More Bodies From Eric Holder


More Bodies From Eric Holder? Phoenix Gun Tied To Paris Terror Attacks


Judicial Watch has confirmed that one of the AK-pattern rifles used in the November 2015 Islamic terror attacks in Paris that killed 130 people and wounded 368 came from Phoenix, home of Eric Holder’s weapon smuggling plot known as Operation Fast and Furious.

One of the guns used in the November 13, 2015 Paris terrorist attacks came from Phoenix, Arizona where the Obama administration allowed criminals to buy thousands of weapons illegally in a deadly and futile “gun-walking” operation known as “Fast and Furious.”

A Report of Investigation (ROI) filed by a case agent in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) tracked the gun used in the Paris attacks to a Phoenix gun owner who sold it illegally, “off book,” Judicial Watch’s law enforcement sources confirm. Federal agents tracing the firearm also found the Phoenix gun owner to be in possession of an unregistered fully automatic weapon, according to law enforcement officials with firsthand knowledge of the investigation.

The investigative follow up of the Paris weapon consisted of tracking a paper trail using a 4473 form, which documents a gun’s ownership history by, among other things, using serial numbers. The Phoenix gun owner that the weapon was traced back to was found to have at least two federal firearms violations—for selling one weapon illegally and possessing an unregistered automatic—but no enforcement or prosecutorial action was taken against the individual. Instead, ATF leaders went out of their way to keep the information under the radar and ensure that the gun owner’s identity was “kept quiet,” according to law enforcement sources involved with the case. “Agents were told, in the process of taking the fully auto, not to anger the seller to prevent him from going public,” a veteran law enforcement official told Judicial Watch.

Reading between the lines, it would be reasonable to conclude that the most likely reason that the ATF would cover up federal gun felonies was that the individual involved had damaging information regarding Operation Fast and Furious, a gun smuggling plot of the Obama administration that attempted to inflate the number of American firearms recovered in Mexican drug cartel shootouts in order to build a case for banning the sale of semi-automatic rifles, certain semi-automatic pistols, and .50 BMG rifles in the United States.

What is still a mystery is how and why a French Islamic terrorist wound up with an American firearm.

More than 300 people, including American and Mexican law enforcement officers, were murdered with firearms smuggled over the border to the Sinaloa drug cartel by the Obama Administration. Now we’re discovering that an individual with knowledge of (and possibly direct participation in) Operation Fast and Furious might have supplied at least one of the guns that terrorists used in Paris.

The French equivalent of the CIA, the Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure, or DGSE, has been known to play rough. I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if the disgraced former Attorney General—the only one held in criminal contempt of Congress in American history—has an untimely “accident” in the near future.

Read More

More Bad News at America’s Southern Border


Flash back three years ago, and remember when the secretary of Homeland Security declared “the border has never been stronger.” Well, if what is going on at America’s border with Mexico is a success, Americans should shudder to think what failure looks like.

If what is going on at America’s border with Mexico is a success, Americans should shudder to think what the failure looks like.

Unaccompanied children crossing the border is up over 70 percent this year. Other categories and overall numbers are on the rise as well, reflecting significant increases since 2014. And it is not just the numbers that are troubling to Americans. They are worried about national security threats on the Southern border.

Read More

When They Come

When ‘They’ Come


Laura Hollis

By Laura Hollis

Published June 23, 2016


The Closing of the American Mouth

In the aftermath of the Orlando shootings, a man named Buckley Jeppson posted on Facebook about his experience visiting a Portland, Oregon, gun store to ask why people purchase AR-15 rifles. The salespeople offered several answers — target practice, hunting — none of which convinced Jeppson, who politely concluded that the sale of these guns was “about the money.”

As he left, however, Jeppson was approached by another store patron. This man told Jeppson that the guns are for people “to protect themselves when ‘they’ come.” Jeppson parried with him: Who is “they”? Zombies? Yeah, he was told — “and all the others who might try to steal your food after an earthquake or take your guns or imprison your family members.”

In the rest of his post, Jeppson scoffed at the absurdity of such a belief, deriding it as “paranoid.” Many commenters agreed.

This is a big difference between progressives and conservatives. Progressivism at its core is the belief that the correct government policies will bring utopia. Guns for self-defense aren’t necessary; we just need laws banning guns and all will be peaceful and well.

This ignores both human nature and history.

In fact, never mind history; progressives ignore things happening now .

Take Venezuela. As with every other country that has gone down the road of command-and-control economics, Venezuela has collapsed. It has collapsed because human beings aren’t God; things happened that the central planners didn’t plan for. And now there’s nothing: No food. No medicines. No electricity. No health care. No toilet paper. No wealth to redistribute. (Except for the wealth of the planners themselves, of course — deceased Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez’ daughter Maria is “Venezuela’s richest woman.”)

What Venezuela does have is riots in the streets. Because when socialists succeed in making everyone dependent upon the government, and the government fails, then there are few other options.

But civil unrest is not unique to Venezuela. So it seems prudent to ask: Could something equally catastrophic happen in the United States?

What about the loss of electricity for long periods of time? An electromagnetic pulse caused by a solar storm or “dirty” nuclear bomb could shut down parts of the electrical grid, as could other types of terrorist attacks. Gas pumps require electricity to operate; without it, transportation would come to a standstill. Most communications would cease. Banks and ATMs couldn’t function. Lacking refrigeration, perishables like food and medicine would not last.

This isn’t science fiction. ISIS threatens such attacks regularly. And there have already been attempts. A planned sniper attack on a California power station three years ago took out 17 huge transformers serving Silicon Valley that took nearly a month to repair. The event received very little news coverage. But Jon Wellinghoff, former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, called it “the most significant incident of domestic terrorism involving the (power) grid that has ever occurred.”

Surely the government is taking steps to prevent such an incident, right?

Wrong. Experts who have written on the issue and testified before Congress warn that the government, mired in “bureaucratic dysfunction” and “ambiguity about who owns the problem,” has done virtually nothing to protect our electrical systems.

Would a successful attack on our country’s power supply be a crisis serious enough to cause widespread panic? Could there be mobs?

Well, let’s see. Three weeks ago, we saw a mob of hundreds of people in San Jose, California, protesting Donald Trump’s speech. They screamed obscenities at Trump supporters, threw eggs and bottles at them, chased them, knocked them down and kicked them in the ribs, ripped off their clothes, beat them with bags of rocks, punched them in the face, broke bones, and sprayed pepper spray in the faces of their children.

Does anyone seriously think people who can become incensed enough about a speech to turn violent, won’t turn violent if the ATMs shut down? If the grocery stores go empty? If there’s no way to get food, water, or gasoline?

And why wouldn’t conservatives, Christians and/or Republicans be among the top targets for those mobs? When the Trump protesters turned violent in San Jose, mayor Sam Liccardo blamed Trump. Less than two weeks later, a lunatic who was a Muslim, a registered Democrat and allegedly a Hillary supporter and ISIS devotee, walked into a gay bar and murdered 49 people — and leftists all across the United States tried to blame the event on conservatives.

This is nothing more than the natural extension of left-wing propaganda tactics. For years, liberals and progressives have blamed conservatives for the disastrous consequences of liberal policies; they have denounced conservatives as racists, sexists and bigots. They accuse conservatives of being anti-immigrant — when what most want is legal immigration, prudent screening for threats and enforcement of current laws.

These accusations have been repeated for so long that large swaths of the American population believe them without question. San Jose demonstrates just how reckless and dangerous that is.

If something catastrophic happened in the United States, most of us would pull together as we always do when disaster strikes. But history, human nature, and the left’s inflammatory rhetoric almost ensure that there will be mobs of people with violent intentions.

That is the “they” that the Portland gun shop patron was talking to Buckley Jeppson about.

If we never face any such crisis, we will all be relieved. But many of us intend to be prepared. So, no — we won’t give up our weapons of self-defense, because have seen too much. We won’t be swayed by deceitful politicians or irate ideologues. We won’t be deprived of our constitutional rights.

And we won’t be sitting ducks.

Comment by clicking here.

Laura Hirschfeld Hollis is on the faculty at the University of Notre Dame, where she teaches courses in business law and entrepreneurship. She has received numerous awards for her teaching, research, community service and contributions to entrepreneurship education.



Federal Court Upholds Regulations That Threaten Open Internet

From the Daily Dignal

Federal Court Upholds Regulations That Threaten Open Internet

Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Michael O’Rielly speaks at a FCC Net Neutrality hearing in Washington on Feb. 26, 2015. (Photo: Yuri Gripas/Reuters/Newscom)

Sixteen months after the Federal Communications Commission imposed heavy new regulations on broadband services, a federal appeals court—by a 2-1 vote—upheld the new rules.

The decision was a loss not just for providers of internet access, but for the consumers who—up until now—have benefited from the innovation and growth that has stemmed from the internet’s open marketplace.

At issue was the February 2015 decision by the FCC to reclassify internet service providers such as Verizon and Comcast as public utilities, opening up broadband services to detailed and comprehensive regulation of the sort imposed on 19th century railroads and early 20th century monopoly telephone companies. At the same time, the FCC slapped broad new “net neutrality” restrictions on these broadband providers.

These rules in effect ban the providers from treating any of the bits of content delivered over their networks any differently than other bits of content on their networks. Thus, for instance, providers would be banned from offering “paid prioritization,” meaning they could not offer premium service to internet content firms for a fee.

Supporters of this ban say such “neutrality” protects smaller firms from their rivals. But in practice, it will do the opposite: limiting the ability of challengers to differentiate their service from others. Rather than a threat to the marketplace, premium pricing (and discount pricing) are important elements of a well-functioning market.

Even worse, the FCC rules also included a catch-all “general conduct standard.” This standard, even vaguer than the neutrality rules themselves, bans “unreasonable interference” with consumers’ and content providers’ ability to send or receive content. What is unreasonable is undefined, left for the FCC to define later, and for broadband providers to guess for now.

The rules were immediately challenged on a dizzying number of grounds, ranging from the FCC’ failure to give the public notice of what it intended (the rules were changed at the last minute at the behest of President Barack Obama), to a failure to assess the impact of the rules, to unconstitutional limits on the free speech rights of internet providers.

In a 115-page opinion, the court brushed aside all of these arguments, upholding the FCC’ decision on all points. In so doing, it also brushed aside the arguments—and data—of dissenting Judge Stephen Williams.

The decision was a loss for broadband service providers in the same sense that Little Big Horn was a loss for General Custer. But more importantly, the decision is a loss for American consumers, who will see fewer innovative services and less investment in networks as a result of this decision.

And this is not the end: Regulation advocates have already moved to expand the reach of the new rules, launching an effort to ban popular “zero-rating” plans, such as T-Mobile’s “Binge on” service, under which consumers can stream selected online services without making a dent in their data plans. Consumers like that—but neutrality advocates say it fails to treat everyone the same, as required under the rules upheld today.

The courts may not be finished with this long-running fight just yet: today’s decision could still be reviewed by the Supreme Court. But the real action will likely move on to Congress. Leaders in both the House and Senate have so far tried to craft a compromise solution on the issue, introducing legislation to strip the FCC of its power to reclassify broadband providers as public utilities, while also enshrining certain neutrality rules into law, including paid prioritization.

A stronger response is needed. Congress should step forward and overturn the FCC decision in its entirety.

The strength of the internet is based on a simple truth: less government intervention and regulation results in innovation and a vibrant exchange of ideas. That has been shown time and again in recent years. But the rules upheld today threaten that success. For the FCC, this is the 1930s all over again—when telephones looked like black candlesticks and comprehensive, innovation-chilling monopoly regulation was the order of the day. It is now Congress’ turn to step in and return the internet—and its users—to the 21st century.

Protesters Agitators Needed $15/hour To Riot At Trump Rally

It’s unclear which one of the Dems running for President is paying for the violent rioters, but this was posted on Craigslist on Friday telling people they will be paid $15 per hour to protesting at a Trump rally:

To Whom It May Concern: We will pay $15.00 an hour plus travel (including room and board), clothing, flags, signs, etc. for individuals willing to disrupt Trump rallies throughout the US. If interested please leave your name and a contact number. Thank you

Education Commentary Obama Administration Looks to Cement Ethnic Divides With Language Mandate

The Obama administration seems to live in a parallel reality, oblivious to the racial animus that has become the hallmark of late-stage Obama and to the ethnic strife that wreaks havoc on the rest of the world. Inside its own Platonic cave, the thinking is: Over half the world is polyglot, so why not us?

Its latest policy statement, issued jointly late last week by the departments of Education and Health and Human Services, advises states to instruct early childhood students in home languages different from English, and to help them retain separate cultural attachments.

. . .

The administration disregards a whole field of academic research that finds a high correlation between ethnic stratification and conflict.

One of the papers, by Alberto Alesina and others at Harvard, considered the gold standard study in the field of ethnic fractionalization, finds that countries with high linguistic and ethnic divisions have many societal dysfunctions.

Read More

Polls Are Based On People Who Answer Their Phone – Who Is Answering?


Polls Are Wrong

During primary season, when they were still mainly just spectators to the 2016 presidential race, Dan Wagner and David Shor had a routine they liked to observe on election nights. The two men—the CEO and senior data scientist, respectively, of a startup called Civis Analytics—would stay late at work, drinking bourbon and watching returns come in. Their office, a repurposed industrial space in Chicago’s West Loop, would rattle every time the L train rumbled by.

As much as Wagner and Shor were following the political horse race itself, they were also watching to see how the race’s oddsmakers were doing. The US polling industry has been suffering a crisis of insight over the past decade or so; its methods have become increasingly bad at telling which way America is leaning. Like nearly everyone who works in politics, Wagner and Shor knew the polling establishment was liable to embarrass itself this year. It wasn’t a question of if, but when—and how badly.
Read More