Connect with us

U.S. News

Pentagon Blew More Than $1.5 Million Shooting Down Harmless ‘UFOs’

And that’s a lowball figure.

Published

on

U.S. Navy via Getty Images

The Pentagon blew more than $1.5 million dollars shooting down harmless ‘UFO’s, one of which was likely a balloon launched by a hobby group that cost as little as $12 dollars to make.

The series of shootdowns occurred after a Chinese high altitude balloon entered US airspace in late January, with Beijing insisting it was used to collect meteorological data and had drifted off course due to strong winds.

This prompted a show of force by the US military, leading to a mini-UFO flap that transfixed the nation for days.

Four AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles were used to shoot down the ‘UFOs’ over Alaska, Lake Huron, and the Yukon region in Canada, each costing around $400,000.

Another missile fired at an object over one of Michigan’s Great Lakes missed its target altogether.

A report by the Wall Street Journal concluded that the $1.5 million cost was likely significantly higher due to all the other factors involved in tracking the objects.

“The flights used to spot the balloons and eventually shoot them down are not part of the cost estimates, because the US military considers the flights part of its pilots’ training and has already budgeted those flight hours,” the report stated.

During a press conference last week, Joe Biden admitted that the military had used sophisticated air-to-air missiles fired from incredibly expensive fighter jets to take out what were “most likely” weather balloons.

As we previously highlighted, the Northern Illinois Bottlecap Balloon Brigade, a group of hobbyists were missing a silver-coated, party-style, “pico balloon” that was last spotted in almost the exact same place at the same altitude as the ‘UFO’ shot down in the Yukon Territory.

It was likely taken out by a $400,000 dollar missile, despite the hobby balloon costing as little as $12 dollars.

What a fantastic use of taxpayer money.

Ron Meadows, the founder of Scientific Balloon Solutions (SBS), which makes the balloons for hobbyists noted, “I tried contacting our military and the FBI—and just got the runaround—to try to enlighten them on what a lot of these things probably are. And they’re going to look not too intelligent to be shooting them down.”

As we previously reported, some commentators thought that the UFO flap was just a convenient distraction to bury the story about US involvement in blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

PJW Shop

ALERT!

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Get early access, exclusive content and behind the scenes stuff by following me on Locals.

———————————————————————————————————————

Continue Reading
Comments

U.S. News

Man Convicted Of Nonviolent Crime Cannot Be Stripped Of Gun Rights: Appeals Court

Published

on

Zero Hedge

Zocha_K / Getty Images

A Philadelphia federal appeals court has ruled that a Pennsylvania man convicted of a nonviolent crime cannot be stripped of his 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

Bryan Range was convicted in 1995 of one count of making a false statement to obtain food stamps amid a dire financial situation. He completed a three-year probation, made $2,500 in restitution, and has committed no crimes aside from minor traffic offenses and fishing without a license since then.

After he pleaded guilty in 1995, it was classified as a misdemeanor punishable by up to five years in jail – a conviction which technically made him ineligible to possess a firearm under federal law, which states that it is “unlawful for any person … who has been convicted in any court, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” to own guns or ammunition.

In 2021, a federal judge ruled against Range’s challenge. While his case was pending appeal, the US Supreme Court decided a landmark Second Amendment case which settled on a two-step test for the constitutionality of restrictions on firearms.

The two-step process, set forth by Supreme Court Justice Thomas Clarence, first requires the court to determine whether the Second Amendment’s “plain text” covers an individual’s conduct. If so, then that conduct is presumptively protected, and the government must prove that its law is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” –Epoch Times

In applying the test to Range’s case, a majority of the judges agreed in an 11-4 ruling (pdf) delivered on June 6th that despite his criminal record, he remains one of “the people” protected by the 2nd Amendment, and therefore the burden fell on the US government to prove that disarming Range would conform to “historical tradition” dating to the nation’s founding.

Yet the Government’s attempts to analogize those early laws to Range’s situation fall short,” wrote Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman in the majority opinion.

The fact that people during the Early Republic era sometimes got executed for committing nonviolent crimes, according to Hardiman, doesn’t mean that the state, then or now, could constitutionally strip a felon of his Second Amendment rights if he was not executed, because “the greater does not necessarily include the lesser.”

“Because the Government has not shown that our Republic has a longstanding history and tradition of depriving people like Range of their firearms, [the federal law] cannot constitutionally strip him of his Second Amendment rights,” Hardiman wrote.

The judges did note that the June 6 decision is limited to Range’s individual circumstances: he was banned from owning guns because the nonviolent crime he committed decades ago carried a relatively lengthy maximum prison sentence. -Epoch Times

“Our decision today is a narrow one,” read the majority opinion. “Bryan Range challenged the constitutionality of [the federal law] only as applied to him given his violation of [the Pennsylvania law].”

As the Epoch Times notes further;

Other Opinions

Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote a concurring opinion, saying that even though the government failed to carry its burden in this case, the federal felon-in-possession ban still stands lawful.

“This is so because it fits within our Nation’s history and tradition of disarming those persons who legislatures believed would, if armed, pose a threat to the orderly functioning of society. That Range does not conceivably pose such a threat says nothing about those who do,” Ambro wrote. “And I join the majority opinion with the understanding that it speaks only to his situation, and not to those of murderers, thieves, sex offenders, domestic abusers, and the like.”

Ambro was joined by Judges Joseph Greenaway and Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, who were appointed by Barack Obama and Joe Biden, respectively.

In one of the three dissenting opinions, Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz pointed to now-unconstitutional firearm bans on groups such as Native Americans, African Americans, Catholics, Quakers, and Loyalists. She argued that these restrictions, no matter how repugnant and unlawful they are today, serve as an analogy good enough to justify disarming people such as Range.

The founders [of the United States] categorically disarmed the members of these groups because the founders viewed them as disloyal to the sovereign. The felon designation similarly serves as a proxy for disloyalty and disrespect for the sovereign and its laws,” the Obama appointee wrote. “Such categorization is especially applicable here, where Range’s felony involved stealing from the government, a crime that directly undermines the sovereign.”

Shwartz also warned that even though her colleagues have clarified that their opinion is “narrow,” the analytical framework they have applied to reach the conclusion could render most, if not all, felon firearm bans unconstitutional.

The ruling is not cabined in any way and, in fact, rejects all historical support for disarming any felon,” she wroted. “As a result, the Majority’s analytical framework leads to only one conclusion: there will be no, or virtually no, felony or felony-equivalent crime that will bar an individual from possessing a firearm.

“This is a broad ruling and, to me, is contrary to both the sentiments of the Supreme Court and our history.”

This post was originally published at Zero Hedge

Continue Reading

U.S. News

Report: Fox News Tells Tucker Carlson He Is In Breach Of Contract By Posting Twitter Show

The network is considering suing Carlson, according to a report

Published

on

Steve Watson

Screenshot

According to a report by Axios, Tucker Carlson was contacted by Fox News after posting the first episode of his new show on Twitter, with his former network charging that he is now in breach of contract, and could be sued.

Axios reports:

Fox News Wednesday notified Tucker Carlson’s lawyers that the former prime-time anchor violated his contract with the network when he launched his own Twitter show on Tuesday, according to a copy of a letter obtained by Axios.

Why it matters: A breach of contract claim sets Fox News up to explore potential legal action against Carlson, a move that would intensify the already thorny public battle between the two parties.

Carlson’s lawyers told Axios that any legal action by Fox would violate his First Amendment rights.

Carlson’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, stated “Fox defends its very existence on freedom of speech grounds. Now they want to take Tucker Carlson’s right to speak freely away from him because he took to social media to share his thoughts on current events.”

According to the report, Fox News general counsel Bernard Gugar told Carlson’s people that “Fox expressly reserves all rights and remedies which are available to it at law or equity.”

“This evening we were made aware of Mr. Tucker Carlson’s appearance on Twitter in a video that lasted over 10 minutes,” Gugar’s letter reads.

It further notes that Carlson’s “services shall be completely exclusive to Fox,” and claims the host is “prohibited from rendering services of any type whatsoever, whether ‘over the internet via streaming or similar distribution, or other digital distribution whether now known or hereafter devised.'”

The report suggests that Carlson’s representatives are set to argue that Twitter is not a direct competitor of Fox News, and posts on the platform do not constitute a breach of his contract terms with the network.

Here is the epode in question, which now has over 100 MILLION views since it was posted just two days ago:

As we previously highlighted, Carlson doesn’t have any deal with Twitter and is posting like any other regular person.

Fox News hasn’t technically fired Carlson, it has just taken him off the air, meaning he is still locked into a contract until January 2025.

That means the popular host would be completely frozen out of being able to actively cover the 2024 presidential election.

Carlson’s detractors have voiced concern that should he be free to keep producing his own content, he will not be ‘policed’ or censored at all.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————
Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/ PJW Shop

ALERT! In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here.

Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Also, we urgently need your financial support here. ———————————————————————————————————————

  • Continue Reading

    U.S. News

    Biden Press Secretary Claims Illegal Immigration Is Down 70%, Says Food Prices Have Soared Due To “Poor Weather”

    Can her lies get any bigger?

    Published

    on

    Steve Watson

    Screenshot

    Biden Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claimed Wednesday that Americans are experiencing soaring costs for food because of “poor weather” and bird flu, and also claimed that illegal immigration is down 70 percent.

    Americans have seen food prices soar by up to 12 percent on average since last year due to massive inflation, yet the Biden Administration wants you to believe its really because of “supply chain bottlenecks,” “avian flu,” “war in Ukraine,” and “poor weather,” basically anything other than their disastrous economic record.

    It’s basically the same talking point that was laid out in the Wall Street Journal earlier this year when the outlet advised Americans who can’t afford food to stop eating meals.

    Meanwhile, in another huge lie, the Press Secretary claimed illegal immigration is down 70 percent, despite record numbers having crossed the borders in May, including waves of suspected terrorists.

    When asked about the legal parameters of moving illegal immigrants around the country, Jean-Pierre said she “cannot speak to the law.”

    It’s slightly less of a massive lie than last month when she claimed that illegal immigration was down by 90 percent.

    How much will she claim it is down by next month?

    SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

    Follow on Twitter:

    ———————————————————————————————————————
    Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/ PJW Shop

    ALERT! In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

    We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here.

    Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

    Also, we urgently need your financial support here. ———————————————————————————————————————

  • Continue Reading

    Trending