For his own sake, DeSantis should drop out

posted by David Marcus at Human Events 

The race between Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley to secure a clear and commanding second place to Donald Trump is starting to feel like an old Law and Order episode. 

You know the ones.

Where two guys who committed a crime are separated and the first one to flip gets the better plea deal?

As it stands, DeSantis and Haley could both choose to be the first to drop out and endorse Trump, thus ensuring the other is set up for a grueling one on one with the surging former president that looks to be a very uphill climb.

Trump is at 65 percent in the Real Clear Average of polls, neither Obama or McCain hit that number in 2008, neither did Biden in 2020, put simply, for Trump to lose now would be the greatest presidential primary collapse since Ed Muskie broke into tears in New Hampshire in ‘72.

It is important to keep in mind that both candidates are Gen Xers with decades of potential political success ahead of them should they fail to snag the nomination, and in this light, it makes much more sense for DeSantis to be the first to fall on his sword.

The key factor here is that DeSantis remains very popular with wide swaths of Trump supporters in a way that Haley simply doesn’t, he has not yet ceded his claim to be heir to Trump’s populist throne.

Today, if he could get a keynote speech at next year’s Republican convention in exchange for backing Trump it would be a pretty good deal, and a real opportunity.

DeSantis could say that while Trump will be commander in chief, he will be the general on the field, getting the battles won, these are the kinds of speeches in which stars are born, or in this case perhaps, reborn.

For all the talk of meatballs, pudding and high heels barraging the Florida governor from Trump world, the bridges here are still mendable.

This was made clear this week in an X post from none other than firebrand populist Rep. Matt Gaetz saying he looks forward to “all the DeSantis and Trump people being friends again,” after Iowa and fixing their target at Haley.

Speaking of Haley, the case for her to drop out is entirely different, because her approach to the race has been entirely different. 

Aside from Chris Christie, Haley is the only candidate left who is running not to be a better executed extension of Trump style populism, but a turn, or return, in a different direction.

From her hawkish foreign policy to her squishy stance on abortion, to her removal of the confederate battle banner from South Carolina’s flag, Haley runs to the middle, echoing the style of the Bushes.

A knock down, drag out fight with Trump, even one she loses badly, would only burnish her bona fides as the leader of the establishment wing of the GOP.

And that wing not only still has significant power, but would need to be on board for any Republican president to effectively govern, as Trump found out in his term in the Oval Office.

For DeSantis, that same ugly battle in the trenches with Trump could leave him so battered and bloody that future national aspirations become untenable.

Part of the reticence to dropping out among DeSantis’s strongest supporters is rooted in the fact he is viewed, rightfully, as a heroic figure who is actually getting things done, from Covid, to education, to protecting kids. 

There is palpable frustration over the fact that his parade of accomplishments has not moved the numbers in his favor.

Volumes will be written about the failure of the DeSantis campaign to gain traction, theories abound.

It was too online, it should have officially launched earlier, it should not have officially launched on Twitter, say some, others say, well, he just doesn’t have “it.”

All of these are plausible factors but it might be much simpler, and it might not have a whole lot to do with Ron DeSantis.

It has become increasingly clear that GOP voters, whether they think Biden won fair and square in 2020 or not, see the undemocratic efforts by the Democrats to sideline Trump, either with flimsy criminal cases, or this week, by removing him from Colorado’s ballot as a deep threat to the republic, one that must be stopped. 

In that spirit, for voters who like both Trump and DeSantis a vote for Trump has the bonus of sending a message to the Democrats and the deep state that they will not be allowed to deny Trump his candidacy.

Ron DeSantis needs to start thinking about taking the deal.

He can throw a hail mary in Iowa but barring an unlikely blowout in his favor, little is likely to change.

What the heralded Florida governor does over the next month, how he handles the very likely end of his candidacy, will go far to determining his future in Republican politics, for now that future can still be very bright.  

X22, And we Know, and more- December 27

 

When Did Commercials Become Filled With Ugly People?

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall 

You can’t turn on the TV these days without there being some ad that leaves you scratching your head wondering, 'who the hell thought that was a good idea?' Stupid music, dumb people doing annoying things, and a very high percentage of them are just downright ugly. When did this happen?

There isn’t an Amazon TV commercial that doesn’t feature some kind of weirdo. There's the one with the semi-cross-dressing freak buying whatever. I honestly have no idea what that creature with the unibrow is looking for because I look away when it’s on. Should an ad make the viewer recoil? Should it cause bulimia? 

I have to assume this is a deliberate choice, otherwise they’d bust out the weed whacker and slice through that brow.

Then there’s the hairy guy who may or may not live in some Nordic country who needs to buy sheep sheers to shave his hairy chest so his fat ass can jump into cold water while people watch. I assume there’s some kind of story to the ad, but what will remain a mystery – it’s just one fat guy getting wet and cold, something he’s very excited about, while others are there. I honestly never even noticed if anyone else looked wet in the ad, it’s just so stupid it’s hard to focus on anything else.

I get that Jeff Bezos and his fiancé are fans of plastic surgery, or at least they sure seem to be, but at some point shouldn’t they notice people aren’t looking at them because he’s rich but because they both kind of look like disastrous “after” pictures in a newspaper ad from a law firm fishing for clients who’ve been abused by a malicious doctor?

The next step is an Amazon ad for a bone saw with a guy living in a cabin in the woods.

Amazon isn’t the only one making incredibly stupid ads featuring wildly unattractive people. Sephora and Ulta Beauty, ironically, have a lot of cross-dressing “trans” people pushing their garbage.

Honestly, if you’re looking for beauty advice from a hairy fem-guy, you’re doing it wrong. If you think a confused guy wearing glitter lip gloss is the key to moving your product, your product should be a moving van because normal people will get the hell away from you as quickly as humanly possible.

I know you’re not supposed to say these things, but I can’t bring myself to care anymore. I have a wife and two daughters, and while the daughters are too young for most of this crap, when I do buy them nail polish or something for my wife, I avoid these places like the plague. I’m sure the products they sell are fine, I just want nothing to do with the company.

Embracing mentally unstable people is not “tolerance,” it’s exploitation. These companies are gross. They’re a couple of ad campaigns away from embracing a child molester as a “minor-attracted person” with a “love is love” campaign. Yeah, they’re that gross.

Who do they think this appeals to? Who looks at a commercial with a guy dressed like a woman and thinks, “This captures who I am!”? What is the percentage of the population that such ads draw in, less than one? What is the percentage it repels? When your ad campaign involves the hope that people seeing it aren’t paying attention to the details of it, you’re doing something wrong.

I’m glad I’m not a stockholder of these companies because even if they don’t cause the stock to crater, they and the people who signed off on it are most definitely holding back the progress.

And don’t get me started on the stupid lyrics in songs in some of these ads. Fanatics ads for NFL gear feature songs that people with brain damage recognize as dumb. If your market is people who buy things stupid people want, you’re gonna grow like crazy. As for me, I’m never going to use your products.

I’m old enough to remember when ads were about glamour and trying to sell the idea that your life could be like the commercial if only you had their product. It was selling an illusion, but it was an aspirational one. Now it’s punishment. A threat: Use this and the people you hope your kids never turn into or move into your neighborhood will…I don’t know what.

If they’re trying to appeal to as few people as possible, well done. If they’re hoping to draw in new customers, well, they’ve certainly cornered the Cro-Magnon market, for whatever that’s worth.

Doctors fear new Covid strain could trigger 'heart failure pandemic' across the globe

 

Covid-19 could trigger a 'heart failure pandemic', experts have warned, calling it a 'global healthcare risk'. The rise in Covid cases, especially due to the new strain known as JN.1, could lead to potential heart issues.

Scientists from Japan's top research institute, Riken, have issued a new report. They say the ACE2 receptors, which the coronavirus clings to within human cells, are 'very common' in the heart. This means many people who catch the virus may suffer from 'reduced cardiac function'.

The reason for this is still not clear. However, the report suggests the Covid pandemic might have changed things significantly. It warns those at risk of future heart failure due to 'persistent infection of SARS-CoV-2 (Covis-19) is expected to exponentially increase'.

The report states: "Even though conclusive clinical evidence that persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with declined cardiac function has not been reported so far, the proof-of-concept study of the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 persistent infection of the heart and the potential risk of opportunistic progression of heart failure should be validated by a three-dimensional human cardiac tissue model which would serve as the alarm bell for a global healthcare risk."

Riken research leader Hidetoshi Masumoto said: "Some people infected with Coronavirus may have persistent viral infections in their hearts. A testing system and treatment methods must be established in preparation for a 'heart failure pandemic,' in which we will see a rapid increase in the number of heart failure patients. The explosive increase in the number of virus-infected patients due to the COVID-19 pandemic may have led to an enormous increase in the number of patients at potential risk for future heart failure. These patients would be predicted to maintain cardiac function superficially despite being at marginal risk."

The latest warning comes with Covid cases significantly spiking in the US as millions of people prepared to travel for the holiday season, with the fast-spreading JN.1 variant making up 44 percent of all cases nationwide. The latest analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows this has more than doubled from its share earlier this month.

Officials are also worried the rising number of flu cases could lead to a big increase in illnesses this winter, especially with crowded New Year's celebrations coming up.

Michael Osterholm, an expert on diseases and director at the University of Minnesota, told KIRO7: "JN.1, which we're now seeing, is one that clearly is spreading very quickly around the world. And there's evidence that it is actually causing (an) increased number of illnesses. And particularly in some who have already had Covid before or may have been vaccinated before."

Doctors fear new Covid strain could trigger 'heart failure pandemic' across the globe (msn.com)

So you want a machine-gun?

posted by Mike McDaniel at American Thinker 

You’ve been watching action movies for like forever, and you have some spare cash. It’s time to cowboy up and buy…wait for it…a machinegun! Except you can’t. You sort of can, but not really.

But I don’t want a belt-fed, general-purpose machinegun, you know, a rifle caliber, crew-served weapon, just a submachine gun—go here for a subgun primer--like an Uzi or MP5 or Thompson, something that shoots pistol caliber ammo, like 9mm or .45ACP.

Until 1934, Americans could own machineguns without restriction. It was Prohibition, and the organized crime it birthed, that made criminal machine gun use newsworthy, and the 1934 National Firearms Act, enacted a year after the repeal of Prohibition by the 21st Amendment, regulated possession.  It imposed a $200 non-transferrable tax, government registration, background checks (fingerprinting, photographs, etc.) and storage requirements, all of which take many months at bureaucratic speed to process. The same process is required for suppressors, and rifles or shotguns that do not meet minimum federal barrel length—at least 16” for rifles, 18” for shotguns--and overall length—at least 26” for both--minimums.  

There have been attempts to liberalize the law, particularly for suppressors, but even when Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress, congressional “leaders” felt “it just wasn’t the right time.”  Somehow, it never is.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 froze the importation of new automatic firearms and in 1986 the Firearm Owners Protection Act was passed, largely to try to end rampant government abuses of law-abiding gun owners. During final debate, late at night when most Representatives were gone, a Democrat introduced a ban amendment, and the execrable Charles Rangel (D-NY), the presiding officer, called a voice vote. Even though it was obviously defeated, Rangel declared it passed. Republicans, fearing the media would say mean things about them, rolled over–-D/S/Cs had not yet hit on reflexively calling everyone and everything racist–-and all fully automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986 became unavailable for citizen ownership (18 USC 921).   

Democrats/Socialists/Communists have so successfully demonized common semiautomatic rifles that provision has never been struck down. One can still own a fully automatic gun—even crew-served, belt-fed, rifle caliber guns--following the procedure established in 1934, but the 1986 amendment froze the number of such weapons in circulation. 

I can own a suppressor?  A short-barreled, semiautomatic rifle or shotgun?

Yes, but they’re treated like machineguns, so the entire federal process for each one applies, including the $200, non-transferrable tax, for which one gets an actual, official, stamp. Fortunately, contemporary suppressor companies have made the process as painless as possible. They do all the federal paperwork, and when the ATF gets around to approving it, your suppressor is delivered to your doorstep. You will shoot to the top of government “insurrectionist, domestic terrorist, radical, traditional Christian, MAGA” lists.

Cool!  What about my submachine gun?

The problem is virtually none are for sale, and the few that are cost whatever the market will bear, which these days means tens, even hundreds, of thousands of dollars. Submachine guns are gold mines, increasingly scarce gold mines, and they’re not selling. When their owners die, their guns will probably be lost in tragic boating accidents. Remember, only guns made before May 19, 1986 may be owned by Americans. Even individual police officers are in the same boat. Their agencies can own new subguns, and of course the military can, but not individuals. It’s a seller’s market. The law has driven up the price of newly made weapons for even governmental agencies.

But who needs a submachine gun, a suppressor or a short-barreled rifle or shotgun?

No one needs a car capable of traveling more than 50 MPH. No one needs a Corvette, but Joe Biden has one. No one needs air conditioning, electric toothbrushes or any of the products and conveniences we take for granted, yet none of those things are integral to securing a specifically enumerated constitutional right.

As with any firearm, one should be properly trained in the manual of arms, the specific techniques and procedures of safely loading, firing, making safe, cleaning and maintenance of the weapon. Machineguns are, like pistols or shotguns, simply tools designed for specific purposes. In the history of American gun ownership machineguns have been criminally used by their federally licensed owners perhaps four times. Unlike what one sees in the movies, they are not bullet-hosing mass-death machines. Like all guns, they must be aimed and fired from the shoulder, using only two to three rounds bursts.

But all that is irrelevant; our legislative betters have made that choice, and so many others, for us. Now you know why and how.

OBITUARY Gaston Glock, the man behind the gun, dies aged 94 -

 

Dec 27 - Gaston Glock, the reclusive engineer and tycoon who developed one of the world's best-selling handguns, died on Wednesday aged 94, Austrian news agency APA said.

The Austrian won loyal followings among police and military across the world with the weapons that bore his name. Forbes estimated his and his family's fortune at $1.1 billion in 2021.

His rise began in the 1980s when the Austrian military was looking for a new, innovative weapon. 

Up until then, the Glock company had made military knives and consumer goods including curtain rods. But he assembled a team of firearms experts and came up with the Glock 17, a lightweight semi-automatic gun largely made of plastic.

The revolutionary design - with a frame made of a high-strength, nylon-based polymer and only the slide made of metal - beat several other companies' blueprints and secured his upstart outfit the contract.  

Soon the easily assembled weapon became a global hit. "Get yourself a Glock and lose that nickel-plated sissy pistol," Tommy Lee Jones said in the 1998 movie "U.S. Marshals".

Many U.S. police officers used them and U.S. rappers worked them into their rhymes, among them Snoop Dogg's "Protocol" and Wu-Tang Clan's "Da Glock".

U.S. soldiers found toppled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein hiding with a Glock in a hole in the ground in 2003. They later presented that weapon to U.S. President George W. Bush, according to the New York Times. 

Gun-control advocates criticised Glock for popularising powerful guns that they said were easy to conceal and could hold more ammunition than other guns.

A former U.S. Marine combat veteran armed with what police described as a .45 caliber Glock with a high-capacity magazine killed 12 people in a bar in Thousand Oaks, California, in November 2018.

White supremacist Dylann Roof used a Glock pistol to kill nine African-American people during a Bible study session at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, in June, 2015.  

MALLET ATTACK

Glock himself rarely responded to criticism from activists, shunned public debate and, in 2000, refused to join other weapons manufacturers in signing a voluntary gun control deal with the U.S. government.

He made few comments of any kind to the press, but the public got glimpses of a sometimes tempestuous private life through the courts.

At the age of 70, in July 1999, he survived an attempt on his life when an investment broker who managed his assets hired a former wrestler to attack him with a rubber hammer, a court heard. 

Glock had grown suspicious of how the broker was managing his affairs and had flown to Luxembourg to confront him, lawyers said. He suffered seven blows to the head but fended off the assault. The broker, Charles Ewert, and the attacker, Jacques Pecheur, were both jailed.

His 49-year-old marriage with Helga Glock ended in divorce in 2011 and the pair embarked on a lengthy legal battle over alimony. Soon after, he married his second wife, Kathrin, more than 50 years his junior.

He owned a lakefront mansion and a state-of-the-art equestrian sport centre in the province of Carinthia, where celebrities showed up for parties.

He is survived by his wife, a daughter and two sons. 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/obituary-gaston-glock-man-behind-gun-dies-aged-94-apa-2023-12-27/   

Military Gear: The Worst (and Best) From the Perspective of a Cold Warrior

posted by Ward Clark at RedState 

Since WW2, the U.S. military has been pretty lavishly equipped (at least, until recently), but there are some items of military hardware and general issue that we'd rather forget. Anyone who has worn Uncle Sam's colors knows about this. Some of the ideas of the people who develop military equipment and personal gear are so harebrained that you have to seriously wonder what, at the end of the day, they are really trying to accomplish.

Whether it’s something like canteens or those leather glove shells, U.S. service members are no strangers to gear that is a hassle to use, a hassle to store, and a hassle to turn in when you’re done with it. 

Everyone’s opinions on this may differ. Maybe your shoulders are still a little sore from wearing one of those old load bearing vests. Maybe your ears are still ringing despite your usage of 3M earplugs. Maybe you’re even a contrarian and just don’t like your woobie. 

Last week, we asked Task & Purpose readers what their least favorite, most useless piece of issued equipment was. 

Some of the equipment discussed therein is after my time in the service, but anyone of late Cold War vintage, like me, has their own personal list of the worst junk the U.S. Army ever issued. Here are some of mine.

1. The angle-neck flashlight. Unreliable, heavy, and went through batteries like crap through a goose. I never used one after Basic, when we had no choice; those got left behind when we deployed, and almost everyone I knew bought a mini-Maglite with a red filter and carried those instead.
2. OD raincoat and rain pants. We called them "snivel gear" but more often "puke gear" because of the smell that never, ever went away.
3. The Gama Goat. This was a real abomination, a tactical vehicle (as in, intended for use in combat) that was a six-by-six, articulated monstrosity in which the driver sat in a canvas-covered cab over a fuel tank. Maintenance people hated it, but soldiers really detested it.
4. The Extreme Cold Weather Sleeping Bag was first issued in the mid-'70s. This was supposedly a down bag, but in fact, I'm pretty certain it was filled with chicken feathers, with some of the chickens still attached. This thing was rated to -20, meaning that at these temps the bag might prevent you from actually freezing to death - then again, it might not. Every morning you crawled out of the bag smelling like someone who had just driven a truck full of chickens into a mothball factory.
5. Woolen cold weather underwear. This stuff, I am convinced to this day, was the result of a Communist plot to render U.S. troops combat-ineffective by driving them mad scratching.
6. Mosquito netting. These were made to delay the attacks by mosquitoes by prompting them to fall to the ground laughing. After a few moments they would recover, ring the dinner bell, and you would find yourself the main course for a mosquito banquet.
7. The ALICE pack. Not a bad piece when used as luggage, but one of the worst to use as a backpack. Lots of us came to associate the rattling and squeaking of the ALICE pack frame as the accompanying sound on a road march until it was replaced by the rattling and squeaking of our backs.
8. Black leather gloves with liners. These things were terrible. The liners were so thin as to be non-existent, and the black leather shells so stiff that, when trying to carry out ordinary tasks that require opposable thumbs, you felt like you were trying to manipulate your gear with two ping-pong paddles.

The list could go on endlessly (and feel free to put some of your own in the comments), but, as do most veterans, I have a couple of winners as well: pieces of equipment and gear that were a soldier's best friend.

1. The M-65 Field Jacket. This was a Vietnam-era jacket, into which could be buttoned a quilted liner. These things were great - lots of pockets, heavy, water-resistant (especially when sprayed with Sno-Seal,) and warm. They even had epaulets for the coveted "green tab" that were authorized to those of us assigned to Infantry divisions (I wore one as a Medical Platoon Leader in an Infantry battalion). I still have a couple of these around, although they seem to have inexplicably shrunk over the years. Some complained about them in truly cold weather, which they weren't intended for, but in temps from freezing up to about 60, even in wet weather, they were great.
2. The M1911AI pistol. I was issued one of these during my brief stint as a Company Aidman. I can't find enough good things to say about John Browning's great work. Powerful, reliable, decent ergonomics and sights for a martial sidearm; with the possible exception of another Browning work, the High Power, it is probably the best military sidearm ever made.
3. The M-1950 Lensatic Compass. With one of these, a decent map, a protractor, and some experience in land navigation, one could never get lost - you just had to make sure to keep them away from Second Lieutenants. They worked, and you didn't have to rely on GPS that could conceivably be knocked out or interfered with.
4. Poncho liners. Nobody ever used one of these to line a poncho. They were great for wrapping up and sleeping in mild weather; they could be used to pad stuff in a field chest or rucksack. The good old poncho liner has a million uses. They're handy enough that I still, many years later, keep several around, including one in each vehicle, and I even keep one for evenings in front of the television.

Only yesterday we discussed an incident that took place on a Christmas long ago, which set the standard for fortitude and resolve for the U.S. military ever since. Our troops have at times worked wonders with inadequate equipment, but adequate equipment is always better, even for a POGUE (Personnel On Ground with Unused Equipment.) Political winds may blow hot and cold (one could argue that at the present moment, they blow senile), but the needs of the troops don't change. Good equipment and especially tech, as our Israeli allies are showing us right now, can be a great force multiplier.

But equipment as mundane as a decent cold-weather jacket, a flashlight that works every time, a canteen that doesn't make your water taste like you sucked it out of an old tire, and a vehicle that provides decent protection, those things are necessary, too. But then, those things don't give us old vets anything to contribute when a bunch of us are gathered around playing the "No s***, there I was" game.

UFC Fighter Bo Nickal Describes Meeting and Golfing with President Donald Trump

UFC Fighter Bo Nickal was recently talking to Joe Rogan when the subject of politics and President Donald Trump came up. Mr. Nickal had an interesting story to tell of his encounter with President Trump. WATCH:

2023 Was the Year of Business Closures, Thanks to Liberal Politics in Big Cities

Ward Clark reporting for RedState 

Some years back one of my literary heroes, Robert Heinlein, wrote one of the more astute observations of human history I've ever seen.

“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as "bad luck.”  

He was right, and we're seeing it happen, right here, right now. Our major cities are seeing a run of bad luck lately, as my esteemed colleague Streiff pointed out. Businesses are closing down as well, not only in California but in all of our major cities.

Major metropolises like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Portland and Washington, D.C., were plagued by retail thieves ransacking malls and department stores, with many of the instances caught on video that were posted on social media.

The National Retail Federation (NRF) announced in September that shoplifting accounted for $112.1 billion in losses in 2022, up from $93.9 billion in 2021.

"Retailers are seeing unprecedented levels of theft coupled with rampant crime in their stores, and the situation is only becoming more dire," said David Johnston, NRF vice president for asset protection and retail operations. "Far beyond the financial impact of these crimes, the violence and concerns over safety continue to be the priority for all retailers, regardless of size or category."

The producers leaving the state, the business closures, and the crime all have at their heart one thing: Unchallenged rule by liberal Democrats. That small minority - productive people who start and run businesses, who risk their capital and, these days, their safety to operate retail establishments in these cities - they are facing the fate that Heinlein describes. It's bad in California, where the state is overseen by one of the most hapless, incompetent governors in the history of the republic (even if he does find the occasional acorn), but all of our major cities, with almost universally Democrat mayors, council members district attorneys, and prosecutors, are suffering from this. Some of them, granted, are starting to see the light - probably too late.

In August, a Bay Area county supervisor, frustrated by rising retail theft in the area, admitted that state laws were "not working" to deter criminals.

"Enough is enough. All this retail theft. All this sort of crime, enough is enough. We really need to look at state laws. What we have in place right now is not working," San Mateo County Supervisor David Canepa said. "We can't go on like this."

The Democrat admitted that he regretted supporting California's Prop 47, which voters passed in 2014. Prop 47 downgraded certain thefts and drug possession crimes from a felony to a misdemeanor if the value of the stolen goods was less than $950.

"I had supported Proposition 47, which basically said you wouldn't prosecute — the crimes were much different at the level of up to $950. I thought it was a good idea at the time because I thought we need to give people an opportunity, we need to give people a chance," Canepa said to CBS News Bay Area.

Oh, they were given a chance, all right. The chance to rob, to steal, with almost no fear of any consequences. People in these cities also now have the chance to sell illegal drugs openly, to shoot up in public, to drop trou and take a dump on the sidewalks. The people who live in those cities are, justifiably, getting sick of it. They are sick of being unable to go out at night. They are sick of stepping over poop, discarded needles, and lakes of urine during the day. They are sick of the thievery, the breaking and entering, the vandalism, and the smell. The productive among them are leaving, and one can scarcely blame them. They are closing their businesses and heading for greener pastures, leaving those cities with fewer and fewer places to buy the necessities of life. Those who stay, well, let's be honest; many of them are voters, yes, and they will continue to vote for the gravy train promised by big-city Democrats. This has caused the problem, this will perpetuate the problem, and this will be the downfall of our major metropolises.

I’ve been worried for years now about the decay of our major cities. Maybe California's metroplian areas cities are leading the way, but cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit are close behind. Our major cities are destroying themselves, and some of them may well be past the point of no return. Ayn Rand saw it coming; in her novel "Atlas Shrugged," the protagonist, John Galt, proclaimed that he would "stop the motor of the world" and that people would know his task was complete when they saw the lights of New York go out. As it turned out, though, it didn't take a John Galt; all it took was a couple of generations of one-party, Democrat rule. 

How long will it be before the lights of New York go out? And what will happen after that?

It's coming. Get out of the cities, folks.

Texas State Troopers Will Stop Patrolling Austin Amid Rising Crime Rates

Jeff Charles reporting for RedState 

Amid concerns about rising crime rates in Austin, TX, the city decided to end its collaboration with state law enforcement. As major cities all across the country have been grappling with handling illegal activity, this move is sure to raise some eyebrows.

On Saturday, it was reported that the Texas state troopers would no longer patrol Austin for violent crime.

The Texas Department of Public Safety's Austin Violent Crimes Task Force will no longer patrol the city, starting this weekend. These state troopers were tasked with addressing violent crime and supporting an understaffed police department.

The partnership between the Austin Police Department and DPS began in March and was temporarily suspended in May for state troopers to address border security after the expiration of Title 42, a holdover migration policy from the Trump administration.

The initiative was relaunched a few weeks later but lasted only 10 days before the city and APD formally ended the initiative. State troopers continued to patrol the city as part of their assignment.

The program was not without criticism as members of the community alleged state troopers were racial profiling while they patrolled the city. But then-Police Chief Joseph Chacon defended the officers.

The Department of Public Safety told another news outlet that it will be devoting more of its efforts to the southern border. As RedState reported, Gov. Greg Abbott recently signed legislation that would make it a state crime to cross the border illegally.

On Monday, Texas' Republican Governor Greg Abbott signed into law SB 4, which effectively makes illegal entry into Texas a state-level crime. This would allow enforcement by Texas state police and local law enforcement.

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas signed into law Monday a bill that makes entering Texas illegally a state crime, an extraordinary step in the hard-fought legal battle between the state and the federal government over efforts to curtail illegal immigration.

The measure, SB 4, grants local law enforcement the power to arrest migrants and judges the ability to issue orders to remove them to Mexico. It has sent ripples of fear throughout the Latino community in Texas, which makes up 40% of the state’s population, and was condemned by civil rights organizations and immigration advocacy groups after the Texas legislature passed it last month. 

The law is expected to take effect in March.

Constitutional objections are already being raised by Texas Democrats; immigration is an issue that, under the Constitution, is enforced by the federal government, but it is something of an understatement to note that, for the last few years, such enforcement has been inefficient and in some locations non-existent. Since President Biden took office, there have been 7.5 million illegal immigrant "encounters" nationwide, 6.2 million encounters at the Southwest border, and 1.7 million known "gotaways."

The are several different aspects of this development that warrant attention.

For starters, with DPS focusing on border security, it would allow the state to put more energy into managing the border crisis more strategically. Being that the Biden administration appears not to be interested in addressing the problem, Texas will have to pick up the slack.

There have been concerns about racial profiling and overly aggressive policing tactics in Austin for years. The APD has implemented several reforms to address these issues. While there have been complaints about how state law enforcement has operated in the city, it is not clear how pervasive the profiling issue has become.

This development means that local law enforcement can take more control over their jurisdictions, which would make for more localized and tailored crime-fighting strategies. The Austin police academy will be graduating new cadets after dealing with a yearslong shortage of officers. This could also help to offset the understaffing issue.

On the other hand, crime in Austin has become an urgent issue – especially when it comes to violent and property crimes.

For Austin, we found that the violent crime rate is one of the highest in the nation, across communities of all sizes (both large and small). Violent offenses tracked included rape, murder and non-negligent manslaughter, armed robbery, and aggravated assault, including assault with a deadly weapon. According to NeighborhoodScout's analysis of FBI reported crime data, your chance of becoming a victim of one of these crimes in Austin is one in 191.

In addition, NeighborhoodScout found that a lot of the crime that takes place in Austin is property crime. Property crimes that are tracked for this analysis are burglary, larceny over fifty dollars, motor vehicle theft, and arson. In Austin, your chance of becoming a victim of a property crime is one in 28, which is a rate of 36 per one thousand population.

Importantly, we found that Austin has one of the highest rates of motor vehicle theft in the nation according to our analysis of FBI crime data. This is compared to communities of all sizes, from the smallest to the largest. In fact, your chance of getting your car stolen if you live in Austin is one in 210.

The rise in crime is the reason why state troopers had gotten involved in the city in the first place. The issue isn’t law enforcement as much as progressive district attorneys prioritizing violent criminals over the residents they victimize. Jose Garza, the district attorney for Travis County, has come under fire for taking a soft approach to violent and property crime.

A district attorney for one of Texas' metros could be in jeopardy of losing his job. The Travis County District Attorney José Garza is facing a civil lawsuit under a new state law that could remove him from office, according to Fox 7.

An Austin-area resident has filed the lawsuit in accordance with legislation passed by Texas lawmakers in the spring to hold "rogue district attorneys" accountable. The Travis county resident named Jason Salazar filed the petition on November 30 to remove Garza from office on the grounds of incompetency and misconduct, according to The Texan.

Among the multiple allegations in the suit, Salazar is alleging that Garza's office has adopted a policy that singles out law enforcement when presenting charges against them to a grand jury and that the DA maintains a "do not call to testify" list of officers, according to The Texan. The petition also accuses Garza's office of refusing to prosecute certain criminal laws including some drug offenses.

While the city is working to replenish its law enforcement staff, the rise in crime remains an issue. One could argue that it would make more sense to wait until Austin has a full staff of officers before removing state troopers.

Lawsuit Claims CIA Hid Records of 'Monetary Payoffs' to Bury COVID Lab Leak Findings

Jennifer Van Laar reporting for RedState 

A new lawsuit filed by the Heritage Foundation's Oversight Project claims that the Central Intelligence Agency is withholding records that would show payoffs to analysts for burying evidence that a lab leak was the probable cause of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Back in September, a whistleblower told Congress that six of the seven CIA officers assigned to the agency's COVID Discovery Team, which "consisted of multi-disciplinary and experienced officers with significant scientific expertise," did not believe the evidence pointed to zoonotic transfer, but the most senior member of the team did. The whistleblower also testified that after receiving a "significant incentive" those six members changed their position.

After hearing this testimony, Reps. Brad Wenstrup and Mike Turner sent a letter to the CIA and a former official, according to Fox News, requesting documents related to the COVID Discovery Team. The letter read, in part:

"A multi-decade, senior-level, current Agency officer has come forward to provide information to the Committees regarding the Agency’s analysis into the origins of COVID-19. 

"According to the whistleblower, at the end of its review, six of the seven members of the Team believed that intelligence and science were sufficient to make a low confidence assessment that COVID-19 originated from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. The seventh member of the Team, who also happened to be the most senior, was the one officer to believe COVID-19 originated through zoonosis.

"The whistleblower further contends that to come to the eventual public determination of uncertainty, the other six members were given a significant monetary incentive to change their position."

The whistleblower named former CIA chief operating officer Andrew Makridis as "play[ing] a central role in [the Covid Discovery Group's] formation and eventual conclusion that the CIA was unable to determine" the origins of COVID-19."

Republican Sens. Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, Lindsey Graham, and Rick Scott sent a similar letter to the CIA the same day. 

On September 20, eight days after the House and Senate letters to the CIA, the Heritage Foundation sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the agency, seeking records similar to those requested by lawmakers. To date, the CIA hasn't produced the documents or provided a reason for the delay.

Heritage is suing the CIA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and its lawsuit lays out five claims of relief against the CIA.

Heritage’s original FOIA request sought records from the creation of the discovery team and all records shared among team members associated with COVID-19’s origins. In addition, the conservative group demanded records of any financial bonuses and communications between discovery team members and officials from numerous agencies across the federal government.

The lawsuit asks the court to compel the CIA to produce all non-exempt records under Heritage’s prior FOIA request and to cover Heritage’s costs incurred.

Lawmakers haven't released any information related to documents they might or might not have received from the CIA as a result of their requests, but back in September Tammy Kupperman Thorp, CIA spox, denied the allegations but said they'd check into them. (Insert wink/nod here.)

At CIA we are committed to the highest standards of analytic rigor, integrity, and objectivity.  We do not pay analysts to reach specific conclusions.  We take these allegations extremely seriously and are looking into them.  We will keep our Congressional oversight committees appropriately informed.

In Congressional testimony in April 2023, though, former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said that "a lab leak is the only explanation [for the COVID-19 pandemic] credibly supported by our intelligence, by science and by common sense."