Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Absolutely!
And yet the libs still defend their MMP and his admin!!!!
TURBO CANCER – Nurses are developing advanced (usually Stage 4) turbo cancers after being forced into taking COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. I present 30 nurses & their tragic stories!
https://vigilantnews.com/post/turbo-cancer-nurses-are-developing-advanced-usually-stage-4-turbo-cancers-after-being-forced-into-taking-covid-19-mrna-vaccines-i-present-30-nurses-their-tragic-stories/
TURBO CANCER – Nurses are developing advanced (usually Stage 4) turbo cancers after being forced into taking COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. I present 30 nurses & their tragic stories!
https://vigilantnews.com/post/turbo-cancer-nurses-are-developing-advanced-usually-stage-4-turbo-cancers-after-being-forced-into-taking-covid-19-mrna-vaccines-i-present-30-nurses-their-tragic-stories/
Watch for future protests and lawsuits against law enforcement for police brutality!!!
The Left-Wing Media Frets Over Presidential Debates
Beyond the ratings windfall, some could be dreading Trump-Biden TV showdown.
by Graham J Noble | Apr 30, 2024
Will American voters get to see presidential debates in 2024? Currently, nobody really knows the answer to that question even though the Commission on Presidential Debates has created a schedule. The first face-off between the two presumptive nominees – incumbent Joe Biden and challenger Donald Trump – is slated for Monday, Sept. 16. While the television networks appear anxious for the debates to go ahead, there seems to be something of an emerging campaign by left-leaning print and digital media outlets to shield Biden from having to take the stage for direct verbal confrontations with his predecessor and would-be successor.
On April 14, 11 prominent news organizations issued a joint statement urging presidential candidates to publicly commit to a series of televised debates. CBS, CNN, ABC News, Fox News Media, and several other organizations argue that the stakes in this election are “exceptionally high” and that “there is simply no substitute for the candidates debating with each other, and before the American people, their visions for the future of our nation.”
One hardly needs a master’s degree in communications to figure out why these news companies want the debates to go ahead: Televised Trump-Biden grudge-matches are sure to be ratings gold. It is beginning to look, however, as though a lot of Biden supporters in the world of digital and print journalism are less enthusiastic about the idea. A quick internet search for “presidential debates 2024” throws out a list of articles that attempt to rationalize, in various ways, the argument against presidential debates. Unsurprisingly, each one of these articles focuses on Trump, and why he is supposedly unworthy to share a stage with the current occupant of the White House. Examples include:
Why Biden Should Not Debate Trump – The Atlantic, April 16
Have presidential debates outlived their usefulness? – The Boston Globe, April 15
TV networks want Biden and Trump to debate. What’s the point? – Poynter., April 10
In The Atlantic article, David Frum argued that Trump should not be given “equal status on a TV stage” to Biden because to do so “would be a dire normalization of [Trump’s] attempted coup.” The opinion piece from Poynter. is at least a more honest and less hysterical argument – agree with it or not. Presidential debates have become a tradition, the author posited, and they are very important – just perhaps not this time around because, “In the end, there is a risk that Trump won’t play by the rules and any debate will skid off the rails.”
Presidential Debates Perilous for Biden?
That was a common thread running through many of these media articles: that Trump “won’t play by the rules” of presidential debates. The unavoidable suspicion, of course, is that the authors of these articles know full well that Biden has a potentially career-ending problem. His undeniable cognitive decline in recent years renders him incapable of holding his own against Trump in anything but the most rigidly controlled and staged-managed event. The rules by which Trump might refuse to play are perhaps those these journalists hope would be put in place to make the debates as accommodating as possible to Biden. They would leave little or no room for mistakes on his part – or for any appearance that he is not up to the task.
It’s a theory supported by former Biden White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain’s recent appearance on MSNBC. Speaking with Jen Psaki – a former White House press secretary under Biden who now hosts her own show on the network — Klain said:
“I think what we have to see is something different than we saw in 2016 and 2020, where the debate commission lost control of the debates. Trump didn’t follow the rules at all. He talked over his opponents. There wasn’t a fair division of time. It was more a spectacle than a debate. That’s always going to be true with Donald Trump on the stage.”
Klain went on to describe his vision of the Trump-Biden presidential debates. He spoke about the candidates getting equal time and “where there is an orderly way of proceeding.” The president’s critics could be forgiven for interpreting that as a way of shaping the debate format so that Biden can recite prepared comments without interruption and without having to respond to Trump spontaneously.
It is fair to say that in past presidential debates – even up to as recently as the 2020 Democratic Party primaries – Biden usually came off as calm, cool, collected, and rational, even if one does not agree with his politics. Since that time, however, he has demonstrated a tendency to lose his temper, to raise his voice at times to a level one might even describe as hysterical, and to call people names. Additionally, Biden is now known for his frequent gaffes and a habit of recounting fictional episodes from his personal and political history. In a nutshell, he has on several occasions conducted himself in a manner often ascribed to Trump – and frequently used against the 45th president.
Those on the political left wary of presidential debates between Biden and Trump are, in all likelihood, concerned about these very issues. Thus, they would prefer to see either no debates or only events that are very strictly regulated. They are almost certainly hoping to eliminate the possibility of Biden embarrassing himself or simply being unable to go toe to toe with his notoriously boisterous opponent.
Trump has made it clear that he wants to debate Biden – who has, in turn, now claimed he is happy to engage in presidential debates with Trump. However, neither campaign has officially accepted the debate commission’s schedule – and so it still remains to be seen whether there will be any presidential debates in 2024. If there are none, then Biden’s handlers might well breathe a sigh of relief. Trump, on the other hand – along with his supporters – will probably feel cheated.
https://www.libertynation.com/the-left-wing-media-frets-over-presidential-debates/
New Bombshell Evidence Emerges: Was Trump Set Up in Classified Docs Saga?
MATT MARGOLIS | 9:11 AM ON APRIL 28, 2024
Court Filing
This week in Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon unsealed a trove of new documents that Jack Smith fought to keep hidden. And you'll soon find out why. Among the documents unsealed were extensive exhibits, motions, and other filings shedding light on the intricate web of communication between the Biden White House and the National Archives and Records Administration in the lead-up to Trump's indictment.
Investigative journalist Julie Kelly found something interesting in the documents that could change everything. The first things is testimony from an FBI agent who testified that the General Services Administration (GSA) had been in possession of Trump's boxes in Virginia before ordering Trump's team to come get them.
WELL WELL WELL I am pretty sure we never heard this part of the "classified documents/box" story!
More from unredacted motions in FLA--this is from an unsealed transcript of witness interview.
FBI agent says GSA was holding large quantity of Trump's boxes in VA and then ordered… pic.twitter.com/0i4tGdWZ9A
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 27, 2024
"So an entire pallet full of boxes that had been held by GSA somewhere outside of DC is dumped at Mar-a-Lago," Kelly notes. "Apparently these are the boxes that ended up containing papers with 'classified markings.'"
"I will double check indictment but I don't recall this event in the timeline," she added.
So, it appears that the Biden administration may have been responsible for shipping classified information to Trump's Mar-a-Lago home in Florida. This development is significant because Trump has previously blamed the GSA for packing the boxes that contained the classified documents, only to later accuse Trump of essentially stealing them and using that as pretext for sending the FBI to raid his Mar-a-Lago home in August 2022.
"It was a set-up from the get-go," remarked Tom Fitton, the founder of Judicial Watch.
Meanwhile, Joe Biden had classified information that he was never entitled to have stored in boxes in his garage for years, but was not charged. Biden blamed staffers for packing the classified information.
While this may not prove the Biden administration set up Trump in the classified documents case, considering the way the Biden administration has abused the legal system against Trump, no one can confidently say they wouldn't.
Even so, it still raises other legitimate questions. For example, if the GSA had been in possession of the boxes, why wasn't a review of the materials conducted before they instructed Trump's team to get them? When it comes to classified information, they wouldn't have expected Trump and his staff to be responsible for ensuring that classified documents weren't among the records. Perhaps they did review the contents of the boxes and knew classified documents were contained in them before they told Trump's people to come get them.
Naturally, the mainstream media isn't talking about this. That’s why we need readers like you to help us expose the corruption. Will you help us by becoming a PJ Media VIP? Not only will you receive access to exclusive content and podcasts, but you also get to enjoy an ad-free experience and access to the comments section. With VIP Gold, you get to enjoy the same benefits across the entire Townhall family of sites.
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2024/04/28/new-bombshell-evidence-emerges-was-trump-set-up-in-classified-docs-saga-n4928572#google_vignette
Right there with ya Bull:
Thankfully there are people like you and me that can pull the plug on our pets when they are in the sad situation of "end of life". As hard as it is for us, it's very selfish to just keep them going when their time as our family member is over.
We have 13 small wooden urns on our bookshelves to keep our past friends with us. We also have 7 more still with us that we do not look forward to having to say goodbuy to!
Right there with ya Al. It's all fun and games until someone pays price, then they scatter like roaches when the light is turned on.
No more playing patty cake with these useful cult members that drinking the Kool Aid provided by those that are being payed a lot of money to "educate" those that also paid a lot of money for an education. Of course there are a lot that just follow along like sheep because they have nothing better to do with their lives and/or are being paid.
This part reminded me of Joe's dangerous dog....
Kristi Noem v. Joe Biden in the indecency sweepstakes
By Mike McDaniel
Democrats/socialists/communists (D/s/cs) are up arms about a brief passage in South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem’s new book. Said passage relates the long ago, sad tale of putting down a dog whose behavior proved inappropriate and dangerous to farm life. For those with even a pasing connection to farm or ranch life, it’s an unremarkable story.
Farming and ranching are businesses. For families it’s often their sole source of income. While farmers and ranchers love and care for their animals, they can’t afford to romanticize them. A dog that attacks other animals, to say nothing of people, is dangerous to the bottom line, and having to put down animals for all manner of reasons is an integral, and surely sad, part of farm and ranch life.
But Noem is horrible! She’s indecent!
When D/s/cs so indignantly attack Republicans and Normal Americans, I tend to suspect they just might be attacking them for less than honest, transparent reasons. Such attacks also tend to be revealing of their political fears, in this case, Gov. Noem might present an appealing, effective choice for a Trump running mate.
Speaking on indecency, we must remember Joe Biden’s promises to restore normalcy and decency to the White House and America. The invaluable Miranda Devine, writing at The New York Post, reminds us of just how decent Biden is not:
Joe Biden is not “decent.” He made that clear a few minutes before [Colin] Jost took the stage when he gave a graceless, inappropriate stump speech in which he lied about Trump and then laughably urged the assembled media to fight “disinformation.” [skip]
Biden rolled out his favorite lies about Trump, like: “He said he wants to be a dictator on Day One.”
False. When asked if he would be a “dictator” in office, Trump joked, “No, other than Day One.”
Biden said Trump “promised a bloodbath when he loses again. We have to take this seriously.”
False: Trump said there would be an economic bloodbath if he were to lose the election.
Biden then called on the journalists in the room to report “truth over lies. … In an age of disinformation, credible information people can trust is more important than ever.”
Honestly, there’s nothing decent about a president who lies and gaslights the American people day after day.
This would be the same Joe Biden who said “ We [D/s/cs] choose truth over facts!” That’s perhaps the perfect example of a gaffe: a politician accidentally saying what they truly believe.
Devine provides other examples of Biden’s indecency:
*Helping your family sell out the country to shady foreigners for tens of millions of dollars — and then pretending you know nothing about it.
*Inviting millions of illegal migrants into the country — and then lying that the border is secure.
*Sniffing and fondling children and women every chance you get.
*Refusing to acknowledge your out-of-wedlock grandchild until forced to issue a statement as part of a child support settlement Hunter Biden struck with the mother, and then failing to include the little girl in the annual family Christmas stocking lineup at the White House.
*Refusing to provide Secret Service protection to Bobby Kennedy Jr., despite threats against him and the history of assassination in his family.
*Continually looking at your watch in boredom as the bodies of the 13 heroes are repatriated to Dover Air Force Base, and then infuriating the families by making it about yourself and the fantasy that your son died in combat, too.
*Allowing your dogs to attack Secret Service agents.
By all means, take the link and read the rest. I would add perhaps the most obvious indecency: conspiring with federal, state and local prosecutors to imprison and bankrupt the Republican nominee for President, to deny Americans their electoral choice. The list, to be sure, is virtually endless.
One need not delve deeply into history to understand Joe Biden has always been a mean, angry liar. He aligned himself with many of the Senate’s D/s/c racists—the Democrat Party has always been the party of racism--and in 1977 said integration policies would cause his children to “grow up in a racial jungle.” His failed attempt to exclude Clarence Thomas from the Supreme Court needs little reiteration. Biden is also a plagiarist, lifting portions of a speech from British politician Neal Kinnock, ending his 1988 presidential bid.
Where political indecency is concerned, America might be best served by trusting the honesty and farming sensibilities of Kristi Noem over Joe Biden’s political record of indecency and lies.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/04/kristi_noem_v_joe_biden_in_the_indecency_sweepstakes.html
Kristi Noem v. Joe Biden in the indecency sweepstakes
By Mike McDaniel
Democrats/socialists/communists (D/s/cs) are up arms about a brief passage in South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem’s new book. Said passage relates the long ago, sad tale of putting down a dog whose behavior proved inappropriate and dangerous to farm life. For those with even a pasing connection to farm or ranch life, it’s an unremarkable story.
Farming and ranching are businesses. For families it’s often their sole source of income. While farmers and ranchers love and care for their animals, they can’t afford to romanticize them. A dog that attacks other animals, to say nothing of people, is dangerous to the bottom line, and having to put down animals for all manner of reasons is an integral, and surely sad, part of farm and ranch life.
But Noem is horrible! She’s indecent!
When D/s/cs so indignantly attack Republicans and Normal Americans, I tend to suspect they just might be attacking them for less than honest, transparent reasons. Such attacks also tend to be revealing of their political fears, in this case, Gov. Noem might present an appealing, effective choice for a Trump running mate.
Speaking on indecency, we must remember Joe Biden’s promises to restore normalcy and decency to the White House and America. The invaluable Miranda Devine, writing at The New York Post, reminds us of just how decent Biden is not:
Joe Biden is not “decent.” He made that clear a few minutes before [Colin] Jost took the stage when he gave a graceless, inappropriate stump speech in which he lied about Trump and then laughably urged the assembled media to fight “disinformation.” [skip]
Biden rolled out his favorite lies about Trump, like: “He said he wants to be a dictator on Day One.”
False. When asked if he would be a “dictator” in office, Trump joked, “No, other than Day One.”
Biden said Trump “promised a bloodbath when he loses again. We have to take this seriously.”
False: Trump said there would be an economic bloodbath if he were to lose the election.
Biden then called on the journalists in the room to report “truth over lies. … In an age of disinformation, credible information people can trust is more important than ever.”
Honestly, there’s nothing decent about a president who lies and gaslights the American people day after day.
This would be the same Joe Biden who said “ We [D/s/cs] choose truth over facts!” That’s perhaps the perfect example of a gaffe: a politician accidentally saying what they truly believe.
Devine provides other examples of Biden’s indecency:
*Helping your family sell out the country to shady foreigners for tens of millions of dollars — and then pretending you know nothing about it.
*Inviting millions of illegal migrants into the country — and then lying that the border is secure.
*Sniffing and fondling children and women every chance you get.
*Refusing to acknowledge your out-of-wedlock grandchild until forced to issue a statement as part of a child support settlement Hunter Biden struck with the mother, and then failing to include the little girl in the annual family Christmas stocking lineup at the White House.
*Refusing to provide Secret Service protection to Bobby Kennedy Jr., despite threats against him and the history of assassination in his family.
*Continually looking at your watch in boredom as the bodies of the 13 heroes are repatriated to Dover Air Force Base, and then infuriating the families by making it about yourself and the fantasy that your son died in combat, too.
*Allowing your dogs to attack Secret Service agents.
By all means, take the link and read the rest. I would add perhaps the most obvious indecency: conspiring with federal, state and local prosecutors to imprison and bankrupt the Republican nominee for President, to deny Americans their electoral choice. The list, to be sure, is virtually endless.
One need not delve deeply into history to understand Joe Biden has always been a mean, angry liar. He aligned himself with many of the Senate’s D/s/c racists—the Democrat Party has always been the party of racism--and in 1977 said integration policies would cause his children to “grow up in a racial jungle.” His failed attempt to exclude Clarence Thomas from the Supreme Court needs little reiteration. Biden is also a plagiarist, lifting portions of a speech from British politician Neal Kinnock, ending his 1988 presidential bid.
Where political indecency is concerned, America might be best served by trusting the honesty and farming sensibilities of Kristi Noem over Joe Biden’s political record of indecency and lies.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/04/kristi_noem_v_joe_biden_in_the_indecency_sweepstakes.html
Illegals fly free--and secretly
By Mike McDaniel
By the time Joe Biden’s term ends, if it ends, no less than 10 million illegal aliens, many of them criminals and the insane, hundreds of thousands of terrorists and spies, even members of China’s military, will be within America’s borders. Terrorist attacks on a previously unimaginable scale are a certainty, so likely even our feckless FBI director is warning of them, surely to cover his bureaucratic posterior. Should Biden steal a second term, America will no longer resemble America. But voting with one’s feet is far from the only way illegals breach our borders with the help of Biden’s Handlers:
In response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the feds have admitted that in 2023 alone they secretly flew 320,000 illegal aliens into the United States. [skip]
Included in details of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit first reported by Todd Bensman, the Center for Immigration Studies found Biden's CBP approved the latest secretive flights that transported hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from foreign countries into at least 43 different American airports from January through December 2023.
That's 320,000 in 2023 alone to which they’ll admit. The flights, carrying numbers unknown, continue. The information was obtained only by way of FOIA because these flights, usually in unmarked aircraft, are kept strictly secret and land only at night. The Administration does this through an app that allows illegals to apply for those flights. Unvetted, they are flown directly into America at no cost, bypassing public scrutiny and cameras depicting them freely crossing our “secure” and “closed” borders. Americans forced to evacuate hostile nations due to the foreign policy idiocy of the Biden Administration have to cough up airfare in advance, when the State Department can be roused to arrange a flight or two. Illegals, once here, are routinely flown and bussed across the country to destinations of their choice, also at taxpayer expense. Americans are not impressed:
Rasmussen, whose polls slightly overweight Democrats, asked, “It was recently reported that the Biden administration had a program of international flights that last year transported more than 300,000 illegal immigrants to U.S. airports. Do you approve or disapprove of this program?” Some 25% approved, 60% disapproved.
Overall, voters also panned Biden’s border policies. Asked to rate his handling of the crisis, 28% said good to excellent and 70% said fair too poor, with 53% declaring it “poor.”
Even 39% of Democrats are opposed. What that says about the 61% that aren’t is as despicable as it is unsurprising, unsurprising because they see illegals as future—as soon as the 2024 election—Democrat voters. But wouldn’t that be illegal? Only citizens can legally vote. Right. Only living people are supposed to be able to vote too. The old Chicago exhortation—“vote early; vote often”—applies. And by some unfathomable coincidence, the dead virtually always vote Democrat. It must be something about the afterlife.
Biden’s Handlers have already rigged the Census to count not just citizens, but illegals, increasing Democrat House seats increasingly depleted by the millions of Americans fleeing blue states.
So low have American’s expectations of government and our essential institutions become, we tend to view such things not with revolutionary outrage, but resignation. Each new illegal, unconstitutional, immoral usurpation is greeted with gallic shrugs and disgusted groans. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris blatantly lie, calling the border “secure” and “closed,” but because Americans aren’t yet ready to take up arms, they groan and suppress their anger, understanding our President and Vice President cannot be trusted.
Nor can the Senate. When DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, another serial border liar, was impeached, the Democrat-ruled Senate refused to do its constitutional duty to try him, and simply dismissed the articles of impeachment. It has been more than 150 years since a cabinet secretary was impeached, so it’s not as though it’s a common, political ploy.
What’s next? Giving illegals free room and board, cell phones, work permits, displacing veterans and the needy, taking over school facilities and lying about all of that? Oh. Right. The Administration is already doing that too.
It’s a truism to say America is a nation of immigrants, but never before have we imported them unvetted, by air, with taxpayer dollars from the brokest nation in history. Never before have we not expected them to pay their own way and to assimilate.
When that bill comes due, who will be left to pay it and what with?
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/04/illegals_fly_free_and_secretly.html
How popular is the AR-15?
By Mike McDaniel
On April 13, American Thinker posted Should I Buy An AR-15? That article generated 99 comments, and suggested there are some 30 million ARs in private hands in America. I also suggested one of the best reasons to buy an AR-15 is the Mummified Meat Puppet Administration (MMPA) doesn’t want you to have one, that and you’re a free American and want one. It seems tens of millions of Americans agree:
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) recently released a “Firearm Production in the United States and the Firearm Import and Export Data” report which indicates that 28,144,000 modern sporting rifles (MSRs) have been put into circulation since 1990. MSR production increased 32 percent from 2020 to 2021 alone.
“Modern sporting rifle” has become the standard term for the AR-15 and its several variants, though it arguably encompasses such arms as the Ruger Mini-14, even semiautomatic AK-47/74 variants. “AR,” by the way, is not an acronym for Assault Rifle, nor for “Assault Weapon,” a designation that does not exist in firearm nomenclature, but is an invention of the anti-liberty/gun Left designed to scare the uninformed into thinking semiautomatic AR-15s are machineguns. The AR-15 platform was invented by Eugene Stoner, who then worked for Armalite, thus “AR,” Armalite Rifle. Stoner invented the AR-10 first, chambered in .308/7.62 NATO, but scaled it down to the AR-15 in .223/5.56 NATO for the Air Force, the first military branch to adopt it, with its iconic triangular handguard, in M-16 form.
AR-10s are still available in .308, and that platform, and the AR-15 are also available in a variety of other calibers by switching the upper receiver and magazine. As long as other cartridges will fit an AR-10/15 magazine/magazine well, they’ll work with the appropriate upper receiver. This too contributes to the popularity of the AR platform.
In 2021, according to the findings, more than half of the 21,037,810 total firearms made available for the U.S. market were either pistols or revolvers. In all, 12,799,067 were handguns, 4,832,198 were rifles and 3,406,545 were shotguns. The figure includes firearms domestically produced plus those imported (minus exported firearms).
Americans have always liked and purchased guns, but when liberty is more obviously, even blatantly, threatened they’ve responded by buying the means to deter and resist tyranny. By December 2023, Americans, judging by federal firearm checks, had purchased more than a million guns per month for 53 consecutive months. Make that 57 months by the end of April, 2024. How many more? The December, 2023 number was 1.7+ million. With each firearm check, more than one gun may be purchased, which means the ultimate number, using that metric, is always larger than the number of individual checks. The American firearm industry, despite the worst efforts of leftists, continues to fill the arsenal of Democracy:
Total domestic firearm production reported in 2021 was 12,521,614—an increase of 28.6 percent over 2020 reported figures.
Because guns, well maintained, are nearly eternal, it’s difficult to estimate ultimate numbers, but this is a reasonable attempt:
In all, NSSF estimated the total number of firearms in civilian possession from 1990 to 2021 is 473.2 million.
Again, that’s only from 1990 to 2021, and why the Japanese, during WWII, believed invasion of America was impossible. They’d be facing a gun behind every blade of grass. Domestic tyrants share that Japanese perspective, which is why they’re so desperate to ban and seize AR-15s and every other effective firearm.
Ammunition sales are equally high. Even in 2020, sales increased by 139% and contemporary sales are as robust.
These statistics are surely horrifying for those that want to establish “our democracy,” an eternal tyranny of the majority. For Normal Americans, people who want only to be left alone to live under the Constitution—our representative republic—and the rule of law, they’re heartening indeed.
Our military is currently trying to replace the AR platform for general issue, but that effort may or may not be going well. In the meantime, no rifle so represents American liberty and American’s determination to retain it as that little black rifle.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/04/how_popular_is_the_ar_15.html
How popular is the AR-15?
By Mike McDaniel
On April 13, American Thinker posted Should I Buy An AR-15? That article generated 99 comments, and suggested there are some 30 million ARs in private hands in America. I also suggested one of the best reasons to buy an AR-15 is the Mummified Meat Puppet Administration (MMPA) doesn’t want you to have one, that and you’re a free American and want one. It seems tens of millions of Americans agree:
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) recently released a “Firearm Production in the United States and the Firearm Import and Export Data” report which indicates that 28,144,000 modern sporting rifles (MSRs) have been put into circulation since 1990. MSR production increased 32 percent from 2020 to 2021 alone.
“Modern sporting rifle” has become the standard term for the AR-15 and its several variants, though it arguably encompasses such arms as the Ruger Mini-14, even semiautomatic AK-47/74 variants. “AR,” by the way, is not an acronym for Assault Rifle, nor for “Assault Weapon,” a designation that does not exist in firearm nomenclature, but is an invention of the anti-liberty/gun Left designed to scare the uninformed into thinking semiautomatic AR-15s are machineguns. The AR-15 platform was invented by Eugene Stoner, who then worked for Armalite, thus “AR,” Armalite Rifle. Stoner invented the AR-10 first, chambered in .308/7.62 NATO, but scaled it down to the AR-15 in .223/5.56 NATO for the Air Force, the first military branch to adopt it, with its iconic triangular handguard, in M-16 form.
AR-10s are still available in .308, and that platform, and the AR-15 are also available in a variety of other calibers by switching the upper receiver and magazine. As long as other cartridges will fit an AR-10/15 magazine/magazine well, they’ll work with the appropriate upper receiver. This too contributes to the popularity of the AR platform.
In 2021, according to the findings, more than half of the 21,037,810 total firearms made available for the U.S. market were either pistols or revolvers. In all, 12,799,067 were handguns, 4,832,198 were rifles and 3,406,545 were shotguns. The figure includes firearms domestically produced plus those imported (minus exported firearms).
Americans have always liked and purchased guns, but when liberty is more obviously, even blatantly, threatened they’ve responded by buying the means to deter and resist tyranny. By December 2023, Americans, judging by federal firearm checks, had purchased more than a million guns per month for 53 consecutive months. Make that 57 months by the end of April, 2024. How many more? The December, 2023 number was 1.7+ million. With each firearm check, more than one gun may be purchased, which means the ultimate number, using that metric, is always larger than the number of individual checks. The American firearm industry, despite the worst efforts of leftists, continues to fill the arsenal of Democracy:
Total domestic firearm production reported in 2021 was 12,521,614—an increase of 28.6 percent over 2020 reported figures.
Because guns, well maintained, are nearly eternal, it’s difficult to estimate ultimate numbers, but this is a reasonable attempt:
In all, NSSF estimated the total number of firearms in civilian possession from 1990 to 2021 is 473.2 million.
Again, that’s only from 1990 to 2021, and why the Japanese, during WWII, believed invasion of America was impossible. They’d be facing a gun behind every blade of grass. Domestic tyrants share that Japanese perspective, which is why they’re so desperate to ban and seize AR-15s and every other effective firearm.
Ammunition sales are equally high. Even in 2020, sales increased by 139% and contemporary sales are as robust.
These statistics are surely horrifying for those that want to establish “our democracy,” an eternal tyranny of the majority. For Normal Americans, people who want only to be left alone to live under the Constitution—our representative republic—and the rule of law, they’re heartening indeed.
Our military is currently trying to replace the AR platform for general issue, but that effort may or may not be going well. In the meantime, no rifle so represents American liberty and American’s determination to retain it as that little black rifle.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/04/how_popular_is_the_ar_15.html
Yep, those were the types that got beat up for things likes that!!
That's a good one Larry.
That's great!!!
Good morning bbotcs. Notice that's there's no push back from any of the women's right organizations? They're all bark and no bite ... What a joke.
To Avoid Falling, Biden To Traverse Lawn In Giant Hamster Ball
WASHINGTON, DC - In an ongoing effort to keep the President from running into stationary objects, Whitehouse staff placed Biden in a giant hamster ball this week for his own safety.
The President was seen traversing the lawn in the giant plastic ball, which observers say is an effective way to keep him from running into trees, hedges, and other dangerous object
"This is a great solution for when he needs to get from Point A to Point B without harming himself or others," Whitehouse staffer Mel Baker told the press. "We're thinking of making one for him to use on Airforce One and another one for the campaign trail too."
Staffers helped the President into the ball after a series of videos emerged of his most recent falls and stumbles. "It's safer this way…for all of us," one aid told reporters.
Sources close to Biden say the President was happy with the giant hamster ball and thought it resembled a big scoop of ice cream.
"Presidents throughout history have used similar devices for mobility," Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told the press. "Towards the end of his life, William Haward Taft was often placed in a giant dog stroller and wheeled through the halls of Congress. Totally factual."
As of publishing time, Secret Service agents were seen frantically searching for the President after Biden bounced down a set of stairs near the Oval Office.
https://babylonbee.com/news/to-avoid-falling-biden-to-traverse-lawn-in-giant-hamster-ball
To Avoid Falling, Biden To Traverse Lawn In Giant Hamster Ball
WASHINGTON, DC - In an ongoing effort to keep the President from running into stationary objects, Whitehouse staff placed Biden in a giant hamster ball this week for his own safety.
The President was seen traversing the lawn in the giant plastic ball, which observers say is an effective way to keep him from running into trees, hedges, and other dangerous object
"This is a great solution for when he needs to get from Point A to Point B without harming himself or others," Whitehouse staffer Mel Baker told the press. "We're thinking of making one for him to use on Airforce One and another one for the campaign trail too."
Staffers helped the President into the ball after a series of videos emerged of his most recent falls and stumbles. "It's safer this way…for all of us," one aid told reporters.
Sources close to Biden say the President was happy with the giant hamster ball and thought it resembled a big scoop of ice cream.
"Presidents throughout history have used similar devices for mobility," Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told the press. "Towards the end of his life, William Haward Taft was often placed in a giant dog stroller and wheeled through the halls of Congress. Totally factual."
As of publishing time, Secret Service agents were seen frantically searching for the President after Biden bounced down a set of stairs near the Oval Office.
https://babylonbee.com/news/to-avoid-falling-biden-to-traverse-lawn-in-giant-hamster-ball
Newsom Asks Public To Help Design New California Coin, Instantly Regrets It
When he’s not making ignorantly silly commercials about access to abortion in Alabama, California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s favorite hobby is getting ratioed online. Seriously, I’m not sure there’s anyone less self-aware than Newsom, or anyone who’s more of a glutton for punishment.
So on Thursday Newsom was again roasted online when he announced that California is getting its own $1 coin to honor innovation in the state and asked the internet for submissions. He was already going to invite some choice responses from that simple invitation, then he made it worse by beginning his tweet with, “Calling all members of the Tortured Coin Designers Department,” a reference to Taylor Swift’s new album, “The Tortured Poets Department.”
Apparently, Newsom (or the intern who wrote the tweet) didn’t understand that the title is surmised to be a slam at Swift’s ex-boyfriend, British actor Joe Alwyn. Vogue reports that Alwyn “once stated in an interview that he had a texting group chat with fellow actors Paul Mescal and Andrew Scott called the ‘Tortured Man Club,’ which many fans instantly drew parallels to with Swift’s album name.”
The Golden State has a long history of positive innovation, but the only thing it’s innovating during Newsom’s tenure is new ways to waste every natural gift God can bestow upon a land and leave its citizens in poverty. Oh, and new methods by which the government can repress the civil rights of people.
And so many submissions centered on themes of homeless encampments, dumpster fires, and endless COVID masking rules.
This is weird, even for Gavin Newsom. In an apparent play on Taylor Swift’s new album title “Tortured Poets Department” he’s asking for suggestions for “Tortured Coin Designers Department” to design a $1 “Innovation Coin.” Is this a desperate move to reduce rhetoric $73 deficit?… https://t.co/sjYv98lhoT pic.twitter.com/vEBOolYLFw
— Houman David Hemmati, MD, PhD (@houmanhemmati) April 25, 2024
— Lex Jurgen (@Lex_Jurgen) April 26, 2024
Newsom Asks Public To Help Design New California Coin, Instantly Regrets It
When he’s not making ignorantly silly commercials about access to abortion in Alabama, California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s favorite hobby is getting ratioed online. Seriously, I’m not sure there’s anyone less self-aware than Newsom, or anyone who’s more of a glutton for punishment.
So on Thursday Newsom was again roasted online when he announced that California is getting its own $1 coin to honor innovation in the state and asked the internet for submissions. He was already going to invite some choice responses from that simple invitation, then he made it worse by beginning his tweet with, “Calling all members of the Tortured Coin Designers Department,” a reference to Taylor Swift’s new album, “The Tortured Poets Department.”
Apparently, Newsom (or the intern who wrote the tweet) didn’t understand that the title is surmised to be a slam at Swift’s ex-boyfriend, British actor Joe Alwyn. Vogue reports that Alwyn “once stated in an interview that he had a texting group chat with fellow actors Paul Mescal and Andrew Scott called the ‘Tortured Man Club,’ which many fans instantly drew parallels to with Swift’s album name.”
The Golden State has a long history of positive innovation, but the only thing it’s innovating during Newsom’s tenure is new ways to waste every natural gift God can bestow upon a land and leave its citizens in poverty. Oh, and new methods by which the government can repress the civil rights of people.
And so many submissions centered on themes of homeless encampments, dumpster fires, and endless COVID masking rules.
This is weird, even for Gavin Newsom. In an apparent play on Taylor Swift’s new album title “Tortured Poets Department” he’s asking for suggestions for “Tortured Coin Designers Department” to design a $1 “Innovation Coin.” Is this a desperate move to reduce rhetoric $73 deficit?… https://t.co/sjYv98lhoT pic.twitter.com/vEBOolYLFw
— Houman David Hemmati, MD, PhD (@houmanhemmati) April 25, 2024
— Lex Jurgen (@Lex_Jurgen) April 26, 2024
No, the government is not to be trusted
By Richard Berkowitz
No, if you're here from the government, you are not here to help me. Lamentably, you are not to be trusted. You can be terribly harmful and often are.
I listen to an untold number of videos relating to Congressional and Senate hearings, Investigations of witnesses, etc.
In each instance, and maybe more in the ones taking place in the Senate, I find them to be a lot of blowhard but overly courteous discussions where nothing truly is accomplished.
Sometimes, I am sure, legislation results from the information gleaned but it seems to me, that while the world is burning, they are more engaged in drinking water than hosing out fires.
Frankly, the British are, in my opinion, far more eloquent and humorous, though Sen. John Kennedy, from Louisiana, (who incidentally was educated at Oxford where British parliamentarians learn their skills) is a hoot. He is our equivalent of the great humorist from Oklahoma, Will Rogers.
The second thing I notice is when agency heads are called upon to tell why information requests are constantly ignored, withheld, or blacklined, the answer usually given is due to an ongoing investigation we cannot comment on. FBI Director Christopher Wray is particularly evasive in these ways.
The consequences are mostly dispiriting and continue to validate the comment 'you don't want to see how sausage and laws are made.'
The critical issue is how do we get trustworthy candidates for Congress; people who care deeply about the nation, who put the nation's interest first, and who are willing to take the slings and arrows public service subjects one to in today's highly politicized environment?
It takes a great deal of money to campaign and the last thing we need or want is to be governed by elite oligarchs like Mark Zuckerberg, or Bill Gates or those who engage in public life for the purpose of self-enrichment, such as Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Bob Menendez, or, worse still, those who crave power to bring about our nation's transformation like Obama or those of their ilk.
Politics historically attracts some interesting and equally dangerous characters.
I have always believed anyone running for a significant political position should be given a Rorschach Test and/or undergo a mental evaluation that is publicly disclosed.
The public needs to be informed, particularly since we no longer can rely upon the mass media's objectivity.
As for limited terms, time and again I know how popular it is, but unless the bureaucracy can be fired or their own service limited, they present the highest of all risks.
Christopher Rufo's book: "America's Cultural Revolution," devotes a significant amount of discussion to how those who work in government, at all levels, " ... fortify power and privilege while waging grievous harm which eventually becomes the pretext for domination."
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which Sen. Elizabeth "Pocahontas" Warren shoved down America's throat, expanded its demands and power far beyond the benign intent upon its claimed initial language. It went from a legislative squeak to an omnipotent roar,
And what of the IRS, the FBI, the Department of Education, etc? I could go on and on as every one of these benign well-intended agencies have morphed into abusive ones, which at times, have threatened our freedoms and even our Bill of Rights.
If you do not believe me, ask FISA judges how they were exploited by the FBI.
No, if you're here from the government, you are not here to help me. Lamentably, you are not to be trusted. You can be terribly harmful and often are.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/04/no_the_government_is_not_to_be_trusted.html
No, the government is not to be trusted
By Richard Berkowitz
No, if you're here from the government, you are not here to help me. Lamentably, you are not to be trusted. You can be terribly harmful and often are.
I listen to an untold number of videos relating to Congressional and Senate hearings, Investigations of witnesses, etc.
In each instance, and maybe more in the ones taking place in the Senate, I find them to be a lot of blowhard but overly courteous discussions where nothing truly is accomplished.
Sometimes, I am sure, legislation results from the information gleaned but it seems to me, that while the world is burning, they are more engaged in drinking water than hosing out fires.
Frankly, the British are, in my opinion, far more eloquent and humorous, though Sen. John Kennedy, from Louisiana, (who incidentally was educated at Oxford where British parliamentarians learn their skills) is a hoot. He is our equivalent of the great humorist from Oklahoma, Will Rogers.
The second thing I notice is when agency heads are called upon to tell why information requests are constantly ignored, withheld, or blacklined, the answer usually given is due to an ongoing investigation we cannot comment on. FBI Director Christopher Wray is particularly evasive in these ways.
The consequences are mostly dispiriting and continue to validate the comment 'you don't want to see how sausage and laws are made.'
The critical issue is how do we get trustworthy candidates for Congress; people who care deeply about the nation, who put the nation's interest first, and who are willing to take the slings and arrows public service subjects one to in today's highly politicized environment?
It takes a great deal of money to campaign and the last thing we need or want is to be governed by elite oligarchs like Mark Zuckerberg, or Bill Gates or those who engage in public life for the purpose of self-enrichment, such as Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Bob Menendez, or, worse still, those who crave power to bring about our nation's transformation like Obama or those of their ilk.
Politics historically attracts some interesting and equally dangerous characters.
I have always believed anyone running for a significant political position should be given a Rorschach Test and/or undergo a mental evaluation that is publicly disclosed.
The public needs to be informed, particularly since we no longer can rely upon the mass media's objectivity.
As for limited terms, time and again I know how popular it is, but unless the bureaucracy can be fired or their own service limited, they present the highest of all risks.
Christopher Rufo's book: "America's Cultural Revolution," devotes a significant amount of discussion to how those who work in government, at all levels, " ... fortify power and privilege while waging grievous harm which eventually becomes the pretext for domination."
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which Sen. Elizabeth "Pocahontas" Warren shoved down America's throat, expanded its demands and power far beyond the benign intent upon its claimed initial language. It went from a legislative squeak to an omnipotent roar,
And what of the IRS, the FBI, the Department of Education, etc? I could go on and on as every one of these benign well-intended agencies have morphed into abusive ones, which at times, have threatened our freedoms and even our Bill of Rights.
If you do not believe me, ask FISA judges how they were exploited by the FBI.
No, if you're here from the government, you are not here to help me. Lamentably, you are not to be trusted. You can be terribly harmful and often are.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/04/no_the_government_is_not_to_be_trusted.html
Yep, a spot of blue surrounded by a sea of red!!!
Apparently all the women's rights groups choose to remain silent. Males competing against females must be acceptable to the pussy hats!!!
Women Forced to Compete Against Men? Just Say No!
By Brian C. Joondeph, M.D.
During the Reagan presidency years, one of first lady Nancy Reagan’s initiatives was the “Just Say No” approach to drug abuse.
Whether illicit drug use declined due to this slogan is controversial, but the premise is simple. When confronted by an unacceptable premise or option, saying 'no' is the simplest way to slap it down.
Drug use is still rampant and far worse than it was in the 1980s with drug overdose deaths now over 100,000 annually, according to the CDC. Obviously, too many Americans are saying 'yes' to drugs, rather than no.
Another social pathology, not much of an issue in the 1980s, is transgenderism. LGBTQIA2S+ and whatever additional letters are needed to make the letter salad current and incoherent, wasn’t a buzzword during Reagan’s years.
In the 1980s, no person of rational mind believed men could become pregnant or breastfeed, that men should use women’s bathrooms or locker rooms, or that men could fairly compete against women in sports. But here we are in 2024, when these concepts are in many quarters, as seemingly normal as sunrise and sunset.
This Overton Window shift began with a University of Pennsylvania swimmer named Will Thomas, an unremarkable member of the men’s swim team whose life and swimming career went on hiatus due to COVID. During his year off, Will became Lia, joining the Penn women’s swim team. While a mediocre men’s swimmer, Lea is anything but as a women’s swimmer. “UPenn trans swimmer, 22, sparks outrage by smashing women’s competition records after competing as a man for three seasons.”
Lia went from Will, a back-bencher, to Lia, an all-star, winning ivy league championships, setting ivy league records, and winning an NCAA swimming championship. How is that fair to the women Lia beat, women who have been training in their sports for years only to be denied championships or records by having to compete against a guy?
If playing on such an uneven playing field, why don’t these women athletes follow the lead of Nancy Reagan and “Just Say 'No'”? Particularly in situations where the biologic male has a clear advantage and likelihood of winning, the female athletes could simply refuse to compete.
Imagine a large swimming or track event where the trans-athlete is the only one on the starting blocks, the remaining female competitors standing behind the blocks and refusing to compete. The woke sportscasters will be tongue-tied in how to respond and narrate the event.
Perhaps a clever sports commentator will create a new meme, as when NASCAR fans were loudly chanting “F*** Joe Biden” which the quick thinking NBC sports reporter claimed was actually, “Let’s Go Brandon,” making the phrase an encapsulation of the Biden presidency.
A group of West Virginia middle school students just said 'no' to a biologic male attempting to compete against the girls in the shot put:
A West Virginia transgender athlete won her shot put competition in her first sporting event following an appeals court ruling that allowed her to participate - as other contestants refused to play against her.
Becky Pepper-Jackson, 13, competed in the Harris County Middle School Track and Field Championship on Thursday, two days after a court ruled West Virginia’s transgender sports ban violates the teen's right under Title IX.
Pepper-Jackson took home first place in the shot put competition with her 32-foot effort, three feet further than second place, and she placed second in discus.
Despite being legally allowed to compete, some athletes protested Pepper-Jackson's participation by refusing to play against her.
Five girls from Lincoln Middle School stepped up to the circle for their turn, then refused to throw the ball.
One could argue that the transgender girl was only 13 years old, where gender differences are minimal or nonexistent. As an example, 5- and 7-year-old boys and girls compete together in soccer and T-ball as this is pre-puberty, before the effects of testosterone kick in.
Trans women's sports.
But that argument doesn’t hold. The Cleveland Clinic recognizes, “Boys begin puberty sometime between the ages of 9 and 14.” Meaning the 13-year-old shot putter is well into puberty.
Puberty is the issue here. The science, according to the International Olympic Committee is simple: “A number of scientific papers have recently shown people who have undergone male puberty retain significant advantages in power and strength even after taking medication to suppress their testosterone levels.”
Puberty is when boys differentiate from girls through muscle and bone mass, strength, and power. Once the athletic engine is built, adult testosterone levels matter little.
Even a 13-year-old is well on his way to building a male athletic engine, despite identifying as a girl.
If not, then why don’t men and women shot putters compete against each other in the Olympics?
Men start by putting a heavier shot, 16 pounds for men, 8.8 pounds for women, almost a two-fold difference. Even with that difference, men out-put the women.
In the 2020 Olympics, the gold medal put distance was 23.3 meters for the man and 20.6 meters for the woman, despite the huge difference in shot weight.
Title IX is also an empty argument. The title states:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
What is sex? The simple way of determining sex is to pull down your pants and look in a mirror. For almost every human, it’s a binary choice -- boy/girl, guy/gal, man/woman.
Or ask Yale University School of Medicine, “The term sex should be used as a classification, generally as male or female, according to the reproductive organs and functions that derive from the chromosomal complement (generally XX for female and XY for male).”
Title IX is about biology, not identification, preferences, or what the school counselor suggests. Transgender athletes, specifically biologic men competing against biologic women, violates Title IX by discriminating on the basis of sex.
Perhaps the DOJ, when not prosecuting Donald Trump and his supporters, should take a look at this. Fat chance of that.
In the meantime, female athletes should “just say no” and refuse to compete on an uneven playing field. Congratulation to 5 West Virginia middle school girls for putting their foot (and shot) down. Perhaps high school, college, and professional women could do the same and start putting an end to this new “war on women”
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/04/women_forced_to_compete_against_men_just_say_no.html
Women Forced to Compete Against Men? Just Say No!
And the Pussy Hats remain silent!
By Brian C. Joondeph, M.D.
During the Reagan presidency years, one of first lady Nancy Reagan’s initiatives was the “Just Say No” approach to drug abuse.
Whether illicit drug use declined due to this slogan is controversial, but the premise is simple. When confronted by an unacceptable premise or option, saying 'no' is the simplest way to slap it down.
Drug use is still rampant and far worse than it was in the 1980s with drug overdose deaths now over 100,000 annually, according to the CDC. Obviously, too many Americans are saying 'yes' to drugs, rather than no.
Another social pathology, not much of an issue in the 1980s, is transgenderism. LGBTQIA2S+ and whatever additional letters are needed to make the letter salad current and incoherent, wasn’t a buzzword during Reagan’s years.
In the 1980s, no person of rational mind believed men could become pregnant or breastfeed, that men should use women’s bathrooms or locker rooms, or that men could fairly compete against women in sports. But here we are in 2024, when these concepts are in many quarters, as seemingly normal as sunrise and sunset.
This Overton Window shift began with a University of Pennsylvania swimmer named Will Thomas, an unremarkable member of the men’s swim team whose life and swimming career went on hiatus due to COVID. During his year off, Will became Lia, joining the Penn women’s swim team. While a mediocre men’s swimmer, Lea is anything but as a women’s swimmer. “UPenn trans swimmer, 22, sparks outrage by smashing women’s competition records after competing as a man for three seasons.”
Lia went from Will, a back-bencher, to Lia, an all-star, winning ivy league championships, setting ivy league records, and winning an NCAA swimming championship. How is that fair to the women Lia beat, women who have been training in their sports for years only to be denied championships or records by having to compete against a guy?
If playing on such an uneven playing field, why don’t these women athletes follow the lead of Nancy Reagan and “Just Say 'No'”? Particularly in situations where the biologic male has a clear advantage and likelihood of winning, the female athletes could simply refuse to compete.
Imagine a large swimming or track event where the trans-athlete is the only one on the starting blocks, the remaining female competitors standing behind the blocks and refusing to compete. The woke sportscasters will be tongue-tied in how to respond and narrate the event.
Perhaps a clever sports commentator will create a new meme, as when NASCAR fans were loudly chanting “F*** Joe Biden” which the quick thinking NBC sports reporter claimed was actually, “Let’s Go Brandon,” making the phrase an encapsulation of the Biden presidency.
A group of West Virginia middle school students just said 'no' to a biologic male attempting to compete against the girls in the shot put:
A West Virginia transgender athlete won her shot put competition in her first sporting event following an appeals court ruling that allowed her to participate - as other contestants refused to play against her.
Becky Pepper-Jackson, 13, competed in the Harris County Middle School Track and Field Championship on Thursday, two days after a court ruled West Virginia’s transgender sports ban violates the teen's right under Title IX.
Pepper-Jackson took home first place in the shot put competition with her 32-foot effort, three feet further than second place, and she placed second in discus.
Despite being legally allowed to compete, some athletes protested Pepper-Jackson's participation by refusing to play against her.
Five girls from Lincoln Middle School stepped up to the circle for their turn, then refused to throw the ball.
One could argue that the transgender girl was only 13 years old, where gender differences are minimal or nonexistent. As an example, 5- and 7-year-old boys and girls compete together in soccer and T-ball as this is pre-puberty, before the effects of testosterone kick in.
Trans women's sports.
But that argument doesn’t hold. The Cleveland Clinic recognizes, “Boys begin puberty sometime between the ages of 9 and 14.” Meaning the 13-year-old shot putter is well into puberty.
Puberty is the issue here. The science, according to the International Olympic Committee is simple: “A number of scientific papers have recently shown people who have undergone male puberty retain significant advantages in power and strength even after taking medication to suppress their testosterone levels.”
Puberty is when boys differentiate from girls through muscle and bone mass, strength, and power. Once the athletic engine is built, adult testosterone levels matter little.
Even a 13-year-old is well on his way to building a male athletic engine, despite identifying as a girl.
If not, then why don’t men and women shot putters compete against each other in the Olympics?
Men start by putting a heavier shot, 16 pounds for men, 8.8 pounds for women, almost a two-fold difference. Even with that difference, men out-put the women.
In the 2020 Olympics, the gold medal put distance was 23.3 meters for the man and 20.6 meters for the woman, despite the huge difference in shot weight.
Title IX is also an empty argument. The title states:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
What is sex? The simple way of determining sex is to pull down your pants and look in a mirror. For almost every human, it’s a binary choice -- boy/girl, guy/gal, man/woman.
Or ask Yale University School of Medicine, “The term sex should be used as a classification, generally as male or female, according to the reproductive organs and functions that derive from the chromosomal complement (generally XX for female and XY for male).”
Title IX is about biology, not identification, preferences, or what the school counselor suggests. Transgender athletes, specifically biologic men competing against biologic women, violates Title IX by discriminating on the basis of sex.
Perhaps the DOJ, when not prosecuting Donald Trump and his supporters, should take a look at this. Fat chance of that.
In the meantime, female athletes should “just say no” and refuse to compete on an uneven playing field. Congratulation to 5 West Virginia middle school girls for putting their foot (and shot) down. Perhaps high school, college, and professional women could do the same and start putting an end to this new “war on women”
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/04/women_forced_to_compete_against_men_just_say_no.html
Will Celebrity Endorsements Impact the 2024 Election?
Hollywood elites might not be the kingmakers they think they are.
by Kelli Ballard | Apr 29, 2024
During the contentious election of 2016, a swath of Hollywood elites announced that if Trump won, they would be hightailing it from the USA and seeking to make their lives in more progressive climes. The La La Land exodus failed to materialize, and life continued much as before – albeit with somewhat more online TDS on display.
Stephen Colbert, host of The Late Show, has decided to take it on the road for the first time – and the media is all abuzz. The big deal isn’t that the comedian will be leaving the comforts of his studio; it’s that he’ll be performing live in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention this August. He won’t be doing the same for the Republican National Convention, of course. Celebrity endorsements are nothing new, and since Hollywood traditionally leans to the left, it’s not surprising Colbert and others are stepping up to promote President Joe Biden. But will it make a difference come November?
The Power of Celebrity Endorsements
CBS announced that Colbert will broadcast his show from the Auditorium Theatre from August 19 to 22, and some conservative media outlets are crying foul. But will he – or any other celebrity, for that matter – sway the election with his endorsement? When Taylor Swift performed at the Super Bowl, there was a lot of talk about how she would influence the election, especially if she endorsed Biden. Monmouth University released a survey in February that found that 18% of Americans “think that a covert government effort for Taylor Swift to help Joe Biden win the presidential election actually exists.” Former President Donald Trump even got into the discussion, urging the celebrity not to endorse the incumbent, saying, “Joe Biden didn’t do anything for Taylor, and never will.”
But just how much sway do celebrity endorsements have? Some experts suggest Hollywood has very little influence and that voters will make up their own minds without heeding the advice of the stars. Daron Shaw, a professor in the Department of Government at the University of Texas, conducted research on the topic. “These endorsements haven’t made a ton of difference, certainly not in partisan contests between Republicans and Democrats,” he observed. Shaw suggested that being supported by certain entertainment figures could even be a detriment. “There is a little bit of tango between controversial figures and the campaign, which is not just the vote that you’re interested in when it comes to a presidential campaign. You’re interested in driving media, in driving volunteers, and you’re interested in driving contributions.”
Still, political figures court support from celebrities, and not just because they have deep pockets. Swift, for example, endorsed Biden for 2020, which, according to Vote.org, brought in more than 35,000 voter registrations. Biden likely hopes to benefit from her popularity and influence again as the 2024 election approaches.
How have celebrity endorsements helped in presidential elections in the past? In 2008, there was “The Oprah Factor,” which some claim was a deciding element in electing former President Barack Obama. Oprah Winfrey had a lot of fans and received nearly ten million viewers a day for her talk show, not to mention subscribers to her magazine, O. A September 2008 Pew survey found that 60% of respondents believed Oprah’s endorsement would help Obama’s campaign.
Throughout history, celebrity endorsements have seemed to have an impact on presidential elections. In 1920, singer Al Jolson threw his support behind Republican candidate Warren G. Harding with a song titled “Hardy, You’re the Man for Us.” Some of the lyrics included, “It’s Harding, lead the GOP, Harding, onto victory.” Since Calvin Coolidge was Harding’s running mate, the song also included him with lyrics such as, “We know we’ll always find you with Coolidge right behind you, and Coolidge never fails, you must agree.” Harding won the presidency with almost 75% of the Electoral College and nearly 65% of the popular vote.
So which Hollywood elites are supporting Biden and Trump? Here’s a brief breakdown:
Celebrity Supporters Abound
Batting for the incumbent president is Jeffrey Katzenberg, former chairman of Walt Disney Studios from 1984 to 1994. He is also the national co-chair for Biden’s 2024 campaign. There’s also Lady Gaga, who endorsed Biden in 2020 and even performed at his inauguration. She hasn’t confirmed who she’ll vote for this election, but in April 2023, she was appointed co-chair of the President’s Committee on the Arts, effectively making her an adviser to the president. Other notables include Family Guy creator Seth McFarlane, Tom Hanks, Eva Longoria, Leonardo DiCaprio, Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, Ellen DeGeneres, LeBron James, and Meryl Streep.
Giving their support to the former president are singer Kid Rock, Frasier star Kelsey Grammar, actors Jon Voight, Roseanne Barr, Dennis Quaid, James Wood, Kevin Sorbo, and football star Brett Favre.
The Cost of Doing Business
As each side continues to rack up celebrity endorsements, the stars also have to take into consideration their personal capital. During the contentious election of 2016, a swath of Hollywood elites announced that if Trump won, they would be hightailing it from the USA and seeking to make their lives in more progressive climes. The La La Land exodus failed to materialize, and life continued much as before – albeit with somewhat more online TDS on display.
Celebrities hitching their wagons to politicians can come with great cost to credibility, and after the last few years of political vitriol, one wonders just how much of their hard-earned reputations these stars are willing to either commit or squander.
https://www.libertynation.com/will-celebrity-endorsements-impact-the-2024-election/
Will Celebrity Endorsements Impact the 2024 Election?
Hollywood elites might not be the kingmakers they think they are.
by Kelli Ballard | Apr 29, 2024
During the contentious election of 2016, a swath of Hollywood elites announced that if Trump won, they would be hightailing it from the USA and seeking to make their lives in more progressive climes. The La La Land exodus failed to materialize, and life continued much as before – albeit with somewhat more online TDS on display.
Stephen Colbert, host of The Late Show, has decided to take it on the road for the first time – and the media is all abuzz. The big deal isn’t that the comedian will be leaving the comforts of his studio; it’s that he’ll be performing live in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention this August. He won’t be doing the same for the Republican National Convention, of course. Celebrity endorsements are nothing new, and since Hollywood traditionally leans to the left, it’s not surprising Colbert and others are stepping up to promote President Joe Biden. But will it make a difference come November?
The Power of Celebrity Endorsements
CBS announced that Colbert will broadcast his show from the Auditorium Theatre from August 19 to 22, and some conservative media outlets are crying foul. But will he – or any other celebrity, for that matter – sway the election with his endorsement? When Taylor Swift performed at the Super Bowl, there was a lot of talk about how she would influence the election, especially if she endorsed Biden. Monmouth University released a survey in February that found that 18% of Americans “think that a covert government effort for Taylor Swift to help Joe Biden win the presidential election actually exists.” Former President Donald Trump even got into the discussion, urging the celebrity not to endorse the incumbent, saying, “Joe Biden didn’t do anything for Taylor, and never will.”
But just how much sway do celebrity endorsements have? Some experts suggest Hollywood has very little influence and that voters will make up their own minds without heeding the advice of the stars. Daron Shaw, a professor in the Department of Government at the University of Texas, conducted research on the topic. “These endorsements haven’t made a ton of difference, certainly not in partisan contests between Republicans and Democrats,” he observed. Shaw suggested that being supported by certain entertainment figures could even be a detriment. “There is a little bit of tango between controversial figures and the campaign, which is not just the vote that you’re interested in when it comes to a presidential campaign. You’re interested in driving media, in driving volunteers, and you’re interested in driving contributions.”
Still, political figures court support from celebrities, and not just because they have deep pockets. Swift, for example, endorsed Biden for 2020, which, according to Vote.org, brought in more than 35,000 voter registrations. Biden likely hopes to benefit from her popularity and influence again as the 2024 election approaches.
How have celebrity endorsements helped in presidential elections in the past? In 2008, there was “The Oprah Factor,” which some claim was a deciding element in electing former President Barack Obama. Oprah Winfrey had a lot of fans and received nearly ten million viewers a day for her talk show, not to mention subscribers to her magazine, O. A September 2008 Pew survey found that 60% of respondents believed Oprah’s endorsement would help Obama’s campaign.
Throughout history, celebrity endorsements have seemed to have an impact on presidential elections. In 1920, singer Al Jolson threw his support behind Republican candidate Warren G. Harding with a song titled “Hardy, You’re the Man for Us.” Some of the lyrics included, “It’s Harding, lead the GOP, Harding, onto victory.” Since Calvin Coolidge was Harding’s running mate, the song also included him with lyrics such as, “We know we’ll always find you with Coolidge right behind you, and Coolidge never fails, you must agree.” Harding won the presidency with almost 75% of the Electoral College and nearly 65% of the popular vote.
So which Hollywood elites are supporting Biden and Trump? Here’s a brief breakdown:
Celebrity Supporters Abound
Batting for the incumbent president is Jeffrey Katzenberg, former chairman of Walt Disney Studios from 1984 to 1994. He is also the national co-chair for Biden’s 2024 campaign. There’s also Lady Gaga, who endorsed Biden in 2020 and even performed at his inauguration. She hasn’t confirmed who she’ll vote for this election, but in April 2023, she was appointed co-chair of the President’s Committee on the Arts, effectively making her an adviser to the president. Other notables include Family Guy creator Seth McFarlane, Tom Hanks, Eva Longoria, Leonardo DiCaprio, Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, Ellen DeGeneres, LeBron James, and Meryl Streep.
Giving their support to the former president are singer Kid Rock, Frasier star Kelsey Grammar, actors Jon Voight, Roseanne Barr, Dennis Quaid, James Wood, Kevin Sorbo, and football star Brett Favre.
The Cost of Doing Business
As each side continues to rack up celebrity endorsements, the stars also have to take into consideration their personal capital. During the contentious election of 2016, a swath of Hollywood elites announced that if Trump won, they would be hightailing it from the USA and seeking to make their lives in more progressive climes. The La La Land exodus failed to materialize, and life continued much as before – albeit with somewhat more online TDS on display.
Celebrities hitching their wagons to politicians can come with great cost to credibility, and after the last few years of political vitriol, one wonders just how much of their hard-earned reputations these stars are willing to either commit or squander.
https://www.libertynation.com/will-celebrity-endorsements-impact-the-2024-election/
Regime Media Is No Myth When Government Pays the Salaries
The real disinformation is any big-box media claim to objectivity.
by Joe Schaeffer | Apr 29, 2024
It’s difficult to dismiss the term “state-affiliated media” as a smear when journalists are being paid directly by the government. The ongoing evolution of credentialed news outlets into quasi-official agencies of the progressive ruling establishment has grown so bold that lines of professional ethics aren’t just blurred; they’re being obliterated.
“New York state is poised to hand out millions in taxpayer dollars to local media outlets to help pay for journalists’ salaries,” The Daily Caller reported on April 23. “The state will dole out $30 million over a three-year period to local media outlets in the form of tax credits, giving publishers the ability to offset up to 50% of the first $50,000 in journalists’ salaries, according to a release issued [April 22] by New York State Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie. Heastie emphasized that the funds will go toward protecting local news outlets for ‘many years to come.’”
The conflict of interest here is so glaring that one shouldn’t have to point it out. Local “news” reporters who claim impartiality will become dependent on government funding as they inform the general public about the policies of that same government.
Here’s one example of how that could work in real-time. Reporters will be covering candidates for office who may support or oppose increases in, or cuts to, government spending – an issue that will directly impact their financial standing. It is no coincidence that Heastie mentioned electoral coverage first in his defense of the new policy. “Local journalism plays an essential role in our communities,” Heastie asserted. “Not only does it provide critical coverage of local elections, but it also joins communities together through a shared knowledge of high school sports teams, new businesses coming to the area and issues impacting readers’ everyday lives.”
‘Government’s Role in Policing Lies’
Alas, this is not the only current move by progressives to control information in a manner fundamentally antithetical to traditional American norms. Joe Biden’s Disinformation Czar of 2022 is back, and the lead sentence of The New York Times’ account of Nina Jankowicz’s return speaks volumes about big-brand media desires to restrict Americans’ access to information.
“Two years ago, Nina Jankowicz briefly led an agency at the Department of Homeland Security created to fight disinformation – the establishment of which provoked a political and legal battle over the government’s role in policing lies and other harmful content online that continues to reverberate,” the paper wrote.
How’s that for loaded phrasing? The judgment on the content has already been made by your credentialed overseers. You don’t get to decide for yourself what constitutes “lies” or “harmful content.” They make that ruling. This appears to be the default mindset in prominent media circles today.
Jankowicz’s new organization is called The American Sunlight Project. But don’t expect any of those beams to shine upon her. ASP is refusing to publicly reveal its donors.
Democrat Message to Media Chums
The annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner was held on April 27. The event has long served as an insufferable stroke of DC reporter egos. In recent years, it has transformed into something no less unbecoming but at least more honest: a Democrat lovefest.
All pretense of objectivity has been so discarded that the party openly considers it to be just another Donald Trump-bashing affair.
“We hope everyone has a good time this weekend, because if Donald Trump wins in November, this Saturday could also be known as the last White House Correspondents’ Dinner,” Democratic National Committee Rapid Response Director Alex Floyd declared in a message to his media friends. “Fun and jokes aside this weekend, Saturday is also a reminder of what’s at stake with an angry, vengeful Trump on the ballot. He may be a punchline, but he is also a sad, vindictive wannabe authoritarian who shows no respect for the First Amendment – or the Fourth Estate,” Floyd continued.
Why wouldn’t Democrats feel perfectly at ease addressing the media this way? As Liberty Nation noted last year, the big-box reporters who supposedly provide tough coverage of administration officials spent the run-up to the 2023 Correspondents’ Dinner furiously clamoring to be seated with or alongside Biden bigwigs.
“Landing a table at the front of the room – near where President Joe Biden, [White House Correspondents’ Association President Tamara] Keith and other WHCA board members will sit – has become a symbol of importance among the DC media world,” Politico reported at the time. “Many people are going to be sitting at tables that they don’t think correctly acknowledge their importance and stature,” Keith added, “and that’s really tough.”
This is the state of brand media in Washington, DC, today: teenagers jockeying for position at the high school dance. Given such an abject lack of concern for professionalism, is it any wonder the ruling progressive apparatus is ready to take the next step and put them on the government payroll?
https://www.libertynation.com/regime-media-is-no-myth-when-government-pays-the-salaries/
Regime Media Is No Myth When Government Pays the Salaries
The real disinformation is any big-box media claim to objectivity.
by Joe Schaeffer | Apr 29, 2024
It’s difficult to dismiss the term “state-affiliated media” as a smear when journalists are being paid directly by the government. The ongoing evolution of credentialed news outlets into quasi-official agencies of the progressive ruling establishment has grown so bold that lines of professional ethics aren’t just blurred; they’re being obliterated.
“New York state is poised to hand out millions in taxpayer dollars to local media outlets to help pay for journalists’ salaries,” The Daily Caller reported on April 23. “The state will dole out $30 million over a three-year period to local media outlets in the form of tax credits, giving publishers the ability to offset up to 50% of the first $50,000 in journalists’ salaries, according to a release issued [April 22] by New York State Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie. Heastie emphasized that the funds will go toward protecting local news outlets for ‘many years to come.’”
The conflict of interest here is so glaring that one shouldn’t have to point it out. Local “news” reporters who claim impartiality will become dependent on government funding as they inform the general public about the policies of that same government.
Here’s one example of how that could work in real-time. Reporters will be covering candidates for office who may support or oppose increases in, or cuts to, government spending – an issue that will directly impact their financial standing. It is no coincidence that Heastie mentioned electoral coverage first in his defense of the new policy. “Local journalism plays an essential role in our communities,” Heastie asserted. “Not only does it provide critical coverage of local elections, but it also joins communities together through a shared knowledge of high school sports teams, new businesses coming to the area and issues impacting readers’ everyday lives.”
‘Government’s Role in Policing Lies’
Alas, this is not the only current move by progressives to control information in a manner fundamentally antithetical to traditional American norms. Joe Biden’s Disinformation Czar of 2022 is back, and the lead sentence of The New York Times’ account of Nina Jankowicz’s return speaks volumes about big-brand media desires to restrict Americans’ access to information.
“Two years ago, Nina Jankowicz briefly led an agency at the Department of Homeland Security created to fight disinformation – the establishment of which provoked a political and legal battle over the government’s role in policing lies and other harmful content online that continues to reverberate,” the paper wrote.
How’s that for loaded phrasing? The judgment on the content has already been made by your credentialed overseers. You don’t get to decide for yourself what constitutes “lies” or “harmful content.” They make that ruling. This appears to be the default mindset in prominent media circles today.
Jankowicz’s new organization is called The American Sunlight Project. But don’t expect any of those beams to shine upon her. ASP is refusing to publicly reveal its donors.
Democrat Message to Media Chums
The annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner was held on April 27. The event has long served as an insufferable stroke of DC reporter egos. In recent years, it has transformed into something no less unbecoming but at least more honest: a Democrat lovefest.
All pretense of objectivity has been so discarded that the party openly considers it to be just another Donald Trump-bashing affair.
“We hope everyone has a good time this weekend, because if Donald Trump wins in November, this Saturday could also be known as the last White House Correspondents’ Dinner,” Democratic National Committee Rapid Response Director Alex Floyd declared in a message to his media friends. “Fun and jokes aside this weekend, Saturday is also a reminder of what’s at stake with an angry, vengeful Trump on the ballot. He may be a punchline, but he is also a sad, vindictive wannabe authoritarian who shows no respect for the First Amendment – or the Fourth Estate,” Floyd continued.
Why wouldn’t Democrats feel perfectly at ease addressing the media this way? As Liberty Nation noted last year, the big-box reporters who supposedly provide tough coverage of administration officials spent the run-up to the 2023 Correspondents’ Dinner furiously clamoring to be seated with or alongside Biden bigwigs.
“Landing a table at the front of the room – near where President Joe Biden, [White House Correspondents’ Association President Tamara] Keith and other WHCA board members will sit – has become a symbol of importance among the DC media world,” Politico reported at the time. “Many people are going to be sitting at tables that they don’t think correctly acknowledge their importance and stature,” Keith added, “and that’s really tough.”
This is the state of brand media in Washington, DC, today: teenagers jockeying for position at the high school dance. Given such an abject lack of concern for professionalism, is it any wonder the ruling progressive apparatus is ready to take the next step and put them on the government payroll?
https://www.libertynation.com/regime-media-is-no-myth-when-government-pays-the-salaries/
Monday's Energy Absurdity: Cornell Launches 'Respiration Chamber' to Measure Cow Burps and Farts
University officials assure us it is the 'gold standard' of fart chambers
David Blackmon
Apr 29, 2024
Like manna from heaven, today’s Energy Absurdity dropped right into my lap this morning as I conducted my early morning news gathering. Life is just like that sometimes if you follow the rules.
New York local TV station WBNG Channel 12 News reports that researchers at Cornell University have built the nation’s first and only “animal respiration stall,” an enclosed housing for cows that will enable them to accurately measure the exact amount of methane they belch and fart into the environment. In other words, they have built a hermitically sealed fart chamber.
Naturally, the researchers assure us that it is a world class fart chamber, or as they describe it, the “gold standard” of fart chambers.
“The respiration chambers are considered to be the gold standard to monitor methane emissions from cows,” said Associate Professor of Dairy Cattle Biology Joseph McFadden. “There are a lot of untested methane mitigation and monitoring technologies out there. But the only way you can provide absolute quantification of gas emissions is by using a respiration chamber system.”
You all know what’s coming next, don’t you? Within a few years, either in a Biden second term or the first term of some other Democrat president, the EPA will issue regulations requiring farmers to measure emissions from their cattle herds and force them to use “gold standard” respiration chambers like this one as “the best available technology” to accomplish the task.
Many of you are no doubt scoffing at that as just a “conspiracy theory,” the kind of which I have posed and been proven 100% right about many times over the last 20 years or so. For all of you, I urge you to bookmark this piece and refer back to it when, in just a few years, the EPA publishes this exact regulation in the Federal Register.
Because that is what is coming. Remember: A conspiracy is not a ‘theory’ when it is standing in front of you slapping your stupid face.
That is all.
https://blackmon.substack.com/p/mondays-energy-absurdity-cornell?publication_id=712558&post_id=144123536&isFreemail=false&r=rd9j8&triedRedirect=true