Given the news of this shooting is still unfolding I will refrain from commenting too much. Needless to say I am of the opinion that the ATF overstepped and Mr. Malinowski did not need to die. The ATF had no need of a “No Knock raid”. This was a man who clearly was not selling firearms for a living. He could have been approached at work or his home during normal hours and an ATF agent would not have been injured and Mr. Malinowski would not have lost his life.
NEWS RELEASE Contact Information: Bud Cummins (501) 831-6125 bud@budcumminslaw.com Release Date: March 21, 2024 STATEMENT OF THE BRYAN MALINOWSKI FAMILY Attorney Bud Cummins, acting as a spokesperson for the Malinowski family, related the following statement today on behalf of the family: Our family has endured an unspeakable tragedy and one that is almost impossible to understand. We are mourning the loss of Bryan, who passed away earlier today. Our thoughts and prayers also go out to the government agent who was injured yesterday, and to his family. We do not understand the government’s decisions which led to a dawn raid on a private home and triggered the use of deadly force. We are obviously concerned about the allegations in the affidavit released by the government today. Even if the allegations in the affidavit are true, they don’t begin to justify what happened. At worst, Bryan Malinowski, a gun owner and gun enthusiast, stood accused of making private firearm sales to a person who may not have been legally entitled to purchase the guns. For now, we will wait for all the facts to come out. In the meantime, we ask that the public and the media respect our privacy.
“Widespread campaigns to register the eligible poor for welfare aid, and to help existing recipients obtain their full benefits, would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments. These disruptions would generate severe political strains, and deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor.” … “In order to generate a crisis, the poor must obtain benefits, which they have forfeited. Until now, they have been inhibited from asserting claims by self-protective devices within the welfare system: its capacity to limit information, to intimidate applicants, to demoralize recipients, and arbitrarily to deny lawful claims.”
“The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty.”
The “Strategy” outlined By Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven is a road map used to foment a communist revolution. It should be noted that as a precursor to the strategy being effective a society must already be in the socialist stage: IE there must be a social welfare system to overwhelm.
Also note this is some what a stream of consciousness as I listened.
The first question sets the tone, Quantum computing and FUD!Mr. Lee is correct that 1) we are not going back to manual systems 2) the current ICS/OT systems are already vulnerable 3) defense is possible.
Safety systems and “managing for the consequence” is a key point! If you want an offline system it should be a safety system!
Attribution is largely bunk! Attribution is very hard to do especially in light of Wikileaks vault 7.
NERC or NERC lite is not the answer, I will admit that NERC-CIP has moved the industry, but that was from zero and we are not there today.
If you accept the premise that Risk = Likelihood x Impact, and that the impact of loss of life or capacity are unacceptable then almost all OT risk trend to the extreme.
OK, so what is really needed for ICS/OT cybersecurity to solve the issue. A market and risk driven model. Legislation will not help, just enrich the companies who have the best lobbyists. The ugly truth is that most infrastructure is not secured. The basic blocking and tackling steps are not in place. Defense in depth, good architecture, and vigilance are the building blocks to solve this issue (IMO). Most CISOs I know want to spend their budget on tools, and I see this as a mistake. If you do not have the people or program in place to use them effectively tools will not protect you. There is way too much shelf-ware in the industry.
With the media using the above quote all over the place, when will VP Harris make the obvious move of using Section 4 of the 25th amendment? She will become the first female President of the United States of America, and pave the way for Newsom, or M Obama to run.
The fact is that this is corrupt. Saying we know he did it, but think he is mentally disabled; to the point a jury would not convict, is at best an excuse. Biden is not fit for office and this is damaging to the country.
Section 1
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause.
District of Columbia v. Heller held that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms. Any reading of the constitution, Federal papers, Anti-Federal papers, Ratification debates, and any historical context this is obvious!
We hold that in Hawaiʻi there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.” (see the below PDF for the full text of the decision)
This is more reason for a national divorce, if Hawaii wants to disarm it’s citizens then so be it; it should not have any bearing on other states. This is a major problem with the 14TH amendment and the incorporation doctrine. The States were not meant to be subservient to the federal government. Sadly that has changed and the US constitution is seen as the “supreme law of the Land” instead of a limited delegation of power from the States and the people. This Delegation was so important to the founders understanding that the 9th and 10th amendments where ratified to make it abundantly clear.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
“A question shadowing suits such as these is whether there is a First Amendment right to refuse to wear a protective mask as required by valid health and safety orders put in place during a recognized public health emergency. Like all courts to address this issue, we conclude there is not,”
“Skeptics are free to — and did — voice their opposition through multiple means, but disobeying a masking requirement is not one of them. One could not, for example, refuse to pay taxes to express the belief that ‘taxes are theft.’ Nor could one refuse to wear a motorcycle helmet as a symbolic protest against a state law requiring them.”
The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
First let me say that when the pandemic first started and little was known about the virus. I gave my family N95 masks that I had for other uses. however, it became clear to me early on that the size of the virus meant that even the N95 was not going to be very useful.
We live in a free society or we do not. This ruling and other moves by the government are at their basis tyrannical. I did not wear a mask for COVID and I will not. Not for my job, not because a government tells me to. I will not comply with any mandate, I will do what I believe will protect myself and my family. I take responsibility for my actions and understand the risks I am willing to take.
The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.
There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.
There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.
This was a bad challenge, that said, the ruling is wrong. It is wrong for one major reason. There is NO evidence that masks (even N95s) are effective against COVID-19. In FACT there is quite a bit of evidence that they do not work, especially when not worn correctly or when reused as almost everyone did, removes any logic from the argument. This ruling suggests that the government can force you to wear a hat or other fashion accessory without evidence of its ability to protect you or others. The fact that the Appeals court used a motorcycle helmet as an example is on its face an absurdity. I have the right to endanger myself, I am free and own my own body! Even if you believe (falsely) that forcing me to wear a mask will some how protect you from me, that does NOT give you a right to force it upon me.
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery”
This would prevent plaintiffs – like the State of Texas – from filing suit in Texas federal courts. This is corrupt.
Bill Shipley,
Readers of this blog or listeners to the podcast will be familiar with the 1828 Tariff of Abominations. This new immigration bill promises to be just as inflammatory to States like Texas that are seeking to protect their borders. The Tariff of Abominations was a driver to secession in the 1860’s of the Southern states.
“The United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have sole and original jurisdiction to hear challenges, whether constitutional or otherwise, to the validity of this section or any written policy directive, written policy guideline, written procedure, or the implementation thereof.”
“I’ve seen enough. This bill is even worse than we expected, and won’t come close to ending the border catastrophe the President has created. As the lead Democrat negotiator proclaimed: Under this legislation, “the border never closes.” If this bill reaches the House, it will be dead on arrival,”
Mike Johnson, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives
This is the first time I will have called on you as individuals to call, write, or tweet to your members of congress. Please be vocal about your thoughts on this Bill (full Text below). This is a precarious moment for our nation. We must protect and preserve the peace we currently enjoy.
“Stand your ground, don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”
Captain John Parker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Parker_(captain)
If our grievances are not heard and the federal government insists on taking this and other actions, then it is time for Texas to remove her voluntary consent to this government. Time for TEXIT!
Note: if you are on a phone the PDF of the Bill below likely wont show up.
Ok let me understand this, US troops where attacked by Iran in Jordan, so the US bombs Syria and Iraq?
U.S. military forces struck more than 85 targets, hitting facilities such as command and control operations, intelligence centers, rockets and missiles, and drone storage sites, according to the U.S. Central Command.
“Our response began today. It will continue at times and places of our choosing,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “The United States does not seek conflict in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world. But let all those who might seek to do us harm know this: If you harm an American, we will respond.”
Am I the only one who thinks that this is insane? If you “respond” in countries that are NOT involved is this not an escalation and an invitation to a wider conflict?
The Right side of the political spectrum is incensed by this on X. The answer is not to deport Criminal Aliens from drunk driving. No the answer is to deport all Criminal Aliens! I am not talking about a legitimate asylum seeker. If someone is legitimately seeking refuge from there country we should help them if it is possible and it is in the interest of the United States. WE have a right to secure our country and remove a foreign national who has come here in violation of our laws. We do not need to wait, nor should we wait, until they have broken more of our laws!
It is actions like this that make me think that it is time for Texit!
If you have not read my other posts on this subject I recommend that you at least read Texas V Feds (see below) for context. “Hopefully we can avoid any conflict and have learned from our past”.
However, we appear to be repeating history and moving to a moment where the events of history will compel Texas and the federal government of These Untied States to actions that once taken can only lead to capitulation or war.
I personally believe it is time for Texas to leave the Union and I pray that we are allowed to leave in peace.
In a stunning 5 to 4 vote the Supreme Court has decided to allow the Federal government to continue the clearly unconstitutional violation of Texas’ Sovereign territory.
“They have a duty under the Constitution … and every other norm of leadership of any sovereign state, to protect your citizens, period, full stop. There is no exception to that,” Roy told Fox News Digital on Tuesday. “And if the Supreme Court wants to ignore that truth, which a slim majority did, Texas still had the duty, Texas leaders still have the duty, to defend their people.”
“It’s like, if someone’s breaking into your house, and the court says ‘Oh, sorry. You can’t defend yourself.’ What do you tell the court?” Roy said. “You tell the court to go to hell, you defend yourself and then figure it out later.”
New calls for Secession (see below)
From: Daniel Miller <team@activism.tnm.me>
Date: Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 9:30 PM
Subject: Statement on SCOTUS Border Ruling – Time For TEXIT
Dear,
Today the US Supreme Court issued a ruling that authorized the Biden administration to resume tearing down the limited fencing that the State of Texas has put in place in an attempt to secure the border. In response, I have sent the following letter to Governor Greg Abbott with a simple demand – call a Special Session and let the people of Texas vote on TEXIT.
I have included the text of the letter below. Be sure to read it, share it, volunteer your time and skills, and let us know that you support our efforts to get and win a vote on TEXIT.
Daniel Miller
President
Texas Nationalist Movement
Letter To Governor Abbott
Dear Governor Abbott,
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States rubberstamped the Biden administration’s intentional collapse of our border with Mexico. Now, all three branches of government are working in concert to deny Texas the right as a sovereign state to secure our border. They are, in practice, more aligned with narco-terrorists cartels than with a member of their own union.
This is an existential threat to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Texas and the fundamental right of self-government of the people of Texas. As such, this constitutes an emergency, and the response should be immediate and proportionate to the constitutional crisis created by the actions of the Biden administration and the Supreme Court.
Article 1 Section 1 of the Texas Constitution is clear on this matter when it states, “…the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.”
Further, Article 1, Section 2 of the Texas Constitution clearly states that the Texan people have an absolute and inalienable right to choose how and by whom they are governed.
“All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.”
On December 11, 2023, the Texas Nationalist Movement, in accordance with Sec. 172.088(d) of the Texas Election Code, delivered 139,456 signatures that meet the legal requirements to place the following proposition on the 2024 Republican Party Primary Ballot: “The State of Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation.”
But for the actions of the Republican Party of Texas Chairman Matt Rinaldi, in violation of the Texas Election Code, Texans would have an opportunity in March to debate and vote on whether they believe Texas should continue its relationship with a federal government that actively opposed the security of our international border with Mexico.
Planks 33 & 225 of the Republican Party of Texas platform call for the issue of Texas independence to be put to a vote of the people. They state:
“33. State Sovereignty: Pursuant to Article 1, Section 1, of the Texas Constitution, the federal government has impaired our right of local self-government. Therefore, federally mandated legislation that infringes upon the 10th Amendment rights of Texas shall be ignored, opposed, refused, and nullified. Texas retains the right to secede from the United States, and the Texas Legislature should be called upon to pass a referendum consistent thereto.”
“225. Texas Independence: We urge the Texas Legislature to pass a bill in its next session requiring a referendum in the 2023 General Election for the people of Texas to determine whether or not the State of Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation.”
Therefore, I submit to you the signers of the petition, and we call on you to let the people speak. It is within your power as Governor to call a special session of the Texas Legislature for the purpose of letting Texans answer the question, “Should the State of Texas reassert its status as an independent nation?”
The power to determine how Texas is governed does not lie with the federal courts. It is, by right, reserved to the people of Texas. It’s time to let the people speak.
The Constitution Gives Congress the power to “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization…” (Article I, Section8). This does NOT give them authority over the territory of the boarder. Texas is enforcing the laws passed by congress.
Remember:
9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
