Archive for the 'Politics' Category

Source.

Chinese entities have been acquiring land in key locations near U.S. military bases, sparking national security concerns about possible spying — or even a potential attack.

Former national security official David Feith laid out the potential risk in an interview with 60 Minutes. Feith worked on U.S.-China policy for the State Department in the first Trump administration, and until April, worked in Trump’s second administration on the National Security Council. While there, he grew increasingly alarmed by where China owns America’s farmland.

“The ability to own large tracts of land, especially close to sensitive U.S. military and government facilities, can pose an enormous problem given the nature of technology today, which is that hostile actor from all across the world can very easily exploit access to land, access to buildings and warehouses, access just to a shipping container or two and do enormous damage, either in intelligence terms or in military terms,” Feith told 60 Minutes.

Only a society that is sick unto death and desires its own destruction would give away the farm to its declared enemy.

That’s American politicians and bureaucrats for you. Sick unto death, desiring the destruction of America.

There are a whole lot of unanswered questions. The reason for this is obvious: something foul is afoot. I don’t claim to know who took the shot, or from what angle, or with what caliber weapon, or for what reason.

But here are the things I know with an extremely high degree of certainty. Charlie Kirk was not shot with a 30-06 rifle. His head would have been decapitated from his body if he had been. If you follow my X account you would know I have said this from the beginning. My belief hasn’t changed. The deer you’re getting ready to shoot this fall wouldn’t survive your high powered rifle shots (30-06, 300 Win Mag, 7mm Rem Mag, 7mm PRC) if they were wearing AR500 armor plates.

Here is something else I know with a high degree of certainty. That kid whom they blamed didn’t take down a rifle, stow parts of it in a backpack (that by the way wouldn’t be able to fully enclose the parts anyway), reconfigure it on any building, change his clothes, take a shot, disassemble the rifle again and stow it in a backpack, and drop in anywhere.

Here is something I know with probable certainty (by that I mean more probable than not). That kid they’re blaming didn’t take the kill shot. He may have played a role in some part of the events of that day, up to and including being a scapegoat or patsy, but he didn’t kill Charlie Kirk. I also know with probably certainty that there is no medium in the body in the vicinity in which he was shot that would cause a deflection away from a close exit.

Someone else did. I have absolutely no confidence whatsoever that we will ever know the truth. But if I were on a jury, with the current narrative (the kid shot Charlie with a 30-06 round and the bullet didn’t leave the body, i.e., there was no exit wound, rather, the bullet stopped just under his skin), I would never convict him. It’s sinful to convict men of crimes because you don’t like them.

This is the single best takedown of anything I have ever heard.

This via David Codrea.

It really does boggle the imagination how the senate and house can be so stolid, unresponsive, stupid, and lazy. They should have removed suppressors from the NFA long ago.

As for that matter, where is OSHA in all of this? Suppressors are about hearing protection. Given the popularity of hunting and the shooting sports, as well as the former military members who have come home with damaged hearing, you’d think if they cared anything about their profession or the people they’re supposed to serve and protect, they would have already been screaming to congress. As for that matter, the ATF should have already been in front of congress pleading to remove suppressors from the NFA.

Only if they cared …

Two amicus briefs came in today on Sanchez v. Bonta, our case challenging California's total ban on suppressors. The first is from National Association for Gun Rights, and the second is from a group of amici including Silencer Shop, Palmetto State Armory, and others. We… pic.twitter.com/kFU44oYqHt

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) April 4, 2025

Fractional reserve banking also happens when a bank loans money to another bank, and that bank loans it out in smaller chunks, and so on, until a given amount of money is loaned out so many times that it can’t be covered if it defaults. More money has been loaned out than exists in the bank, or the collective banks who have loaned it. To be specific, 10% is cash reserve, or it used to be.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

James Wesley Rawles at Survival Blog has a very good discussion on fractional reserve banking and how it came to America. It’s worth you time to read it.

Source.

In the first decision of its kind in Nevada, a judge ruled last week that state law enforcement can’t evade stricter requirements for seizing cash and property by partnering with the federal government.

The plaintiff in that lawsuit, a Marine veteran named Stephen Lara, had nearly $90,000 in cash seized from him in 2021 by two Nevada Highway Patrol officers. The cops admitted to Lara that there was nothing illegal about carrying large amounts of cash. But they decided that Lara’s money was likely drug proceeds, and they coordinated with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to forfeit it through a process called civil asset forfeiture.

The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, sued the NHP and DEA on Lara’s behalf in 2021, arguing not only that should Lara get his money back—the DEA agreed to return it shortly after the suit was filed—but that the NHP exceeded its legal authority to hand the case over to the feds rather than following Nevada’s stricter asset forfeiture laws.

This was the first time Nevada courts had considered police participation in the Justice Department’s Equitable Sharing Program, in which federal law enforcement “adopts” civil forfeiture cases from local police. The local department gets up to 80 percent of the forfeiture proceeds, and the rest goes into a Justice Department pool that is doled out to other participating departments around the country.

Nevada Second Judicial District Judge Connie J. Steinheimer held that forfeiture laws are required to be strictly interpreted, and that there was no way to do that while allowing the NHP to unilaterally undercut them.

“Without a clear dictate from the Nevada Legislature,” she wrote, “NHP cannot undermine this bedrock policy and effectively circumvent Nevada’s civil asset forfeiture statutes by electing to participate in the federal equitable sharing program.”

Steinheimer ruled that just because the federal government has the authority to adopt forfeiture cases doesn’t mean state police have the authority to accept the offer.

In a press release, Ben Field, an Institute for Justice attorney, called the ruling “a big step toward ending the abuse of civil forfeiture nationwide.”

Civil asset forfeiture laws are unconstitutional on their face, whether federal or state statutes. It’s highway robbery, and if I was the judge I would have put the cops who did this in prison, as well as any FedGov agents who participated in this obscene sin.

Furthermore, the biblical penalty for theft is to work in servitude to the offended party to pay the debt back three-fold. That would have been on my menu of penalties.

Then again, I’m not a judge and never will be believing things like this. The government doesn’t want justice. It wants control and money.

Source.

Former FBI officials have warned that Donald Trump’s nominee to be the next FBI director, Kash Patel, could have limitless power at the bureau as they confront the likelihood that he will be confirmed next year after locking down support from key Republicans and the current director’s intention to resign.

The alarm has come as Patel, who has called for shutting down FBI headquarters and drafted what critics call an ‘enemies list’ of Patel’s opponents, appears set to have his nomination supported unanimously by Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee.

The problem with Patel leading the FBI in the second Trump administration is that typical checks on the power of the FBI director would almost certainly be gone, according to former FBI assistant director Frank Figliuzzi and other former officials familiar with the matter.

Patel is almost certain to install his own chief of staff and a new FBI general counsel to sign off on any campaign of retribution, while Pam Bondi, the Trump pick for attorney general, has previously echoed Patel’s aims to make the agency subservient to the White House.

“I don’t think people truly realize how powerful an FBI director can be, unrestrained,” Figliuzzi recently said on the Highly Conflicted podcast. “You want to open a case and call it a threat assessment or a preliminary investigation, you can do it.

“If the FBI director wants to get a press conference together, not tell the DoJ, and make pronouncements to the public about a case opening or a case closing or someone should be prosecuted, they can do it.

“And then going through files? I imagine on the first day in office, he’s going to say, ‘I need every file that has the word Trump in it,’” Figliuzzi said. “That should be a real concern, that Kash Patel is going through informant files and saying, ‘Look at that, this guy coughed it up on Trump.’”

These people are a piece of work, yes?

Logic isn’t the hobgoblin of small minds. It’s the stuff of life.

In this case, it occurs to most normal people who have to live life by the rules of logic – or die, or go to prison – that if any of this is true, then the previous administration and FBI officials were equally culpable to running the organization in such a way as they just described.

In my case, I hope that’s a very short list of the things he does, including declassify most of what he finds regarding a multitude of things. There is no better disinfectant than light. That’s what the FBI and former officials fear most.

I speculated that it was Pam Bondi. I was right.

Source.

A connected source tells The Dossier that Chronister was vouched for through Pam Bondi, who will be overseeing the DEA and has a long working relationship with the Sheriff. Bondi, a longtime Florida politician and lobbyist, and later, a Trump world staple, is the latest Attorney General nominee following Matt Gaetz’s unilateral withdrawal from consideration.

Dumb bimbo.

Source.

Hillsborough County Sheriff Chad Chronister has withdrawn his nomination from President-elect Donald Trump to lead the Drug Enforcement Agency, the sheriff announced on social media Tuesday evening.

He doesn’t say why. But good. As I said, he’s a punk.

Here’s more.

I am from Tampa Bay, Florida. I have followed Chad Chronister’s career and people are asking me why he is a bad pick to be head of DEA. Conservatives here do not support Chronister. Chronister is a woke and weak Democrat plant and will backstab President Trump. He cannot be… pic.twitter.com/AfGxiFXvIc

— Spence Rogers (@SpenceRogers) December 1, 2024

Support for BLM, belief in red flag laws, arresting a pastor for preaching during the Covid lockdown, and on and on the bad list goes. Read the whole post.

Now – on to who recommended this punk to be head of DEA. I suspect Pam Bondi (they are after all both Floridians). Pam, did you do this? Is this your handiwork? Inquiring minds want to know.

The clear-headed Stephen Stamboulieh assesses the potential fallout of the pardon of Hunter Biden.

While “The Big Guy” had done his deed with his son, I still think there’s more to this story than we’ve seen or has even been written about.

If the Hunter Biden cases continued, all sorts of things could have come out at trial, including collusion with the power brokers in Ukraine between both Bidens.

This is an attempt to keep this all under wraps, so the pardon not only protects his son, but him as well (at least insofar as obvious and public disclosure under the rules of the court).

Discovery is a bitch.