Space Force CO Who Got Holiday Call from Trump Fired Over Comments Decrying Marxism in the Military

Lt Col. Matthew Lohmeier
FILE — In this July 22, 2015 file photo, Capt. Matthew Lohmeier, 460th Operations Group Block 10 chief of training, stands in the Standardized Space Trainer on Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado. (Darren Scott/U.S. Air Force)

15 May | By  Oriana Pawlyk

A commander of a U.S. Space Force unit tasked with detecting ballistic missile launches has been fired for comments made during a podcast promoting his new book, which claims Marxist ideologies are becoming prevalent in the United States military.

Lt Col. Matthew Lohmeier, commander of 11th Space Warning Squadron at Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado, was relieved from his post Friday by Lt. Gen. Stephen Whiting, the head of Space Operations Command, over a loss of confidence in his ability to lead, has exclusively learned.Advertisement

“This decision was based on public comments made by Lt. Col. Lohmeier in a recent podcast,” a Space Force spokesperson said in an email. “Lt. Gen. Whiting has initiated a Command Directed Investigation on whether these comments constituted prohibited partisan political activity.”

Lohmeier’s temporary assignment in the wake of his removal was not immediately clear.

Earlier this month, Lohmeier, a former instructor and fighter pilot who transferred into the Space Force, self-published a book titled “Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military.”

“Irresistible Revolution is a timely and bold contribution from an active-duty Space Force lieutenant colonel who sees the impact of a neo-Marxist agenda at the ground level within our armed forces,” a description of the book reads.

Lohmeier sat down last week with L. Todd Wood of the podcast “Information Operation,” hosted by Creative Destruction, or CD, Media, to promote the book. He spoke about U.S. institutions, including universities, media and federal agencies including the military, that he said are increasingly adopting leftist practices. These practices — such as diversity and inclusion training — are the systemic cause for the divisive climate across America today, he said.

From his perspective as a commander, Lohmeier said he didn’t seek to criticize any particular senior leader or publicly identify troops within the book. Rather, he said, he focused on the policies service members now have to adhere to to align with certain agendas “that are now affecting our culture.”

Regarding Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, he said, “I don’t demonize the man, but I want to make it clear to both him and every service member this [diversity and inclusion] agenda, it will divide us, it will not unify us.”

Austin on Feb. 5 ordered all military services to observe one-day stand-down on extremism in the ranks. As part of his stand-down, Lohmeier said, he was given a booklet that cited the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol as an example of extremism, but did not mention the civil disobedience and destruction of property that took place following the death of George Flloyd, a Black man, at the hands of a white police officer in Minneapolis last May.

He also took issue with “the Pentagon spokesperson,” seeming to allude to Press Secretary John Kirby. Lohmeier claimed Kirby said “there are too many white pilots,” amid an ever-increasing pilot shortage.

“If you want to provide that kind of messaging to your already struggling pilot force, you can already expect to see further retention problems,” he said.

In a statement Friday, Kirby denied ever saying such a thing about a surplus of white pilots, and pointed to Austin’s comments made last week during his first press conference about the importance of increased diversity programs.

“This department has an open door to any qualified American who wants to serve,” the defense secretary said May 6. “Diversity throughout the force is a source of strength. We can’t afford to deprive ourselves of the talents and the voices of the full range of a nation that we defend.”

Lohmeier told he had consulted with his chain of command, public affairs and legal counsel about his plans to publish a book and its contents.

“I was apprised of the option to have my book reviewed at the Pentagon’s prepublication and security review prior to release, but was also informed that it was not required,” Lohmeier said in an email.

“My intent never has been to engage in partisan politics. I have written a book about a particular political ideology (Marxism) in the hope that our Defense Department might return to being politically non-partisan in the future as it has honorably done throughout history,” he said.

The book is available on Amazon, on Lohmeier’s website and Barnes & Noble.

The book ranked No. 2 under Amazon’s “Military Policy” section this week.

Promoting His Book While on Active-Duty

Prior to transferring into space operations, specifically space-based missile warning, Lohmeier spent over 14 years in the Air Force. His Air Force career included instructor pilot training on the T-38 Talon jet and time flying the F-15CEagle, according to biographical information listed on his book cover. He graduated from the Air Force Academy in 2006.

He moved into the Space Force in October 2020. The following month, then-President Donald Trump called Lohmeier and other members of the Space Force for the branch’s first Thanksgiving holiday.

Lohmeier told Wood, the podcast host, that the beginning chapters of his book explore the history and foundation of the United States and how critical race theory — a study of how race and racism impact or are impacted by social and economic power structures and institutions — plays a role.

“The diversity, inclusion and equity industry and the trainings we are receiving in the military … is rooted in critical race theory, which is rooted in Marxism,” Lohmeier said, adding it should be seen as a warning sign.

In the segment, Lohmeier said his book is not political, and is meant to alert readers to the increasing politicization of today’s armed forces, some of which he said he’d seen or experienced firsthand.

There are Defense Department policies that spell out all the nuanced do’s and don’ts surrounding politics or political discourse for active-duty service members, said Jim Golby, a senior fellow at Clements Center for National Security at the University of Texas at Austin who specializes in civil-military relations and military strategy.

For a self-published work, policies that may apply include DoD Directive 1344.10 and associated guidelines discussing political activity in uniform. According to the services’ standards, personnel may express their views freely, but they are still expected to uphold their branch’s core values both on and off duty.

“Those are fairly broad and would not prevent publication, but might impose some minor limitations on content,” Golby said Friday. Also, policies associated with a service member’s security clearance or policy-related access, are usually covered by an Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) or a clearance read-in agreement, Golby said.

The Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review, for example, requires all current, former, and retired Defense Department employees, contractors, and military service members — whether active or reserve — who have had access to DoD information, facilities, or who signed an NDA to “submit DoD information intended for public release to the appropriate office for review and clearance.”

DoD information can include “any work that relates to military matters, national security issues, or subjects of significant concern to the Department of Defense in general, to include fictional novels, stories and biographical accounts of operational deployments and wartime experiences,” according to the office.

Subject matters about hobby-like activities, such as cooking, sports, gardening, crafts, artwork, are unlikely to be reviewed pre publication since it is not associated with an author’s work with the Pentagon.

Still, “the line on what is a ‘military matter’ or ‘subject of significant concern’ is not entirely clear, and likely only comes into play if someone is discussing personal experiences in the military and not outside research or personal political opinions,” Golby added. “And again, that is primarily related to sensitive positions where you have access to classified or sensitive information.”

‘We Don’t Have a Voice Anymore’

While a major, Lohmeier attended the Air Command and Staff College, where he published “The Better Mind of Space.” The paper explores the U.S. military’s role in space beyond geosynchronous Earth orbit.

In the “Information Operation” podcast, Lohmeier said his fascination with Marxism began after that, when he was pursuing his second master’s degree in philosophy in military strategy at Air University’s School of Advanced Air and Space Studies.

“All my interactions with senior leaders in the Air Force and in the Space Force have been very positive; they care a great deal about their people [and] the lethality of the force,” Lohmeier said during the 34-minute interview.

However, leaders may be afraid if they don’t get on board with diversity training, they will face scrutiny, “or might not get promoted,” he said, adding that liberal ideas are welcomed whereas ideas from more conservative voices are criticized or silenced.

Lohmeier advised any new service member, from enlisted to officer, to reject critical race theory if they see it being taught in the ranks, because it too is a form of extremism by the definitions outlined in DoD Instruction 1325.06, “Handling Dissident and Protest Activities Among Members of the Armed Forces.”

Golby, an Army veteran, said Lohmeier’s advice to the junior ranks potentially undermines good order and discipline, or DoD policies aimed toward diversity and inclusion. “Or maybe both,” he said.

Lohmeier told Wood he has received many messages of support from active-duty members on the book’s release.

“[They’re saying], ‘Thank you, thank you, thank you for speaking up — because we don’t have a voice anymore,” he said.

— Oriana Pawlyk can be reached at Follow her on Twitter @oriana0214

Science Journals Support Claim that Pfizer Covid Vaccine May Cause Deadly Neurodegenerative Disease

TOPICS:Covid-19Janet PhelanScienceVaccines

MAY 15, 2021

By Janet Phelan

A recent article published in the scientific journal Microbiology and Infectious Diseases makes the claim that the mRNA Pfizer Covid vaccine may contain prions which cause deadly neurodegenerative disease, sometimes called “Creutzfeldt-Jakob” or  “Mad Cow” disease. The article, titled “COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease,” was published in January of 2021 and has been studiously ignored by major media, which has focused its efforts on encouraging individuals to take the jab.

The paper was authored by J. Bart Classen, MD and analyzed the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, stating that:

The RNA sequence of the vaccine as well as the spike protein target interaction were analyzed for the potential to convert intracellular RNA binding proteins TAR DNA binding protein (TDP-43) and Fused in Sarcoma (FUS) into their pathologic prion conformations. The results indicate that the vaccine RNA has specific sequences that may induce TDP-43 and FUS to fold into their pathologic prion confirmations.

The paper goes on to state that “The folding of TDP-43 and FUS into their pathologic prion confirmations is known to cause ALS, front temporal lobar degeneration, Alzheimer’s disease and other neurological degenerative diseases.”

In other words, the Pfizer mRNA vaccine may have the  capability of turning brains to mush.

Far from prompting any pause or calls for re-evaluation of the Pfizer vaccine, the media has largely ignored the paper. A few of the more notorious “fact check” websites have pronounced that the conclusions of this study are false.

According to USA Today, which appears to be possibly the only national mainstream media to have covered this article, “Contrary to Classen’s claim, there is no evidence to suggest the COVID-19 vaccines can cause prion diseases or other neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s.”

USA Today cites as their source for this the fact that the FDA did not mention prion disease as an effect of the vaccine. USA Today also mentions that the CDC’s VAERS website does not mention prion disease as resulting from the Pfizer vaccine. However, as prion disease takes years to develop, it is hardly likely that the VAERS website would contain this information. The article goes on to trash the journal in which the article appeared, quoting a Dr. Angela Rassmussen with Georgetown University as stating that it is “not a reputable or reliable journal.”

The article charges that “Microbiology & Infectious Diseases is an open-access journal published by SciVision Publishers, a potential predatory publisher intended for profit rather than academic peer-review.” In fact, SciVision Publishers makes its content freely available without charge, while charging the authors a publication fee.

There are other statements intending to “slur the messenger” by the fact check sites. PolitiFact stated that Classen speculates on his website that the coronavirus pandemic “is actually a bioweapon attack and may be linked to the U.S. anthrax attack of 2001.”

PolitiFact states that “He also included that claim — which PolitiFact has repeatedly debunked — in the body of his research article.”

PolitiFact has gotten this wrong. Way, way wrong. There is a clear nexus with the attacks of September 11 and a bioweapons agenda. This nexus manifested itself in a number of ways. For one, the infamous Patriot Act, passed in the wake of 9/11, contains a little discussed section, enumerated as 817, The Expansion of the Biological Weapons Statute, which gives the US government immunity from violating its own bioweapons laws. This nexus between the events of September 2001 and a bioweapons agenda is discussed extensively in my upcoming book At the Breaking Point of History: How Decades of US Duplicity Enabled the Pandemic.

Apart from the propagandistic slur above, PolitiFact also charges that Classen provides no evidence of a relationship between the Pfizer vaccine and prion disease, stating “All he includes is a three-sentence methods section summarizing an unspecified analysis of the coronavirus vaccine.”

However, in an article in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research, authors Dr. Stephanie Seneff (MIT) and Dr.  Greg Nigh discuss a variety of problems presented by the mRNA vaccines.  Their peer reviewed article, which is titled “Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against Covid-19” also supports Dr. Classen’s concerns, stating that “When considering that the SARS CoV2 spike protein is a transmembrane protein, and that it contains five GxxxG motifs in its sequence (see, it becomes extremely plausible that it could behave as a prion.”

The authors go on to note “…that the mRNA vaccines are designed with an altered sequence that replaces two adjacent amino acids in the fusion domain with a pair of prolines. This is done intentionally in order to force the protein to remain in its open state and make it harder for  it to fuse  with the membrane. This seems to us like a dangerous step towards misfolding potentially leading to prion disease.”

The article also addresses concerns about vaccine “shedding,” and provides scientific validation for concerns that vaccinated can potentially infect unvaccinated with prion disease. The article states that “There has been considerable chatter on the Internet about the possibility of vaccinated people  causing disease in unvaccinated people in close proximity. While this may seem hard to believe, there is a plausible process by which it could occur through the release of exosomes from dendritic cells in the spleen containing misfolded spike proteins, in complex with other prion reconformed proteins.”

In pursuit of obtaining informed scientific responses to Dr. Classen’s article, this reporter contacted numerous scientists working in neurology and specifically researching prions, including several cited by Classen in the footnotes to his article. No input whatsoever was received from Dr. Aaron Gitler, Dr. Oliver King, Dr. Katannya Kapeli or others contacted for their response. The FDA was also contacted for comment and did not reply.

A recent article revealed that a neurodegenerative  disease resembling “Mad Cow” disease seems to have popped up in New Brunswick, Canada, and states that “In a March 5 memo to organizations representing New Brunswick’s doctors, nurses and pharmacists, deputy chief medical officer of health Dr. Cristin Muecke said her office is investigating a cluster of cases of “a progressive neurological syndrome of unknown etiology,” or origin. The cases have “many similarities to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease,” she said, but testing has so far ruled out known prion diseases.”

Janet Phelan has been on the trail of the biological weapons agenda since the new millennium. Her book on the pandemic, At the Breaking Point of History: How Decades of US Duplicity Enabled the Pandemic, will be published in 2021 by Trine Day. Her articles on this issue have appeared in Activist Post, New Eastern Outlook, Infowars and elsewhere. Educated at Grinnell College, UC Berkeley and the University of Missouri Graduate School of Journalism, Janet “jumped ship” and since 2004 has been writing exclusively for independent media. Her articles previously appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Oui Magazine, Orange Coast Magazine, the Long Beach Press Telegram, the Santa Monica Daily Press and other publications. She is the author of the groundbreaking expose, EXILE and two books of poetry. She resides abroad. You may follow Janet on Parler here @JanetPhelan. To support her work, please go to JanetPhelan

Biden Plans Expansion Of Feds’ Army Of Snitches In “Dollars For Collars” Program


THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2021 – 06:50 PM

Authored by James Bovard via,

How the administration plans on expanding its already massive surveillance apparatus…

 The Biden administration may soon recruit an army of private snoops to conduct surveillance that would be illegal if done by federal agents.As part of its war on extremism, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may exploit a “legal work-around” to spy on and potentially entrap Americans who are “perpetuating the ‘narratives’ of concern,” CNN reported last week. But federal informant programs routinely degenerate into “dollars for collars” schemes that reward scoundrels for fabricating crimes that destroy the lives of innocent Americans. The DHS plan would “allow the department to circumvent [constitutional and legal] limits” on surveillance of private citizens and groups. Federal agencies are prohibited from targeting individuals solely for First Amendment-protected speech and activities. But federal hirelings would be under no such restraint. Private informants could create false identities that would be problematic if done by federal agents.

DHS will be ramping up a war against an enemy which the feds have never clearly or competently defined.According to a March report by Biden’s office of the Director of National Intelligence, “domestic violent extremists” include individuals who “take overt steps to violently resist or facilitate the overthrow of the U.S. government in support of their belief that the U.S. government is purposely exceeding its Constitutional authority.” Perhaps like setting up a private informant scheme to evade constitutional restrictions on warrantless surveillance?

One DHS official bewailed to CNN:

“Domestic violent extremists are really adaptive and innovative. We see them not only moving to encrypted platforms, but obviously couching their language so they don’t trigger any kind of red flag on any platforms.”

DHS officials have apparently decided that certain groups of people are guilty regardless of what they say (“couching their language”). The targets are likely to be simply people with a bad attitude towards Washington. That will include gun owners who distrust politicians who vow to seize guns.

The latest fuzzball standards (“narratives of concern”?) fit the post-9/11 pattern of wildly expansive threat definitions. Shortly after its creation in 2002, DHS warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who “expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government” as potential terrorists. DHS-funded Fusion Centers have attached the  “extremist” tag to gun-rights activists, anti-immigration zealots, and individuals and groups “rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority”—even though many of the Founding Fathers shared the same creed. The Pentagon taught soldiers and bureaucrats that people who attend public protests are guilty of  “low-level terrorism.” An Air Force report accused women who wear hijabs of “passive terrorism.” Endless enemies lists come in handy at congressional appropriations hearings.

Federal officials insist that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.FBI chief Christopher Wray perennially proclaims that the FBI never investigates Americans based solely on their ideas. But, as the Intercept reported in 2019, “Who the Justice Department decides to prosecute as a domestic terrorist has little to do with the harm they’ve inflicted or the threat they pose to human life.” But that claim is belied by the FBI’s beloved “informant loophole.” As Trevor Aaronson explained, “FBI agents must obtain supervisory approval to enter a group or gathering using an undercover agent, and to obtain that approval, the FBI must have a ‘predicate,’ or a factual basis to suspect criminal activity. But neither supervisory approval nor a predicate is required if the work is done by an informant, creating a loophole that allows the FBI to investigate Americans for virtually any reason.”

Any new informants hired by the Biden administration will operate under the same perverse incentives that have long subverted due process. Informants tend to be rewarded based on how much assets they help government seize or how many people they help prosecutors condemn. As a 2019 report by the American Bar Association noted, “The government pays cash for incriminating information and testimony. This is troubling because the financial incentive to make cases against others may be much greater than the personal integrity of the informants.” A report by the Justice Department Office of Inspector General slammed the Drug Enforcement Agency for failing to “document the reliability of informants” who helped the DEA to confiscate billions of dollars of private property. The DEA paid informants $237 million between 2010 and 2015, including $25 million shoveled out to only nine informants. DEA’s best paid informant, Andrew Chambers, Jr., was found to have given “false testimony under oath in at least 16 criminal prosecutions nationwide before he was exposed in the late 1990s,” USA Today reported in 2013. Attorney General Janet Reno banned the DEA from using him as an informant but in 2008, DEA re-hired Chambers and used him for at least the following five years.

Informants have become far more perilous to freedom and decency since the 1970s thanks to the Supreme Court effectively defining entrapment out of existence.Almost anything an informant or undercover government agent does to induce someone to violate the law is considered fair play. Craig Monteilh, an informant who was sent into mosques in southern California, was given permission by his FBI handlers to sleep with Muslim women he targeted and to secretly tape record their pillow talk. Other FBI informants browbeat their targets into discussing bombing government buildings, providing sufficient verbal rope to hang them. The vast majority of people charged with international terrorism offenses in the decade after 9/11 were not bona fide threats but were induced by the FBI or informants to behave in ways that prompted their arrest, according to Trevor Aaronson’s The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism.

One purpose of relying on private informants is to assure that there are no federal fingerprints when people are coaxed or shoved into breaking the law. The FBI admits that it formally entitles its army of informants to commit more than 5,000 crimes a year; there is no estimate of how many crimes are committed directly by FBI agents, who have been formally taught that “the FBI has the ability to bend or suspend the law to impinge on the freedom of others.” Thanks to the FBI’s Iron Curtain of Secrecy, we have no idea what sort of atrocities its informants may now be committing. During George W. Bush’s reign, the White House formally invoked executive privilege to block disclosure of the FBI’s sweetheart deals for Whitey Bulger, a notorious FBI informant and Irish crime boss linked to 20 murders. The FBI knew of Bulger’s role in killings but lied in court to protect him, even providing false testimony to send innocent men to prison for life to safeguard Bulger. That debacle was summarized in a 2004 congressional report titled, “Everything Secret Degenerates: The FBI’s Use of Murderers as Informants.” In 2011, a federal judge aptly labeled the FBI’s behavior in the case as “uncontrolled official wickedness.”

In 2016, Omar Mateen carried out the biggest terrorist attack since 9/11, killing 49 people at the Orlando Pulse Nightclub attack. Prior to his attack, Mateen boasted of his connections to terrorists and threatened to have Al Qaeda kill a co-worker’s family; his mosque warned authorities that he was a threat to public safety. But the FBI swayed the local sheriff’s department to drop its investigation of Mateen because a “confidential informant” assured FBI agents that Mateen was not a terrorist and would not “go postal or anything like that.” The federal case against the killer’s widow collapsed in 2018 after jurors belatedly learned that the killer’s father, an Afghan immigrant, had been an FBI informant since 2005 and may have used his influence to assure that his son was not arrested prior to his killing spree.

The FBI has long relied on informants to choreograph political violence.In the 1960s, FBI informants “set up a Klan organization intended to attract membership away from the United Klans of America,” according to a 1976 Senate report. One FBI informant with the Klan, along with other Klansmen, had “beaten people severely, had boarded buses and kicked [Freedom Riders] off” and beat restaurant customers “with blackjacks, chains, pistols.” In 2006, a paid FBI informant organized and led a neo-Nazi march in a black neighborhood in Orlando, Florida. In 2017, an FBI informant masterminded a Klan rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, sharply increasing the tension and fear prior to the much larger and notorious Charlottesville Unite the Right rally the following month. There have not yet been any disclosures regarding what role, if any, that federal informants played in the January 6 clash at the Capitol.

DHS wants to enlist more private informants at the same time federal undercover operations are already out of control. At least 40 federal agencies are now conducting undercover operations involving thousands of agents. An undercover DEA agent “created a fake Facebook page from the photos of a young woman in Watertown, N.Y. — without her knowledge — to lure drug suspects,” the New York Times reported.  IRS agents are officially permitted to “pose as an attorney, physician, clergyman or member of the news media.” The Times noted in 2014 that  “the military and its investigative agencies have almost as many undercover agents working inside the United States as does the F.B.I.,” often serving on joint federal task forces of the type that will likely be expanded for the Biden extremist crackdown. A sting operation by the Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agency swayed mentally handicapped individuals to get tattooed to help advertise its bogus gun store, violating federal laws protecting the disabled. Oversight is often a mirage: an ATF committee created to oversee undercover operations didn’t bother meeting for more than half a decade. The Times noted that “even Justice Department officials say they are uncertain how many agents work undercover.”

The Biden administration is considering unleashing a new surveillance program at a time when Americans have no idea how many federal agencies are already spying on them. Yahoo News disclosed last month that the Postal Inspection Service is running iCOP —the Internet Covert Operations Program—to sweep social media and other websites searching for any “inflammatory” postings on topics including protests against COVID lockdowns. Postal inspectors got access to private messages on Parler and Telegram, presumably with no search warrant. The iCOP program turns over its discoveries to other federal agencies. Rachel Levinson-Waldman of the Brennan Center for Justice commented that iCop “seems a little bizarre” since the surveillance included “monitoring of social media that’s unrelated to use of the postal system.” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) denounced the program for violating the Constitution and asked: “The USPS has been losing money for many years… so where do they find money to run this surveillance program?” Unfortunately, federal agencies that trample the law and the Constitution in their surveillance efforts are usually punished with budget increases.

Perhaps setting up a new informant scheme to work around the Constitution is not the best response to extremists who fear government is lawless. Unfortunately, Americans are unlikely to hear about crimes committed by Biden’s new snoops until long after the damage is done, if ever.

Rockets Fired At Israel From South Lebanon As Fears Grow Hezbollah To Enter Conflict


A big lingering unknown is whether Israel’s powerful archenemy Hezbollah will open up a northern front to bog down Israel’s military as it continues striking Gaza, and as preparations are underway for a potential Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) ground invasion into the Hamas-controlled strip.

Late Thursday at least three rockets were fired from southern Lebanon toward Israel, which the IDF military spokesman confirmed..

And moments after, a new wave of rockets were launched from Gaza, the IDF said.

Given the rockets fired into northern Israel, the immediate question remains whether Hezbollah was responsible, and if the Shia paramilitary organization supported closely by Iran will initiate its own aggression. This would constitute a monumental escalation for Israel, assuring major regional war.

So far international reports are saying it’s “unclear” who was responsible for the attack from Lebanon.

The rockets were believed launched from near the border with Israel, in Lebanon’s Qlayleh area, near Naqoura. There are also Palestinian militant factions in the area, with Lebanon’s Daily Star quickly in the aftermath pointing to these Palestinian groups operating in Lebanon – and not Hezbollah.

The Lebanese outlet is reporting that “Lebanese Army intelligence detains Palestinian involved in firing rockets at Israel.

Meanwhile rockets fired from Gaza continue reaching deep into central Israel.

Israel media is now widely reporting that the Defense Ministry is putting plans in place for “all-out war”.

The reports come after on Wednesday Defense Minister Benny Gantz threatened “Gaza will burn”. He said: “If citizens of Israel have to sleep in shelters” due to Hamas rocket attacks “then Gaza will burn.”

Hamas brings out high-powered rockets to hit strategic Israeli targets

 BurkanFajr 5

 Hamas rockets midday Thursday, May 13, ripped through Israel from the Greater Tel Aviv region to Beersheba in the south and including Ashdod, Lachish, Eylot in the Arava and the Bedouin settlements. . Iron Dome intercepted 10 over the Tel Aviv region. Hamas spokesman said: “We have a new upgraded rocket with a range of 220km and can reach any point in Israel.”

Have Hamas and Jihad got hold of more powerful rockets of longer range than before?
The answer, DEBKAfile’s military sources report, is in the affirmative. The Palestinian rulers of Gaza have begun using Fajr 5 (military codename M-75) (see attached photo) and Burkan (A-122), which reach deeper into Israel and pack a far more powerful punch.

For the first time, on Wednesday night, they shot a Fajr 5, an Iranian product with a long range and 333mm caliber which is mounted on a Mercedes Benz 2631 forward control chassis. This rocket weighs a ton, Its warhead is packed with 175kg of fragmentation warhead containing 90kg of high explosives. Hamas’ rocket engineers reduced its payload to extend the Fajr’s range to 170km – up to the shore of the Sea of Galilee in northeastern Israel –

The Palestinian terrorist organizations have not just escalated their rocket offensive, but they are now after big game, as was indicated on Tuesday when a rocket aimed at the Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline set a gas container at the Ashkelon end on fire. They have been trying to hit the offshore rig of Israel’s Tamar gas field. But they have not hit this target because, even after upgrading their rockets, they are not up to the high precision capacity installed by Iran in Hizballah’s missile arsenal. Iran’s Lebanese proxy now owns a quantity of Fajr 5C rockets fitted with wit GPS guidance kits.

Hamas leaders are hoping to obtain those ultra-lethal weapon systems soon.

Burkan, a locally developed version of an Iranian weapon, is more like a bomb than a rocket. These weapons have been responsible for the gaping holes driven in the walls of Israeli buildings, which took direct hits in the last two days in the towns of Sderot, Ashkelon, Petah Tikva, Ashdod, Ashkelon and Yahud.
The IDF’s air campaign has caused heavy damage to much of Hamas and Jihad weapons infrastructure. And the Iron Dome air defense system has knocked down 85-90pc of the rockets aimed at populated areas. However, much of that infrastructure is still operational and the Hamas/Jihad rocket arsenal remains out of reach of aerial bombardment.

IDF communiques leave the public ignorant about key elements of the Palestinian terrorists’ deadly rocket campaign against Israel. People are therefore bewildered over some of the gravest blows in the last 24 hours. IDF Spokesman Hdal Zilberman waxed eloquent earlier on Thursday about the tremendous damage the IDF is causing Hamas and Islamic Jihad senior officers, infrastructure and latterly government institutions and banks, but glossed over as misreported the rocket attack as far north as the Jezreel Valley, home to a big air base. This target is 164km from the Hamas rocket launchers in the Gaza Strip. Furthermore, the direct hits to civilians and property are proliferating as are the casualties: Seven deaths in two days and nearly a hundred injured.
The IDF’s longstanding public relations tactics which tells the public as little as it can get away with is bad for morale and outdated. The military can’t control communication by mobile phones or prevent the social media rumormongering. Better to be more forthcoming for a suffering, responsible population hungry for information.  

On the run from flying IDF hunters, Hamas leaders send more rockets deep inside Israel

The two belligerents in this distinctive conflict seem to be preparing for a long haul. Is it a war? Not in the conventional sense. It certainly does not match the Guardians of the Walls” designation for the retaliatory operation the IDF is waging against Hamas and Islamic Jihad for the massive rocket offensive they have launched from Gaza, including salvos against Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

More than 1,000 Palestinian rockets were fired in 39 hours and at least 6 Israelis and 43 Palestinians were killed since Monday. The hundreds of Israeli air strikes included the destruction of three tower blocks in Gaza by Wednesday, May 12, targeting the homes and hideouts of Hamas and Jihad officers. Some were also caught in their cars or on motorbikes.
(The IDF’s Knock on Roof method warned the building’s other occupants to evacuate minutes before the attack.)

The dry statistics don’t illustrate the change of tactics introduced in the current operation by the IDF chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi. To avoid a costly ground operation as long as possible, he ordered the air force to hunt down and physically eradicate one by one the operational leadership of the two Palestinian terrorist groups. After several senior officers were taken out on Tuesday, Israeli warplanes the next day struck two apartments in Gaza City, used as secret Hamas hideouts. The IDF and Shin Bet later reported that the Hamas General Staff was meeting there to discuss the next stage of their offensive against Israel. The air strike took our four senior officers: commander of the Hamas Gaza City brigade, the head of its cyberwar unit, the head of its department for product development and the head of its engineering department, as well as additional staffers involved in weapons R&D and manufacture.  

Hamas retaliated on the spot by unleashing a 50-rocket barrage against Ashdod, Ashkelon, Beersheba, Gan Yavne, Gedera and other locations in the south.

In essence, this exchange represents an Israeli effort to liquidate the leaders of an aggressive enemy and so counter that enemy’s campaign to grind down the population of Israel’s heartland by wave after wave of rockets.

That enemy is in no hurry to throw in the towel. The IDF estimates that Hamas has amassed 10,000-12,000 rockets and Jihad another 6,000-8,000. If they keep up the present tempo of attacks, they have enough ordnance to keep going for another two or three weeks, at least.
The IDF, for its part, has a large bank of targets in the Gaza Strip, which is constantly replenished by incoming intelligence, while the warplanes continue to give chase after their leaders.

Hamas is confident that by keeping going, it can bring Israel to its knees. Israel, too, is no hurry to give up until its government and military leaders are satisfied that the rules of the game hitherto dictated by Hamas have been consigned to the dustbin. Since Hamas and Jihad have come to understand that Israel’s headhunters will not rest until their goal is achieved, they are keeping up their rocket offensive to prevent Israel from getting its way. Israel aims at seriously denting Hamas’ self-assurance to the point that it begs Egypt and Qatar to seek a ceasefire. Israel will grant this only after dictating terms for a new order in its relations with the Gaza Strip.

The conflict is still a long way from its endgame. Since there is still a way to go, the Israeli security cabinet went into session on Wednesday evening to chart the next stage of the Gaza campaign and its expansion.  

‘His mental and physical condition cannot be ignored’: More than 120 retired generals and admirals sign open letter questioning Biden’s mental health and backing election fraud claims

  • More than 120 signed the ‘Open Letter from Retired Generals and Admirals’
  • The letter questioned the integrity of the U.S. election 
  • It also questions Biden’s mental fitness, blasts the Iran deal, says ‘anarchy’ cannot be tolerated, and says ‘illegals are flooding our country’
  • It echoes Trump’s claims that absentee ballots are not secure
  • Other retired military officers slammed the letter as intrusion in domestic politics
  • Said Retired Adm. Mike Mullen, former chair of the joint chiefs: ‘I think it hurts the military and by extension it hurts the country’


PUBLISHED: 17:50 EDT, 12 May 2021 | UPDATED: 21:53 EDT, 12 May 2021

A group of more than 120 retired military officers have written President Joe Biden to tell him his election was less than legitimate – while questioning his mental acuity. 

The letter echoes former President Donald Trump‘s claims of widespread election fraud – which have not been borne out in the courts – and comes on a day when Rep. Liz Cheney ripped Trump for his claim that the election was ‘stolen.’ 

‘Without fair and honest elections that accurately reflect the ‘will of the people’ our Constitutional Republic is lost,’ the letter from retired officers says.

A group of more than 120 retired military officers have written President Joe Biden (pictured Wednesday) to tell him his election was less than legitimate 

Maj. Gen. Joe Arbuckle

The group calls itself ‘Flag Officers 4 America’ and consists of retired military officers including generals and admirals. 

‘The FBI and Supreme Court must act swiftly when election irregularities are surfaced and not ignore them as was done in 2020,’ they wrote. 

The letter, called an ‘Open Letter from Retired Generals and Admirals,’ was reported by Politico

It echoes Trump’s claims that absentee ballots are not secure as it goes after Biden, who serves as Commander in Chief of the military. 

‘Election integrity demands insuring there is one legal vote cast and counted per citizen. Legal votes are identified by State Legislature’s approved controls using government IDs, verified signatures, etc,’ they write.

Today, many are calling such commonsense [voter ID] controls “racist” in an attempt to avoid having fair and honest elections. Using racial terms to suppress proof of eligibility is itself a tyrannical intimidation tactic,’ they write. 

The retired officers raise doubts about Biden’s mental capacity – and reference Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s move to get assurances about the nuclear codes in the days after the January 6 MAGA riot.

The ‘Open Letter from Retired Generals and Admirals’ blasts Biden for ‘excessive lockdowns’ and ‘censorship of written and verbal expression,’ while questioning his mental acuity

The retired officers hit the Iran nuclear deal and even slap Biden for stopping the Keystone Pipeline project, while saying ‘anarchy’ in cities cannot be tolerated

‘The mental and physical condition of the Commander in Chief cannot be ignored. He must be able to quickly make accurate national security decisions involving life and limb anywhere, day or night,’ they write.

‘Recent Democrat leadership’s inquiries about nuclear code procedures sends a dangerous national security signal to nuclear armed adversaries, raising the question about who is in charge. We must always have an unquestionable chain of command.’

The group Flag Officers 4 America call themselves ‘retired military leaders who pledged to support and defend the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic.’ 

The letter is a counterpoint to impactful public statements by national security officials who weighed in for Biden during the campaign. One such effort came when 10 former secretaries of Defense penned an extraordinary op-ed in the Washington Post warning there is ‘no role’ for the U.S. military in the outcome of U.S. elections, and stating the importance of a peaceful transfer of power. 

That letter came three days before the Capitol riot. 

The signers of the attached their names to the letter. Among them was Maj. Gen. Joe Arbuckle, who served in Vietnam and later commanded the US Army Industrial Operations Command (IOC) at Rock Island, Illinois.

Arbuckle, who organized the effort, told Politico: ‘Retired generals and admirals normally do not engage in political actions, but the situation facing our nation today is dire.’

He continued: ‘We are facing threats greater than at any other time since our country was founded. To remain silent would be a dereliction of duty.’

The effort drew immediate pushback from military members who lamented people who wore the uniform jumping into an organized political effort. 

More than 120 former military officers signed the letter, including Gen. William Boykin (left) and John Poindexter (right)

Jim Golby, an expert in civil-military relations, blasted the effort in Politico as a ‘shameful effort to use their rank and the military’s reputation for such a gross and blatant partisan attack.’ 

Retired Air Force colonel Marybeth Ulrich, who teaches at the Air Force Academy, termed it ‘anti-democratic.’ 

Also ripping the effort was retired Adm. Mike Mullen, who served as chair of the join chiefs of staff and outranks those on the letter, said: ‘I think it hurts the military and by extension it hurts the country. He cast it as ‘right-wing Republican talking points.’

‘This is really, to my mind, a classic very bad example of the erosion of civil-military relations in America, which is the bedrock of our democracy,’ another retired military leader, Army Col. Jeffrey McCausland, told HuffPost. 

Members of the military vote in elections and have protected constitutional rights, but military leaders have warned of the risks of intruding in domestic politics. 

In the run-up to 2020, retired Gen. James Mattis denounced Trump, whom he served as Defense Secretary, in a June response to the events at Lafayette Square. ‘We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution,’ Mattis wrote. 

Other signers of the anti-Biden letter included include Vice Adm. John Poindexter, who was convicted in the Iran-Contra Affair.

Also signing on was Army Brig. Gen. Don Bolduc, who lost the Republican primary in 2020 to challenge Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, and is planning another Senate run.  

Another signer, Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, who was termed anti-Muslim for his comments to a Christian congregation, CBS previously reported, after Boykin said of a Somali warlord: ‘I knew that my God was bigger than his.’ 

Retired officers who signed the letter denouncing Joe Biden

MG Joseph T. Anderson, USMC, ret. RADM Philip Anselmo, USN, ret. MG Joseph Arbuckle, USA, ret. BG John Arick, USMC, ret. RADM Jon W. Bayless, Jr. USN, ret. RDML James Best, USN, ret. BG Charles Bishop, USAF, ret. BG William A. Bloomer, USMC, ret. BG Donald Bolduc, USA, ret. LTG William G. Boykin, USA, ret. MG Edward R. Bracken, USAF, ret. MG Patrick H. Brady, MOH, USA, ret. VADM Edward S. Briggs, USN, ret. LTG Richard “Tex’ Brown III USAF, ret. BG Frank Bruno, USAF, ret. VADM Toney M. Bucchi, USN, ret. RADM John T. Byrd, USN, ret. BG Jimmy Cash, USAF, ret. LTG Dennis D. Cavin, USA, ret. LTG James E. Chambers, USAF, ret. MG Carroll D. Childers, USA, ret. BG Clifton C. “Tip” Clark, USAF, ret. VADM Ed Clexton, USN, ret. MG Jay Closner, USAF, ret MG Tommy F. Crawford, USAF, ret. MG Robert E. Dempsey, USAF, ret. BG Phillip Drew, USAF, ret. MG Neil L. Eddins, USAF, ret. RADM Ernest Elliot, USN, ret. BG Jerome V. Foust, USA, ret. BG Jimmy E. Fowler, USA, ret. RADMU J. Cameron Fraser, USN, ret. MG John T. Furlow, USA, ret. MG Timothy F. Ghormley, USMC, ret. MG Francis C. Gideon, USAF, ret. MG William A. Gorton, USAF, ret. MG Lee V. Greer, USAF, ret. RDML Michael R. Groothousen, Sr., USN, ret. BG John Grueser, USAF, ret. MG Ken Hagemann, USAF, ret BG Norman Ham, USAF, ret. VADM William Hancock, USN, ret. LTG Henry J. Hatch, USA, ret. BG James M. Hesson, USA, ret. MG Bill Hobgood, USA, ret. BG Stanislaus J. Hoey, USA, ret. MG Bob Hollingsworth, USMC, ret. MG Jerry D. Holmes, USAF, ret. MG Clinton V. Horn, USAF, ret. LTG Joseph E. Hurd, USAF, ret. VADM Paul Ilg, USN, ret. MG T. Irby, USA, ret. LTG Ronald Iverson, USAF, ret. RADM (L) Grady L. Jackson MG William K. James, USAF, ret. LTG James H. Johnson, Jr. USA, ret. ADM. Jerome L. Johnson, USN, ret. BG Charles Jones, USAF, ret. BG Robert R. Jordan, USA, ret. BG Jack H. Kotter, USA, ret. MG Anthony R. Kropp, USA, ret. RADM Chuck Kubic, USN, ret. BG Jerry L. Laws, USA, ret. BG Douglas E. Lee, USA, ret. MG Vernon B. Lewis, USA, ret. MG Thomas G. Lightner, USA, ret. MG James E. Livingston, USMC, ret. MOH MG John D. Logeman, USAF, ret. MG Jarvis Lynch, USMC, ret. LTG Fred McCorkle, USMC, ret. MG Don McGregor, USAF, ret. LTG Thomas McInerney, USAF, ret. RADM John H. McKinley, USN, ret. BG Michael P. McRaney, USAF, ret. BG Ronald S. Mangum, USA, ret. BG James M. Mead, USMC, ret. BG Joe Mensching, USAF, ret. RADM W. F. Merlin, USCG, ret. RADM (L) Mark Milliken, USN, ret. MG John F. Miller, USAF, ret. RADM Ralph M. Mitchell, Jr. USN, ret. MG Paul Mock, USA. ret. BG Daniel I. Montgomery, USA, ret., RADM John A. Moriarty, USN, ret., RADM David R. Morris, USN, ret. RADM Bill Newman, USN, ret. BG Joe Oder, USA, ret. MG O’Mara, USAF, ret. MG Joe S. Owens, USA, ret. VADM Jimmy Pappas, USN, ret. LTG Garry L. Parks, USMC, ret. RADM Russ Penniman, RADM, USN, ret. RADM Leonard F. Picotte, ret. VADM John Poindexter, USN, ret. RADM Ronald Polant, USCG, ret. MG Greg Power, USAF, ret. RDM Brian Prindle, USN, ret. RADM J.J. Quinn, USN, ret. LTG Clifford H. Rees, Jr. USAF, ret. RADM Norman T. Saunders, USCG, ret. MG Richard V. Secord, USAF, ret. RADM William R. Schmidt, USN, ret. LTG Hubert Smith, USA, ret. MG James N. Stewart, USAF, ret. RADM Thomas Stone, USN., ret. BG Joseph S. Stringham, USA, ret. MG Michael Sullivan, USMC, ret. RADM (U) Jeremy Taylor, USN, ret. LTG David Teal, USAF, ret. VADM Howard B. Thorsen, USCG, ret. RADM Robert P. Tiernan, USN, ret. LTG Garry Trexler, USAF, ret. BG James T. Turlington, M.D., USAF, ret. BG Richard J. Valente, USA ret. MG Paul Vallely, USA, ret. MG Russell L. Violett, USAF, ret. BG George H. Walker, Jr. USAR Corp of Engineers, ret. MG Kenneth Weir, USMCR, ret. BG William O. Welch, USAF, ret. MG John M. White, USAF, ret. MG Geoffrey P. Wiedeman, JR. USAF, ret. MG Richard O. Wightman, Jr., USA, ret. RADM Denny Wisely, USN, ret. RADM Ray Cowden Witter, USN, ret. LTG John Woodward, ret. 


Melinda Gates met with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein alongside her husband, Bill, in New York City and soon after said she was furious at the relationship between the two men, according to people familiar with the situation. “After a great deal of thought and a lot of work on our relationship, we have made the decision to end our marriage,” the two said in a brief statement posted on Twitter. “We have raised three incredible children and built a foundation that works all over the world to enable all people to lead healthy, productive lives.”


by Geoffrey GriderMay 9, 2021NOW THE END BEGINS

Melinda Gates was supposedly concerned with her soon-to-be ex-husband Bill Gates’ relationship with disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in the years leading up to their high-profile divorce last week, according to a Sunday report.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was created as a PR scheme to funnel money to news outlets under the cover of ‘grants’ in order to receive favorable press coverage after relentless stories of Nazi-style Eugenics kept coming out in relation to Bill Gates. Now, in a beautifully ironic twist of fate, we learn the real reason why Medina Gates has filed for divorce from Bill Gates, his relationship with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein that began after Epstein was convicted. What does that tell you?

Bill Gates has never denied his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, but neither has he ever given a convincing reason why he, Bill Gates, the richest man on the planet, would want or need a relationship with Epstein to ‘discuss philanthropy’. That makes exactly zero sense to anyone. Melinda Gates has said that their marriage was ‘irretrievably broken’ after Gates started his ‘relationship’ with Epstein, wanna take a guess as to what broke it?

I wonder now how all this will impact Bill Gates stated goal of vaccinating the world? Stay tuned.

Melinda Gates Warned Bill About Jeffrey Epstein

FROM THE DAILY BEAST: Melinda Gates met with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein alongside her husband, Bill, in New York City and soon after said she was furious at the relationship between the two men, according to people familiar with the situation.

The previously unreported meeting occurred at Epstein’s Upper East Side mansion in September 2013, on the same day the couple accepted the Lasker-Bloomberg Public Service Award at The Pierre hotel and were photographed alongside then-Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

The meeting would prove a turning point for Gates’ relationship with Epstein, the people familiar with the matter say, as Melinda told friends after the encounter how uncomfortable she was in the company of the wealthy sex offender and how she wanted nothing to do with him.

Gates’ friendship with Epstein—who for years was accused of molesting scores of underage girls—still haunts Melinda, according to friends of the couple who spoke to The Daily Beast this week in light of the pair’s divorce announcement, which had been weeks in the making. The Daily Beast has learned that financial and public-relations specialists had been feverishly working on details of the pair’s split for weeks before the couple announced their divorce on Monday.


A representative for Bill and Melinda Gates did not respond to requests for comment for this report.

The ties between Gates and Epstein ran much deeper than the tech mogul first admitted. As The New York Times reported, starting in 2011, Gates met with Epstein on numerous occasions. This was three years after Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting an underage girl in Florida; by then, accusations that Epstein exploited girls and young women were widely reportedin the press.

As the Times reported, two people close to Gates acted as intermediaries between the two: Boris Nikolic, a biotech investor and former adviser to Gates who was mysteriously named a backup executor in Epstein’s last will and testament; and Melanie Walker, who worked at the Gates Foundation and served as a science adviser to Epstein. A person close to Walker told The Daily Beast she did not attend nor help set up any meetings between Gates and Epstein. Nikolic did not return multiple requests for comment.

Soon after Epstein’s arrest in July 2019, Gates became one of many prominent people to face scrutiny over ties to the sex trafficker.

The New York Times revealed Gates had met with Epstein at a 2011 get-together at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse that included the financier’s ex-girlfriend Eva Andersson-Dubin and her daughter. (Virginia Giuffre, a survivor of Epstein’s sex ring, has accused Dubin’s hedge-funder husband, Glenn, of abuse—a charge he has strenuously denied.)

Indeed, the Times reported Gates visited Epstein multiple times from 2011 to 2013, and that Epstein had tried pitching a new charitable fund to JPMorgan honchos and to the Gates Foundation. In 2013, Gates also took a ride on Epstein’s private jet (christened by tabloids as the Lolita Express), from Teterboro Airport in New Jersey to Palm Beach, Florida, according to flight records reviewed by the TimesCNBC also reported that Gates rendezvoused with Epstein in New York in 2013.

When Gates first met Epstein, he was still Microsoft’s chairman and the second richest person in the world, with a net worth of $56 billion.

Assault on the Constitution

The Communist Overthrow of the United States

by Charles C.W. Cooke

 | May 06, 2021 11:00 PM

On Nov. 6 of last year, the country narrowly voted for a self-described centrist to be president. At the same time, it handed Congress to the Democratic Party in such an exquisitely slender fashion that it would not be clear until the beginning of Januarywhether control of the federal government was to be divided or unified. Once the “moderate” president was sworn in, he and his barely-in-the-majority party proposed restructuring the country from top to bottom, making permanent alterations to the constitutional order if need be. Finally, President Joe Biden has embraced his supporters’ and liberal pundits’ pronouncements that he can and should be “another FDR or LBJ.” 

To the historically literate, it all should be nothing less than baffling. 

First of all, Franklin Roosevelt won the 1932 presidential election by 472 electoral votes to 59, while his party won 313 seats in the House and won 58 of the 96 seats in the Senate. Four years later, Roosevelt won the presidency by 523 electoral votes to 8, while his party won 334 seats in the House and 74 seats in the Senate. Lyndon Johnson enjoyed a less protracted period of practical influence, but his numbers were still impressive. In 1964, Johnson won the presidency 486 to 52 electoral votes, and his party won 295 seats in the House and 68 seats in the Senate. Suffice it to say, control of government was clear well before Inauguration Day. 

By contrast, Biden won the presidency by 306 to 232 electoral votes, while his party won only nine more seats than the Republicans in the House of Representatives and won the same number of seats as the Republicans in the Senate. As the Washington Post pointed out in February, once the Georgia runoffs had been completed, the election ended up being so close that had 90,000 votes gone the other way, it would have been the Republicans, rather than the Democrats, who would have controlled all of Washington, D.C. From where, one has to ask, is Joe Biden interpreting a mandate for massive reform? 

There is, of course, nothing in the Constitution that relates to “mandates.” The system is the system is the system, and, providing that they stay within its hard-and-fast limits, those who run it may use their power as they see fit. But it is telling that there is almost nothing of consequence that Biden hopes to achieve that would not involve altering the structure of government itself. Unlike in 1933 or 1965, we are not witnessing a wildly popular Democratic Party using its broad political power in order to get done what it had promised to do; we are watching a relatively weak Democratic Party muse aloud about blowing up the system in order to do what it believes is necessary. Some of that would require explicitly unconstitutional behavior. Some would mean altering the system in ways that would pass legal muster but are contrary to the spirit of the rules. And some would require hijacking a medical crisis in order to advance unrelated goals swiftly. 

None of it bears any resemblance to what the country was promised last year. 

If the Democratic Party were to follow through on the calls that have recently been echoed, considered, or studied by Joe Biden, the United States would be subjected to its most dramatic structural transformation in 90 years. We would see the filibuster abolished, which would have the effect of turning the Senate into the House. We would see the Supreme Court “expanded” to 13, which would have the effect of turning it into the Senate. We would see the federal government take over all aspects of our election system, which would have the effect of turning the states into regional departments of the federal government, as well as of taking redistricting out of the hands of legislators, regulating core political speech, and turning the Federal Election Commission into a partisan tool. And we would see Washington, D.C., added as a state, in clear violation of the Constitution, for the explicit purpose of making it harder for Republicans to regain a Senate majority. Even the less obviously dramatic elements of the Democrats’ approach, such as sidestepping the Senate’s Byrd Rule (which allows the chamber to make limited changes to the budget with just 50 votes) so that the party can pass whatever it wants via “reconciliation,” would set a terrible precedent that, given the state of our politics, would be unlikely to be reversed. 

Reviewing these proposals, the BBC explained bluntly what the Democrats were doing, without feeling any particular need to sugarcoat it for a left-leaning American audience. Democrats, the BBC observed, “argue that a filibuster-free Senate could allow their party to change the political playing field — by implementing election laws that would increase their party’s vote, adding new judges to the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal judiciary, and by granting statehood (and new congressional representation) to Democrat-leaning Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.” 

One of the core reasons that we write down our political rules of engagement is that everyone in government — yes, everyone — is liable at some point to believe that his or her preferred policies are simply “too important” to be left unachieved and, unwilling to take no for an answer, to come out against the system as it stands. Just as the First Amendment protects us from the censorship of speech that is expediently deemed to be “too dangerous,” and as the Fifth Amendment protects us from the imprisonment of people who are considered “too guilty” to risk taking to trial, our constitutional structure is supposed to protect us from the “we can’t wait” mentality that pervades our politics on both sides of the aisle. 

For most of his career, Joe Biden understood this. Arguing passionately against the abolition of the filibuster in 2005, Biden praised the role it played in protecting “against the excesses of any temporary majority” and said getting rid of it would destroy “America’s sense of fair play” by “tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field.” (This argument was echoed by a supermajority of Democratic senators as recently as 2017, after Republicans took control of the federal government.) Arguing against the idea of packing the Supreme Court, which he called a “bonehead” notion, Biden criticized Roosevelt by quoting Lord Acton: “I remember this old adage about power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” Biden said. “Corrupted by power, in my view, [FDR] unveiled his court-packing plan.” 

And now? Now, Biden entertains every idea his party throws at him. Now, Biden is the one whom power has corrupted. Now, Biden is the one trying to tilt the playing field toward those who temporarily control it. Any student of human nature should understand why this has happened. For his entire life, Joe Biden has wanted to be president, and, having got there at an advanced stage of life, he is in no mood to be countermanded. But, that this development was entirely predictable does not mean that it is acceptable — especially when it comes on the heels of a campaign for normalcy and when the majority of the policies that are supposedly important enough to justify such norm-breaking are not especially popular in the country at large. 

Much has been written about the “Flight 93” mentality that has pervaded the conservative movement — and given that it led to the nomination and election of Donald Trump, and eventually to the events of Jan. 6, much should have been written on that topic. Less, however, has been written about the pervasiveness of precisely the same instinct within progressivism. This is a mistake, for one simply cannot understand the Democrats’ present panic without comprehending that they, too, believe that they are on the verge of extinction. 

Why are progressives worried about the current makeup of the Supreme Court, even though it is more popular and more trusted than it has been for a while? Because they rightly intuit that much of their coveted legislation is incompatible with the Constitution, and they believe that the originalist majority on the court is likely to strike down any overreach. Why do progressives want to add Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico as states? Because they think that the Senate is structurally unfair to them and to their ambitions, and that they need to stack the deck now before it is “too late.” Why do progressives want to abolish the filibuster and expand the reconciliation process beyond recognition? Because they have convinced themselves that if they do not do so, the Republican Party will “end democracy” at the state level and make it impossible for them to win again — and that, irrespective of all that, an unchecked “climate emergency” is about to end the world anyhow. 

It is perhaps not surprising that, having gained full control of the government for the first time since 2010, the Democratic Party is being urged by its radical elements to throw out a system they never liked in order to play openly for keeps. But one must ask, nevertheless: Why the hell is Joe Biden going along with it?

As SCOTUS Takes Up Concealed Carry, Reciprocity’s Time Is Now

It’s time for the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize that the Second Amendment right to ‘keep and bear arms’ does not end arbitrarily at a state’s border.

By Lawrence Keane

MAY 6, 2021

There’s always a risk in trying to predict how the U.S. Supreme Court will decide a case. Justices have proven to be unpredictable in the past, and court watchers will admit that with the Supreme Court, conventional wisdom is anything but conventional.

Still, there’s a buzz among the firearm industry and gun owners about the Supreme Court agreeing to hear an appeal in the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Corlett. The Supreme Court granted review to a limited question: Whether the state’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

 The court specifically wants to know if New York’s State Police Superintendent Keith Corlett is denying Second Amendment rights by rejecting concealed carry permits, as the state requires applicants to show a “justifiable need,” Could taking the case mean the time for concealed carry reciprocity has arrived?

NYSRPA v. Corlett is the first major gun-related case the Supreme Court has heard in more than a decade, following the McDonald v. City of Chicago decision in 2010, and before that, the District of Columbia v. Heller case decided in 2008. At the heart of the question in NYSRPA v. Corlett is whether the Second Amendment applies beyond the home.

The holdings in Heller and McDonald will inform how the Supreme Court decides NYSRPA v. Corlett. The Heller decision held that the Second Amendment — the right to keep and bear arms — are pre-existing individual rights.

Before Heller, gun control proponents argued the Second Amendment merely granted the right of the states to form a militia. The Heller decision put that notion to rest, holding that the people, not the government, retains the rights endowed by the Second Amendment. Furthermore, the Heller decision affirmed the belief that the right to bear arms can be viewed as among those rights endowed by our Creator and pre-existing the government.

 The McDonald decision concluded that the Second Amendment applies not just to the federal government but to the states as well. Previous to McDonald, Chicago and nearby Oak Park, Illinois banned handgun possession. The Supreme Court held in McDonald that the Second Amendment is a fundamental civil liberty and self-defense is a basic right. Additionally, it held the states are obligated under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause to not infringe on that right. Chicago couldn’t deny McDonald the right to keep and bear his handgun.

In light of NYSRPA v. Corlett, it’s worth noting the lengthy discussion about the right to “bear arms” contained in Heller. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s articulation in an earlier case that the term “bear arms” means “‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” The Second Amendment is, after all, grounded in the natural, God-given right of self-defense.

As such, just as all other fundamental civil liberties like free speech and freedom of religion are not confined to your home, the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not end at your front door — or your state’s border, for that matter.

While predicting Supreme Court decisions can be a fool’s errand, given the Supreme Court’s precedents it would appear likely the days of New York and a minority of states requiring citizens to prove “good cause” or a “need” to exercise their Second Amendment right to carry a firearm on their person for self-protection are numbered. Should the Supreme Court strike down these “may issue” requirements, then all states will be “shall issue.”

 That’s where the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 38/S. 1522), introduced by U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., in the House of Representatives and by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, in the U.S. Senate makes all the sense in the world. If all states are required to adhere to a “shall issue” policy, it only makes sense to treat concealed carry permits the same way individuals states treat driver’s licenses.

They would be honored across state lines, and states would still have the authority to set requirements to qualify and obtain them and when and where a concealed firearm can be carried. The alternative is requiring gun owners to carry a giant ring of 50 concealed carry permits in alphabetical order.

The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act safeguards rights retained by the states, allowing each to determine their own laws while protecting the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. It means that the right to “keep and bear arms” does not end arbitrarily at a state’s border and such rights are equally accessible no matter what state a valid permit holder is in.

In reality, the Democratic Party controls both chambers of Congress and the White House. There’s little doubt that concealed carry reciprocity is not on the “must-do” lists of either House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., or Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The Supreme Court, however, might be set to make their obstructionism moot.