David Codrea.

In it we learn how “the public health establishment threw science into the wastebasket, confusing microbiology and pathology with sociology and politics.” Faria shows us how the corrupt “public health model” of “gun violence” is really social engineering, not science, how to spot and debunk fraudulent “studies,” and how the American Medical Association has discarded the scientific method to instead push partisan politics.

Doctors need to focus on the healing arts, the amelioration of pain, and the care of individuals.  National policy is best left to others.  We don’t need or want their help.

Via reader Joe, this terrible report.

Last Wednesday, U.S. Attorney General William Barr issued a memorandum to all U.S. attorneys, law enforcement agencies and top ranking Justice Department officials announcing the imminent implementation of a new “national disruption and early engagement program” aimed at detecting potential mass shooters before they commit any crime.

Per the memorandum, Barr has “directed the Department [of Justice] and the FBI to lead an effort to refine our ability to identify, assess and engage potential mass shooters before they strike.” The Attorney General further described the coming initiative, slated to be implemented early next year, as “an efficient, effective and programmatic strategy to disrupt individuals who are mobilizing towards violence, by all lawful means.” More specific information about the program is set to follow the recent memorandum, according to Barr, though it is unclear if that forthcoming document will be made public.

Barr also requested that those who received the memorandum send their “best and brightest” to a training conference at FBI headquarters this coming December where the DOJ, FBI and “private sector partners” will prepare for the full implementation of the new policy and will also be able to provide “new ideas” for inclusion in the program.

Perhaps the most jarring aspect of the memorandum is Barr’s frank admission that many of the “early engagement” tactics that the new program would utilize were “born of the posture we adopted with respect to terrorist threats.” In other words, the foundation for many of the policies utilized following the post-9/11 “war on terror” are also the foundation for the “early engagement” tactics that Barr seeks to use to identify potential criminals as part of this new policy. Though those “war on terror” policies have largely targeted individuals abroad, Barr’s memorandum makes it clear that some of those same controversial tactics will soon be used domestically.

Barr’s memorandum also alludes to current practices by the FBI and DOJ that will shape the new plan. Though more specifics of the new policy will be provided in the forthcoming notice, Barr notes that “newly developed tactics” used by the Joint Terrorist Task Forces “include the use of clinical psychologists, threat assessment professionals, intervention teams and community groups” to detect risk and suggests that the new “early engagement program” will work along similar lines. Barr also alludes to this “community” approach in a separate instance, when he writes that “when the public ‘says something’ to alert us to a potential threat, we must do something.”

As I’ve said before, “Ouija boards, palm readers, witches, warlocks, carnival fortune tellers, tribal witchdoctors, and “small changes that might foretell violence.”

It’s all the same thing to me, and if you have any sense at all, you too.  The Bible clearly says that those guilty of divination will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, and that the Lord hates such people (Galatians 5:19-21, Leviticus 19:24-32, Deuteronomy 18:9-15, Jeremiah 27: 9-19, Exodus 22: 18-19, 1 Samuel 15:23, Isaiah 2:5-8).”

God will not bless these designs.  No, I’m not saying they won’t catch a person here or there they think might have done something had it not been for the cops on their doorstep.  If you’re vision is that short-sighted, you need spectacles.

I’m saying something much deeper and more extensive.  When a country sacrifices it’s unborn, arms the state, tries to disarm it’s people and render them incapable of defense, and allows forcible conversion of children to Islam in its schools, God has turned His back on that people.  That brings a whole host of awful things down.  God is sovereign, the only lawgiver.  He will not be mocked.

We are at the end of an era.  America is “storing up wrath” for itself (Romans 1:5), and that means the righteous will suffer earthly pains in the wake of God’s judgment on the wicked.  Those who have a salvific relationship with Christ will face the doom of earthly judgment (even if not heavenly judgment) along with everyone else.

We’re all headed for hard times, folks.

And just to make sure you’ve got this, William Barr is Donald Trump’s AG.  Trump managed to implement red flag laws without red flag laws.  He said he would do it, and the plans are in place.  This is your president.  He owns this.  You don’t think Barr is acting on his own, do you?

But then, that’s being redundant.  This one comes to you via reader Ned.

I don’t know which Shelby County this is (there are two of them).  But whichever Sheriff is to blame, his boys need retraining.

This isn’t a “Terry Stop.”  No one to whom he is talking is suspected of a crime.  The gun owner isn’t breaking any laws.

And I’ve pointed out before that if a cop issues a command to touch your firearm, that’s no different than him touching your firearm.  Both actions are idiotic.  Nothing anyone could do (except the cops unholstering their weapons and pointing them at someone, which they do with regularity) could possibly make the situation more unsafe than for someone to have to touch their weapon.

Negligent discharges could occur, misinterpretation of intent could occur, and unfamiliarity with the weapon design (if the cops are handling the weapon) could cause a discharge and injure or kill someone.

And by the way, that command issued at the end of the video, “Sir, come back here,” was an unlawful command.  I suggest come retraining in the case of Nathaniel Black before the Fourth Circuit.

Your political elites are experts at that.

Do we still need the PATRIOT Act? Did we ever? All laws are certainly a product of their times. But this seems much more acutely true of the USA PATRIOT Act, which was passed in a rush and under duress without due consideration.

Particularly in light of the revelations from Edward Snowden – that the government is spying on everything they possibly can – it’s worth asking if there’s any walking back. He points out that the police state apparatus was originally for drug dealers, then for terrorists, but ultimately ended up being applied to anyone and everyone.

What’s more, Bob Bullard notes another frightful aspect of the USA PATRIOT Act: Terrorism-related cases are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. This means that there is little or no oversight. There is no surer hallmark of a police state than an all-powerful domestic surveillance agency with no transparency or oversight. While the USA PATRIOT Act might not create an American Stasi as such, it certainly paves the way for one.

It depends on the meaning of the word “need.”  You don’t need it.  I don’t need it.  The writer doesn’t need it.  But the political elites need it if they’re going to feed their insatiable hunger for omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence.

It’s not about terror or terrorists, and it never was.  And recall who championed all of this.  George W. Bush, a republican.

Via David Codrea, this awful decision by the supreme court.

The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to review the case of Caleigh Wood, a Christian eleventh-grade public high school student in Maryland who, despite threats of receiving a failing grade, refused to deny her faith by making a written profession of the Muslim conversion prayer known as the Shahada—“Thereis no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”

[ … ]

The legal question at stake was whether La Plata High School violated the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Speech Clauses when it gave Caleigh Wood an assignment she was unable to complete without violating her religious conscience as a Christian.

She believes it is a sin to profess the existence of any other god but the Christian God. She stood firm in her Christian beliefs and was punished for it. School officials refused her father’s request that she be allowed to opt-out or be given an alternative assignment.  She refused to complete her anti-Christian assignment and consequently received a failing grade.

Thompson added: “Many public schools have become hot beds of Islamic propaganda. Teaching Islam in schools has gone far beyond a basic history lesson. Prompted by zealous Islamic activism and emboldened by confusing court decisions, schools are now bending over backwards to promote Islam while at the same time denigrating Christianity.”

“Although the Supreme Court passed up an opportunity to provide clearer constitutional guidance on this important issue, there will be other chances as this issue isn’t going away anytime soon,” he said.

Don’t count on it.  They had the chance this time and declined.  My guess is that it would be Roberts who caused the problem, but one never knows.

If you send your child to a public school, you’re sending them to a communist indoctrination camp.  Or Islamist study center.  Or a place where they will be told that it’s okay not to know whether you’re a boy or a girl.

Is any of that okay with you?

Via Dave Hardy, this interesting paper made good reading.  Here are a few excerpts.

Does the English right matter to Americans? It is key to our right because every colonial charter promised settlers to the New World that they and their descendants would have all the rights of Englishmen as if born and abiding in England. It was these rights the Revolutionary War was fought to preserve. After 1689 these rights included the rights incorporated in the English Bill of Rights. The dangers of life in the American wilderness made the English practice of an armed citizenry essential. In many colonies all householders were ordered to be armed.  A 1625 law of Plymouth colony, for example, stipulated that “in regard of our dispersion so far asunder and the inconvenience that may befall, it is further ordered that every freeman or other inhabitant of this colony provide for himself and each under him able to beare armes a sufficient musket and other serviceable peece for war . . . with what speede may be.  A similar 1640 Virginia statute required “all masters of families” to furnish themselves and “all those of their families which shall be capable of arms (excepting negroes) with arms both offensive and defensive.” Some colonial laws actually required residents to carry their guns. A Newport law of 1639 provided that “noe man shall go two miles from the Towne unarmed, eyther with Gunn or Sword; and that none shall come to any public Meeting without his weapon.  Virginia laws required “that no man go or send abroad without a sufficient partie well armed,” and “that men go not to worke in the ground without their arms (and a centinell upon them).” They further specified that “all men that are fittinge to beare armes, shall bring their pieces to the church upon payne of every offence, if the mayster allow not thereof to pay 2lb of tobacco.

These early laws were needed in a dangerous new land but Connecticut’s revised militia act, a century later, still ordered all citizens, both “listed” soldiers of the militia and every other householder, to “always be provided with and have in continual readiness, a well-fixed firelock . . . or other good fire-arms . . . a good sword, or cutlass. . . one pound of good powder, four pounds of bullets fit for his gun, and twelve flints.  In 1770, five years before the American Revolution Georgia felt it necessary “for the better security of the inhabitants” to require every white male resident “to carry firearms to places of public worship,” to defend themselves “from internal dangers and insurrections.”  Whether the threat came from slaves, foreigners or native Americans the means of defense was an armed citizenry. There was never a ban on taking a gun outside, on the contrary in many instances it was mandatory. Ordinary precautions that limited storage of gunpowder, shooting guns in crowded areas or carrying a weapon to terrify others were put in place, but the emphasis was on the duty to be armed and a freer use of private firearms than existed in England.

As we’ve discussed before.  But in this day and age, the statists know better, because they are out betters.  We need their protection and wisdom.

This has happened to me more times than I care to count (or tell you about).  It’s frustrating too.  You’d think I’d learn after a while.

News from Maine.

Leaders of the Maine Legislature voted against allowing seven different gun-related bills to be introduced in the next legislative session.

The bills, sponsored by number of different lawmakers, would have included improving public school security and creating a new child endangerment crime for those who fail to lock up stored firearms.

Gun-control advocates were critical of leadership’s votes, some of which broke along party lines.

[ … ]

The Legislature’s 10-member Legislative Council reviewed 399 proposed bills on Wednesday and voted to exclude all but 133 of them – including the gun-related measures – from the session that begins in January. The council, which comprises the minority and majority leadership in both House and Senate, as well as the speaker of the House and the Senate president, includes six Democrats and four Republicans.

[ … ]

A bill that would have banned the distribution of assault weapons without proper authority was defeated on a 4-6 vote while another that would have required all gun owners to buy liability insurance for their weapons was defeated unanimously.

Other bills that were rejected sought to redefine machine guns and ban assault-style weapons outright. Also rejected was a Republican proposal that would allow retired law enforcement officers who are cleared by the federal government to carry concealed firearms on school grounds.

It’s good to see the leftists get the comeuppance from time to time.  But don’t get cocky.  It’s only defeated for now.  The statists never sleep in their designs for total control over your life.

Via this smart post, I saw a researcher at Sandia National Laboratory had been working in the past on smart guns.  In the past he has observed the following concerning smart guns.

There are many items that the models could not demonstrate to the officers. A few of these are the technology’s cost, reliability, and adversarial strengths. Items like these will remain a concern for officers until a fieldable prototype is thoroughly tested.

Yea, I’ll bet.  To this, I’ll say the following as I’ve said before.

Perform a fault tree analysis of smart guns.  Use highly respected guidance like the NRC fault tree handbook.

Assess the reliability of one of my semi-automatic handguns as the first state point, and then add smart gun technology to it, and assess it again.  Compare the state points.  Then do that again with a revolver.  Be honest.  Assign a failure probability of greater than zero (0) to the smart technology, because you know that each additional electronic and mechanical component has a failure probability of greater than zero.

Get a PE to seal the work to demonstrate thorough and independent review.  If you can prove that so-called “smart guns” are as reliable as my guns, I’ll pour ketchup on my hard hat, eat it, and post video for everyone to see.  If you lose, you buy me the gun of my choice.  No one will take the challenge because you will lose that challenge.  I’ll win.  Case closed.  End of discussion.

Care to take the challenge, Mr. Weiss?

Via this piece, I was sent to this piece.

When John Bolton took over for McMaster in April 2018 and began appointing his own defense and foreign policy team, Mattis stopped receiving transcripts of Trump’s calls with foreign leaders, the kinds of sensitive conversations that are now at the center of the House’s impeachment inquiry.

Mattis’ patience began to wear especially thin in the spring of 2018 when Trump failed to consult with him on a host of big policy moves, from ordering the creation of a military Space Force to deploying troops to the U.S.-Mexican border, Snodgrass writes.

The surprise presidential decisions had grown for months, after beginning in earnest with a tweet from Trump in the summer of 2017 banning transgender troops from the military.

“Trump’s tweets created chaos in the Pentagon,” writes Snodgrass, who was detailed to work for Mattis early in his tenure. The damage from the transgender pronouncement “was a terrific example of how an ill-informed, and ill-considered, tweet from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue could result in a strategic defeat.”

[ … ]

Mattis also chafed at the president’s push for the Pentagon to deploy active-duty troops to the border to help stem the flow of illegal immigrants, a move the secretary considered an abuse of the military. “Mattis was now caught in his own graveyard spiral, expressing public support for a policy he didn’t agree with, bending his personal and professional beliefs to support the president,” the book says.

What in the name of all that is decent and sensible would make someone think it’s appropriate to consult a general for policy decisions or to care what the military thought of presidential orders?  Does the civilian not still command the military in this country?

Why on earth would Mattis expect to receive transcripts of the president’s phone calls with foreign leaders?  What world do I live in?

So did Mattis support transgender troops being in the military?  This book makes it sound like he did.

Finally, the one, single, solitary duty of the armed forces under the constitution is to prevent and respond to invasion.  And Mattis apparently rejected that mission in favor of foreign entanglements.  Good Lord.

And good riddance.