Congressional Dems Want Biden To Appoint Gun Control Czar

H/T Bearing Arms.

Will Joe Pee Pads Biden appoint Little Bobby O’Rourke as his gun czar?

The daily drumbeat of Democrats demanding Joe Biden get to work on his anti-gun agenda continues, with Rep. Lucy McBath of Georgia and Rep. Joe Neguse penning a letter to the president calling on the White House to create a national director of gun violence position. In the letter, first reported by Axios, the pair claim that “”a comprehensive government approach to address this violence, will help bring our nation out from under the depths of the gun violence crisis.”


What exactly would this position entail? The representatives claim that the director could coordinate “gun violence prevention strategies” between government agencies like the ATF, DOJ, Health and Human Services, and the CDC. Of course, what gun control activists are truly hoping for is to use that position as a bully pulpit to push for sweeping anti-gun legislation and executive orders.

The idea of a national director for gun violence prevention (“gun control czar” would be a more accurate description) first came from the activists at March For Our Lives, who included the recommendation in their “peace plan” that also calls for changing the “standard of gun ownership.”

Advocate and pass legislation to raise the national standard for gun ownership: a national licensing and registry system that promotes responsible gun ownership; a ban on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and other weapons of war; policies to disarm gun owners who pose a risk to themselves or others; and a national gun buy-back program to reduce the estimated 265-393 million firearms in circulation by at least 30%.

In the eyes of the anti-gun activists, a gun control czar would not only help to shepherd those legislative proposals through Congress, but would also oversee a wide variety of executive actions and departmental regulations restricting the rights of legal gun owners.

Appoint a National Director of Gun Violence Prevention (GVP) who reports directly to the President, with the mandate to operationalize our federal goals and empower existing federal agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) – agencies that have all been structurally weakened by the gun lobby. The National Director of GVP would begin by overseeing a down payment of $250 million in annual funding for research by the CDC and other federal agencies on gun violence prevention.

So, the idea of a gun control czar isn’t exactly a new one, but so far the White House has been mum about whether or not Biden will actually create the position. At the moment, Biden hasn’t even named a nominee to head up the ATF itself, nor has the president signed any executive actions on firearms or put forward his own gun ban legislation, despite growing frustration on the part of gun control groups for the new administration to get to work while Democrats still have a legislative majority in Congress.

With Congress poised to approve a $1.9-trillion COVID-related stimulus bill this weekend, Biden will soon have his first major agenda item taken care of, and its expected that he will soon turn his attention to the growing chorus of gun-banners urging him to get moving on his gun control agenda. A gun control czar would not be a cabinet-level position and wouldn’t require Senate confirmation, so Biden could name Shannon Watts or another gun control activist as his pick and they could get started almost immediately.

It’s worth noting, though, that while several gun control groups and anti-gun politicians have demanded the creation of the position, we haven’t heard any names mentioned about who might fill the role. Sure, Biden told Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke on the campaign trail that the job was his, but O’Rourke looks to be sticking around the state of Texas and mulling his next campaign, at least at the moment.

I was half-serious when I mentioned Shannon Watts, but honestly she might be a little white and suburban to satisfy younger and more urban-based anti-violence activists like Eddie Bocanegro, who’s already complained that the Biden White House is giving too much time and attention to groups like Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety.

“We have incidents where there’s three or four people getting shot [daily] and we don’t get the same kind of uproar and attention for those kinds of homicides and mainly because they’re Black and brown people,” said Eddie Bocanegra, senior director of the progressive Heartland Alliance’s READI Chicago chapter, who has spoken to the White House.

Earlier this month, Heartland was among the coalition of organizations representing communities of color which sent a letter to the Biden administration expressing disappointment that they were not included in a gathering the White House held with more establishment gun control groups. According to four people who were involved in recent meetings, the White House moved quickly to rectify the situation and has since held at least two virtual calls with advocates from groups across the country.

Bocanegra said he was happy with the audience he received at the White House. But he still expressed frustration that white-led gun control groups appeared to be getting more attention after he had spent days helping the Biden transition on policy.

“I want to see my return on that investment,” he said.

Gun control groups that spent tens of millions of dollars helping Biden get elected would like to see a return on their investment as well. If Joe Biden does end up creating a director of gun violence prevention, he will likely have to then deal with the demands of various interest groups within the gun control movement about who gets the nod and what they should focus on; law enforcement-based policies that rely on arrests and prosecutions or community-based intervention programs that are meant to reduce violence without utilizing cops and the courts.

After Airstrike, Old Biden, Psaki Tweets Emerge, Condemning Trump for Same Thing They Just Did

H/T Western Journal.

The words of Joe Pee Pads Biden and White House press secretary Jen Psaki have came back and bit them both in the ass.

Old tweets posted by President Joe Biden and White House press secretary Jen Psaki which condemned former President Donald Trump’s use of military airstrikes are under scrutiny after Biden ordered a strike in Syria on Thursday.

Biden ordered airstrikes against Iranian proxy fighters in the country Thursday evening. The Pentagon said the strikes were a response to rocket attacks against American troops and civilian contractors in Iraq.

“The operation sends an unambiguous message: President Biden will act to protect American and Coalition personnel,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said in a statement obtained by USA Today.

At the same time, we have acted in a deliberate manner that aims to de-escalate the overall situation in both eastern Syria and Iraq.”

It sounds like some very bad people were reduced to ashes, and that isn’t so terrible. But the issue is that Democrats aren’t supposed to be dropping bombs — not after they criticized Trump relentlessly for green-lighting a similar airstrike in 2017.

Biden had loudly condemned Trump’s use of the military, which he used rather sparingly while in office, on social media. Those posts are still available.


Did Biden even author these tweets? Did he know what he was authorizing on Thursday in Syria? Sadly, we don’t know the answers to those questions.

We know the events from Thursday don’t help an administration that is increasingly playing the role of the inept hypocrite.

Psaki wasn’t thrilled, at least not publicly, when Trump OK’d a tactical strike in the country in retaliation to civilians being murdered by chemical weapons amid the country’s bloody civil war in April of 2017.

“Also what is the legal authority for strikes? Assad is a brutal dictator. But Syria is a sovereign country,” she tweeted.

Psaki didn’t have much to say in the way of criticism over Thursday’s attack, at least none that she’s shared publicly. Perhaps she’ll circle back to us at a later date.

Can you imagine being a so-called “progressive” right now?

Some of these people legitimately thought they were about to have their wages hiked, were convinced they would receive $2,000 in stimulus checks, hopefully their student loans would be forgiven and they would be bathing in reparations money by now.

Instead, they got a snoozing plagiarist who goes to bed early every night, has made kids in “cages” socially acceptable again and took all of five weeks in office to bomb another country.

The leftists over at The Young Turks are in a full meltdown which is eerily reminiscent of their legendary 2016 election crash — which you love to see.


Twitter conservatives not yet purged from Twitter also pointed out the continued duality of Never-Trump Republicans such as David French, who formerly wrote for National Review.


Biden’s first month in office has been one of union job-killing executive orders, a renege on a pledge to give away free cash and now an unpopular foreign policy action. To the most ardent leftists, none of this was supposed to happen.

We can assume from Psaki’s old tweets alone that the president being afforded carte blanche to use the military is perfectly OK, so long as that president is both a Democrat and her boss. For people not struck by cognitive dissonance, the action in Syria — no matter how justified or unjustified — reeks of hypocrisy.

That old criticism of Trump was always about politics, and never about people or policy.


Mr. President -About Your ‘Gun Control’


A letter to Joe Pee Pads Biden.

February 23, 2020

President Joseph R. Biden
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500


Dear Mr. President,


On behalf of the more than 550,000 members of the U.S. Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) and the more than 500 employees at our Wisconsin headquarters and around the country, I am writing in response to your recent call for “commonsense gun law reforms.”

While we can agree that there are several “commonsense” and long overdue changes needed to our nation’s gun laws, we firmly believe that the path forward should be focused on supporting and protecting responsible, law-abiding Americans — not criminalizing and punishing them.

Sadly, the anti-gun proposals you have laid out thus far, both as a candidate and in your recent Feb. 14 statement, would do virtually nothing to reduce crime or help more Americans keep their families safe. It’s deeply troubling to witness you using the solemn anniversary of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting to advocate for new gun laws that — even had they been in place three years ago — would have done nothing to stop those heinous murders. You called on Congress to pass a law requiring “universal background checks” but pointedly failed to note that the murderer purchased his firearm legally and passed a background check.

Further, your proposal last year to impose a new tax on millions of gun owners would disproportionately harm working-class Americans who can least afford it during these difficult economic times. Lower-income Americans should not be forced to choose between protecting their families and breaking the law or handing over their firearms to the government and leaving their homes unprotected.

If you are truly interested in advocating for commonsense gun law reforms that are grounded in reality rather than anti-gun political ideology, we urge you to consider a new path with the goal of keeping Americans safe by ensuring they can protect their families and loved ones at all times. It has been demonstrated time and again that criminals, by definition, have no respect for our laws, and so the focus should be on supporting those law-abiding Americans who choose to protect.

The fundamental right to protect oneself and one’s family appeals to ALL Americans and cuts through party lines. We see that every day at the U.S. Concealed Carry Association, where we proudly have hundreds of thousands of members from all across the political spectrum.

In the past year, nearly 5 million new gun owners have joined the more than 100 million Americans who already own guns. Record numbers of Americans have been purchasing firearms to keep themselves and their loved ones safe, and the number of gun owners seeking self-defense education and training is at an all-time high. Women and minorities are now leading the way as the fastest-growing groups of concealed carry permit holders in the country as well as in membership at the USCCA.

Each of these responsible, law-abiding Americans has stepped forward to take responsibility for protecting his or her loved ones in an increasingly chaotic world. Yet our government’s antiquated patchwork of concealed carry laws is putting them at risk. How is it “commonsense” that a law-abiding American who has passed a background check and is legally allowed to carry a firearm in Virginia is subject to arrest and imprisonment if he or she steps foot over the state line into Maryland? How is it “commonsense” to tell parents that they should avoid air travel during the COVID-19 pandemic and travel by car with their families, if necessary, but they’re not allowed to protect themselves depending on which states they drive through?

In short, there is nothing “commonsense” about America’s patchwork of concealed carry laws, and that is why we need national concealed carry reciprocity — where state-issued concealed carry permits are treated just like driver’s licenses.

The U.S. Concealed Carry Association exists to help responsible Americans avoid danger, save lives and keep their families safe, and we believe that our elected leaders in Washington have an incredible obligation to pursue these same goals. That’s why Congress and your administration should support the most responsible citizens of this nation — concealed carry permit holders — and help ensure they can protect themselves and their families at all times.

National concealed carry reciprocity — not higher taxes or more stringent regulations on already responsible gun owners, and certainly not removing the means by which those responsible gun owners can defend themselves and their loved ones — is a truly “commonsense” reform that will help more Americans keep their families safe. We urge you to support it.


Tim Schmidt
USCCA President and Founder

President Biden’s 1-2 Punch Plan to Buckle the Firearm Industry

H/T AmmoLand.

This is a fight we as gun owners need to do everything we can to help the gun industry win.

The gun industry loses so do we.

Joe Pee Pads Biden can not get any sort of a win.


U.S.A. -( President Joe Biden is throwing out just a few feeler jabs in his gun control fight. He’s talked of bans and repealing laws, which are certainly worthy of throwing up a guard to keep them from landing. Make no mistake. His fight plan is one of disciplined patience versus throwing haymakers.


He’s already setting up for a 1-2 combination that he believes would send the industry to the mat. He’s not looking to just win the round or the fight. He’s looking beyond the title. President Biden wants a knockout against the firearm industry that’s so painful, there’s no talk about a rematch.

President Biden is doing this by landing hard blows against the firearm industry’s ability to gain footing financially. He’s not fighting fair either. President Biden is swinging below the belt.

Round One

The president’s “be first” strategy started just eight days after he was sworn into office. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is structured to be independent of the Executive Branch so it isn’t vulnerable to political influence, hurriedly announced a pause of the Fair Access banking rule.

It was a convenient block of a rule that would have ended discriminatory lending practices targeted against the firearm industry and other industries. Banks have been denying services simply because the industry was out of political favor. This isn’t disqualification because the customer’s business was unlawful or poor credit risk, but because the customer’s business fell within an industry that “woke” corporate bank board members found distasteful.

The Fair Access rule would have made it a fair and even match-up. It would have stopped big banks from picking winners and losers based on executives’ personal politics and protected banks from outside pressure from special interest groups to take a dive when it came to seeking to do business with members of the firearm industry.

It put an end to the privatization of the illegal Operation Choke Point that was started by the Obama administration, run through the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that denied banking services to the firearm industry.

That’s like the referee loading up a fighter’s gloves right before the bout starts. But the ref got caught. When the Biden administration “paused” the Fair Access rule, they basically winked at the cornerman, letting him know that as long as the gloves are loaded up in the locker room, he’s not going to stop it.

Round Two

The Fair Access banking rule is just the first of two strikes intended to buckle the knees of the firearm industry. The second devastating shot is if President Biden gets his way and convinces Congress to repeal the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This move would expose firearm and ammunition manufacturers and sellers to an avalanche of frivolous lawsuits by activist trial lawyers and gun control groups backed by their stable of big “white shoe” corporate law firms. The real intent is bankrupting the industry or, due to mounting legal fees, they are forced to throw in the towel and enter settlement agreements for court-imposed gun control measures. Repealing the bipartisan PLCAA would turn the ring into a no-holds-barred, no-rules, anything-goes cage match.

President Biden isn’t proposing holding criminals accountable for their horrific crimes but wants to allow special interest groups to exploit horrific crimes to land body blows against the firearm industry. It lines lawyers’ pockets and crushes businesses and jobs. This move does nothing to protect the public.

President Biden is blame-shifting. He’s shifting accountability for criminal actions away from the individual who committed a crime and putting it on manufacturers and retailers. To mix metaphors, it’s like suing Ford for the wrongful deaths caused by drunk drivers. The carmaker didn’t cause the criminal to commit a crime that tragically took a life. The same with firearm manufacturers and retailers. Criminals must be held accountable.

President Biden isn’t concerned about accountability. He’s looking to hit hard and if it means changing the rules to get his way, he’s not above landing kidney punches.

This fight is a rematch, however. The PLCAA was passed with broad bipartisan support in 2005 as a direct result of a wave of lawsuits filed by several dozen big city mayors in cahoots with the Brady Center and greedy trial lawyers looking for a payday.

Fighter Retire

This is what the firearm industry is facing. It is not a fair fight or one based on truth. It is going to be dirty. It is going to be emotional and it is going to be drawn out. It is, after all, the fight for the firearm industry’s very existence.



Trump Tried to Warn Us, Now It Looks Like China Will Use Our Dependence on This Resource to Push Biden Around

H/T   Western Journal.

President Trump tried to warns us the Chi-Coms would use the rear earth minerals as a way to get their way if Joe Pee Pads Biden got elected.

A new report suggests that China is considering the idea of banning the export of rare-earth minerals to countries it deems a threat. If only someone could have warned us.

Of course, some may remember that just a few short months ago, a prominent political figure did warn of this problem. That figure was former President Donald Trump.

In October, Trump declared a national emergency in the mining industry in an executive order “aimed at boosting domestic production of rare earth minerals critical for military technologies while reducing the country’s dependence on China,” according to Defense News.

For those who are not familiar with rare-earth minerals, Defense News defined them as “a group of 17 minerals critical to the defense industry’s manufacturing of missiles and munitions, hypersonic weapons, and radiation-hardened electronics — as well as consumer electronics like cellphones.”

These minerals can be found all over the world, but mining them is very expensive and takes time. As a result, the United States has relied heavily on the Chinese for these materials because they have an efficient system already in place.

As of October, 80 percent of rare-earth minerals in the United States came directly from China, according to Defense News.

Depending on a foreign adversary for such a large percentage of any necessary material is dangerous. The fact that this material is critical for national defense is even worse.

Trump indicated that China would not be afraid to use America’s dependence on its rare-earth minerals as leverage in a trade war. The Global Times, a Chinese Communist Party-run publication, even said as much in May 2019.

According to the Global Times, a spokesman for the National Development and Reform Commission of China said, “If any country wants to use products made of China’s rare earth exports to contain China’s development, the Chinese people would not be happy with that.”

“Industry insiders said that the comment, in a rare case, sends an implicit signal that China does not hesitate using rare earths as a weapon against the US amid the escalating trade war and US containment of Huawei,” the state media outlet reported.

Now, Bloomberg is reporting that China is considering taking action to restrict the export of rare-earth minerals.

“China may ban the export of rare-earths refining technology to countries or companies it deems as a threat on state security concerns, according to a person familiar with the matter,” Bloomberg reported.

“While China has no plans to restrict shipments of rare earths to the U.S., it is keeping the plan in its back pocket should a trade war break out again, the person said.”

China has an incredible amount of power in this situation. If the United States does basically anything the Chinese do not like, then they can withhold these important minerals.

Given the problematic policies of the governing party in China, it is dangerous for the U.S. to be in a position where it must cater to the country’s wishes.

In addition, China could potentially withhold these materials in a situation where the United States or other countries need to protect themselves against China.

Bloomberg also reported that China is also “exploring a ban on rare earths as part of its sanctions on some individual companies, including Lockheed Martin Corp., which violated China’s core interest over arms sale to Taiwan,” according to its unnamed source.

That is an incredibly worrisome statement. As the United States tries to help Taiwan fight against an authoritarian nation, that nation itself has the power to stop its neighbor from acquiring certain weapons.

Imagine the implications if America were to have to wage war against China.

So far, President Joe Biden has shown himself to be much softer on China than Trump was. If he does not change that, America could be in serious trouble.

News Host: ‘Joe Biden Is Struggling with Dementia and the Mainstream Media Is Complicit in Hiding It

H/T Western Journal.

I look for Joe Pee Pads Biden to be removed under the 25th Amendment Kalama Knee Pads Harris has already been taken foreign leaders phone calls.

An Australian commentator on Friday said the only thing worse than President Joe Biden’s mental condition is the extent to which the mainstream media covers it up.

“It is clear U.S. President Joe Biden is not up to the task he has been sworn in to do,”  Sky News host Cory Bernardi, a former Australian political figure, said in his assessment of Biden’s performance in his first weeks in office.

“Never before has the leader of the Free World been so cognitively compromised,” he said.

“It’s clear to me at the least that U.S. President Joe Biden is struggling with dementia and is clearly not up to the task he’s been sworn in to do,” he said.

Bernardi said this is not breaking news.

“The was apparent to many during the election campaign, but such was the hate for Donald Trump by the partisan and poisonous mainstream media, they chose not to highlight anything which may have derailed a Biden victory,” Bernardi said.

The coddling still exists, he said.

“Even now, after he has been sworn in, many of them are still refusing to speak the truth about Biden’s lack of capacity,” Bernardi said, adding that it was “telling” that Vice President Kamala Harris was tasked with making calls to foreign leaders, a job that usually falls to the president.


Biden “emerged to participate in a sanitized town hall being interviewed by the Biden-ista Anderson Cooper of CNN,” Bernardi said.

“Biden promptly gave away his teleprompter and the result was nothing short of a disaster,” he said.

Bernardi said that when not offending rural residents and residents of inner cities, Biden was letting China skate for its human rights abuses.

Instead, he lambasted “these excuses for journalists” who “cover up for Biden’s presidency,” as if they were running “a Biden protection racket.”

“It’s all rather pathetic, but even usually smart people are blinded by the nonsense put out by the mainstream media,” Bernardi said. “They believe every perceived sin of Donald Trump while they seem intent on canonizing St. Joe.”

Red Alert: Biden Admin Shreds ‘Fair Access Rule’ Paving Way for Resurrection of Infamous and Hated Obama Program

H/T  Western Journal.

Joe Pee Pads Biden hates guns, gun owners and manufactures and he will do what ever he can to destroy all three.

So I will not be surprised to see Operation Choke Point revived.

It was called Operation Choke Point — an Obama-era initiative specifically aimed at politically unpopular, but perfectly legal businesses that liberals didn’t appreciate.

To some commentators, like Forbes contributor Norbert Michel, it was “an egregious affront to the rule of law.” Little surprise, then, that the Biden administration did away with a rule intended to prevent it.

For the unfamiliar, Operation Choke Point was designed as a way to choke off firearms dealers and payday lenders through Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation guidance that amounted to strong-arm tactics.

During his term in office, former President Donald Trump ended the operation, which had begun in 2013. In January, as the Trump administration was on its way out, it issued the “Fair Access Rule,” which was designed to preclude another such round of intimidation. The rule said “banks should conduct risk assessment of individual customers, rather than make broad-based decisions affecting whole categories or classes of customers, when provisioning access to services, capital, and credit.”

In a piece published in The Federalist on Friday, Kelsey Bolar, policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative group, wrote that “[u]nder Operation Choke Point, federal regulators instructed banks to do the opposite — to openly discriminate against entire industries the Obama administration found objectionable.”

“Weaponizing the power of banking regulators at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, the Obama administration realized it could block entire industries from the banking system that it didn’t like. This made it difficult — if not impossible — for politically unfavored businesses such as gun sellers and short-term lenders to operate,” she wrote.

“Essentially, by using the power of federal banking regulators to intimidate banks from providing their services to these industries, the administration choked off their access to the financial system, leaving them paying more for essential banking services, or unable to use a bank at all.”

Introducing the Fair Access Rule in January, acting Comptroller of the Currency Brian P. Brooks said that it was critical that legal businesses and organizations had access to banking services.

“When a large bank decides to cut off access to charities or even embassies serving dangerous parts of the world or companies conducting legal businesses in the United States that support local jobs and the national economy, they need to show their work and the legitimate business reasons for doing so,” Brooks said in a statement.

“As Comptrollers and staff in previous administrations have made clear in speeches, guidance, and testimony, banks should not terminate services to entire categories of customers without conducting individual risk assessments. It is inconsistent with basic principles of prudent risk management to make decisions based solely on conclusory or categorical assertions of risk without actual analysis. Moreover, elected officials should determine what is legal and illegal in our country.”

While a late-January statement from the Biden administration’s Office of Comptroller of the Currency noted “[t]he OCC’s long-standing supervisory guidance stating that banks should avoid termination of broad categories of customers without assessing individual customer risk remains in effect,” the office still announced it was pausing the Trump administration’s Fair Access Rule.

“Pausing publication of the rule in the Federal Register will allow the next confirmed Comptroller of the Currency to review the final rule and the public comments the OCC received, as part of an orderly transition,” read the Jan. 28 notice.

On one front, this may seem innocuous enough. Payday lenders, once the moral panic of the week during Obama’s second presidential term, aren’t on the administration’s policy radar yet — at least not publicly.

One thing that makes this pause feel a bit more ominous, however, is the Biden administration’s recent focus on gun control.

In announcing his first attack on gun rights last Sunday, on the third anniversary of the Parkland shooting, President Joe Biden talked of “eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.”

What he meant by that was simple: He wanted victims of gun violence to be able to sue gun manufacturers who legally manufactured the weapons.

Sure, no Democrat could pass legislation that could ban all guns, what with District of Columbia v. Heller having set a precedent that Americans have the right to own firearms. Democrats can, however, pass legislation that would end with any company that makes those firearms being hounded through the legal system even if it followed every law.

If something like Operation Choke Point was instituted again, this time focusing solely on firearms dealers, it could have a chilling effect at the retail level.

Beyond that, Bolar’s Federalist piece noted a wider connection “symbolic of the larger attempt by government actors to choke politically disfavored industries and individuals from the mainstream.”

“While cancel culture has led to a politicized economy, the federal government’s arbitrarily targeting of individuals, groups, and entire companies will increase the politicization of the country, where the only acceptable views are from those in power,” she wrote.

“After being choked from essential services in the economy, conservatives and right-of-center businesses will have no choice but to Build Your Own — if that’s even still tolerated or allowed. Build your own banks, build your own credit card processing companies, build your own web hosting platforms, build your own social media platforms, build your own companies, build your own media, build your own schools, and build your own country — because you’re choked from ‘ours.’”

This is how liberals are going to fight their war on constitutional freedoms — because it clearly won’t be legislatively.

And this doesn’t necessarily have to involve firearms, keep in mind. Parler, which became the boogeyman of the Jan. 6 Capitol incursion despite evidence that most of the social media planning took place on Facebook, found itself deplatformed from web services by Amazon. That’s bad enough, but Parler can recover from that. The same thing wouldn’t necessarily happen if the company were cut out of the banking system, which would remove any way for it to stay afloat.

If this seems farfetched, remember all of the talk connecting Parler directly to the violence on Jan. 6. Once you single out conservative social media platforms as being a haven for violent groups, choking them off from banking services doesn’t seem like such a stretch.

Consider the fact there are plenty of liberals who could read this, hear me talk about effectively strangling Parler by financial means, and say to themselves: “Yeah, and? Actions have consequences.”

We’re dealing here with the potential for a low-rent, China-style social credit score, and the Biden administration is fine with pausing a rule that would prevent it from happening. That should tell you a lot.

Anti-Fossil Fuel Biden Attempts to Rescue Texas by Sending Them Fossil Fuel, Generators

H/T  Western Journal.

Joe Pee Pads Biden is proving we need fossil fuels and not pie in the sky green energy.

Throughout his campaign and his short time in office, President Joe Biden has repeatedly spoken against fossil fuels. He has argued that green energy is the way of the future and the only way to save the climate.

Yet now that Texas is in crisis mode due, in part, to that green energy, Biden has realized that fossil fuels may not be so dispensable after all. Axios reported Wednesday that the Biden administration is turning to diesel in order to help the state of Texas.

“FEMA has supplied generators to Texas and is preparing to move diesel on to the state to ensure the continued availability of backup power,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said.

WFAA-TV reporter Jason Whitely also confirmed the news on Twitter.

The massive power outages that Texans are experiencing are due, in part, to the failure of green energy. The winter weather has caused some wind turbines to freeze over and be rendered useless, according to the Austin American-Statesmen.

The Statesmen reported that of the 25,100 megawatts of energy wind turbines can generate in Texas, 12,000 of those megawatts could not be generated due to the ice, as of Sunday morning.

Many proponents of natural gas have criticized green energy methods like wind turbines and solar panels for being unreliable. They say these methods rely on good weather conditions to be effective, which may or may not happen on any given day.

Obviously, a very still day or a very cloudy day could have negative effects on these forms of energy. The prospect of winter weather potentially halting green energy suppliers is yet another variable to consider.

On the Monday night edition of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Fox News host Tucker Carlson raised a heated argument against these forms of renewable energy.

He said that while Texas is known for producing oil and gas, their choice to abandon those energy forms in favor of green energy in many instances sealed their current fate.

“Running out of energy in Texas is like starving to death at the grocery store,” he said. “You can only do it on purpose, and Texas did.”

Green energy is not inherently bad. As an accessory to more reliable forms of energy like natural gas, it can be effective and even cut down on the amount of gas people use.

However, the problem arises when we become too reliant on green energy. Biden himself said on the campaign trail that he was going to “phase out fossil fuels.

As of last year, wind power supplied 23% of Texas’ energy, the Statesmen reported. It is the second-largest energy provider in the state, behind only natural gas.

Even as the second-largest energy provider, the failure of the wind turbines has left millions of Texans without power. Imagine the damage if green energy was the first-largest, or even the exclusive, mode of energy.

Even Biden himself knows deep down that we cannot completely “phase out” fossil fuels. If we did, what would he use to bail out states that have been negatively affected by his favorite unreliable forms of energy?

The left can grandstand all they want with their pipe dreams of 100 percent green energy in America.

When push comes to shove, however, it is those horrible, evil fossil fuels that are going to get the job done.

Democrat’s plan to ban outlaw and confiscate guns is illegal


It is going to be a long hard four years for gun owners under Joe Pee Pads  Biden and Kalama Knee Pads Harris.


Disarming everyone else at the same time is no excuse

Broad public disarmament actually makes it worse

Expert analysis of Democrat’s proposed federal gun law HR127 reveals it would have the net effect of disarming wide swaths of the American public, including the Jewish community. The sacred Jewish oath Never Again! taken after the Holocaust, when properly honored, prevents Jews from passively complying with arbitrary, capricious and facially illegal government orders to disarm or subarm (accept inferior arms). In the U.S., where so many Jewish people reside, infringing the public’s right to arms, even incrementally, is flatly banned, a reason many have chosen to live here.

Politicians who walk the path of civilian disarmament must understand that infringement at that level is a direct usurpation of power not granted. Just the opposite is the case, it is prohibited. Rethink your position, instead of risking civil unrest. While JPFO stands four square with all on crime reduction and control, we know this sort of so-called “gun control” is not it. What the current Democrat’s bill attempts in HR127 seeks power you are expressly denied. The language preserving government power to have the arms denied to the public is especially offensive and tyrannical.

Infringement, gun and ammo bans, public licensing and registration for personal firearms and possession are constitutionally impermissible. This should go without saying, and never be the subject of introduced bills, especially under the false flag of reducing crime or improving law enforcement.

A law having the effect of disarming Jewish people, no matter the justification, cannot stand.


Leading Liberal Economist Warns Biden’s Stimulus Plan Is Too Big

H/T  Breitbart.

Do not think for one minute Joe Pee Pads Biden cares about his Covid-19 package being too large.

Olivier Blanchard is worried that the Biden administration’s proposed $1.9 trillion covid relief bill is too large and risks igniting unwanted inflation.

Blanchard, a Frenchman, is not exactly a household name but he is one of the world’s leading economists. His work is said to be the most cited of any living economist. He was the chief economist at the World Bank from 2008 through 2015. He’s a professor emeritus at MIT and a Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

In other words, he’s a big deal among economists, especially liberal establishment economists sympathetic to the Democratic Party. And that makes his critique of Biden’s spending proposal all the more potent.

Blanchard argues that the hole in the economy created by the pandemic—the output gap, as economists say—is much smaller than $1.9 trillion plus the $900 billion authorized in December. In a blogpost for the Peterson Institute, Blanchard writes that figures from the Congressional Budget Office would imply a shortfall of around $900 billion.

But that figure is “undoubtedly an overestimate of the gap that could be filled by an increase in demand.” Because the pandemic has restrained our economy’s ability to produce goods and services, boosting demand through higher government spending will not necessarily be met with more supply—and the jobs and investment that would go with it. Some things we just are not going to do until the pandemic is behind us.

What’s more, it’s likely that the spending will have a “multiplier effect,” meaning that for every dollar of government spending more than a dollar of demand will be generated in the economy. While conceding that it is hard to estimate exactly what the multiplier will be, he says that it is likely to be enough that the excess demand generated by the $2.4 trillion of spending will be high. And, Blanchard notes, it is likely that as the economy reopens much of the unusually high household savings that have accumulated during the pandemic will be spent.

That extra demand would likely cause prices to rise. In his recent press conference, Fed chairman Jerome Powell agreed that prices would rise but argued that this would not lead to sustained inflation. Blanchard is not so sure. He warns that excess demand would push unemployment to ultralow levels and that, in turn, could lead inflation expectations to change—and that that change in expectations would trigger inflation to rise.


A relevant comparison here is what happened in the 1960s, shown in the figure below. From 1961 to 1967, the Kennedy and Johnson administrations ran the economy above potential, leading to a steady decrease in the unemployment rate down to less than 4 percent. Inflation increased but not very much, from 1 percent to just below 3 percent, suggesting to many a permanent trade-off between inflation and unemployment. In 1967, however, inflation expectations started adjusting, and by 1969, inflation had increased to close to 6 percent and was then seen as a major issue. Fiscal and monetary policies tightened, leading to a recession from the end of 1969 to the end of 1970.

That, in turn, would likely trigger a reaction by the Federal Reserve, raising interest rates. Alternatively, if the Fed did not react, inflation would continue to soar and much of the central bank’s credibility when it comes to price stability would erode.

“If inflation were to take off, there would be two scenarios: one in which the Fed would let inflation increase, perhaps substantially, and another—more likely—in which the Fed would tighten monetary policy, perhaps again substantially,” Blanchard writes.