California's Beach Lockdowns Could Continue Into Late-2021

I'm freakin' gobsmacked at the Democrats' tone-deaf politics here.

Remember from the other day, "Beach Lockdowns" (PHOTOS).

People are not wearing masks, and folks are only slightly better at "social distancing."

Tonight my young son and I went down to the Balboa Peninsula, in Newport, and it was the same thing again.

At the Wedge, the beach and the parks are closed and taped off. You can't even sit on a bench on the sidewalk. But people ignore the signs and few, if any, wear masks. And especially at Balboa, it's not just young people. Perhaps it's mostly local residents who pay local property taxes and feel like they own the place, but older couples were just cruising along without regard to the protocols set in Sacramento.

Which leads me to question recent polls showing overwhelming numbers of Californians down with the lockdown mandates, the distancing protocols, and especially the closed beaches. It's not just hippie protesters down in Huntington Beach. I suspect the numbers of anti-lockdown types are not shown in recent data. Here's the L.A. Times' piece from last week, which purported to show a 75 percent acceptance rate (or "approval rate," if you could call it that) of Governor Gavin Newsom's "stay-at-home" order: "Californians broadly trust state government on coronavirus — but mistrust Trump, poll finds."


The Times's poll, conducted along with the U.C. Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, uses a massive online panel of essentially non-randomized respondents. The I.G.S.'s methods disclaimer says that "stratification" techniques are used to adjust normally anticipated sampling errors, but of course less well-off respondents are already less likely to be included, and frankly, affluent Californians, especially at the beaches, have more time and knowledge important to political participation, and are thus more likely to give a big F.U. to Newsom's mandates. And given the dire straights of polling in recent years, in any case, folks should interpret these results with a large dose of salt.

And now the "experts" are saying it could be a year or more until Newsom's stay-at-home mandates are completely lifted. And about enforcement? No doubt the Newsom regime's "suede-denim secret police" will be coming for your "uncool niece."

See, from yesterday's paper, "California reopening would start slow, not be complete for a year or longer, expert estimates":

Ridiculous: #California reopening would start slow, not be complete for at least a year, expert estimates. @MelissaTweets #HuntingtonBeach #NewportBeach #TheOC 🏖☀️😷 https://t.co/efoS1GtXUH

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) May 4, 2020

SAN FRANCISCO —  So when might California be ready to really loosen up its statewide stay-at-home order?

One expert told The Times it would be a slow process that could take more than a year. But as some counties have pushed to reopen faster, Gov. Gavin Newsom is moving ahead with initial steps in the second stage of his previously outlined four-stage plan.

Newsom, who has said he understands frustrations with the projected pace of reopening, announced on Monday plans to allow some retail businesses to reopen as early as Friday for curbside pickup. And he said some counties would be able to move faster than others to reopen more types of businesses.

Some health experts on the local and national level have cautioned that some coronavirus restrictions — like sports teams not being allowed to play to packed stadium crowds — may need to continue through the rest of this year and into next year...

Stage 4: Full opening:

The full end of the stay-at-home order, allowing the resumption of:

* Sports with live audiences
* Convention centers
* Concerts

Expert forecast: This may not be implemented until the middle or latter part of 2021, Kim-Farley said.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has said that, even under the most optimistic scenarios, it would take 12 to 18 months for a vaccine to become available.

Last week, Fauci said it might not be possible for sports teams to resume play this year.

“Safety, for the players and for the fans, trumps everything,” Fauci said in an interview with the New York Times. “If you can’t guarantee safety, then unfortunately you’re going to have to bite the bullet and say, ‘We may have to go without this sport for this season.’”

Still more.

Orange County's beach communities are some of the last bastions of conservatism in the state, and yet Republicans still couldn't hold these seats in the 2018 midterm elections. As long as the Democrats maintain their one-party dictatorship in Sacramento, it's hard to see the overall political balance shifting any time soon.

We may be in for some more rowdy protests in the near future, and I'm not ruling out political violence if radical leftists refuse the kind of compromises necessary to govern such a diverse state, one with a large minority of gun-toting Gadsden flag-waving patriots. Talk about one "long, hot summer."

Beach Lockdowns

Here's the latest at LAT, "California stay-at-home order faces revolts at beaches and in rural communities," and "Surfers ignore barriers, protesters confront police on Orange County beaches."

I took my young son down to Corona Del Mar on Friday night to watch the sunset. It was spectacular. But everything was taped off. The grassy knolls were closed and you couldn't walk down the steps to the jetty. People in the crowd weren't wearing masks, especially younger people who were all devil may care. There was even some angry shaming going on. One woman was pissed when a group of men came back up the stairs and jumped over the rail, coming within one foot of her. I think she was right to call them out as rude, although she herself wasn't wearing a mask.

So, that's my little experience of heading down to the water during this pandemic. Maybe the beaches will open back up this week and I'll go for a long walk on the shore at Newport?

Newport Beach Votes to Keep Beaches Open (VIDEO)

At LAT, "Newport Beach council votes to keep beaches open, despite crowds and rebuke from Newsom."

And CBS News 2 Los Angeles:

Armed Congregants Kill Gunman at Texas Church (VIDEO)

At the Other McCain, "UPDATE: Texas Church Shooter Identified as Homeless Criminal Keith Kinnunen."

ABC's report, with video, is here.

Solution to mass shootings- Good guys with gunshttps://t.co/TqoeYcPsED

— GrrrGraphics Cartoons (@GrrrGraphics) December 29, 2019

Rachel Notley's NDP Government Launches Stalinist Campaign to Shut Down Rebel Media (VIDEO)

It's shockingly unreal that this kind of stuff is going on in one of the West's great democracies, but that it is calls into question how democratic is Canada under all the far-left governments, at the national and the provincial levels.

This is really stunning.

At the Rebel, "Stand With The Rebel Against Elections Alberta - The Rebel."

National Student Walkout

So lame.

The real patriots are those students who stayed behind, in the classroom, resisting the idiots gun control activists.

Elementary school walkout in Alexandria, Virginia. More than 65 kids, and they are totally silent. Look at those faces. pic.twitter.com/ThyzDtyGo5

— Lois Beckett (@loisbeckett) March 14, 2018

Yes, look at them. These are the faces of exploited children who are being made afraid by adults. https://t.co/DOOrz7hoJG

— Melissa Mackenzie 🌐 (@MelissaTweets) March 15, 2018

Jeff Sessions Returns Department of Justice to Rule of Law

From Andrew McCarthy, at NRO, "On Criminal Justice, Sessions iss Returning DOJ to the Rule of Law":

A response to Joyce Vance and Carter Stewart

wo former top Obama-appointed prosecutors co-author a diatribe against Trump attorney general Jeff Sessions for returning the Justice Department to purportedly outdated, too “tough on crime” charging practices. Yawn. After eight years of Justice Department stewardship by Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, and after Obama’s record 1,715 commutations that systematically undermined federal sentencing laws, we know the skewed storyline.

The surprise is to find such an argument in the pages of National Review Online. But there it was on Tuesday: “On Criminal Justice, Sessions Is Returning DOJ to the Failed Policies of the Past,” by Joyce Vance and Carter Stewart, formerly the United States attorneys for, respectively, the Northern District of Alabama and the Southern District of Ohio. Ms. Vance is now lecturing on criminal-justice reform at the University of Alabama School of Law and doing legal commentary at MSNBC. Mr. Stewart has moved on to the Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation, fresh from what it describes as his “leadership role at DOJ in addressing inequities in the criminal justice system,” focusing on “alternatives to incarceration,” and “reducing racial disparities in the federal system.”

The authors lament that Sessions has reinstituted guidelines requiring prosecutors “to charge the most serious offenses and ask for the lengthiest prison sentences.” This, the authors insist, is a “one-size-fits-all policy” that “doesn’t work.” It marks a return to the supposedly “ineffective and damaging criminal-justice policies that were imposed in 2003,” upsetting the “bipartisan consensus” for “criminal-justice reform” that has supposedly seized “today’s America.”

This is so wrongheaded, it’s tough to decide where to begin.

In reality, what Sessions has done is return the Justice Department to the traditional guidance articulated nearly four decades ago by President Carter’s highly regarded attorney general, Benjamin Civiletti (and memorialized in the U.S. Attorney’s Manual). It instructs prosecutors to charge the most serious, readily provable offense under the circumstances. Doesn’t work? This directive, in effect with little variation until the Obama years, is one of several factors that contributed to historic decreases in crime. When bad guys are prosecuted and incarcerated, they are not preying on our communities. The thrust of the policy Sessions has revived is respect for the Constitution’s bedrock separation-of-powers principle. It requires faithful execution of laws enacted by Congress.

The thrust of the policy Sessions has revived is respect for the Constitution’s bedrock separation-of-powers principle. It requires faithful execution of laws enacted by Congress.

A concrete example makes the point. Congress has prescribed a minimum ten-year sentence for the offense of distributing at least five kilograms of cocaine (see section 841(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the federal narcotics laws). Let’s say a prosecutor is presented with solid evidence that a defendant sold seven kilograms of cocaine. The crime is readily provable. Nevertheless, the prosecutor follows the Obama deviation from traditional Justice Department policy, charging a much less serious offense: a distribution that does not specify an amount of cocaine — as if we were talking about a one-vial street sale. The purpose of this sleight of hand is to evade the controlling statute’s ten-year sentence, inviting the judge to impose little or no jail time.

That is not prosecutorial discretion. It is the prosecutor substituting his own judgment for Congress’s regarding the gravity of the offense. In effect, the prosecutor is decreeing law, not enforcing what is on the books — notwithstanding the wont of prosecutors to admonish that courts must honor Congress’s laws as written. Absent this Justice Department directive that prosecutors must charge the most serious, readily provable offense, the executive branch becomes a law unto itself. Bending congressional statutes to the executive’s policy preferences was the Obama approach to governance, so we should not be surprised that a pair of his appointed prosecutors see it as a model for criminal enforcement, too. But it is not enforcement of the law. It is executive imperialism. It is DACA all over again: “Congress refuses to codify my policy preferences; but I have raw executive power so I shall impose them by will . . . and call it ‘prosecutorial discretion.’” (In truth, it is a distortion of prosecutorial discretion.)

It should not be necessary to point out to accomplished lawyers that, in our system, “bipartisan consensus” is not a comparative handful of Democrats and Republicans clucking their tongues in unison. Yes, between leftist hostility to incarceration and libertarian skepticism about prosecutorial power, there is common ground among some factions of lawmakers when it comes to opposing our allegedly draconian penal code. But these factions are not much of a consensus. The only consensus that matters is one that drums up support sufficient to enact legislation into law. “Criminal-justice reform” is of a piece with “comprehensive immigration reform” and the Obama agenda: If it actually enjoyed broad popularity, resort to executive fiat would be unnecessary — Congress would codify it.

The criminal-justice “reformers” want mandatory-minimum-sentencing provisions eliminated and other sentencing provisions mitigated. Yet, despite the sympathetic airing they get from the “progressive” mainstream media, they are unable to get their “reforms” passed by Congress. How come? Because strong majorities of lawmakers understand themselves to be accountable to commonsense citizens — people who aren’t “evolved” enough to grasp how reducing the number of criminals in prisons will somehow decrease the amount of crime. Most of us benighted types proceed under the quaint assumption that, even in “today’s America,” the streets are safer when the criminals are not on them.

In light of the caterwauling about mandatory-minimum sentencing by people either unfamiliar with or in a state of amnesia about what the federal system was like before it was instituted, it is worth repeating: Such provisions mean that the public, rather than the judge, decides the minimum appropriate term for serious crimes. As a class, judges are elite products of American universities and tend to be more left-leaning than the general public. That is particularly the case with respect to President Obama’s 335 judicial appointees, many of them — like Obama himself, as well as Vance and Stewart — philosophically resistant to incarceration as a response to crime. We can certainly repeal mandatory minimums, but if we do, it will vest those judges with unfettered discretion to mete out punishment...

Sessions is Numero Uno in my book. I was bummed upon hearing the talk of his possible resignation. We really need this guy at the helm over there. He's MAGA.

Keep reading.

Dana Loesch Decries Sexism Against Women Second Amendment Advocates (VIDEO)

On Stuart Varney's show this morning, at Fox Business Channel:

Yoshiko Uchida, Desert Exile

I've never heard of this book. It came up in my Amazon recommendations.

Here, Yoshiko Uchida, Desert Exile: The Uprooting of a Japanese American Family.

David E. Bernstein, Lawless

At Amazon, David E. Bernstein, Lawless: The Obama Administration's Unprecedented Assault on the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

BONUS: Bernstein, Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights against Progressive Reform.

Will X. Walters, Plaintiff in San Diego Gay Pride Nudity Case, Dead of an Apparent Suicide (VIDEO)

What a waste.

At the San Diego Union-Tribune, "Man who lost gay pride nudity case against SDPD dies of apparent suicide":

A man who unsuccessfully sued San Diego police over his public nudity arrest at a gay pride festival was found dead Wednesday night at his Hillcrest apartment in an apparent suicide, authorities said.

The death of Will X. Walters comes about two weeks after a federal jury delivered the verdict in favor of police.

Walters’ attorney, Chris Morris, said Walters was shocked by the Dec. 13 verdict and immediately left the downtown San Diego federal courthouse after it was announced.

Morris said he hadn’t heard from Walters since and had tried to reach him in the days that followed. Friends also tried checking on him, the lawyer said.

San Diego police were called to the apartment by a neighbor late Wednesday.

His time of death was not known. The county Medical Examiner’s Office said the death remained under investigation.

“Will Walters was a valiant warrior for his cause, and he will be missed by those who knew him and the community he fought for,” Morris said Thursday...

Maybe he should have just paid the fines, or whatever, and let it go.

This case isn't worth taking your life. But apparently, his identity as a homosexual man was everything and he wanted that fully validated, or else. I'll bet the guy was a pushy in-your-face advocate for same-sex marriage and all that. Homosexual activists are like that.

More (via Memeorandum).

Geert Wilders Convicted of 'Hate Speech'

Well, perhaps Mr. Wilders might move here, after the new Trump regime comes to power. He'll have a nice welcome compared to "old Europe," the hateful Europe of far-left political correctness and oppression.

At the Guardian U.K., "Geert Wilders found guilty of inciting discrimination" (via Memeorandum).

And at Pamela's, "Islam in Europe: Freedom party’s Dutch MP Geert Wilders CONVICTED of heresy, WILDERS’ STATEMENT":

Freedom party leader Geert Wilders has been convicted of hate speech today in the Netherlands.

I have long known, admired and worked with Geert Wilders. I brought him to CPAC back in 2009. He spoke at our Ground Zero Mosque protests in 2010. He is one of the world’s foremost fighters in defense of liberty, a modern-day Churchill. He is a towering figure, iconic of the fight in defense of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. We oppose jihad and sharia.

The unending persecution of Wilders is the byproduct of Islam in Europe. Today he was found guilty of discrimination — hate speech — in other words, violating the speech laws under the sharia (Islamic law).

I predict this will backfire and Geert Wilders will go on to be elected Prime Minister in the next election.

Here is Geert Wilders’ response to his conviction:

Dear friends, I still cannot believe it, but I have just been convicted. Because I asked a question about Moroccans. While the day before yesterday, scores of Moroccan asylum-seekers terrorized buses in Emmen and did not even had to pay a fine, a politician who asks a question about fewer Moroccans is sentenced.

The Netherlands have become a sick country. And I have a message for the judges who convicted me: You have restricted the freedom of speech of millions of Dutch and hence convicted everyone. No one trusts you anymore. But fortunately, truth and liberty are stronger than you. And so am I.

I will never be silent. You will not be able to stop me. And you are wrong, too. Moroccans are not a race, and people who criticize Moroccans are not racists. I am not a racist and neither are my voters. This sentence proves that you judges are completely out of touch.

And I have also a message for Prime Minister Rutte and the rest of the multicultural elite: You will not succeed in silencing me and defeating the PVV. Support for the Party for Freedom is stronger than ever, and keeps growing every day. The Dutch want their country back and cherish their freedom. It will not be possible to put the genie of positive change back in the bottle.

And to people at home I say: Freedom of speech is our pride. And this will remain so. For centuries, we Dutch have been speaking the unvarnished truth. Free speech is our most important possession. We will never let them take away our freedom of speech. Because the flame of freedom burns within us and cannot be extinguished.

Millions of Dutch are sick and tired of political correctness. Sick and tired of the elite which only cares about itself and ignores the ordinary Dutchman. And sells out our country. People no longer feel represented by all these disconnected politicians, judges and journalists, who have been harming our people for so long, and make our country weaker instead of stronger.

But I will keep fighting for you, and I tell all of you: thank you so much. Thank you so much for all your support. It is really overwhelming; I am immensely grateful to you. Thanks to your massive and heartfelt support, I know that I am not alone. That you back me, and are with me, and unwaveringly stand for freedom of expression.

Today, I was convicted in a political trial, which, shortly before the elections, attempts to neutralize the leader of the largest and most popular opposition party. But they will not succeed. Not even with this verdict. Because I speak on behalf of millions of Dutch. And the Netherlands are entitled to politicians who speak the truth, and honestly address the problems with Moroccans. Politicians who will not let themselves be silenced. Not even by the judges. And you can count on it: I will never be silent.

And this conviction only makes me stronger. This is a shameful sentence, which, of course, I will appeal. But I can tell you, I am now more vigorous than ever. And I know: together, we aim for victory.

Standing shoulder-to-shoulder, we are strong enough to change the Netherlands.

To allow our children to grow up in a country they can be proud of.
In a Netherlands where we are allowed to say again what we think.
Where everybody can safely walk the streets again.
Where we are in charge of our own country again.

And that is what we stand for. For freedom and for our beautiful Netherlands.

There's video at the link.

PHOTO: "Faith, Freedom, and Memory: Report From Ground Zero, September 11, 2010."

BONUS: "Geert Wilders' Right to Speak."

In the Mail: David A. Keene and Thomas L. Mason, Shall Not Be Infringed [BUMPED]

This came yesterday earlier.

It's a lively read. I read the introductory chapter last night and I really recommend it.

At Amazon, Shall Not Be Infringed: The New Assaults on Your Second Amendment.

Supreme Court Justices Return to Face Volatile Docket

I was just thinking about the Court's new term this week, since I'm doing civil liberties in my classes and I thought I might show my students an article or two or the coming term, which starts (each year) at the beginning of October.

So, what do you know?

See the New York Times, "Supreme Court Faces Volatile, Even if Not Blockbuster, Docket":

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, awaiting the outcome of a presidential election that will determine its future, returns to the bench this week to face a volatile docket studded with timely cases on race, religion and immigration.

The justices have been shorthanded since Justice Antonin Scalia died in February, and say they are determined to avoid deadlocks. That will require resolve and creativity.

“This term promises to be the most unpredictable one in many, many years,” said Neal K. Katyal, a former acting United States solicitor general in the Obama administration now with Hogan Lovells.

There is no case yet on the docket that rivals the blockbusters of recent terms addressing health care, abortion or same-sex marriage. But such cases are rare, whether there are eight justices or nine.

“This term’s cases are not snoozers,” said Elizabeth B. Wydra, the president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal group. “This term features important cases about racial bias in the criminal justice system, voting rights and redistricting, immigration and detention, and accountability for big banks that engaged in racially discriminatory mortgage lending practices.”

There are, moreover, major cases on the horizon, including ones on whether a transgender boy may use the boys’ restroom in a Virginia high school and on whether a Colorado baker may refuse to serve a same-sex couple.

“If either of these cases is taken, it will almost immediately become the highest profile case on the court’s docket,” said Steven Shapiro, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

There is also the possibility that a dispute over the outcome of the presidential election could end up at the Supreme Court, as it did in 2000 in Bush v. Gore.

“That is the doomsday scenario in some respects of having an eight-member court,” said Carter G. Phillips, a lawyer with Sidley Austin. A deadlocked Supreme Court would leave in place the lower court ruling and oust the justices from their role as the final arbiters of federal law.

Race figures in many of the new term’s most important cases, including two to be heard in October, and that seems to be part of a new trend. “The court hasn’t had a lot of cases recently dealing with race in the criminal justice system,” said Jeffrey L. Fisher, a law professor at Stanford.

In June, a dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor brought a new perspective to the issue. Citing James Baldwin’s “The Fire Next Time” and Ta-Nehisi Coates’s “Between the World and Me,” she insisted that the brutal history and contemporary reality of racism in the United States must play a role in the court’s analysis.

That dissent may prove influential, said Justin Driver, a law professor at the University of Chicago. “One item to keep an eye on this term,” he said, “is the extent to which the Black Lives Matters movement makes its presence felt on the court’s docket.”

On Wednesday, the court will hear arguments in Buck v. Davis, No. 15-8049. It arose from an extraordinary assertion by an expert witness in the death penalty trial of Duane Buck, who was convicted of the 1995 murders of a former girlfriend and one of her friends while her young children watched. The expert, presented by the defense, said that black men are more likely to present a risk of future danger.

The justices will decide whether Mr. Buck, who is black, may challenge his death sentence based on the ineffectiveness of the trial lawyer who presented that testimony.

“The Buck case raises questions that could not be more relevant to ongoing conversations sparked by police shootings about implicit bias and stereotyping of African-American men as violent and dangerous,” Ms. Wydra said. “The Roberts court, and particularly the chief justice himself, has often been reluctant to acknowledge the reality of systemic racism in this country, but the egregious facts of the Buck case make it impossible to avoid.”

On Oct. 11, the court will consider another biased statement, this one ascribed to a juror during deliberations in a sexual assault trial. “I think he did it because he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want,” the juror said of the defendant, according to a sworn statement from a second juror.

The question in the case, Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado, No. 15-606, is how to balance the interest in keeping jury deliberations secret against the importance of ridding the criminal justice system of racial and ethnic bias.

Race also figures in cases on redistricting, fair housing and malicious prosecution...

Well, that's a lot of stuff on race and criminal justice, but I can't wait to see the Court take up the transgender restroom issue, to say nothing of the homosexual wedding cakes. You gotta ask how far is the culture war going to succeed in rending our country into that which is totally unrecognizable.

But keep reading. We'll certainly know in due time.

Jan Crawford at the National Constitution Center (VIDEO)

Watch, an interesting segment, at CBS This Morning, "National Constitution Center tells the story of America":

The National Constitution Center in Philadelphia tells the story of how our founders created a government by the people with an elected president -- and a Constitution that endures and protects us all. Jan Crawford reports.

I don't think the question is whether we can "keep" the Constitution so much as we can preserve the liberty that it was originally designed to protect. The Constitution will be with us for a long time. It's how much the interpretation and practice of our constitutional norms have changed that's troubling.

Tomi Lahren Interview: Sexual Assault Survivor and 2nd Amendment Advocate Kimberly Corban (VIDEO)

She spoke at Politicon.

Great legs.

And watch, at the Blaze, "Joining me now, sexual assault survivor and Second Amendment advocate, Kimberly Corban."

Outrageous! Federal Judge Rules That Christian Cross Has No Place on Los Angeles County Seal

This is ridiculous, a total outrage.

Frankly, the teeny-tiny crosses are almost unnoticeable at the original county seal.

Leftists are once again working to drive even the slightest mention of our religious history from public recognition, and the public memory.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Christian cross has no place on L.A. County seal, judge rules":

In a long-awaited ruling, a federal judge has sided with plaintiffs who argued it was unconstitutional for Los Angeles County supervisors to place a Christian cross on the county seal.

A divided Board of Supervisors voted in 2014 to reinstate the cross on top of a depiction of the San Gabriel Mission, which appears on the seal among other symbols of county history. They were sued by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and a group of religious leaders and scholars, who said placement of the cross on the seal unconstitutionally favored Christianity over other religions.

A decade earlier, the county had removed a cross from the seal — this one shown floating above the Hollywood Bowl — after being threatened with a similar lawsuit. The proponents of reinstating the cross on the seal argued it was needed to make the image of the mission historically and architecturally accurate. When the seal was redesigned in 2004, there was no cross on top of the mission, as it had gone missing during earthquake retrofitting. The cross was later restored atop the building...

Keep reading.

TSA: The Total Security Abyss

From Michelle Malkin:

While a TSA agent pawed my hair bun this weekend, presumably on high alert for improvised explosive bobby pins, I pondered the latest news on the Somalia airplane terror attack.

Intelligence officials released video footage of airport employees in Mogadishu handing a laptop to a jihadist suspect before he boarded Daallo Airlines Airbus Flight D3159 last week. The device allegedly contained a bomb that exploded on the plane, which created a massive hole out of which the bomber was fatally sucked. Two other passengers were injured in the blast before the pilot successfully made an emergency landing.

Several airport workers have now been arrested and the FBI is in Africa assisting the investigation.

The Somalia incident is not the only suspected in-flight inside job of late. Investigators believe a ramp worker at Egypt’s Sharm el Sheikh airport was recruited by ISIS to plant a bomb on the Russian airliner that crashed last fall in the desert of the Sinai Peninsula. All 224 passengers and crew members aboard Metrojet Flight 9268 perished.

America can rest easy knowing that TSA aggressively tackled my harmless chignon like the Denver Broncos on Super Bowl Sunday.

But as the TSA carries out its multibillion-dollar charade of homeland security on babies’ bottles of breast milk, veterans’ prosthetic devices and suburban moms’ updos, who is screening the screeners?

Chilling. Man.

Keep reading.

Crossroads of the West Gun Show in Costa Mesa (VIDEO)

I don't know if these are the same sponsors as the Costa Mesa gun show I attended a couple of years ago, but to attend these things is to forget you're in California. There's a huge interest in Second Amendment rights in the once-Golden State, despite the far-left moral bankruptcy in our politics.

At ABC News 7 Los Angeles, "CROSSROADS OF THE WEST GUN SHOW COMES TO COSTA MESA AS OBAMA PUSHES TOUGHER GUN REGULATIONS."

Dana Loesch, Defeating the Plot to Disarm America

She really is.

And she was back on CNN a little while ago, on Anderson Cooper's show. I was surprised. I had CNN on because I was too lazy to turn the channel over to Fox while I was blogging, heh.

Here's her book, Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America.