Joe Biden, who is set to be inaugurated on Jan. 20, has said he plans to end the sale of so-called “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines” in addition to instituting red flag legislation and ending liability protections for gun manufacturers and sellers, according to his campaign website. The former vice president’s gun control plan, coupled with his slew of cabinet picks that seem to share his views on the issue, has pro-Second Amendment groups on edge.
“We’re going to be fighting for our rights continuously over the next four years no doubt about it,” senior vice president of the Gun Owners of America Erich Pratt told the DCNF. “And a lot of this is going to be in Congress and a lot of it in the courts because if and when Biden is inaugurated, he’s going to try to do a lot from executive action.”
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra was tapped by Biden last week to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the New York Times. The AG was quoted in 2019 court filing arguing that AR-15s are “not in common use for lawful purposes like self defense.”
“Assault rifles may be banned because they are, like the M-16, ‘weapons that are most useful in military service’’; and ‘they are also not ‘in common use’ for lawful purposes like self-defense,’” Becerra wrote in a court case titled Rupp v. Becerra, which challenged California’s prohibition of certain semi-automatic long guns.
Becerra also cited an opinion from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence that “assault weapons” possess “no legitimate civilian purpose.”
“In addition to utilizing military features useful in combat, but which have no legitimate civilian purpose, assault weapons are exceedingly dangerous if used in self defense, because the bullets many of the weapons fire are designed to penetrate humans and will penetrate structures, and therefore pose a heightened risk of hitting innocent bystanders,” the Brady Center wrote.
Executive Director of Gun Owners of California Sam Paredes, who fought Becerra’s policies firsthand, called the AG the “most anti-gun” prosecutor his state has had in recent memory.
“He has been the absolute most anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment, anti-Constitutional AG that we’ve had in a very long time,” Paredes told the DCNF. “It’s hard to compare him to anyone else, and I wouldn’t characterize him as liberal, I’d characterize him as radical.”
Dr. Vivek Murthy
Dr. Vivek Murthy, who served in former President Barack Obama’s administration, was reportedly nominated by Biden to take up the role of the country’s Surgeon General on Dec. 7, according to CNN. Murthy, an American physician, criticized the National Rifle Association (NRA) and likened gun control to a “health care issue,” in a 2012 tweet.
Everytown For Gun Safety, a prominent pro-gun control group, applauded the nomination of both Murty and Becerra by the incoming Biden administration. The group called the pair “proven gun sense champions,” in an early December press release.
“Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Dr. Vivek Murthy are both proven gun sense champions who will help lead the Biden administration’s effort to treat gun violence like the public health emergency it is,” Everytown for Gun Safety President John Feinblatt said in the release.
“America is facing down two intertwined crises right now — Covid and gun violence — and Attorney General Becerra and Dr. Murthy understand that we need to tackle both at the same time.”
Former Obama-era Security Adviser Susan Rice
Former Obama-era security adviser Susan Rice was tapped for the top domestic policy role in Biden’s administration, Politico reported last week. Rice appeared in a June interview with both Everytown For Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action to discuss firearms law and racial justice unrest that was prevalent at the time.
“[Biden has] taken on the NRA twice and won,” Rice said in the interview with Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts. “When he served with President Obama in the Obama-Biden administration, we implemented over two dozen reforms that put curbs on access to guns, but we need legislation, we need leadership in Joe Biden that understands and is passionate about these issues.”
Rice advocated for laws including “universal background checks, the enactment of a new violence against women act, with a permanent and comprehensive ‘assault weapons’ ban, and a ban on ‘high capacity magazines’ that will work to buy back those assault weapons that are out there and ensure that those that remain are fully registered,” she said.
Rice also went on to say it’s “unthinkable” and “outrageous” that such reforms have not been passed to date.
“It’s unthinkable to me that even though the vast majority of Americans favor common sense gun restrictions, universal background checks, bans on ‘assault weapons’, and we have a very powerful lobby that has effectively prevented so much of that from being enacted,” she said. “It’s absolutely outrageous. It makes me as angry as anything.”
Former South Bend Mayor, Democratic Presidential Candidate Pete Buttigieg
Former South Bend Mayor and Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg was selected to head Biden’s Department of Transportation, according to Tuesday CNN report. Buttigieg, who is said to be the first gay Senate-approved cabinet secretary, repeatedly called for a prohibition on “assault weapons” while on the campaign trail in 2019.
The former mayor echoed these statements in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper in August of 2019.
“Let’s start by banning new sales of these [‘assault] weapons’, then we can figure out other mechanisms to reduce the number that are circulating out there,” he told Tapper.
Former Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm
Former Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm was reportedly tapped to Biden’s energy secretary on Tuesday, according to the Wall Street Journal. Granholm lambasted politicians and called for sweeping changes to the nation’s gun laws in 2012 following the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooting, Michigan Live reported.
“It’s time for a call to action, everybody, people,” Granholm said on her TV show at the time, according to the local outlet. “I’m just sick of this garbage too. You should be as well. We can not stand idly by. We can sit and complain about what those darn politicians are doing, or say words, or we can do something.”
“But, we can not wait for the politicians. Do not wait. You live in a state with an initiative process, you can organize, you can gather the signatures, you can use democracy to your advantage.”
Granholm applauded then Colorado governor Tom Mauser for calling for a federal “assault weapons” ban and a prohibition on “high-capacity” magazines, Michigan Live reported.
“If Tom Mauser can do it, if Colorado can do it, so can you,” she said, according to the local outlet.
The former Michigan governor also argued that Americans should not have access to armor-piercing ammunition in a 2013 ABC appearance with former Republican Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum,” according to Think Progress.
“Why do you need armor-piercing bullets, why do you need that?,” Granholm asked Santorum.
Santorum replied, “Because we’re talking about a particular type of bullet that is and can be available —”
“Deer don’t wear armor. Why do you need an armor piercing bullet?,” Granholm interjected.
Foreign-born population soars to new record under Biden; highest rate of immigrants since 1910
The U.S. has had a massive surge in immigration this year, with as many as 1.5 million newcomers and a record 46.2 million foreign-born people, according to a report for the Center for Immigration Studies.
After a deep trough last year, likely because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the travel and migration restrictions imposed to control the spread, the flow of people rebounded around the time President Biden was elected.
In numbers never seen before, they are coming legally through airports and land border crossings and illegally across the Rio Grande and remote regions of Arizona and California.
“There was pent-up demand for legal immigration, and illegal immigration has exploded in one of the greatest surges, if not the greatest, we’ve ever seen,” said Steven A. Camarota, the demographer who was the chief author of the report. “It’s driving the numbers up and up and up.”
As it stands, 14.2% of the U.S. population is foreign-born, or 1 out of every 7 people. That is the highest rate of immigrants in the population since 1910, when the number was 14.7%. At current trends, the government says, the U.S. will break that record well before the end of this decade.
Those numbers are even starker given the reversal of trends.
The data showed a drop of 1.2 million immigrants from February to September 2020, likely the result of coronavirus restrictions blocking new entrants, even as outmigration continued. That left the population of the foreign-born — the Census Bureau’s term — at 43.8 million.
It was up to 45 million by January and marched steadily to the current 46.2 million total shown for last month.
In the year after President Trump’s election, the immigrant population flattened.
Mashup: MSM worst moments of 2021
Salvation Army’s Internal Survey Suggests Only Whites Are Racist
“I Took The Salvation Army’s Internal Survey On ‘Racism’ Within The Organization. Here’s What I Discovered.”
The Salvation Army has recently come under significant fire for asking white donors to “offer a sincere apology” for racism. The nearly 150-year old organization created a curriculum entitled “Let’s Talk About Racism” and shared it with its members, along with associated DEI Trainings that cite and draw from Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi’s work. The packet argues that Christians should “stop trying to be ‘colorblind’” and that they should apologize for being “antagonistic.. to black people or the culture, values and interests of the black community.” In response, donors by the thousands have vowed not to donate until the organization reverses their stance.
The Salvation Army has denied any wrongdoing, defiantly calling the allegations that they have gone woke “false.” While they admit that the topic of race in America can be fraught with controversy, they have denied they have “gone woke.” Much of their denial centers around their claim that use of the guide was completely voluntary, and that they are not peddling critical race narratives in their organization.
I obtained a copy of The Salvation Army’s internal survey on “racism within the Salvation Army” and tested that claim.
One Salvation Army officer reached out on condition of anonymity to Color Us United, the raceblind advocacy organization which I run, to reveal an internal survey he was asked to take. It was not a voluntary survey, and was sent by the Territorial Diversity and Inclusion Secretary to every Salvation Army Officer in the US Central Territory. The purpose of the survey, according to an email from the “Territorial Racial Diversity and Inclusion Secretary,” was “to better understand perception of institutional racial bias within The Salvation Army.” The accompanying email stated that there was no “preconceived idea” with regard to whether or not racism existed in The Salvation Army, and told recipients that there were no wrong answers.
I sat down and went through the questions.
First, Questions #1, #2, and #3 asked me for my race, age, and gender. I could not skip these questions. Already, I felt uncomfortable being required to list my personal attributes. If I was an officer, I would be wondering: how could this information be used against me in the future? (They did promise anonymity in this survey.)
The survey then asks Salvationists if they agree with the following definition of racism: “Institutional racism refers to organizational or system processes, behaviors, policies, or procedures, which produce negative outcomes for nonwhites relative to those for whites.” The remaining questions in the survey are dependent upon agreeing to this definition of racism. For any Officer or Soldier who disagrees with this framing, there is no way to express any disagreement or nuance apart from plainly saying that racism does not exist.
Question #6 goes on to ask the survey taker whether they believe there is any institutional bias or racism in The Salvation Army. Question #7 says: “If you answered no to question #6, do you think others in The Salvation Army think there are racial tensions or institutional racism?” The purpose of these questions, I started to feel, was to force the survey taker to admit that The Salvation Army is institutionally racist according to their definition of racism. There is no room for any Officer to elaborate on how they disagree with the definitions, framing, or worldview informing the questions.
The final question asks: “What is the best way to address Racism in The Salvation Army?” The answer options are: “individual reconciliation,” “group reconciliation,” “addressing structures and practices that cause racism,” “all of the above,” or “other.” Note that there is no option for the survey taker to simply say that racism is not a problem in The Salvation Army. The survey (which according to the email, was “intended to go to all the officers within your division, employees, and soldiers” for the Central Territory) simply assumes that racism is present in the organization.
Going through the survey, it became apparent that the survey was attempting to lead me to making only one conclusion about The Salvation Army – that it harbored problematic racism.
This belief is one of the core tenets of critical race theory. Critical race theorists teach that racism is ubiquitous in all aspects of American life. They also teach that it works systemically; that is, by being ingrained in the systems and institutions that operate in society. Their primary evidence of the system being racist is the reality that individuals from different demographics have different life outcomes on average, without taking into account any variables that might impact said life outcomes apart from the color of their skin. All of these concepts are reflected in The Salvation Army’s survey.
Any officer who believes in individualism, colorblindness, and meritocracy will be unable to answer any of the survey questions in good faith. Any officer who believes that The Salvation Army is not a racist organization would not be able to answer these questions in good faith either. Many (if not most) Americans believe that racism is primarily an issue of individuals who harbor feelings of hate against those of other races, not a society-wide conspiracy as alleged by antiracist activists. This survey totally excludes the colorblind perspective from the conversation and forces Officers and other Salvationists into a critical race theory-informed box.