Saturday, June 4, 2022

The thankless task of cleaning up after Joe Biden Opinion by Noah Rothman - Yesterday

Joe Biden is frustrated. As NBC News revealed under the headline “Inside a Biden White House adrift,” the president is beset on all sides by irritations: his sagging poll numbers, the persistence of inflation, the public’s dissatisfaction with the state of the economy and, of course, the general opposition to his agenda from Republican lawmakers. But externalities aren’t the only conditions Biden is contending with. The president is also reportedly vexed by his own staff.

Save for employing their powers of observatioWhite House aides who ride in to clarify Joe Biden’s remarks aren’t doing so to serve their own interests.“He makes a clear and succinct statement — only to have aides rush to explain that he actually meant something else,” the NBC News dispatch read. “The so-called clean-up campaign, he has told advisers, undermines him and smothers the authenticity that fueled his rise. Worse, it feeds a Republican talking point that he’s not fully in command.”n, Republicans have little to do with Biden’s predicament. White House aides and communications staffers who ride in to clarify and contextualize Biden’s remarks aren’t doing so to serve their own interests. Often, they’re not even doing so behind the president’s back.For example, on Tuesday, the same day NBC News published its account of the president’s annoyance with his own staff, 

Biden’s byline graced a New York Times op-ed announcing America’s intention to “provide the Ukrainians with more advanced rocket systems and munitions that will enable them to more precisely strike key targets on the battlefield in Ukraine.” Subsequent reporting revealed that the U.S. will send highly mobile and quick-loading artillery rocket systems and long-range ordnance that can strike targets precisely at up to 70 kilometers (about 44 miles) away. to blame but himself.

In 1965, Paul Harvey’s Warning Was Broadcast — It’s Sadly Come True  Paul Harvey was an American radio broadcaster. He originally broadcast this on April 3rd, 1965. We watched it this weekend as we learned about why God must be first in every area of our lives.

If I were the Prince of Darkness I would want to engulf the whole earth in darkness.

I’d have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree.

So I should set about however necessary, to take over the United States.

I would begin with a campaign of whispers.

With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whispers to you as I whispered to Eve, “Do as you please.”

To the young I would whisper “The Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that “man created God,” instead of the other way around. I would confide that “what is bad is good and what is good is square.”

In the ears of the young married I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you. I would caution them not to be “extreme” in religion, in patriotism, in moral conduct.

And the old I would teach to pray — to say after me — “Our father which are in Washington.”

Then I’d get organized.

I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull, uninteresting.

I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies, and vice-versa.

I’d infiltrate unions and urge more loafing, less work. Idle hands usually work for me.

I’d peddle n….. to whom I could, I’d sell a….. to ladies and gentlemen of distinction, I’d t…. the rest with pills.

If I were the Devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions; let those run wild.

I’d designate an atheist to front for me before the highest courts and I’d get preachers to say, “She’s right.”

With flattery and promises of power I would get the courts to vote against God and in favor of p…..

Thus I would evict God from the courthouse, then from the schoolhouse, then from the Houses of Congress.

Then in his own churches I’d substitute p….. for religion and deify science.

If I were Satan I’d make the symbol of Easter an egg

And the symbol of Christmas a bottle.

If I were the Devil I’d take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had k….. the incentive of the ambitious. Then my police state would force everybody back to work.

Then I would separate families, putting children in uniform, women in coal mines and objectors in slave-labor camps.

If I were Satan I’d just keep doing what I’m doing and the whole world go to hell as sure as the Devil.

[Source: Harvey, Paul. “If I Were the Devil I Would Pray, Our Father Who Art in Washington.” Gadsden Times. Oct 13, 1964 (p.4).]

A 1996 newspaper version of Paul Harvey’s “If I were the Devil,” which actually seems to be what’s heard in the video above, is often what’s heard today and mistakenly believed to be the same piece from the 60s. However, there are key differences.

Although it kept the concept and structure of the original essay, the 1996 version evolved the content to include the current events of that time. Even so, this version is still over two decades old and very on point with what our nation is experiencing now:

If I were the prince of darkness, I would want to engulf the whole world in darkness.

I’d have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree — thee.

So, I would set about however necessary to take over the United States.

I’d subvert the churches first, and I would begin with a campaign of whispers.

With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.”

To the young, I would whisper that the Bible is a myth. I would convince the children that man created God instead of the other way around. I’d confide that what’s bad is good and what’s good is square.

And the old, I would teach to pray after me, “Our Father, which are in Washington …”

Then, I’d get organized, I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting.

I’d peddle n…. to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.

If I were the devil, I’d soon have families at war with themselves, churches at war with themselves and nations at war with themselves until each, in its turn, was consumed.

And with promises of higher ratings, I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flames.

If I were the devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellect but neglect to discipline emotions. I’d tell teachers to let those students run wild. And before you knew it, you’d have d….ssniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.

With a decade, I’d have prisons overflowing and judges promoting pornography. Soon, I would evict God from the courthouse and the schoolhouse and them from the houses of Congress.

In his own churches, I would substitute psychology for religion and deify science. I’d lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls and church money.

If I were the devil, I’d take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had k….. the incentive of the ambitious.

What’ll you bet I couldn’t get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich?

I’d convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging is more fun and that what you see on television is the way to be.

And thus, I could undress you in public and lure you into bed with diseases for which there is no cure

In other words, if I were the devil, I’d just keep right on doing what he’s doing.

[Source: Harvey, Paul. “If I Were the Devil.” Reading Eagle. July 1, 1996.]

Whether it’s the 1965, 1996, or even another adaptation, the bottom line is that Paul Harvey’s words have never been truer. He was an incredible man with even more incredible insight. But, perhaps it’s another Harvey quote that best explains how he could seemingly so easily predict decades ago what America would look like today.

“In times like these, it’s helpful to remember that there have always been times like these,” Paul Harvey said. Regardless of whether you find his words to be actually prophetic, they are undeniably powerful, and it is a warning to our nation that we should finally begin to heed. Rather than accepting we will always have “times like these,” maybe it’s time to right our ship and throw the Devil overboard for good.

Friday, June 3, 2022

Eric Bolling

Eric Bolling: I don't believe anything Joe Biden says
Newsmax TV 6/2/2022

"I don't know the first thing to come out of Joe Biden's mouth that I actually believe." On Thursday's "Eric Bolling The Balance," Bolling rips every part of Joe Biden's Presidency, from inflation to the stock market, and his lies. Watch Newsmax on Directv 349, Xfinity 1115, Dish 216, Spectrum (see channels), Cox, Optimum, U-Verse 1120, FiOS 615, Suddenlink, CenturyLink 1209, Mediacom 277, Fubo, Sling, WOW!, Armstrong, or the Newsmax smartphone APP.

Thursday, June 2, 2022

Tucker Carlson: Democrats are not serious about protecting you   Fox News

Fox News host Tucker Carlson gives his take on President Biden's speech addressing gun violence on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.' #FoxNews #Tucker


Tucker: This is a power grab  Fox News

Fox News host reacts to the politicization of the Texas school shooting on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.' #FoxNews #Tucker


Diego Loredan May 16, 2021

This is a used car dump near Paris, France with hundreds of electric cars. Please note, these are only used cars of the city of Paris and not personal vehicles.

Everyone has the same problem .... the battery storage cells are dead and need to be replaced. Why not replace them, you ask yourself? Well, there are two reasons.

One, battery storage cells cost almost twice what a new vehicle costs, and two, no landfill will allow you to dump batteries there. So these green fairy electric cars are dumping toxins from the battery right into the ground .

Still think we need to think green ???



They should be in JAIL..!!


Anybody surprised?

Investor's Business Daily did an article on this and it confirms the Clinton Foundation has closed its doors. A Charitable Foundation Folds! Have you wondered why the Clinton Foundation folded so suddenly after Hillary was no longer in a position of influence? Perhaps this summary will provide some insight.

From their 2014 990 Tax Form: They list 486 employees (line 5)! It took 486 people who were paid $34.8 million and $91.3 million in fees and expenses to give away $5.1 MILLION

The real heart of the Clinton's can be seen here. Staggering but not surprising. These figures are from an official copy of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation for the tax year 2014. The copy of the tax return is from the National Center for Charitable Statistics web site You can obtain the latest tax return on any charitable organization there.

The Clinton Foundation: Number of Employees (line 5) 486 Total revenue (line 12): $177,804,612.00 Total grants to charity (line 13)$5,160,385.00 (this is less than 3%!) Total expenses of $91,281,145.00 Expenses include: Salaries (line 15) $34,838,106.00 Fund raising fees (line 16a) $850,803.00 Other expenses (line 17) $50,431,851.00 HUH?????? Travel: $8,000,000.00 Meetings:$12,000,000.00 Note: $20 Million in Travel & Meetings to decide who gets the $5.16 Million in Charity?

Net assets/fund balances (line 22)$332,471,349.00... So it required
486 people, who were paid $34.8 million, plus $91.3 million in fees and expenses to give away $5.1 MILLION! And they call this a CHARITY?

It is alleged that this is one of the greatest white-collar crimes ever committed. And just think—one of the participants was a former president and one (gasp!) wanted to be elected president of the United States.

If justice was truly served they would both be in prison.

As Cngress gets ready to adopt some kind of legislation affecting the LIFE of the AR-15 and those guns like it, you may want to show this article to your Senator and Representative...

Things to consider. WINCHESTER MODEL 1907

A hundred and fifteen years ago, in 1907...our great grandparents were first able to buy the rifle pictured. The semi-auto Winchester Model 1907.

This is a gun they could buy from a Sears catalogue and have delivered via US Post. It was/ is a semi-automatic, high powered centerfire rifle, with detachable, high capacity magazine.

About 400,000 semi-automatic rifles were produced before WW2. Civilians had hundreds of thousands of these for 40 years, while US soldiers were still being issued old fashioned bolt action rifles.

The 1907 fired just as fast as an AR15 or AK47 and the bullet (.351 Winchester) was actually larger than those fired by the more modern looking weapons..

The ONLY functional difference between the 1907 and a controversial and much feared AR15 is
the modern black plastic stock.

The semi auto, so-called "assault rifle" is 115 years old. It isn't new in any way.

The semi auto rifle was not a weapon of war. The government MADE IT a weapon of war 40 years after civilians had them.

The semi-auto can be safely owned by civilians. The proof is that literally 3 generations of adults owned and used them responsibly and no one ever even noticed.

Want to fix the horror of mass shootings? Fix the things that have changed for the worse in the last 50 years. Family Values, Prayer from Schools, Ten Commandments from court houses, Spanking Kids, Morals, What is socially acceptable, Confusion on Genders, Left Wing Liberalism, Socialism, etc.

Cause the rifle technology in question was here long before this insanity.

Wednesday, June 1, 2022

Watch: Russian Soldier Flips the Bird to Ukrainian Drone, Instantly Regrets It  By Richard Moorhead June 1, 2022

One Russian soldier got back more than he asked for after extending the middle finger to a Ukrainian military drone.

Footage of the altercation shows a group of Russian soldiers surrounding a BTR armored personnel carrier.

The Russian soldier can be seen extending the middle finger to the aircraft as it flies overhead, the first among his unit to recognize the drone.

#Ukraine: Ukrainian forces in the East, using drone-dropped munitions, managed to destroy a Russian BTR-82A APC concealed next to buildings.

At a later point, a drone aircraft flies over the building the Russian soldiers were using. The aircraft drops a bomb on the vehicle.

It’s not clear if the drone that made the strike was the same one that merited the profane gesture from the enemy.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms for defense of life and liberty.

In U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894) and U.S. v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court recognized that the amendment protects an individual right. It has never taken a different view. However, in Salina v. Blaksley (1905), the Kansas Supreme Court invented the idea that the amendment instead protected a “right” of a person to keep and bear arms only while serving in a state militia, and in U.S. v. Tot (1942), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit advanced the idea that the amendment protects the “right” of a state to have a militia.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court heard its first case specifically centered on whether the amendment protects an individual right to arms. Gun control supporters advanced essentially the "Salina" argument, but the Court, consistent with its previous rulings in Second Amendment-related cases, ruled that the amendment protects an individual right to keep arms and to bear arms "in case of confrontation," without regard to a person’s relationship to a militia.

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the court extended the Second Amendment's protection nationwide.



Gun Rights Are the Most Under Appreciated Issue of This Election
With everyone from newspapers and commentators to campaign surrogates and the candidates themselves vying for our attention, it’s ...


It’s Time For The Supreme Court To Make States Stop Ignoring The Second Amendment
The Supreme Court has the chance to reinforce its 11-year-old message to the lower courts: the Second Amendment ...

The Fraud That Dare Not Speak Its Name Dinesh D'Souza's 2,000 Mules raises forbidden questions
Dinesh D'Souza's 2,000 Mules raises forbidden questions.

Dinesh D’Souza’s new documentary, 2,000ules, raises serious questions about possible skullduggery in the 2020 election, involving absentee ballots across multiple states. But neither the liberal media, nor election officials, nor law enforcement seem to have much interest in investigating that potential wrongdoing. The reaction has largely boiled down to “nothing to see here!” or else to so-called “fact checks” that criticize the technology used to analyze the problems the film documents, rather than actually use the information D’Souza presents to investigate the credibility of the claims being made.

But that is par for the course these days when it comes to potential election fraud, or even proven fraud. A recent article in the Washingtonian says that that the Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database, a national tracking system for potential fraud, is a “highly controversial tactic.” So just tracking and reporting cases where individuals have actually been convicted of election fraud in a court of law, is now “highly controversial.”

The media’s refusal even to address or examine the issue is quite a change from the days when the Miami Herald won a Pulitzer Prize for in-depth investigation of the Miami mayor’s race in 1997. The Herald revealed so much fraud (some of it involving absentee ballots), that the election was overturned by a court.

In 2,000 Mules (in which I am interviewed as an authority on election fraud), D’Souza relates the story of how True the Vote, an election integrity organization based in Texas, obtained and analyzed, at enormous expense, 10 trillion cellphone geo-tracking signals from the final weeks before the 2020 election.

True the Vote was able to isolate specific cell phones that traveled to the locations of the ballot drop boxes that liberals insisted had to be installed because of the COVID-19 epidemic. This was an inadequate reason to implement such an unsecure, unregulated system, so obviously vulnerable to fraud. Even quarantined voters could simply drop their ballot in a mailbox. Yet when these objections were raised at the time, they were ignored.

Of course, lots of ordinary voters did travel to drop boxes to drop off their ballots. Therefore, True the Vote isolated their search to cell phones whose owners appeared to visit more than 10 drop boxes, a very suspicious occurrence for which there does not seem to be a legitimate explanation. These same cell phones repeatedly visited the addresses of the same five or more liberal nonprofit groups, although they are not named or identified in the documentary. Even if geotracking technology cannot yet specify exact locations, these patterns of behavior at least raise questions, especially when combined with video footage of late-night ballot-box visits.

Who were these individuals, the so-called “mules,” and what were they doing? Where did they get these ballots? Why were they repeatedly going to absentee-ballot drop-box locations? Were the ballots legitimately obtained, or were they fraudulent or stolen from voters, or were voters intimidated, pressured, or coerced to hand over their ballots? Who was paying them to engage in this behavior, particularly in states like Arizona where vote trafficking—having third parties pickup and deliver absentee ballots—is against the law?

D’Souza’s analysis indicates that the 2,000 mules were on average visiting 38 drop boxes, sometimes in the middle of the night, and often inserting multiple ballots. True the Vote obtained four million minutes of video surveillance footage, where it existed, of some of the drop boxes. The documentary is able to show who some of these mules were and what they were doing by coordinating the cellphone tracking data with the time they appeared at a drop box and the video surveillance. D’Souza presents one interview in which an anonymous mule confirms that this sort of coordinated fraud does occur at least in some locations.

The broader point here is that the geolocation data provided one layer of intelligence from which to layer on other forms of intelligence (e.g., geolocation data plus surveillance footage) and arrive at an assessment. Some critics argue that this type of data does not show without a doubt whether the phone owner walked to a specific drop box within a few inches. But no triangulation is that precise on its own, hence the necessity for layering—which this movie appears to do. This is, after all, the same type of data used every day by big Internet companies like Google to track our movements for all kinds of purposes, as well as by law enforcement authorities to answer 911 emergency calls made from cell phones.

By estimating the number of ballots stuffed into drop boxes by these mules in several key states like Georgia and Arizona, and corroborating with the video surveillance, D’Souza raises serious questions about the legitimacy of large numbers of votes in those states—enough to affect the final outcome. Are his claims credible?

The only way to answer that question would be to do what only law enforcement, and not a filmmaker, can do: identify the mules using the video footage and geo-tracking data, pull them in before a grand jury or call them in for questioning, and get answers—under oath—to all of the questions this analysis raises. The same goes for the nonprofit organizations that were apparently organizing this conduct.

Of course, enterprising reporters like the Miami Herald crew who helped the newspaper win a Pulitzer Prize could also use the documentary to try to identify and interview some of these mules and the staff at these nonprofits if they really wanted to get at the truth. If we still had a healthy fourth estate in this country, that would be a great job for them. But apparently there isn’t anyone left in mainstream journalism interested in the truth when it comes to election issues—just regime flunkies paid to criticize Dinesh D’Souza, or anyone else who even broaches the topic.

Tuesday, May 31, 2022

I thought for sure the jury would find him guilty...You know..KILLARY's SCAPEGOAT..!

Michael Sussmann found not guilty of charge brought by Special Prosecutor John Durham  Sussmann had been accused of lying to the FBI  DURHAM PROBEPublished  By Brooke Singman , Jake Gibson , David Spunt Fox News

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The jury on Tuesday found Michael Sussmann not guilty of making a false statement to the FBI in September 2016 when he said he was not working on behalf of any client, when he brought information alleging a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank.

After a two week trial, and more than a day of deliberations, the jury found that Special Counsel John Durham’s team had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Sussmann’s statement was a lie, and that he was, in fact, working on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and technology executive Rodney Joffe when he brought two thumb drives and a white paper alleging a Trump-Russia connection.

Sussmann was charged with one count of making a false statement to the FBI during his meeting with then-FBI General Counsel James Baker on Sept. 19, 2016.

In remarks following the verdict, Sussmann said that he had been falsely accused.

"I told the truth to the FBI, and the Jury clearly recognized this in their unanimous verdict today," he said. "I’m grateful to the members of the jury for their careful thoughtful service. Despite being falsely accused I believe that Justice ultimately prevailed in my case. As you can imagine this has been a difficult year for my family and me. But right now we are grateful for the love and support of so many during this ordeal."

Durham issued a terse statement expressing his office's disappointment.

"While we are disappointed in the outcome, we respect the jury’s decision and thank them for their service," Durham said. "I also want to recognize and thank the investigators and the prosecution team for their dedicated efforts in seeking truth and justice in this case."

The jury included one federal government employee who told the judge they donated to Democrats in 2016 and another government employee who told the judge they "strongly" dislike former President Trump. Both of those jurors told the judge they could be impartial throughout the trial.

The jury also included a teacher, an illustrator, a mechanic and more. One juror had a child who was on the same high school sports team as Sussmann's child.

Uh-Oh: Black Staffers Leaving White House in Droves

The Most Diverse White House EVER™ has a big problem: There’s been a mass exodus of black staffers, with some complaining about a lack of opportunity and mentoring for minority employees.

According to Politico, “At least 21 Black staffers have left the White House since late last year or are planning to leave soon. Some of those who remain say it’s no wonder why: They describe a work environment with little support from their superiors and fewer chances for promotion.”

They’re calling it “Blaxit”—not to be confused with Blexit, an exit of black people from the Democrat party, headed by conservative commentator Candace Owens.

Black staffers leaving the White House include:

  • Kamala Harris’ senior adviser and chief spokesperson Symone Sanders
  • Harris senior aides Tina Flournoy, Ashley Etienne, and Vincent Evans
  • Public engagement head Cedric Richmond
  • Public engagement aide Carissa Smith
  • Gender policy aide Kalisha Dessources Figures
  • National Security Council senior director Linda Etim
  • Digital engagement director Cameron Trimble
  • Associate counsel Funmi Olorunnipa Badejo
  • Chief of staff Ron Klain advisers Elizabeth Wilkins and Niyat Mulugheta
  • Press assistant Natalie Austin
  • National Economic Council aides Joelle Gamble and Connor Maxwell
  • Presidential personnel aides Danielle Okai, Reggie Greer, and Rayshawn Dyson

(How many of these do you think are useless bureaucratic positions that brought nothing of value to the American people to begin with?)

Others who have announced their plans to depart the White House include:

  • Deputy White House counsel Danielle Conley
  • Council of Economic Advisers aide Saharra Griffin

Biden Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre—who, it’s very important to note, is black and likes to have sex with women—defended Biden, saying, “The president is incredibly proud to have built what continues to be the most diverse White House staff in history, and he is committed to continuing historic representation for Black staff and all communities. This is a normal time for turnover across the board in any administration and Black staff have been promoted at a higher rate than staff who are not diverse.”

But many black staffers described a tense work environment with little time off and a lack of opportunities. (No doubt some of these are snowflakes who bought the lie that they’re entitled to six-figure income and a four-day workweek straight out of college.)

“We’re here and we’re doing a lot of work but we’re not decision-makers and there’s no real path towards becoming decision-makers,” a black White House official told Politico. “There is no real feedback and there’s no clear path to any kind of promotions.”

They brought in a ton of Black people generally to start without ever establishing an infrastructure to retain them or help them be successful,” said another black staffer. “If there is no clear infrastructure of how to be successful, you become just as invisible in this space than [sic] you would be if you were not in it.”

Yet another White House employee said that black people “have not had the best experiences and a lot of that has to do with the dearth of Black leadership.”

“Think about any workplace,” the individual added. “Black folks need some person to go to, to strategize and be a mentor, and we just don’t have as many folks who can be mentors to us.”

I don’t know why “black folks” need mentoring any more than white people do in The Most Diverse White House EVER™, but maybe the obsession with counting black and brown faces isn’t panning out the way it’s supposed to?

Anti-Gunners Will Hate What Elon Musk Did for Woman Who Shot Bad Guy Dead   By Grant Atkinson May 31, 2022

The push for gun control has been reignited in the wake of a school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, on May 24 that claimed the lives of 19 children and two adults.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk weighed in on the debate this weekend, and many leftists will not like what he had to say.

On Saturday, a Twitter user shared an article from Fox News describing a West Virginia woman who used her legal firearm to stop a man who was firing an AR-15-style rifle into a crowd.

The woman was attending a birthday and graduation party at an apartment complex in Charleston, Fox News reported. A 37-year-old convicted felon opened fire into the party crowd.

At that point, the woman pulled out her legally registered handgun and fatally shot the suspect. No one at the party was injured.

“She’s just a member of the community who was carrying her firearm lawfully and instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives last night,” Charleston police spokesman Tony Hazelett said, according to Business Insider.

The suspect illegally possessed the gun he fired into the crowd, which would debunk the argument that stricter gun control laws would have stopped his attempt.

The Twitter user who shared the article tagged Musk in his tweet and asked him to spread the word about the heroic woman.

“Hey Elon,” he wrote. “With your following, please help spread the word ‘A good gal stops a bad guy with a gun!’ There are legitimate reasons to carry. Help us counter the lies by anti gunners!”

After he was prodded by political commentator A.J. Delgado, Musk responded to the tweet on Saturday and praised the woman for her actions.

“Wow, good for her for saving those people!” he wrote.



Texas School Shooter Made Multiple Rape and Death Threats. Here's Why Nothing Happened to Him.    Matt Vespa @mvespa1 Posted: May 31, 2022

Another mass shooter that was all but saying he was a ticking time bomb—and no one did anything. This seems to be a pattern. Salvador Ramos shot and killed 19 students at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas which has spurred another wave of anti-gun activism, opportunism by desperate Democrats, and all-around sensationalism in the media who are also hoping to use this mass shooting to distract us from the failing Biden presidency. We all know this.

What is keeping these wounds raw is the ongoing investigation into this shooting, specifically the police response which has earned low marks. The Department of Justice is launching an investigation as the Texas Department of Safety is now saying the decision to hold back and not breach the classroom where Ramos was barricaded was the wrong decision. It’s not known yet, but it wouldn’t shock me if this decision to hang back cost lives. It was nearly an hour before police breached the door which could be locked from the inside.

Yet, we’re also getting reports that Ramos was not some quiet kid, at least not online. He posted various death and rape threats. He was reported. And nothing happened (via WaPo):

He could be cryptic, demeaning and scary, sending angry messages and photos of guns. If they didn’t respond how he wanted, he sometimes threatened to rape or kidnap them — then laughed it off as some big joke.

But the girls and young women who talked with Salvador Ramos online in the months before he killed 19 children in an elementary school in Uvalde, Tex., rarely reported him. His threats seemed too vague, several said in interviews with The Washington Post. One teen who reported Ramos on the social app Yubo said nothing happened as a result.

Some also suspected this was just how teen boys talked on the Internet these days — a blend of rage and misogyny so predictable they could barely tell each one apart. One girl, discussing moments when he had been creepy and threatening, said that was just “how online is.”

In the aftermath of the deadliest school shooting in a decade, many have asked what more could have been done — how an 18-year-old who spewed so much hate to so many on the Web could do so without provoking punishment or raising alarm.

But these threats hadn’t been discovered by parents, friends or teachers. They’d been seen by strangers, many of whom had never met him and had found him only through the social messaging and video apps that form the bedrock of modern teen life.

The girls who spoke with The Post lived around the world but met Ramos on Yubo, an app that mixes live-streaming and social networking and has become known as a “Tinder for teens.” The Yubo app has been downloaded more than 18 million times in the U.S., including more than 200,000 times last month, according to estimates from the analytics firm Sensor Tower.

On Yubo, people can gather in big real-time chatrooms, known as panels, to talk, type messages and share videos — the digital equivalent of a real-world hangout. Ramos, they said, struck up side conversations with them and followed them onto other platforms, including Instagram, where he could send direct messages whenever he wanted.

But over time they saw a darker side, as he posted images of dead cats, texted them strange messages and joked about sexual assault, they said. In a video from a live Yubo chatroom that listeners had recorded and was reviewed by The Post, Ramos could be heard saying, “Everyone in this world deserves to get raped.”

A 16-year-old boy in Austin who said he saw Ramos frequently in Yubo panels, told The Post that Ramos frequently made aggressive, sexual comments to young women on the app and sent him a death threat during one panel in January.

There are many avenues here. The fact that parents or teachers never saw these posts explains why nothing really happened here. There is an attempt to rope in online harassment of women which is a legitimate issue—conservative women are some of the most viciously attacked—but we may have a First Amendment issue here. How do we know what’s real and what’s the usual teenage angst and anger? Maybe the pictures of dead animals might be a good starting point when sifting through bad jokes and all-around kids saying stupid things and folks who need mental health assistance. If anything, it shows that our laws are a good quarter-century behind current technology and that’s an ongoing issue. It’s a periphery one with regards to this tragic shooting, and it might not be one we may be able to police effectively.



Payton Gendron, the mass shooter in Buffalo, reportedly told six people of his intention to commit mass murder, one of whom is a retired federal agent. He told these people thirty minutes before he attacked the Tops Friendly Market. They did nothing since this group chat appears to be one for white nationalists. That still doesn’t shield them from possibly being charged as accomplices for their inaction.

The red flags were there in Uvalde, but how we respond or even find them at times remains another matter.