Each day at just after midnight Eastern, a post like this one is created for contributors and readers of this site to upload news links and video links on the issues that concern this site. Most notably, Islam and its effects on Classical Civilization, and various forms of leftism from Soviet era communism, to postmodernism and all the flavours of galloping statism and totalitarianism such as Nazism and Fascism which are increasingly snuffing out the classical liberalism which created our near, miraculous civilization the West has been building since the time of Socrates.
This document was written around the time this site was created, for those who wish to understand what this site is about. And while our understanding of the world and events has grown since then, the basic ideas remain sound and true to the purpose.
So please post all links, thoughts and ideas that you feel will benefit the readers of this site to the comments under this post each day. And thank you all for your contributions.
This is the new Samizdat. We must use it while we can.
For those interested, please check out https://vladtepesblog.substack.com/ as an another avenue of expression. The Substack is a different project in a sense. It is older videos that in the light of subsequent events, look different or of increased importance, Check it out now and again if you like.
Good morning:
Couples pretty much did alright without feminism:
On how Canada for a very long time has been run by elitist criminals, and that President Trump knows it:
About the Hunt Bros. attempt to corner the silver market. Or were they? It seems that despite their vilification they in fact had noble ideas over keeping the integrity of the USD, and in the end the rules were changed to defeat them. That scenario is remarkably similar to today’s, except there dod not exist then the massive debt loads we have now:
https://youtu.be/VXGxJk2gF4k?si=RK3JVuYogkjx1fvY
Hegelian Dialectics mask new communism by name, urges German youth to die somewhere over the rainbow:
https://rmx.news/article/germanys-stern-magazine-calls-for-conscription-of-young-people-to-take-up-arms-to-defend-diversity-in-pro-war-propaganda-piece/
We need a reset in more ways than one:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pPiverIpHHQ
Federalist No. 62
The Senate
For the Independent Journal.
Author: Alexander Hamilton or James Madison
To the People of the State of New York:
HAVING examined the constitution of the House of Representatives, and answered such of the objections against it as seemed to merit notice, I enter next on the examination of the Senate.
The heads into which this member of the government may be considered are: I. The qualification of senators; II. The appointment of them by the State legislatures; III. The equality of representation in the Senate; IV. The number of senators, and the term for which they are to be elected; V. The powers vested in the Senate.
I. The qualifications proposed for senators, as distinguished from those of representatives, consist in a more advanced age and a longer period of citizenship. A senator must be thirty years of age at least; as a representative must be twenty-five. And the former must have been a citizen nine years; as seven years are required for the latter. The propriety of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and stability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages; and which, participating immediately in transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education. The term of nine years appears to be a prudent mediocrity between a total exclusion of adopted citizens, whose merits and talents may claim a share in the public confidence, and an indiscriminate and hasty admission of them, which might create a channel for foreign influence on the national councils.
II. It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.
III. The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a PROPORTIONAL share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an EQUAL share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation. But it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but “of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.” A common government, with powers equal to its objects, is called for by the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation, of America. A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.
In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.
Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.
IV. The number of senators, and the duration of their appointment, come next to be considered. In order to form an accurate judgment on both of these points, it will be proper to inquire into the purposes which are to be answered by a senate; and in order to ascertain these, it will be necessary to review the inconveniences which a republic must suffer from the want of such an institution.
First. It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust. In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient. This is a precaution founded on such clear principles, and now so well understood in the United States, that it would be more than superfluous to enlarge on it. I will barely remark, that as the improbability of sinister combinations will be in proportion to the dissimilarity in the genius of the two bodies, it must be politic to distinguish them from each other by every circumstance which will consist with a due harmony in all proper measures, and with the genuine principles of republican government.
Secondly. The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as well as from the history of other nations. But a position that will not be contradicted, need not be proved. All that need be remarked is, that a body which is to correct this infirmity ought itself to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought, moreover, to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of considerable duration.
Thirdly. Another defect to be supplied by a senate lies in a want of due acquaintance with the objects and principles of legislation. It is not possible that an assembly of men called for the most part from pursuits of a private nature, continued in appointment for a short time, and led by no permanent motive to devote the intervals of public occupation to a study of the laws, the affairs, and the comprehensive interests of their country, should, if left wholly to themselves, escape a variety of important errors in the exercise of their legislative trust. It may be affirmed, on the best grounds, that no small share of the present embarrassments of America is to be charged on the blunders of our governments; and that these have proceeded from the heads rather than the hearts of most of the authors of them. What indeed are all the repealing, explaining, and amending laws, which fill and disgrace our voluminous codes, but so many monuments of deficient wisdom; so many impeachments exhibited by each succeeding against each preceding session; so many admonitions to the people, of the value of those aids which may be expected from a well-constituted senate?
A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained. Some governments are deficient in both these qualities; most governments are deficient in the first. I scruple not to assert, that in American governments too little attention has been paid to the last. The federal Constitution avoids this error; and what merits particular notice, it provides for the last in a mode which increases the security for the first.
Fourthly. The mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government. Every new election in the States is found to change one half of the representatives. From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success. The remark is verified in private life, and becomes more just, as well as more important, in national transactions.
To trace the mischievous effects of a mutable government would fill a volume. I will hint a few only, each of which will be perceived to be a source of innumerable others.
In the first place, it forfeits the respect and confidence of other nations, and all the advantages connected with national character. An individual who is observed to be inconstant to his plans, or perhaps to carry on his affairs without any plan at all, is marked at once, by all prudent people, as a speedy victim to his own unsteadiness and folly. His more friendly neighbors may pity him, but all will decline to connect their fortunes with his; and not a few will seize the opportunity of making their fortunes out of his. One nation is to another what one individual is to another; with this melancholy distinction perhaps, that the former, with fewer of the benevolent emotions than the latter, are under fewer restraints also from taking undue advantage from the indiscretions of each other. Every nation, consequently, whose affairs betray a want of wisdom and stability, may calculate on every loss which can be sustained from the more systematic policy of their wiser neighbors. But the best instruction on this subject is unhappily conveyed to America by the example of her own situation. She finds that she is held in no respect by her friends; that she is the derision of her enemies; and that she is a prey to every nation which has an interest in speculating on her fluctuating councils and embarrassed affairs.
The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?
Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.
In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government? In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy.
But the most deplorable effect of all is that diminution of attachment and reverence which steals into the hearts of the people, towards a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many of their flattering hopes. No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.
PUBLIUS.
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-61-70#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493449
(Richard: The left deliberately created this mess, with so many laws (not just gun laws all laws) they can search through and find how every single person has broken some law and punish them once they decide they dislike that person. All of us don’t have the money to fight them through the courts and have the convictions set aside.)
The Government’s Law Overload: A Trap for Gun Owners & Everyone Else ~ VIDEO
Ammoland Inc. Posted on April 1, 2025 by Ammoland Editors & Staff
Opinion
YouTube video player
Ever tried counting how many laws you’re supposed to follow? Good luck.
A former U.S. Attorney, now with Right on Crime, points out a brutal truth: nobody knows how many federal crimes are on the books. Thousands? Tens of thousands? Pick a number. Add in state laws and the 300,000 regulatory offenses some bureaucrat cooked up, and it’s a mess.
This isn’t just confusing—it’s dangerous, especially for those of us who care about our rights, like the Second Amendment.
Too many laws shred fairness. James Madison nailed it in the Federalist Paper #62:
“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.”
If laws pile up so high you can’t read them—or get so tangled you can’t understand them—they’re useless to regular people. Here in 2025, we’re living that warning.
Prosecutors can flip through thousands of crimes, find one, and pin it on you just because they feel like it. That’s not justice—it’s a power grab.
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL DOWN TO CONTINUE READING
Gun owners know the sting. The ATF’s rulebook is a minefield—barrel lengths, stock types, ammo storage rules. Miss some obscure regulation you didn’t even know existed, and you’re a criminal. Doesn’t matter if you’re a law-abiding hunter or a range regular; the system’s rigged to catch you. It’s not just guns, either—importing flowers wrong or shipping seafood in the “wrong” bag can sink you too.
Over 4,000 federal crimes are out there, and that’s a lowball since even Congress couldn’t count them all.
This overcriminalization chaos crosses party lines, but it’s freedom-minded folks who should feel it most. It’s “antithetical to our nation’s founding principles,” as the testimony puts it.
The Founders didn’t write the Constitution, so some D.C. suit could bury us in laws we can’t track. They wanted clarity, not this mess. Yet prosecutors play whack-a-mole with our lives, and gun owners are prime targets.
The fix? Quit turning every little thing into a crime.
Fines or market forces can handle business stuff—save the criminal hammer for real bad guys, not someone who missed a paperwork detail. Let states handle their own business; federal overreach fueled this tangle. And make sure laws require intent—no more “guilty because we say so” nonsense.
Gun laws prove the point. Estimates bounce around—hundreds at the state level, thousands with local rules—but no one’s got a hard number. Giffords claims over 700 “gun safety” laws have passed since 2012, just the big ones. Everytown’s database tracks more, but it’s still a guess. More laws, more traps—not safety.
How many laws is too many when your rights are on the line?
https://www.ammoland.com/2025/04/the-governments-law-overload-a-trap-for-gun-owners-everyone-else-video/
A young Texan Representative of the House asked advice from LBJ about whether or not he should risk his secure House seat to run for the Senate.
~~~~LBJ said, “Son the Senate is chicken salad. The House is chicken shiite.”
He knew what he was talking about.
Why National Concealed Carry and Due Process Protection Are a Big Deal for Gun Owners ~ VIDEO
Ammoland Inc. Posted on April 1, 2025 by NRAHQ
Opinion
If you’re a law-abiding gun owner in America, this might be the most exciting moment for your rights in two decades.
Last week, Congress moved forward with two huge pro-Second Amendment bills: H.R. 38 and H.R. 2184. These might sound like just numbers—but what they represent could change everything for responsible gun owners like us.
Let’s break it down.
H.R. 38: National Concealed Carry Reciprocity
So your driver’s license works in all 50 states—but your concealed carry permit? Not so much. Right now, if you legally carry in one state, crossing into another (like from Pennsylvania into New Jersey) could turn you into a felon overnight. That’s not just inconvenient—it’s outrageous.
H.R. 38 fixes that. If passed, it means if you’re legally allowed to carry concealed in your home state, you can carry in any other state that allows concealed carry. It doesn’t override state laws—it just forces states to respect each other’s permits just like they do with marriage licenses and driver’s licenses.
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL DOWN TO CONTINUE READING
As John Commerford of the NRA-ILA put it, “The right of self-defense shouldn’t end simply because you cross the state line.” That’s just common sense.
Gun control activists are already panicking, shrieking that this would “endanger police” and lead to “more crime.” But we’ve heard those same debunked talking points before. Do you remember when constitutional carry swept across the country? Violent crime didn’t spike. In fact, people defended themselves, and crime went down in those states.
This is about restoring basic freedom. Period.
H.R. 2184: Fixing the Broken Background Check Appeal Process
We’ve all heard the horror stories. A regular Joe with a clean record goes to buy a gun, fills out the background check, and suddenly gets denied—because they have a common name like “John Smith” or because of some clerical error.
Right now, if you’re wrongly denied, the government can delay fixing the situation for months—sometimes years.
H.R. 2184 puts a stop to that. It gives the feds 60 days to fix the problem. No decision in 60 days? You get the right to go to court and demand one. It’s basic due process, something the anti-gun crowd pretends to care about until it applies to gun owners.
Why This Moment Matters
Back in 2005, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which stopped anti-gun activists from bankrupting gun makers with junk lawsuits. That was a game-changer.
Now, nearly twenty years later, we have another shot at real progress—but only if we push now. We have a pro-gun House, a pro-gun Senate, and a pro-gun President. This is our chance to go on offense instead of just playing defense.
What You Can Do
Contact your reps. Tell them to support H.R. 38 and H.R. 2184.
Share Commerford’s message and this article. Help others understand what’s at stake.
Stay loud. The anti-gun lobby is counting on us to stay silent. Don’t give them that win.
Final Thought
This isn’t about politics. It’s about freedom—your right to defend yourself, your family, and your future. And finally, after years of being told to compromise, we have a real shot at a win.
Let’s make it happen.
https://www.ammoland.com/2025/04/why-national-concealed-carry-and-due-process-protection-are-a-big-deal-for-gun-owners-video/
Colorado Sued Over Second Amendment ‘Sin’ Tax
By Cam Edwards | 11:31 AM | April 01, 2025
AP Photo/Ringo H.W. Chiu, File
Starting today it’s a little more expensive for Coloradans to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. A voter-approved excise tax on firearms and ammunition will raise the cost of those products by 6.5%, with the money generated by the tax supposedly going to pay for things like school security and mental health resources.
Advertisement
There’s nothing wrong with those things, of course. I’m a big believer in both secure schools and a strong mental health system. But why are gun owners being singled out to pay for these things when they’re a matter of statewide concern for every resident?
A coalition of 2A groups including the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Colorado Shootings Sports Association, and several individual plaintiffs are now suing the state over the new Second Amendment sin tax, arguing in their complaint that the excise tax is unconstitutional under the Bruen, because it “implicates conduct protected by the Second Amendment’s plain text by adding to the cost of acquiring a firearm” while being wholly “unsupported by this country’s history and tradition of firearm regulation.”
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held in various contexts that the exercise of a constitutional right cannot be singled out for special taxation. See, e.g.,Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 114 (1943); Harper v. Va. Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663,668 (1966); Minneapolis Star & Trib. Co. v. Minn. Comm’r of Rev., 460 U.S. 575, 591 (1983). Colorado’s excise tax singles out the exercise of Second Amendment rights for special, disfavored treatment. Because the Second Amendment is “not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees[,]’” Bruen, 597U.S. at 70 (quoting McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 780 (2010)), these precedents independently bar Colorado’s infringement-by-taxation scheme.
As the Supreme Court cautioned: a “right to tax, without limit or control, is essentially a power to destroy.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 391 (1819). And Colorado’s governor has acknowledged that the obvious and intended effect of targeted taxes like this one is to discriminate against and disincentivize the taxed activity: “[W]hen you tax something, you penalize it. And there’s things you actually want to penalize in society.” John LaConte, Polis, in Beaver Creek, says state income tax should be zero, STEAMBOAT PILOT & TODAY(Aug. 31, 2021), https://perma.cc/TM8C-6T9T.
Here, Colorado seeks to penalize the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms and expose it to this destructive taxation power. If this tax is permitted, there is nothing stopping States from imposing 50% or even 100% taxes on the exercise of any constitutional rights they disfavor—whether it be the right to free exercise of religion, the right to free speech, or any other protected individual right. Moreover, calling upon the courts to decide how much tax is too much would be an exercise in arbitrary line-drawing. The only rule that accords with Supreme Court precedent and common sense is that the exercise of protected constitutional rights cannot be singled out for special taxation.
Advertisement
The legislators who approved the tax and sent to the voters for their sign-off estimate $39 million will be raised annually. If that money was generated by a tax on all adult Coloradans it would come out to a little more than ten bucks a year, but lawmakers intentionally chose to single out gun owners instead, forcing them to unfairly shoulder the financial burden of paying for security measures and mental health resources that will benefit plenty of Coloradans who don’t own guns.
In all honesty, I’d be shocked if the state actually meets their estimate. Many residents living near the Colorado border will undoubtably decide to buy their guns and ammunition in neighboring states like Wyoming, Kansas, Utah, and New Mexico instead of paying the Second Amendment sin tax foisted on them by the legislature and 54% of voters. That means the tax burden is going to fall even more disproportionately on gun owners in places like Denver and Colorado Springs, along with Rocky Mountain communities like Gunnison, Aspen, and Crested Butte; where a relatively quick drive down I-25 or I-70 will bring them to a gun shop in a much more 2A-friendly environment.
The plaintiffs in Langston v. Humphreys are seeking to overturn the tax completely, but in the short term they’re asking for an emergency injunction that will halt the collection of the excise tax while the litigation proceeds. Given the immediate impact on both gun buyers and sellers in the state, I’d say the harm done by the Second Amendment sin tax is enough to justify an injunction, but whether or not the federal judge assigned to the case will agree remains to be seen
https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2025/04/01/colorado-sued-over-second-amendment-sin-tax-n1228161#google_vignette
This Anti-Gun Take Isn’t the Slam Dunk Journalist Thinks It Is
By Tom Knighton | 8:30 PM | March 31, 2025
AP Photo/Glenwood Springs Post Independent, Christopher Mullen
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GnFji8RXwAEGL7h?format=jpg&name=small
The right to keep and bear arms is something that’s pretty much unique to the United States. Sure, Mexico pays lip service to that right, but looking at how that goes down that way, it’s not something that really exists there.
Advertisement
Just here.
But not everyone is cool with that. Foreigners often have this insane desire to tell us what we should do with our guns, even though they’re the ones watching doors get kicked in over memes.
And then you have those Americans who think we somehow should follow the rest of the world down that pathway.
That’s the take that’s celebrated in a piece I came across earlier today.
It started with a “Maga” take that the publication thought was silly or something.
Now, personally, it wouldn’t bother me in the least. I think people can and should be armed at work. I might check out what she’s sporting to see if it’s something I haven’t had the chance to shoot, and if I haven’t, I’ll ask her what she thinks of it, but that’s about it.
Yet this publication, called The Poke for some inane reason, decided to focus on a number of anti-gun replies, before it gets to the one that they think is the ultimate take.
Advertisement
This is the take The Poke followed up with just the word, “Boom.”
You think that’s the slam dunk argument?
Oh, that’s hilarious.
First, I honestly don’t give a damn what “everyone else”–here, it means, the rest of the world, it seems–thinks of people being able to carry a gun while waiting tables at a restaurant where that was part of the theme.
The rest of the world is made up of hellhole countries where violent criminals reign supreme on the streets or European nations that oppress their people “for their own good.” My concern about their opinions of us and what this looks like are worth less than a fart in church.
Plus, it’s funny how they made it all about the anti-gun replies. That wasn’t close to the universal sentiment, either.
In fact, a lot of other people commented that it didn’t bother them, especially as many mentioned they’d be carrying a firearm themselves.
Advertisement
But we can’t highlight those, now, can we?
The anti-gun media has a strong tendency to ignore any pro-gun voice whenever possible, and then add in the outright stupidity of thinking that we gun-owning Americans actually care what anti-gun societies think of us is laughable.
If they want to be subjects, that’s on them.
We’re the Land of the Free, and we’ll carry guns because we can. It’s why our doors won’t be kicked in over memes, and why the police won’t show up at our doors because we complained about our kids’ schools on some social media site.
People who think we should be like Europe, though, are more than welcome to move there for good. I damn sure won’t miss them.
https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2025/03/31/this-anti-gun-take-isnt-the-slam-dunk-journalist-thinks-it-is-n1228146
Paul Chiang Carney’s MP resigns over bounty comment. how many Liberals are not standing for re-election. Will CBC run a story on Carney’s burning deck, perhaps ask why they are not seeking re-election? CBC will say they are going to spend more time with their families — in actual FACT, they can read the writing on the wall.
The Economics writer for the left wing Guardian, and Liz Truss, former UK PM have warned Canadians Carney is a self-promoter, that did a lot of damage to the English government.
omg
BREAKING: Truck hits multiple pedestrians in Boston
Elon Musk Accuses U.S. Government of Deleting Terabyte of Financial Data to Cover Up Crimes, Claims ‘We Recovered It’ Due to Their Tech Incompetence
thegatewaypundit.com/2025/04/elon-musk-accuses-u-s-government-deleting-terabyte/
Apr. 1, 2025 4:20 pm
The federal swamp just got exposed — and it’s worse than anyone thought.
In a bombshell revelation Monday, Elon Musk, head of the Trump-appointed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), accused the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) of deleting a terabyte of financial data in a desperate attempt to cover up massive corruption.
The accusation comes amid a fiery standoff between DOGE and USIP, a taxpayer-funded outfit President Donald Trump ordered dismantled earlier this year.
Last month, tensions boiled over when Musk’s efficiency squad, backed by FBI agents and D.C. Metro Police, stormed the institute’s headquarters, evicting its staff after days of resistance.
George Moose, the now-fired acting president of USIP, tried to cast the takeover as illegal, insisting his agency was off-limits because of its nonprofit status. But the fact remains: the institute is funded by taxpayer dollars and has operated with almost no real oversight.
The standoff followed Trump’s February executive order to slash “unnecessary” government entities.
According to conservative influencer Mario Nawfal:
“The Department of Government Efficiency’s discovery at the United States Institute of Peace reveals Washington’s dirty secret: agencies often do precisely the opposite of their stated mission.
When DOGE investigators finally gained access to USIP’s books—after days of institutional resistance requiring FBI intervention—they uncovered the unthinkable: $132,000 funneled to a former Taliban member and $1.3 million to an Iraqi organization with questionable ties.
This fits a devastating pattern. A 2019 Special Inspector General report found $19 billion in U.S. aid to Afghanistan was unaccounted for or misused between 2002-2016, showing how routinely taxpayer money flows to our adversaries under noble pretenses.
Even more disturbing was the attempted cover-up. USIP officials deleted a terabyte of financial data hoping to hide their tracks, not realizing DOGE’s technological capabilities would recover everything—a perfect example of the 65% of federal agencies still using outdated IT systems vulnerable to mismanagement.
America ranks a dismal 27th in global transparency rankings, behind much smaller nations. From the Pentagon’s $125 billion in administrative waste to the IRS’s $1.2 billion in improper payments, the pattern is undeniable.
Elon’s technology-driven audits are precisely what these institutions fear most—sunlight on decades of deception.”
“Any government institution is most likely to be the opposite of its name,” Musk wrote on X.
He added, “They deleted a terabyte of financial data to cover their crimes, but they don’t understand technology, so we recovered it.”
They deleted a terabyte of financial data to cover their crimes, but they don’t understand technology, so we recovered it
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 1, 2025
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/04/elon-musk-accuses-u-s-government-deleting-terabyte/
WATCH: GOP Congressman Smacks Down Rep. Jasmine Crockett with a Brutal Reminder When She Goes on a Whiny Tirade About Republicans Trying to Stop Activist Judges
thegatewaypundit.com/2025/04/watch-gop-congressman-smacks-down-rep-jasmine-crockett/
Apr. 1, 2025 3:20 pm
Credit: @townhallcom screenshot
Violent, far-left Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) experienced much-deserved humiliation today after trying to scold Republicans for trying to stop the liberal lawfare that is sabotaging President Trump’s agenda.
As TGP readers know, black-robed tyrants across the country have been legislating from the bench to stop Trump from implementing executive orders on issues ranging from illegal immigration, transgenders in the military, shrinking the federal government, and more. Unsurprisingly, Republicans in Congress have proposed a variety of remedies to stop this madness, including impeaching these Democrat judges and ending nationwide injunctions.
But Democrats have pounced in anger over Republicans daring to fight back and their party’s biggest mouth decided to give her unhinged ‘thoughts’ on this situation during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, which was focused on district court judges blocking Trump’s agenda.
“The problem right now is if we continue down this road, then we will not have a rule of law,” Crockett whined. “Because we have people serving, and they are currently saying things like ‘ignore the judge’s order.”
“What it means to have law and order in this country is that you follow the order and go through the appeals process even if you dislike what the judge did!” she added.
But Crockett conveniently forgot one inconvenient fact, exposing her to humiliation. It turns out that she cares nothing for the rule of law when Pro-Constitution judges rule against her far-left policies and presidents.
Crockett decided to co-sponsor a bill offered by her fellow comrade Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to impeach Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito last July.
“The unchecked corruption crisis on the Supreme Court has now spiraled into a Constitutional crisis threatening American democracy writ large. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito’s pattern of refusal to recuse from consequential matters before the court in which they hold widely documented financial and personal entanglements constitutes a grave threat to American rule of law, the integrity of our democracy, and one of the clearest cases for which the tool of impeachment was designed,” AOC claimed at the time.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who chaired the hearing, noted this glaring hypocrisy and proceeded to humiliate Crockett.
“I’m going to note that when Miss Ocasio-Cortez filed articles of impeachment against Justice Thomas and Alito, Miss Crockett was one of the co-sponsors,” he said. “It does seem interesting that when the shoe is on the other foot, everyone is self-righteous.”
Ouch!
WATCH:
Jasmine Crockett starts HYPERVENTILATING about protecting the institution of the judiciary — before PROMPTLY being reminded by Rep. @DarrellIssa that she cosponsored legislation to impeaches Justices Thomas & Alito!
“AOC filed articles of impeachment on Justice Thomas & Alito.… pic.twitter.com/WNfmVREB9P
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) April 1, 2025
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/04/watch-gop-congressman-smacks-down-rep-jasmine-crockett/
Disinformation (2013) – KGB/FSB war against the West – Ion Mihai Pacepa
Águia negra – April 1, 2025
Congratulations to all the Canadian members of parliament on receiving their pay raise (minimum $6,700) on this April Fools Day, how fitting.
And a big congratulations to the Liberal Party for yet another increase in the carbon tax that you are hiding.
Carney will be the kiss of death.
Why are so many Liberals not running again (40+)? Has CBC, CTV or Global offered any opinions? How are we to believe poll numbers when some ridings don’t even have candidates? Are we to believe everyone is so taken with Carney, sorta like when the press constantly told us the growing numbers that wanted to vote for the puffed up one (400,000) when supposedly only 131,000 voted for him. Who were the 131,000, how old were they, and were they Canadian citizens? some question need to be answered.
Will the moderator of the English speaking debate ask if anyone belongs to the WEF? If so, who is their master, Schwab or the Canadian people, after all it is supposed to be government of, for and by the people, not some unelected “elites”.