever dilatory tactics Democrats try, but the strategy is not without risks. Half a dozen Republican incumbents are in tight races for reelection. Every day spent in Washington clearing procedural logjams is a day spent off the campaign trail. While traditional stumping and glad-handing aren’t possible due to the coronavirus pandemic, lawmakers may be loath to leave their home states wide open to Democratic challengers.

The consequences of a miffed Supreme Court confirmation could be worse, however.

“The stakes couldn’t be higher for the Republican Party,” Bovard told the Free Beacon. “This is what they were elected to do. Just this. And effectively this has been their entire agenda. Mitch McConnell’s entire legacy hangs on confirming judges. So if you can’t get this judge across the finish line, what’s the point?”

“This is the most high-stakes, high-consequence vote that any of these senators will take,” she added.

Biden Again Won’t Say Whether He Supports Court Packing

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Is Joe Pee Pads Biden too senile to know where he stands on packing the court?

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden again would not give a committal answer Sunday on whether he supported packing the Supreme Court.

“I know you’re going to be upset with my answer,” he said. “But what I’m not going to do is play the Trump game—which is a good game he plays—take your eye off the issue before us. If I were to say yes or no to that, that becomes a big issue.”

Some Senate Democrats have called for expanding the Supreme Court’s size if they take power next year as retaliation for Republicans filling Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat. Biden said he opposed the idea while running for the 2020 nomination and earlier in his career called it a “bonehead idea.”

His rhetoric has shifted since Ginsburg’s death on Sept. 18, however, as he also said Monday he would not give his opinion because it would shift the “focus” from Trump.

Many of the 2020 Democrats running for Senate seats oppose court packing or have not committed to an opinion on the subject. The Supreme Court has had nine justices since 1869.


Explosive Undercover Video Connects Ilhan Omar Campaign to Major Voter Fraud Allegations

H/T Western Journal.

From the land of 10,000 frauds that gave us Senator Al Franken.

Omar is a DemocRat and DemocRats run the House so will anything happen to her?

A new investigation from Project Veritas appears to show a massive, ballot-harvesting racket conducted in the district of Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar in the swing state of Minnesota.

Project Veritas founder Jame O’Keefe released a video Sunday evening exposing an apparent sophisticated ballot-harvesting scheme targeting mostly Somali-born seniors in Minneapolis, and those who spoke to O’Keefe alleged there are exchanges of cash for mail-in ballots in many cases.

One video shared by the investigation shows an alleged ballot harvester named Liban Mohamed boasting on the social media app SnapChat about carrying hundreds of absentee ballots in his car.

Mohamed is identified as the brother of Minneapolis City Council member Jamal Osman, who won a special election to represent the city’s 6th Ward this summer.

“Numbers don’t lie. Numbers don’t lie. You can see my car is full. All these here are absentees’ ballots. Can’t you see?” said Mohamed in a video apparently recorded in July.

“Look at all these, my car is full. All these are for Jamal Osman… We got 300 today for Jamal Osman only,” added Mohamed on SnapChat in a video obtained by Project Veritas.

“Money is the king in this world,” Mohamed also bragged, adding that “a campaign is driven by money.”

Mohamed also works for Rep. Omar, according to a Somali activist quoted in the video.

Both Mohamed and his brother, Osman, are Somali-born, as is Omar herself.

The Project Veritas investigation also speaks with an anonymous former Minneapolis political worker, who told O’Keefe that Omar’s campaign deputy district director, Ali Isse Gainey, ran a separate ballot-harvesting scheme targeting elderly people at the Charles Horn Towers housing complex in Minneapolis before the Minnesota primary on Aug. 8.

“Knock on the door [of the elderly] and say, ‘Your ballots come? Give it to me,’” the political worker said.

The person told Project Veritas many people, including young people and women, were paid for mail-in ballots before the August Minnesota primary.

“Cash, cash, cash. They were carrying bags of money,” the source said. “When you vote and they mark you off, then you get in the van, they give you the cash.”

Additionally, Omar Jamal, who chairs the Minneapolis Somali Watchdog Group, told Project Veritas the video posted by Mohamed bragging about ballot harvesting is just the tip of the iceberg.

Jamal said that Mohamed is one of “many people” working for Omar who is linked to numerous ballot-harvesting schemes.

“It’s an open secret. She will do anything that she can do to get elected and she has hundreds of people on the streets doing that,” Jamal said.

Jamal also had a warning: “If American people don’t pay attention to what’s happening, the country will collapse.”

The Western Journal has contacted the Omar campaign for comment on the Project Veritas report.

The alleged scheme, as described to Project Veritas, essentially comes down to voters being compelled to request ballots, which are then picked up by political activists.

Those not paid for their ballots are allegedly manipulated into filling out and giving the ballots away.

“Ballot harvesting is real and it has become a big business,” O’Keefe said.

“Our investigation into this ballot-harvesting ring demonstrates clearly how these unscrupulous operators exploit the elderly and immigrant communities — and have turned the sacred ballot box into a commodities trading desk,” he added.

O’Keefe concluded in the video. “Ilhan Omar and her campaign may be behind one of the biggest voter fraud schemes in American history.”

Amy Coney Barrett: A Proven Pro-Second Amendment Jurist

H/T AmmoLand.

Gun owners need Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court.


U.S.A. –-( The seditious Press has devoted substantial time analyzing and ruminating on Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court list of potential candidates and will continue to do so up to the point of his selecting someone.

Almost certainly, Trump will nominate a woman to replace the late vexatious liberal-wing Associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And, that nomination is imminent.


The current consensus is that Amy Coney Barrett, who presently serves as a Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, will be that person, as she is the front-runner.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett

Judge Barrett is young, personable, and extremely bright. When analyzing and deciding cases, Judge Barrett applies the methodology of the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked after graduating from Notre Dame Law School, fist in her class, Summa Cum Laude.

President Trump nominated Barrett, on May 8, 2017, to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Consistent with the methodology employed by the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, her brilliant mentor, Judge Barrett construes the Constitution in strict accordance with its original meaning. In that respect, Barrett is Ginsburg’s polar opposite.

Justice Ginsburg, unlike Judge Barrett, unabashedly and unashamedly interposed her own personal predilections into case analysis. Those predilections invariably informed her decisions, eroding the fundamental rights and liberties upon which a free Constitutional Republic and a sovereign people rest.

The attacks against Barrett coming from the Radical Left seditious Press have just started. Indeed, they have been ongoing for some time.

The seditious Press has constantly slammed Barrett’s stance on abortion. That remains its main concern and that, too, of the Radical Left. They haven’t attacked her yet on her jurisprudential approach to deciding Second Amendment cases, but that is almost certainly coming.

The Arbalest Quarrel has wondered about that: What is Barrett’s stance on the Second Amendment?

Fortunately, we have more than a mere clue, we have verified proof of her position, and that proof is consistent with her jurisprudential, methodological approach to case analysis. Judge Barrett is a firm Constitutional originalist and textualist, in the mold of her mentor, the late eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia.

A fairly recent Second Amendment case, Kanter vs. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019), in which Judge Barrett took part, provides us with a definitive answer.

The Plaintiff in Kanter had pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud, a non-violent crime.

“Due to his felony conviction, he is prohibited from possessing a firearm under both federal and Wisconsin law. At issue in this case is whether the felon dispossession statutes—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and Wis. Stat. § 941.29(1m)—violate the Second Amendment as applied to Kanter.”

Upon his release from Prison, and payment of restitution, Plaintiff applied to the Attorney General for relief from disability so that he could exercise his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The 7th Circuit Court Majority pointed out that, “. . . the Attorney General may remove the prohibition on a case-by-case basis if an applicant sufficiently establishes ‘that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.’”

The particulars of Kanter’s felony conviction, as set forth by the Court Majority that decided against Kanter, are as follows:

“On May 24, 2011, Kanter pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 based on a shipment of the noncompliant inserts to a podiatrist in Florida. Section 1341 carries a maximum penalty of twenty years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Kanter was sentenced to one year and one day in prison and two years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay a criminal penalty of $50,000, and he reimbursed Medicare over $27 million in a related civil settlement.

Kanter has since served his time and paid his criminal penalty, and he has not been charged with any additional criminal activity. However, because of his felony conviction, he is permanently prohibited from owning a firearm under federal and Wisconsin law.”

The Constitutionality of the Wisconsin law was placed squarely in question. The lower District Court found against the Plaintiff because of his felony conviction and irrespective of the fact that he had served out his sentence and paid full restitution.

Two of three of the Appellate Court Judges, the majority, who ruled against the Plaintiff Petitioner, Kanter, framed the issue as a question whether individuals who have been convicted of non-violent felonies, no less than those who have been convicted of violent felonies, fall within a class of individuals who can never enjoy their Second Amendment right to own and possess firearms.

Why the Court majority framed the issue in this way is perplexing since the majority never bothered to formulate an answer to it or a resolution of it. This suggests that the Court had tacitly accepted as a given that citizens should never, can never, be absolved of their past misdeeds, regardless of the nature of their crimes, grounded, therefore, on the mere assumption that a convicted felon can never and must never be perceived as rehabilitated or capable of rehabilitation, at least, as to matters apropos of the Second Amendment, namely, matters pertaining to firearms ownership and possession. The Majority, thereupon concludes that felons remain, forever, a threat to public safety.

Having tacitly decided that the Plaintiff Petitioner cannot lawfully own and possess firearms even though, as the Court Majority was compelled to acknowledge, Kanter had paid his full debt to society, the Court pretended to employ a balancing test as between non-violent convicted felons who had paid their debt to society and who subsequently wish to exercise the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, on the one hand, and the State’s desire to promote public safety by keeping guns from the hands of Americans whom the State deems to be—by the very fact of a prior felony conviction—violent felony or non-violent felony notwithstanding—a perpetual threat to society, essentially, then, wholly beyond redemption, at least in the eyes of the Court.

Applying that bald, unsupported assumption to Kanter, the Court said, “Categorical prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons are ‘presumptively lawful,’ even in disqualifying nonviolent felons like Kanter.”

The Court thereupon determined that the government had met its burden in denying Kanter the right to own and possess firearms, even though the government really had not, asserting, nonetheless, that the government has shown that prohibiting even nonviolent felons like the Plaintiff Petitioner, Kanter from possessing firearms is substantially related to its interest in preventing gun violence. The reader should note that the expression, ‘substantially related to an important Government purpose,’ is a court created intermediate scrutiny means balancing test. The Heller Court, in 2008, had considered the tenability of means balancing of interests between a fundamental right a person’s interest in exercising a fundamental right, and the State’s interest in precluding a person from exercising that fundamental right on the basis of some presumed State desire to protect the

How so? The Court majority didn’t say. Obviously the Court Majority didn’t care. The Majority simply determined before the fact that a man convicted of a violent crime can never be permitted to exercise the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, after the fact and the Court constructed its argument to cohere with its predetermined decision.

The dissenting Judge, Amy Barrett, though, did care. She began her dissent with the following perceptive remarks, which demonstrate her erudition, laser-like legal and logical reasoning, and profound respect for the fundamental, natural, immutable, illimitable, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms:

“History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons. Nor have the parties introduced any evidence that founding-era legislature imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right; such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service, not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun. In 1791—and for well more than a century afterward—legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety.”

Judge Barrett added that Federal law and Wisconsin State Statute “would stand on solid footing if their categorical bans were tailored to serve the governments’ undeniably compelling interest in protecting the public from gun violence. But their dispossession of all felons—both violent and nonviolent—is unconstitutional as applied to Kanter, who was convicted of mail fraud for falsely representing that his company’s therapeutic shoe inserts were Medicare-approved and billing Medicare accordingly. Neither Wisconsin nor the United States has introduced data sufficient to show that disarming all nonviolent felons substantially advances its interest in keeping the public safe. Nor have they otherwise demonstrated that Kanter himself shows a proclivity for violence. Absent evidence that he either belongs to a dangerous category or bears individual markers of risk, permanently disqualifying Kanter from possessing a gun violates the Second Amendment. . . .

At this point, however, neither Wisconsin nor the United States has presented any evidence that Kanter would be dangerous if armed. Instead, as the majority notes, ‘Kanter is a first-time, non-violent offender with no history of violence, firearm misuses, or subsequent convictions,’ and he is ‘employed, married, and does not use illicit drugs, all of which correspond with lower rates of recidivism.’”

In her concluding remarks, Judge Barrett, citing the seminal Second Amendment Heller case, made the pertinent points that,

“If the Second Amendment were subject to a virtue limitation, there would be no need for the government to produce—or for the court to assess—evidence that nonviolent felons have a propensity for dangerous behavior. But Heller forecloses the ‘civic right’ argument on which a virtue limitation depends. And while both Wisconsin and the United States have an unquestionably strong interest in protecting the public from gun violence, they have failed to show, by either logic or data, that disarming Kanter substantially advances that interest. On this record, holding that the ban is constitutional as applied to Kanter does not ‘put the government through its paces,’ but instead treats the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right’ [a point articulated by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas] subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees. I therefore dissent.”

Incidentally, in her dissent, Judge Barrett cited, with approval, to Judge Thomas Hardiman’s Second Amendment analysis in the oft-cited Second Amendment case, Binderup v. AG of United States, 836 F.3d 336, 357 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc) (Hardiman, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgments). Judge Hardiman is at present a U.S. Appellate Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Hardiman is also on President Trump’s shortlist to sit on the High Court, as he was when President Trump ultimately decided to go with Judge Neil Gorsuch, in 2016, just weeks into President Trump’s first term in Office. Judge Hardiman was the first runner-up. President Trump recognizes the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in preserving the structure of our Nation in the form the founders conceived for it. Nominating a jurist to sit on the High Court was one of President Trump’s first acts as President, and one that he had promised the electorate; a promise he kept.

As a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, Judge Hardiman would, as with Judge Barrett, make an outstanding Justice, and he would be the ideal replacement for Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, a Bill Clinton nominee, who is 82 years old, the oldest Justice on the Court, in the event that President Trump nominates Judge Barrett to take the seat on the High Court, vacated by Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, upon the Associate Justice’s recent death.

Both Judge Hardiman and Judge Barrett utilize the jurisprudential methodology of the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia when analyzing and deciding cases, and they share the same reverence for the U.S. Constitution and for the Bill of Rights, as conceived by the framers of the Constitution.

Of course, the Radical Left Democrats and other Soros funded Marxists don’t give a damn about fundamental rights or logic. They are inherently nihilistic, stubborn, irascible, irrational, obtuse, smugly self-righteous, and abjectly hateful. And they have other plans for our Nation, for our Nation’s Constitution, and for our Nation’s citizenry. And, in the near future, their aim is to do their damnedest to thwart the confirmation of any further Trump nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court followed by attempts, by hook or by crook to defeat a Trump victory in November. If successful in that endeavor, they plan to resurrect Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the form of another liberal-wing activist jurist—perhaps, Merrick Garland, whom Barack Obama sought to sit on the High Court to replace Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, after the late Associate Justice’s untimely and mysterious death.

KY: More Information on the Breonna Taylor No-Knock Case in Louisville

H/T AmmoLand.

I wish the Conservative media would stop calling it a no knock warrant the police knocked.


U.S.A. –-( More information has surfaced in the Breonna Taylor/Kenneth Walker no-knock warrant service in Louisville, Kentucky, which occurred on 13 March of this year.

On the night of the shooting, the officer who was shot and wounded, Sgt. Mattingly,  who was doing the banging on the door, was recorded in a friendly interview by police.


He said he repeatedly banged on the door and yelled “Police, Come to the Door, Search Warrant”.  He said this was done about 6 or 7 times. Sgt. Mattingly said it took about 45 seconds to a minute of banging and announcing before the police Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team broke down the door.

Mattingly said it seemed like an eternity, during the knocking. From his interview (on audio at, the police did not announce their presence the first couple of banging sequences:

We did not announce the first couple, because our intent was to give her plenty of time to come to the door because he said she was probably there alone. So we determined, pre-determined to give her plenty of time to come to the door, 

Some people would interpret that as a dubious excuse for not announcing they were police. Many people believe announcing police were at the door would result in greater speed in answering the door, not less.

Mattingly says they arrived at the location 45 minutes early. They spent time surveilling the scene and checking out a vehicle near the apartment.

His account raises questions about the urgency of the warrant service. Why not wait another minute to break down the door in an apartment in which they did not expect any resistance?  Why do you need a SWAT team, if you do not expect resistance?

Cynics might say they rushed to break down the door before someone might answer it.

Mattingly was very likely in an adrenaline rush preparatory to breaking down the door with the SWAT team.  More from the audio interview:

6 or 7 different times, what seems like an eternity when you are at the doorway. It probably lasted between 45 seconds and a minute, banging on the door.

Adrenaline often distorts the sense of time. Time seems to stretch out when you are high on adrenaline.

One can conduct an experiment where you knock three times and say, “Police, Search Warrant, Come to the door”.

I did this six times in moderately rapid succession, with a sense of urgency to the voice and the knocking. I timed it. It took 20 seconds. Try it yourself. It is an easy experiment to do.

We do not know exactly how much time it took, because the police were not wearing body cameras. No digital files have been released with audio or surveillance files, which might give us precise timing.  We do not know how much overlap there was between the banging and the yelling about police, search warrant, come to the door, which would make communications harder to understand.

Giving the benefit of the doubt to Sgt. Mattingly, even 1 minute is far from a reasonable time for someone to be woken from a sound sleep, figure out someone is banging on the door, decide to respond, get dressed, and get to the door.  Try it sometime and time it. One to two minutes is a minimal time to be reasonable.  The warrant service was after midnight.

Kenneth Walker, testifying in an audio recording at the same link, says Breonna was yelling, at the top of her lungs “Who is it?” repeatedly, but they did not hear a response, just the banging.

Sgt. Mattingly says an officer thought he heard something, about in the middle of the banging sequence, but no one came to the door right away, so they continued on with the banging and forced entry.  That would only leave 30 seconds, at most, from the time the officer heard something until the officers broke down the door.

People on both sides of the door say they were yelling, yet both sides say they could not understand any words the other side was saying.  That seems to validate both accounts.

In a society with a robust right to arms, police breaking down doors will result in preventable tragedies.

Immediately after the shooting, Kenneth Walker called 911.  From

“I don’t know what happened … somebody kicked in the door and shot my girlfriend,” Walker told the dispatcher. When asked where Taylor had been shot, Walker replied, “I don’t know, she is on the ground right now. I don’t know, I don’t know.” 

There was confusion about who shot Sgt. Mattingly, in early reports. Now we know why.

Kenneth Walker lied to the police, immediately after being taken into custody. When asked who shot at police, Walker said Breonna did.

In the audio testimony, Walker is asked why he lied. He says he was scared.  A jury may find that plausible. Put yourself in their shoes to determine if Walker might have reasonably lied in that situation, out of fear.

Consider the long-standing hype about the chances of anyone shooting an officer and surviving the arrest.

A defense attorney told me the chance of a suspect, who wounded a police officer, surviving an arrest, is nil.  He said he was amazed that Walker survived the arrest. His response is not uncommon.

I have not found at what point the lie was detected or Walker admitted to it.

Kenneth Walker said he thought the home invasion might be by Breonna’s former boyfriend, who is accused of drug dealing, and who was arrested the same night, a little before the warrant service at Breonna’s apartment resulted in the killing and wounding.

Home invasions by former boyfriends are a fairly common occurrence. They often involve a lot of banging on doors and yelling. Here is one from Oklahoma:

The woman told detectives she was at the home with her current boyfriend when they heard loud banging on the back door.

She grabbed a pistol and shot the intruder after he forced his way inside the residence, Butterfield said.

Some shots were fired from outside the apartment to the inside, with shots going through the door and window,  all the shots which hit Breonna were fired from just inside the apartment, according to the police. From

Sources told WAVE 3 News Troubleshooters that one of the officers, Brett Hankison, had fired multiple shots into the apartment blindly from the outside. Those statements corroborate that claim from Taylor’s attorneys.

LMPD confirmed three officers — Jon Mattingly, Myles Cosgrove and Hankison — fired their weapons that night. Mattingly was struck in the leg and returned fire. He has recovered. Cosgrove fired his weapon inside the apartment. All three officers were placed on adminstrative reassignment.

The sources said they do not believe Taylor was struck by any of the bullets fired by Hankison from outside.

The link at has good pictures of the bullet holes through the door and window of the apartment.

There are recorded conversations from jail phone calls (they are routinely recorded) between Breonna and her former boyfriend, in January of 2020, where they discuss her bailing him out, and some transactions, likely involving illegal drugs. This shows the legitimacy of a warrant to search her house. It is far from a legitimate reason for a no-knock warrant.

It appears the no-knock warrant was part of several no-knock warrants designed to hit several places the same night. The warrants do not appear to be have been closely coordinated.  If the purpose was to prevent one location from warning other locations, communications between various warrant serving teams have not surfaced.

Serving warrants in the dead of night is a bad idea, in general. A defense attorney told me it has become, essentially, a terror tactic.

Consider the early morning raids used to intimidate President Trump supporters, by the Muller investigation.

To sum up points of fact recently revealed, over which early reporting was ambivalent or wrong:

  • The warrant for Breonna’s apartment was legitimately issued, according to the policies in effect, at the time.
  • The police had evidence of Breonna’s involvement with her accused drug dealer former boyfriend (two months before the raid) then only the information about her accepting parcels at her residence, for him.
  • The shots which killed Breonna were not fired through the door or window.
  • The shot fired by Kenneth Walker, which wounded Sgt. Mattingly was not fired through the door.
  • Breonna was in the hallway with Walker, when the shots inside were exchanged. She was not in her bed.
  • Kenneth Walker initially lied to police about who fired at police, immediately after the shooting, when he was in police custody.
  • The police’s claim they announced themselves is likely true. It does not mean anyone in the apartment understood they were the police when they broke down the door.

These clarifications tend to exonerate the police officers because they followed the existing policy, and they had a legal warrant.

They show the wisdom of reforms limiting no-knock warrants, requiring body cameras, holding police accountable for firing shots promiscuously, and for a more effective announcement of police presence.

They show allowing “announce and knock” warrants, without stipulating meaningful time to allow residents to respond, just changes the name of no-knock raids.

Union Boss Gets Jail Time, for Ordering ‘Old School’ Attack, on Non-Union Workers

H/T Western Journal.

It is about time these union thugs got held accountable for their crimes against non-union workers.

It is a shame this thug bastard did not get a longer sentence.


A former iron workers’ union president was sentenced to 3 and a half years in prison on Wednesday for ordering and participating in the violent extortion of non-union workers at a construction site.

Jeffrey Veach, 57, the former president of an Indiana chapter of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron Workers was charged for his role in the 2016 incident, according to the Department of Justice.

He and co-defendant Thomas Williamson, a business agent for BSOIW, each pleaded guilty in January to one count of extortion conspiracy.

Under the pretext of serving their union, [Veach] victimized the very type of people [he was] supposed to be fighting for; innocent, hard-working iron workers, who were just trying to do their jobs,” Justice Department organized crime attorney Alexander Gottfried said, according to the The Times of Northwest Indiana.

Gottfried called Veach’s actions “insidious” in an earlier court filing.

Wednesday’s sentencing stems from a 2016 incident that resulted in the assault of multiple non-union workers.

Williamson discovered in January 2016 that a non-union iron works company was involved in a project at a Baptist church in BSOIW’s “territory,” according to his guilty plea.

He visited the church and told the workers to either join his union or leave the site, but was rebuffed. He then confronted a youth pastor at the church and told him that hiring non-union labor was “unethical.”

Accompanied by Veach, Williamson returned to the church the next day again demanding the workers join BSOIW.

After the foreman refused and asked them to leave, Williamson grabbed his jacket and called him a “scab bastard.”

Williamson told Veach they’d need to “take things back to old school” as they were leaving the site, according to their guilty pleas. 

That same day, they gathered about 10 rank-and-file union members, returned to the church and ordered the men to assault the non-union workers.

CA City Councilman Uses Gun To Stop Brawl

H/T Bearing Arms.

It sounds to be like City Councilmember Fernando Echevarria did the right thing.

I’ve been places when fights break out. Usually, it was a bar, though I saw one break out at the gym one time (the dude had it coming, though). Fights happen.

However, some people can’t handle the idea of a fight. They want to ramp things up, and if that happens, people can die.


That didn’t happen in one California grocery store because of a local city councilman. Well, that and his handy firearm.

Meanwhile, City Councilmember Fernando Echevarria, who said he is a former law enforcement officer, was with his wife at the store at the time of the incident.

Echevarria told the Sun-Star he was in the pet food area with his wife when he heard the commotion, which involved people hitting each other, screaming, yelling and breaking glass.

He ran to the front of the store and saw the melee, which he described as an “all out brawl.” Echevarria said there appeared to be four different fights all happening at the same time. All told, he said there were between four and seven people involved in the fracas, which lasted about five to seven minutes.

All of those involved in the fight were males, with the exception of one female, Echevarra said.

The fight participants blocked the entrance and exit to the store, Echevarria said. At one point, he said one of the individuals ran outside and made a comment about going to “get my piece” and made threats to shoot people inside the store.

Echevarria said he saw this as his only chance to get out the door. He told his wife to stay back as he ran out to his car and retrieved a Smith & Wesson 9 mm semi-automatic handgun from the trunk of his vehicle.

He described taking a stance holding people involved in the brawl at gunpoint, including the person he claimed made the threats and was reaching in his pants when he returned from the parking lot.

Echevarria ordered everyone involved to lay on the ground and held them there until the police arrived.

When police arrived, they took over the scene. Currently, Echevarria is under investigation, but unless he’s lying about what transpired, I don’t see how the investigation could result in charges. It looks pretty straight forward from here.

Especially when you consider that a brawl like this can easily get out of hand. People get killed in these kinds of altercations, so even without the threat of a firearm, it seems likely that Echevarria had grounds to intervene as he did.

Unfortunately, this is California. While it’s still technically legal to defend yourself or others in that state, they don’t make it easy on you if you do.

Here’s hoping that this is resolved quickly and that Echevarria is allowed to move on with his life. The last thing anyone wants is a criminal investigation hanging over your head, especially for using a firearm in the most anti-gun state in the entire nation. The sooner it’s over, the better for all involved.

Nolte: Democrats Switch Focus from Mail-In Voting to In-Person Voting

H/T Breitbart.

DemocRats are switching from voting by mail to in person voting why?

We’re less than 40 days out from the election and all of a sudden Democrats are urging people to vote in person as opposed to mailing in their ballots.

The far-left Axios reports “Democrats are exponentially more likely to vote by mail than Republicans this year — and if enough mail-in ballots are lost, rejected on a technicality or undercounted, it could change the outcome of the presidential election or other key races.”

This is just my opinion, but I don’t think that’s it at all. Oh, I don’t doubt Democrats are worried over all the news stories about the rejection rate of mail-in ballots, and how they mysteriously end up in dumpstersditchesdiscardedbackroomsmissing, and other bizarre places.  And I’m sure Democrats understand in a close race, Trump intends to fight like the devil over every mail-in ballot that looks fishy, and you can bet plenty of them will…

Overall, though, and again this is just one man’s opinion, I think this pivot is a wink-wink-nod-nod-know-what-I-mean-know-what-I-mean move to get Democrats to vote twice.

Okay, you’ve mailed in your ballot. Now it’s time to show up and vote once again — you know, just to be sure.

Too cynical?

Really? You think that’s too cynical for a political party that is right now encouraging and openly funding rioting, arson, and looting?

You think that’s too cynical for a party that just nominated a vice presidential pick who openly calls on people to financially support rioting, arson, and looting?

How about a political party that used a Russian spy to fabricate a phony dossier so they could spy on Donald Trump’s campaign and overturn a presidential election?

How about a political party needlessly shutting down our economy?

Or a political party that accused an innocent man of being a serial rapist just to keep him off the Supreme Court?

A political party about to arbitrarily pack the Supreme Court until it can get the outcomes it wants wouldn’t dare cheat to win the White House? You want me to buy that?

How about a political party mailing out millions — literally millions — of unrequested ballots…  Firing off all these massive mail-in ballot cannons into the ether?

Come on…

Cheaters cheat.

Liars lie.

Democrats are cheaters and liars.

Besides, mail-in voting is stupid.

As Axios points out, “In Florida, voters are twice as likely to have their absentee ballot rejected if they’ve never voted that way before” … “In North Carolina, Black voters’ ballots are being rejected at more than four times the rate of white voters” … and “More than 550k mail-in ballots were rejected during the presidential primaries this year.”

Smart people vote in person on Election Day.

You vote in person so you know your vote’s been counted.

You vote in person on Election Day because that leaves a whole lot less time for shenanigans, for oopsies, like Oh, golly gee, however did all these ballots for Trump in a critical swing state end up in a dumpster?

You really going to trust the post office?

You don’t think postal workers know the zip codes where all the Trump 2020 signs are?

You don’t think it’d be a little tempting to misplace ballots from that particular zip code?