Many Texans will have their first opportunity to elect representatives to the governing boards of their local appraisal districts, making the agencies that assess property values for tax purposes more accountable to citizens.
A new property tax relief law, passed last year and approved in November by voters statewide, included a provision for voters in counties with a population of 75,000 or more to elect three new members to their county appraisal district board of directors.
The three elected board members will serve alongside the five appointed directors and the county tax assessor-collector, who will become an ex-officio board member.
Directors elected in May will take office on July 1 and serve a term that expires on December 31, 2026.
Going forward, elected appraisal district directors will be on the ballot in November of even-numbered years and serve staggered four-year terms.
The five directors appointed by local taxing units (counties, cities, school districts) that participate in the appraisal district will also transition to staggered four-year terms, starting in 2025.
Property tax consultant Chandler Crouch, who has championed appraisal district reforms for years, told Texas Scorecard, “I believe the legislation that implemented these changes is a direct result of the trouble I’ve experienced and would not have happened if it weren’t for concerned Texans demanding change.”
Crouch was targeted by his local Tarrant County appraisal district officials after helping thousands of residents protest their property taxes and calling attention to problems within the system.
In the wake of several scandals, longtime Tarrant Appraisal District Chief Appraiser Jeff Law resigned last September.
“Over the past few years I’ve seen plenty of corruption at the appraisal district. I believe the problems I encountered would have been dealt with much quicker if we had someone at the appraisal district that was directly accountable to the taxpayers,” said Crouch.
In addition to adding elected appraisal district directors in the state’s 50 largest counties, the new law puts the directors in charge of appointing members to the appraisal review board.
The appraisal review board (ARB) is the group of citizens that hears taxpayer protests and resolves disputes between property owners and appraisal districts. Currently, ARB members are appointed by the county’s local administrative judge.
At least two members of the majority voting for ARB members must be elected directors.
Any possibility for voters to check tax increases is a good thing.
According to this Facebook thread, Buell, Sanders and Klein are running a taxpayer-friendly slate, while Hisle-Piper, Lux and Moses are already appointed members of the board, using a loophole to run for the elected seats. Sanders asserts “If they win, each of them will then hold two positions on the Appraisal Board.” That hardly seems kosher. On that basis, I’m tentatively recommending a vote for Buell, Sanders and Klein, but if you have any countervailing information, please share it in the comments below.
Note: Early voting for this election has already started and runs through April 30.
The U.S. Senate race in Texas is shaping up to be an expensive bout between Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Congressman Colin Allred (D-TX-32), with both candidates posting high fundraising totals and the challenger burning through most of his haul.
Both candidates announced close to $10 million raised in the April quarterly report last week. The two touted the fact that their contributions came from every — or in Allred’s case, almost every — county in Texas. The pair’s average donations were both around $35.
Cruz reported $15.1 million cash-on-hand at the end of this period — which includes monies raised into the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Texas GOP itemized for his race — to Allred’s $10.5 million left on hand.
Cruz’s number is $2.7 million more than he raised in the first two quarters of 2018 combined. Allred’s haul exceeded 2018 candidate Beto O’Rourke’s first-quarter number by close to $3 million.
Though he posted a record first quarter haul in 2018, the biggest money for Beto’s bid really started flowing in during the spring and summer following the primary; he raised nearly $80 million in that race, and narrowly lost to Cruz, who raised $45 million that cycle.
Both Cruz and Allred have raised around half of their money in 2024 from within Texas, with big money figures and organizations on both sides of this fight salivating for another high-profile clash. More than 12 percent of Allred’s haul came from California to Cruz’s 32 percent from Virginia, the vast majority of which is due to the GOP’s small-dollar donor interface, WinRed, being headquartered there.
The Democrats’ version, ActBlue, is headquartered in Massachusetts.
One of the most interesting factors in these reports is Allred’s burn rate — the amount of money spent relative to what he raised. Allred has plenty of money left over, but he spent 96 percent of his haul, more than two-thirds of which was spent on media advertising.
I would be lying if I said I was up to date on the latest campaign finance trends, but it’s universally acknowledged that a burn rate that high this far out from the general election is “bad”…
…and that media buys this far out from the general are fools gold. Maybe Allred thinks he needs to get to the same level of name recognition as O’Rourke did in 2018, but that’s simply not possible. He’d need just as many fawning media profiles as O’Rourke got, and the national media is too busy ramping up the Orange Man Bad machine to do that. This time in 2018, I’d already seen a zillion Beto signs and bumper stickers, and I doubt I’ve even seen five for Allred. And, after all that money and name-recognition, Beto still lost…
The latest poll on the race from the Texas Hispanic Policy Foundation — which pegged Allred down 5 points to Cruz — showed the challenger with a +24 net favorability rating to Cruz’s +3. However, Allred’s undecided total was 40 points, showing that there are loads of movable voters who could go either way on him; Cruz’s undecided number was 1 percent.
Polls this early mean very little. But cash on hand is rarely overrated…
In his nascent bid for Congress, Brandon Herrera is putting two things to the test: embattled Congressman Tony Gonzales (R-TX-23), and the ability of next-generation politicians to overcome statements — and jokes — made on social media.
Known popularly as “The AK Guy,” Herrera is a YouTuber boasting a large following whose schtick is firing cool guns and teaching his viewers about their characteristics and history. His X bio reads, “Congressional Candidate (R TX-23) YouTuber, Second Amendment Absolutist, VERY Politically Incorrect.”
The field of Republican primary challengers pushed Gonzales to a runoff, with the incumbent falling 4.6 points away from winning the primary outright; Herrera received 24 percent of the vote, finishing a comfortable second place and securing a runoff against the incumbent.
Now he’s the last man standing between Gonzales and a third term in Congress.
But standing between Herrera and the upset is the very reason he has such a large following: his irreverent, and very entertaining, streaming persona. Herrera’s YouTube channel has 3.3 million subscribers and the pinned video is him testing out the “magic bullet theory” related to the JFK assassination — namely that the bullet attributed to the president’s death looks as if it didn’t actually hit anything, let alone a human being.
But it was a different video that caught the attention of his opponent — and a national media outlet.
“Rep. Gonzales’ right-wing GOP challenger posted videos featuring Nazi imagery, songs, jokes,” reads a headline from the publication Jewish Insider. The video in question is an informational on the MP-40 submachine gun, developed in Germany during the Nazi Third Reich.
Discussing the gun, Herrera refers to it as “the original ghetto blaster” and then shows a sardonic black and white montage firing the weapon as the German military marching song “Erika” plays.
“If the MG-42 was Hitler’s buzzsaw, the MP-40 was Hitler’s street sweeper,” he adds.
At the end of the video, Herrera says of the sarcastic tone and jokes, “The best way to not repeat history is to learn about history. And the best way that I know to get you guys to learn about history, is make really f—– up jokes about it.”
In acknowledging the “edgy” humor, Herrera unknowingly handed ammunition to his future political opponents — the effectiveness of which remains to be seen and a potential dagger that Herrera brushed aside.
“Whereas before you have little statements that can be taken out of context or jokes that were made that would tank careers, it’s no longer that way,” Herrera told The Texan in an interview, suggesting the current political climate has passed the point of caring about such remarks.
“One of the big catalysts for that change was the way that Trump ran his campaign. I think people related to him and people aren’t really afraid to see that side of elected representatives anymore.”
About the potential shift, Herrera added, “[Candidates] don’t have to be as squeaky clean, and really, fake as they have been in years past. And I think we’re getting closer to an era of real people.”
“Being representatives now, which I think is going to be a net positive because people are realizing it doesn’t matter what jokes have been made in the past, and it doesn’t matter if your congressman was caught swearing or something like that. People care about how you vote and I think that’s the core of it. And that should be what people vote on.”
Is a post-Trump disdain for political correctness going to prevent it from being used on other candidates for edgy humor? Maybe. But a bigger problem for Herrera is that he came out of the primary 21 points behind Gonzales. That’s a large gap to make up, especially since Gonzales is out-raising Herrera. Absent dramatic developments, the vote and money gaps may be too big for Herrera to make up between now and May 29.
Lots of gratifying results came out of yesterday’s primaries. Perhaps the most gratifying is that the Straus-Bonnen-Phelan Axis, which has thwarted conservative priorities for decades, finally had a stake driven through its heart.
First statewide and national office races:
President Trump crushed Nikki Haley in Texas with over 76% of the vote.
Former president Donald Trump seems poised to breeze to the Republican presidential nomination after nearly sweeping the party’s Super Tuesday contests.
By 11 p.m. ET on Tuesday, Trump had won the Republican presidential contests in at least twelve of the Super Tuesday states: Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Maine, Alabama, Massachusetts, Texas, Arkansas, Colorado, Minnesota, and delegate-rich California.
Former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, meanwhile, earned her first — and likely only — win of the night in Vermont.
Results from caucuses in Alaska and Utah were still outstanding around 11:30 p.m. ET.
Ted Cruz cruised to a victory with just under 90% of the vote, and will face Democrat Collin Allred in November. Allred won a clear majority in a five-way race, with Roland Gutierrez coming in at very distant second that was more than 40 points behind.
In the Republican primary race for Texas Congressional District 23, Brandon Herrera has taken incumbent Congressman Tony Gonzales to a runoff.
According to unofficial totals, Gonzales captured 46 percent of the vote to Herrera’s 23 percent.
Leading into the election, much of the discussion centered on Gonzales’ multiple censures from Republican organizations.
The congressman had been censured by the Medina County Republican Party, which was followed by a censure from the Republican Party of Texas (RPT).
The RPT censure was only the second time in history the party had used the maneuver for a sitting politician, the first being in 2018 with then-House Speaker Joe Staus (R-San Antonio). House Speaker Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont) then became the third sitting member to be censured by the State Republican Executive Committee when they approved the official resolution in February.
Gonzales’ censure came after RPT found that he had violated the multiple tenets of the party platform with his votes in Congress.
The incumbent Gonzales had also been criticized for his stance on border security.
In December, he penned a letter to both Democratic and Republican federal leadership stating that he believes the border crisis could reach a “point of no return” if lawmakers do not act soon.
The letter came after a disagreement with Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX-21) over a border security bill Roy introduced to require the detention or expulsion of illegal immigrants, which would prohibit “all asylum” claims. Gonzales has also labeled some of his GOP colleagues “insurgents” and accused 20 Republicans of planning to push “anti-immigrant” legislation under the guise of border security policy.
The leading issue for voters statewide leading into the primary election is border security and immigration, which is represented by the vote totals in this race.
Herrera describes himself as a “Second Amendment activist, and social media personality,” known online as “The AK Guy.”
He proclaimed, “Texas is done with RINO’s,” during the night of the primary election.
But in Texas, the big news was that Dade Phalen, the latest in the Joe Straus/Dennis Bonnen cabal that has stayed in power with Democratic Party backing to thwart conservative priorities, is headed into a runoff with David Covey for Texas House District 21, with less than half a point separating the two.
The Speaker of the Texas House Dade Phelan will be heading to a runoff, after failing to receive the support of a majority of Republican voters in his district.
Phelan, who was first elected to the House in 2014 and has been speaker since 2021, will face off against former Orange County GOP chairman David Covey in a runoff election that is certain to garner attention from across the state.
Phelan had been criticized by conservatives for failing to pass conservative priorities, placing Democrats in leadership positions, and leading the charge to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton last year. Former President Donald Trump endorsed Covey, calling any Republican who backed Phelan “a fool.”
Phelan received 45.8 percent of the vote with Covey earning 45.3 percent.
Alicia Davis, a Jasper County activist, took 8.9 percent of the vote.
“The people of House District 21 have put every politician in Texas, and the nation, on notice,” said Covey. “Our elected officials are elected by the people and work for the people, and when they don’t, there will be consequences.”
“Since 1836, Texans have answered the call to defend liberty and fight for our freedoms. I have every intention of continuing that tradition,” he added.
Covey was joined by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick at his election night watch party. Patrick, who has been a vocal critic of Phelan, had not officially endorsed Covey.
But it wasn’t just Phelan! A whole bunch of the Republican state reps who backed Phelan either lost outright or are headed to runoffs:
The runoff rematch between state Rep. Glenn Rogers (R-Graford) and Mike Olcott went entirely unlike the first round two years ago, with Olcott defeating the incumbent in a landslide.
Once Palo Pinto County returns came in, it was clear which way the bout would go. Olcott won Rogers’ home county by 365 votes and cleaned up in the rest of the district.
Last go-around, Rogers nipped Olcott by a few hundred votes, thanks in large part to support from Gov. Greg Abbott. This time in the rematch, the governor switched sides after Rogers voted against his education savings account plan — opposition to which the incumbent has remained steadfast. On Monday, state Sen. Phil King (R-Weatherford) announced his support for Olcott in the race.
Rogers outlasted his previous two stiff primary challenges, the first in 2020 for the open seat against Jon Francis, the son-in-law of conservative mega-donors Farris and JoAnn Wilks. Then in 2022 Olcott challenged Rogers, the incumbent, and narrowly lost.
This time, Abbott has made multiple trips to the district, stating at one that, “There are many reasons we are here today, and one of those is that I made a mistake last time in endorsing Glenn Rogers. And I’m here to correct that mistake. I’m here to make sure everyone knows, I’m here to support Mike Olcott to be your state representative.”
Olcott swept the top-level endorsements with Abbott, Donald Trump, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Attorney General Ken Paxton, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).
uring the 88th Legislative session last year, Clardy was one of the House members who voted in favor of stripping education savings accounts from the November education omnibus bill.
Leading into the election a central issue was how each candidate landed on school choice, as both Gov. Greg Abbott and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) have based their candidate endorsements on support for education freedom.
Clardy was also issued a cease and desist letter by Abbott for “representing to the public that Governor Abbott has endorsed you in your bid for re-election,” when in fact Abbott had endorsed his opponent Joanne Shofner, whom the letter called “a true conservative.” Clardy has continued to express vocal opposition to school choice: “Right now, the price to get his endorsement was I had to bend the knee and kiss the ring and say that I will vote for vouchers[.]”
Shofner, along with both Abbott and Cruz’s support, also had the endorsement of former President Donald Trump.
Conservative activist Shelley Luther has won her rematch against incumbent Republican State Rep. Reggie Smith of Van Alystne to represent House District 62 in North Texas.
House District 62 includes Grayson, Fannin, and portions of Delta and Franklin counties.
Smith, who has served in the Texas House since 2018, is part of the House leadership team, serving as chair of the House Election Committee under House Speaker Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont). As chair, Smith either slow-walked or killed several Republican priority measures addressing election security.
Smith’s record from the past year also includes voting to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton—who was later acquitted by the Senate—and voting against school choice legislation.
Luther, who made state and national headlines in 2020 when she was jailed after refusing to close her salon during the COVID-19 shutdowns, said previously she looks forward to working with the governor to pass school choice this next session.
Allison voted with Democrats to strip a school choice measure from a school spending measure.
His opposition to school choice drew the ire of Gov. Greg Abbott, who endorsed LaHood.
During Allison’s two terms, he has earned an “F” rating on the Fiscal Responsibility Index for his votes on fiscal issues. He was also one of the 60 Republican House members who voted to impeach Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Belton mom and pro-family advocate Hillary Hickland has won the Republican Primary Election for House District 55, unseating incumbent State Rep. Hugh Shine of Temple.
HD 55 encompasses part of Bell County.
School Choice has defined the HD 55 race, as Shine voted against Gov. Greg Abbott’s proposed school choice package.
Hickland meanwhile accumulated endorsements from Abbott, former President Donald Trump, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, Attorney General Ken Paxton, Texas Home School Coalition, and Young Conservatives of Texas.
Businessman Matt Morgan has defeated State Rep. Jacey Jetton of Richmond in the Republican Primary.
House District 26 includes part of Fort Bend County.
The failed impeachment of Attorney General Ken Paxton featured prominently in the race.
Jetton was among the Republicans who voted to impeach Paxton.
Morgan—who fell short to Jetton in a runoff in 2020—quickly earned the endorsement of Paxton. He also had the endorsement of U.S. Rep. Troy Nehls, who called Jetton a “liberal.”
During his two terms in office, Jetton earned an “F” rating on the Fiscal Responsibility Index for his votes on fiscal issues.
State Rep. Justin Holland (R-Rockwall) and challenger Katrina Pierson will duke it out for another three months after neither eclipsed 50 percent, both advancing to the runoff.
The pair were neck and neck in the Rockwall County and Collin County portions of the district.
Holland’s clash with Pierson and London was highly-anticipated. Pierson has the largest profile of any challenger in this 2024 primary, having served as a Donald Trump campaign spokeswoman in 2016. On top of that, London challenged Holland in the 2022 primary, giving him some level of ballot name ID.
Despite that Trump affiliation, Pierson was omitted from the former president’s endorsement list in Texas races.
The incumbent found himself in the political right’s crosshairs after three consequential votes: impeaching Attorney General Ken Paxton, striking down Gov. Greg Abbott’s school choice plan, and advancing through committee a proposal to raise the age of purchasing certain semi-automatic rifles to 21.
Holland far outraised and outspent his two opponents, who combined raised $337,000 to the incumbent’s $1.2 million.
He was the beneficiary of around $170,000 from Speaker Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont), $225,000 from the Charles Butt Public Education PAC, $50,000 from the casino group Texas Sands PAC, $40,000 from Texans for Lawsuit Reform, and $115,000 from the Associated Republicans of Texas.
Mitch Little, Ken Paxton’s impeachment lawyer, appears to have won Texas House District 65 over incumbent Kronda Thimesch . “Little, with Paxton’s backing, defeated State Rep. Kronda Thimesch, who had the backing of Governor Greg Abbott, by about 300 votes.” Which means a recount is likely.
In Texas House District 1, Chris Spencer forced incumbent Gary Vandeaver into a runoff, with less than 2.5% separating them.
Helen Kerwin takes a seven point lead over incumbent DeWayne Burns into the Texas House District 58 runoff, and only missed an outright win by 1.2%. Kirwin was also endorsed by President Trump.
Challenger Keresa Richardson takes a seven point lead over incumbent Frederick Frazier into the Texas House District 61 runoff. Looks like I’ll have to wait until May to use the “Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier!” joke…
Given the usual run of only one or two incumbents getting knocked off in primaries (and those usually involved in prominent scandals), having 17 reps meet that fate is a political earthquake on par with Newt Gingrich-lead Republicans capturing the House after 40 years of Democratic rule in 1994. All the outside gambling and other special interest money was on the Phelan Axis side, and they still got stomped. I credit this in large measure to Trump, Paxton, Abbott and Cruz getting involved in statehouse races.
The Phelan Axis decided that killing school choice and the Paxton impeachment were the hills they wanted to die on, and a large number of them did.
But not every rep who voted for the Paxton impeachment and/or against school choice lost or got taken to a runoff:
Keith Bell defeated Joshua Feuerstein in District 3.
Cole Hefner defeated Jeff Fletcher in District 5.
Jay Dean defeated Joe McDaniel in District 7.
Cody Harris stomped Jaye Curtis in District 8.
Trent Ashby thumped Paulette Carson.
Steve Toth defeated Skeeter Hubert in District 15.
Stan Gerdes beat Tom Glass in District 17.
Ellen Troxclair won against Kyle Biedermann in District 19.
Terry Wilson beat Elva Chapa in District 20.
Greg Bonnen destroyed Larissa Ramirez in District 24.
Gary Gates beat Dan Mathews in District 28.
Ben Bumgarner won a three-way race in District 63.
Matt Shaheen beat Wayne Richard in District 66.
Jeff Leach beat Daren Meis in District 67.
David Spiller beat Kerri Kingsbery in District 68.
Stan Lambert beat Liz Case in District 71.
Drew Darby defeated Stormy Bradley in District 72.
Dustin Burrows defeated Wade Cowan 2-1 in District 83.
Stan Kitzman defeated Tim Greeson by a similar margin in District 85.
John Smithee defeated Jamie Haynes in District 86.
Ken King walloped Karen Post in District 88.
Candy Noble edged Abraham George in District 89.
Giovanni Capriglione beat Brad Schofield in District 98.
Charlie Geren defeated Jack Reynolds in District 99.
Morgan Meyer edged Barry Wernick in District 108.
Angie Chen Button decisively Chad Carnahan in District 112.
Briscoe Cain stomped Bianca Gracia in District 128.
Mano Deayala defeated John Perez in District 133.
Lacey Hull defeated Jared Woodfill in District 138.
That’s 31 Republican reps that could theoretically reconstitute the Phelan axis, but I’m not sure they have the stomach for it.
Of those, Bell, Dean, Lambert, Darby, King and Geren were the only ones to vote both for the Paxton impeachment and against school choice. Michael Quinn Sullivan (who I’m pretty sure is ecstatic at the numbers of Phelan enablers taken down yesterday) has identified Burrows and Harris as the two most likely Phelan axis members to attempt to take the gavel next year, and Geren and Capriglione have always struck me as among the biggest supporters of the axis. But a lot of those other names strike me as “soft” axis supporters who might be persuaded to support an actual Republican for speaker, least the same fate befall them as all the other Phelan backers taken down.
All in all, it was a very, very good day for Texas conservatives.
Brandon Herrera, a YouTube influencer with a focus on firearms, has announced that he is challenging incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales for Texas’ congressional district 23 seat.
Herrera, who has over 2 million YouTube subscribers, had been hinting towards a congressional run for weeks on his YouTube channel. He previously made an appearance at a congressional hearing earlier this year after being invited by U.S. Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA) to testify against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
Congressional District 23 is a rural, majority-Hispanic area that encompasses western San Antonio and contains a large span of the Texas-Mexico border—including Uvalde, Eagle Pass, and El Paso county.
Herrera first announced his run at the Young Americans for Liberty conference and then in a YouTube video.
“Several Republicans who swore to defend gun rights, to protect borders, just in general, putting the rights and interests of the American people above their own, turn their back on these values,” Herrera said.
“There can be no more incumbent politicians who vote time and time again against the interests of the American people without fear of losing their positions,” he continued.
Herrera calls himself a “Second Amendment absolutist” and has repeatedly criticized Gonzales for being the sole Texas Republican member of the U.S. House to vote for the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, a Biden-backed law meant to enact stricter background checks for gun purchases.
Here’s his campaign announcement (which looks like it was filmed in a hotel room):
“I have a deep love for the values that this country was founded on, the ideas of freedom of self-governance. You see, America was never supposed to be the country that gave you everything you always wanted. It was simply a place that gave you the freedom and the opportunity to chase those things for yourself to pursue happiness to build great things.”
“I’m working with groups like The Firearms Policy Coalition, National Association for Gun Rights, and Gun Owners of America.” Notice who’s missing?
“Tony Gonzalez claimed to be in favor of gun rights, but he voted in favor of Biden’s post-Uvalde gun control and claims he would do it again.”
And here he is at Young Americans for Liberty:
“ATF is out of control.”
“They are a regulatory body that does not have the Constitutional authority to write the law, yet they write the law. They’re banning FRTs [forced reset triggers], they’re banning arm braces, they’re banning bump stocks. All things, I will remind you, comply to the letter of the law and were actually previously approved by the ATF for sale.”
“The American experiment was about having the freedom to be who you want to be, to live how you want to live to do what you want to do. Unless that means you want to fuck kids. That’s that’s when the wood chipper gets hungry.”
Here’s his website. His six highlighted issues (gun rights, immigration, budget deficits, censorship, leftwing control of education and abortion) are all solidly conservative, but he might want to throw up paragraphs about the lousy Biden economy and protecting the oil and gas industry (TX-23 includes big chunks of Eagle Ford and Permian Basin fields).
Herrera is one of the biggest gun bloggers in Texas, but sometimes it’s difficult to translate “internet famous” into electoral success. (In 2015, Fark’s Drew Curtis drew a paltry 3.7% of the vote as an independent in Kentucky’s gubernatorial race.)
On the other hand, Second Amendment rights are a hot-button issue for Texas Republican voters, and Herrera has just under 3 million subscribers on YouTube. If 1/10th of them sent him $5 each, his campaign would have enough money to run a competative race.
TX-23 used to be a full-blown swing district, with Will Hurd and Gonzalez winning by narrow margins, but it’s gotten redder thanks to redistricting and a Hispanic swing toward the GOP thanks to Biden’s feckless border policies. Swing districts tend to produce squishy congressmen like Hurd and Gonzalez.
Pretty much nothing about Herrera makes me think he’d be squishy.
Remember the U.S. Army’s Next Generation Squad Weapon, AKA the XM-5, AKA the XM-7, AKA 6.8 x 51mm? Brandon Herrera has managed to get Sig Saur to send him the prototype of the new weapon (the Sig Spear) to test, and…he has some reservations.
The caveat here is that this is not an actual 6.8 x 51mm XM-7, it’s chambered in 308 Winchester/7.62 x 51mm (two calibers that are extremely close but not exactly the same), so the ballistics and operation are likely to be slightly different. (To make matters worse, the civilian version of the round is being marketed as 277 Fury. As far as I can tell from looking at Gunbroker, 277 Fury ammunition is available now, but models of the Sig Sauer MCX Spear chambered for the round aren’t yet on the civilian market.)
Pros:
Short stroke piston doesn’t need a buffer tube, meaning that the gun can have a folding stock. “Actually pretty cool.”
Decent trigger.
“This little right side bolt release here. Kind of a fan. Feels a little flimsy, but I like the placement.”
Left side fold-out charging handle is good.
“Hand guard here offers a lot of space to mount whatever shit you want.”
Two gas settings.
Silencer works (even if not hearing-safe quality).
Likes the flat dark earth (FDE) finish. “In my opinion, it’s a pretty sweet looking gun.”
“Gun recoil impulse not bad.”
“Running it suppressed it’s not that gassy.”
Very reliable, at least over the initial 200 rounds.
The cons:
“It’s fucking heavy, dude!…Unloaded it comes in at 8.9 pounds. For reference that is one full pound, or 13% heavier, than a full-size SCAR 17, which is also a semi-automatic 308 with a 20 round magazine.”
Folding aside, the stock isn’t great and wants to slip.
“This charging handle in the back is borderline fucking unusable. It feels, really flimsy, like I feel like I’m gonna fucking break it. And it’s stiff. It is so
fucking stiff! ‘How stiff is it, Brandon?’ Joe Biden in a room full of school kids.”
Potentially the biggest combat problem: Overinsertion of the magazine. “If you put too much force on the magazine when you’re inserting it, you will actually run up past the magazine release and get the weapon jammed.” Yeah, that sounds like a huge problem, and Sig needs to get that fixed ASAP.
The spring is a bit hard to get back in.
Super expensive right now.
From the comments on the video: “The fact that he’s actually able to unironically hold up a Scar 17 as a lighter, more affordable option is just batshit insane.”
Yeah, looks like Sig needs some more work here before it’s ready to field…
“AK Guy” Brandon just dropped the fourth installment of his “Weird Guns Being Used in Ukraine Right Now” on YouTube, showing some of the funky, modified, and just plain ancient weapons be used in active combat there. The first installment is age limited and non-embeddable, but the other three are below.
Highlights:
Both sides are using he original Maxim belt-fed machine guns, a World War I mainstay “patented in 1883. Timeline-wise this weapon was designed closer to the beginning of the American revolution in 1776 than it was to the current Ukrainian conflict.”
PKM machine guns taken off armored vehicles and converted for individual use. Which is more difficult than it sounds, since the firing mechanism is triggered by an electric solenoid. “They had to rig up an entirely new firing system to rig up to these things, and quickly, and frankly I’m impressed. Ghetto gunsmith to ghetto gunsmith, crisp internet high five.”
Chechen soldiers (assuming there are any of them still around) are better equipped than Russian soldiers.
“You’re seeing all sorts of modern munitions, anti-armor stuff, aircraft drones. But then in the exact same confrontation, you’re also having guys that are carrying around weapons that are so old that their great grandfathers could have easily carried in the Great War to end all wars. And while the reality of war is obviously very tragic, the significance of some of the stuff being used in the field is extremely interesting.”
Highlights:
“Modified mortar RPG rounds…in guerrilla warfare, it’s always useful to have a couple of rednecks around.”
That ridiculous “six antipersonnel grenades attached to an RPG” thing.
“Some poor Ivan got handed a squirrel killer (a Chinese QB-57 single shot air rifle) and was thrown into the middle of 21st century combat with drones and tanks and was told good luck, have fun. It’s no wonder a lot of young Russian men are leaving the country rather than being conscripted…nothing says the government cares about your well-being quite like being tossed into fucking combat with a Red Ryder from A Christmas Story.”
Russia is also using World War II era DPM or DP-28 Degtyarev machine guns. “It’s basically like a PKM, if a PKM wasn’t belt fed and was instead fed by a pizza dish. It’s the closest thing to a full dinner plate most Soviets ever got to see.”
Other World War II era machine guns seeing combat: MP40s, Sturmgewehr (STG) 44s and MG 42s.
“There’s a lot of Russians now rolling around with
[American Thompson] .45 ACP submachine gun, AKA of course the Tommy Gun.” A legacy of Lend-Lease.
Plus: Anti-tank rifles! Including a PTRS-51 chamber in 14.5mm. “I guarantee you that shit will buttfuck the engine of any vehicle ever, as well as probably penetrate some of the light armor on some of the lightly armored armored personnel carriers.”
A suppressed Barrett M107, which is every bit as monstrously long (and no doubt heavy) as you would suspect.
Ukraine is also using everyone’s favorite space-alien looking FPS gun, the FN FS-2000.
Lots of ghetto gunsmithing.
A really funky glider with an RPG-7 on top. It actually looks slightly funkier than the flying yeet of death. Which comes next in the video.
Russians using old-fashioned sporting break action shotguns against drones.
More Maxims, including in duel, triple, and quad mounts. “We’re starting to get in the territory of like those mech things from Matrix Revolutions. [Now] we have something that is basically just a ghetto-rigged Minigun.”
If you’re interested in vintage, weird and improvised weapons, all the videos are worth taking a look at.
Between contractors working on my house and finishing up a book catalog, yesterday was super busy, resulting in short shrift analyzing one of the most important Second Amendment decisions in the history of the Republic. Fortunately, a lot of other good analysts have been doing the heavy lifting.
First up, here’s the actual text of the decision. For this post, I’m going to snip much of Justice Thomas’ reasoning to get to the meat of the conclusions.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.
The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s licensing regime respects the constitutional right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. In 43 States, the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria. But in six States, including New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen’s showing of some additional special need. Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.
Snip.
In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In doing so, we held unconstitutional two laws that prohibited the possession and use of handguns in the home. In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny.
Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 366 U. S. 36, 50, n. 10 (1961).
Snip.
Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.
Snip.
This Second Amendment standard accords with how we protect other constitutional rights. Take, for instance, the freedom of speech in the First Amendment, to which Heller repeatedly compared the right to keep and bear arms. 554 U. S., at 582, 595, 606, 618, 634–635. In that context, “[w]hen the Government restricts speech, the Government bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions.” United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803, 816 (2000); see also Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U. S. 767, 777 (1986). In some cases, that burden includes showing whether the expressive conduct falls outside of the category of protected speech. See Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc., 538 U. S. 600, 620, n. 9 (2003). And to carry that burden, the government must generally point to historical evidence about the reach of the First Amendment’s protections. See, e.g., United States v. Stevens, 559 U. S. 460, 468–471 (2010) (placing the burden on the government to show that a type of speech belongs to a “historic and traditional categor[y]” of constitutionally unprotected speech “long familiar to the bar.”
Snip.
If the last decade of Second Amendment litigation has taught this Court anything, it is that federal courts tasked with making such difficult empirical judgments regarding firearm regulations under the banner of “intermediate scrutiny” often defer to the determinations of legislatures. But while that judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not deference that the Constitution demands here. The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. It is this balance—struck by the traditions of the American people—that demands our unqualified deference.
The test that we set forth in Heller and apply today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. In some cases, that inquiry will be fairly straightforward. For instance, when a challenged regulation addresses a general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century, the lack of a distinctly similar historical regulation addressing that problem is relevant evidence that the challenged regulation is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Likewise, if earlier generations addressed the societal problem, but did so through materially different means, that also could be evidence that a modern regulation is unconstitutional. And if some jurisdictions actually attempted to enact analogous regulations during this timeframe, but those proposals were rejected on constitutional grounds, that rejection surely would provide some probative evidence of unconstitutionality.
Snip. Here’s Thomas disposing of the “musket” red herring:
While the historical analogies here and in Heller are relatively simple to draw, other cases implicating unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes may require a more nuanced approach. The regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. Fortunately, the Founders created a Constitution—and a Second Amendment—“intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 415 (1819) (emphasis deleted). Although its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it, the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. 400, 404–405 (2012) (holding that installation of a tracking device was “a physical intrusion [that] would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted”).
We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S., at 582. “Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (citations omitted). Thus, even though the Second Amendment’s definition of “arms” is fixed according to its historical understanding, that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. Cf. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. 411, 411–412 (2016) (per curiam) (stun guns).
A long, interesting discussion of the history of firearms regulation (including the right of blacks to own guns for self-defense in the south) snipped. His conclusion:
The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government offic ers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.
New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCOTUS just tossed the use of scrutiny in examining the Second Amendment. No more “shall not be infringed except for…” quibbling. As the opinion says, HELLER did that, and Thomas sounds angry that he’s is now having to tell lower courts to cease and desist the use of means testing. He’s stating it about as clearly as can be done in the English language.
This is even better than the use of strict scrutiny, which was previously the best I thought I could hope for. A quick review of intermediate and strict scrutiny is in order.
Strict scrutiny requires that there must be a compelling government interest for a restriction of rights, it must narrowed tailored, and it must be the least restrictive way to do it.
Intermediate scrutiny requires little more than We need this to fix that.
SCOTUS just said, rather forcefully at that, that “compelling government interest” doesn’t apply when analyzing restrictions on fundamental Constitutional rights. Instead, you must demonstrate that there is a longstanding and general historical tradition for the rule… or you can’t do it at all.
The Ninth Circuit, infamous for invoking limited intermediate scrutiny — despite HELLER — must be excreting masonry construction units right about now. California Dims likewise, because the Ninth has abused scrutiny to uphold all of the state’s 2A infringements.
The Supreme Court just told them, Stop it, damnit! No more games; follow our instructions.
Thomas rebuffed New York’s effort to justify its proper-cause requirement as an effort to regulate guns in “sensitive places” – specifically, crowded urban areas, like Manhattan, where people are likely to gather. Thomas agreed that, as a historical matter, there have long been laws restricting guns in places like courthouses and polling places. Moreover, he continued, restrictions that apply to the modern versions of “sensitive places” may also pass constitutional muster. Although Thomas left open exactly what might qualify as a “sensitive place,” he made clear that urban areas do not meet that definition. The state’s “argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense,” Thomas concluded.
Democrat tries to murder Brett Kavanaugh and Pelosi shrugs, human traffickers busted in Texas, another Democrat convicted of voting fraud (in Philadelphia, naturally), WaPo finally draws a line it won’t let SJWs cross, and an 8K computer that can be yours if you have somewhere north of a quarter million dollars. It’s the Friday LinkSwarm!
Another month, another four decade high inflation rate. “The Consumer Price Index (CPI) went up by 8.6 percent in May, the highest year-over-year increase since December 1981.”
Nicholas John Roske was charged with attempting or threatening to murder or kidnap a Supreme Court justice Wednesday after traveling to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home armed with a Glock handgun, intent on killing the justice over his expected rulings in ongoing cases related to abortion and the Second Amendment.
Roske, 26, of Simi Valley, Calif., was identified as the suspect in an affidavit unsealed Wednesday afternoon. Roske told law enforcement that he called 911 to turn himself in because he was having suicidal thoughts, also telling the operator that he intended to kill a “specific” Supreme Court justice, according to the affidavit.
Roske was subsequently arrested, and officers found a Glock 17 pistol with two magazines, as well as a tactical knife, pepper spray, and other items.
Naturally, Democrats stalled a bill to provide additional security for Supreme Court Justices.
A former Democratic congressmen convicted and expelled for taking bribes has now been convicted of committing that voting fraud that Democrats swear up and down doesn’t exist.
A former Democrat congressman, who was expelled from the House of Representatives in 1980 after getting caught taking bribes in what turned out to be an FBI sting, pleaded guilty to multiple election fraud charges this week after the U.S. Department of Justice charged him with bribery, falsifying voting records, stuffing ballot boxes, and more election crimes in Pennsylvania.
According to U.S. Attorney Jennifer Arbittier Williams, 79-year-old Michael “Ozzie” Myers admitted to bribing Philadelphia election judge Domenick J. Demuro, who already pleaded guilty in 2020, during the 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 state elections for $300 to $5,000 per election and then telling him to lie about falsely inflating votes.
Demuro, who “was responsible for overseeing the entire election process and all voter activities of his Division in accord with federal and state election laws,” then manipulated the voting machines in his respective ward and division in a way that satisfied Myers’ desire to “illegally add votes for certain candidates of their mutual political party in primary elections,” especially those clients who paid him “consulting fees.”
“Some of these candidates were individuals running for judicial office whose campaigns had hired Myers, and others were candidates for various federal, state, and local elective offices that Myers favored for a variety of reasons,” the DOJ noted in a press release.
Myers pulled the same stunt with another South Philadelphia election judge Marie Beren, who also pleaded guilty in 2021 to her role in the fraud.
“Myers acknowledged in court that on almost every Election Day, Myers transported Beren to the polling station to open the polls. During the drive to the polling station, Myers would advise Beren which candidates he was supporting so that Beren knew which candidates should be receiving fraudulent votes. Inside the polling place and while the polls were open, Beren would advise actual in-person voters to support Myers’ candidates and also cast fraudulent votes in support of Myers’ preferred candidates on behalf of voters she knew would not or did not physically appear at the polls,” the DOJ stated.
The pair also used cell phone communication to notate in real-time how many votes they faked versus how many were real.
“If actual voter turnout was high, Beren would add fewer fraudulent votes in support of Myers’ preferred candidates. From time to time, Myers would instruct Beren to shift her efforts from one of his preferred candidates to another. Specifically, Myers would instruct Beren ‘to throw support’ behind another candidate during Election Day if he concluded that his first choice was comfortably ahead,” the press release continued.
Much like Demuro, Beren then falsified poll books “by recording the names, party affiliation, and order of appearances for voters who had not physically appeared at the polling station to cast his or her ballot in the election” and balanced the list with the ballots recorded by voting machines before certifying the tainted results.
In a story that launched a thousand “Bye, Felicia” jokes, Washington Post Social Justice Warrior “reporter” Felicia Sonmez was fired for insubordination and constantly attacking her co-workers for victimhood points.
The workplace drama began on June 2 when Sonmez publicly took colleague Dave Weigel to task after he retweeted a joke from YouTuber Cam Harless that said “every girl is bi. You just have to figure out if it’s polar or sexual.”
Sonmez posted a screenshot of the retweet, captioning it “fantastic to work at a news outlet where retweets like this are allowed!”
Weigel deleted the retweet, and explained that he “did not mean to cause any harm.” Nevertheless, the Post handed down a one-month unpaid suspension to punish Weigel for his retweet.
Post reporter Jose A. Del Real then waded into the controversy to criticize Somnez for continuing to tweet about Weigel and the paper even after it took action against Weigel. He accused her of public bullying and “clout chasing,” leading Sonmez to accuse Del Real of violating the paper’s social-media policy.
With the drama hitting a boiling point, Post executive editor Sally Buzbee sent an internal memo to staff saying, “we do not tolerate colleagues attacking colleagues either face to face or online.”
The memo seemed to spark a flood of pro-Post tweets from its reporters, who used similar language to laud the paper’s “collegial” work environment.
Sonmez evidently took offense to her colleague’s tweets saying they were proud to work at the paper.
“The reporters who issued synchronized tweets this week downplaying the Post’s workplace issues have a few things in common with each other,” Sonmez wrote on Twitter on Thursday morning. “They are all white . . . They are among the highest-paid employees in the newsroom, making double and even triple what some other National desk reporters are making, particularly journalists of color . . . They are among the ‘stars’ who ‘get away with murder’ on social media.”
Will this be a cause for soul-searching among MSM outlets over the wisdom of staffing their newsrooms with social justice warriors? Of course not. Sonmez dared to make the mistake of going after higher ranking members of the Clerisy.
Taylor Lorenz and the Washington Post are attempting a third adpocalypse. They’re attempting to take out rivals to the leftwing legacy media — specifically, YouTubers who sided more with Johnny Depp during the Amber Heard defamation trial. The leftwing media, of course, had uncritically championed Amber Heard, as they’d championed all #MeToo allegations, #BelievingAllWomen without asking for any evidence.
In fact, the defamatory opinion piece Depp sued Heard for appeared in the Washington Post. They just added a stingy “Note” to their defamation.
So Lorenz is now attempting to paint it as dangerous for people to openly question #MeToo allegations on YouTube, and to suggest there’s something wrong with non-legacy-media outlets making money off of a major media story. There’s nothing wrong with the Washington Post making money off it, of course — because they take the proper leftwing view of things.
But people like Rekieta or YellowFlash or That Umbrella Guy, the people who thought that Amber Heard was lying? Which, of course, a jury found to be the case?
They’re dangerous and they shouldn’t be allowed to make money off it. And damnit, YouTube has got to control who is allowed to make money from these news events!
By the way: The entire Depp/Heard story was already heavily censored by YouTube. Videos would be demonetized — denied advertising — if they discussed it all. Because of this, YouTubers were forced to resort to the childish tactic of referring to Depp as “The Pirate Guy” and Heard as “the Aqua Lady” to avoid censorship and demonetization. They had to avoid saying the names of the people they were talking about.
No, I’m serious.
But that’s not enough for Taylor Lorenz and The Washington Post.
Either they have to declare “The Aqua Lady is telling the truth and The Pirate Guy is an abuser,” or they must be deplatformed!
And Lorenz, in making the case that only she, a nobody, barely-educated semiliterate wannabe influencer who pretends to be a tweenager online and gets away with it because she is effectively developmentally delayed, should be allowed to weigh in on the Depp-Heard trial, and that actual trial lawyers like Rikieta and LegalBytes should not be so allowed, is on a scorched earth campaign to make them toxic to advertisers.
And of course she’s also up to her old tricks of claiming she reached out to her subjects — I mean, targets and victims — for comment.
Spoiler alert: She did not reach out to her targets and victims for comment.
Gordon decided to take a strategic approach to make the Virginia GOP a party that could attract serious, intelligent, capable candidates, run them, and win. He founded The Virginia Project (TVP) with the mission to create a 21st-century party infrastructure capable of competing effectively and rolling back Democrat Party influence.
Once Gordon realized that Republicans failed to field candidates in 25% of races with a Democrat incumbent in 2019, he made running a candidate in every race a mission point. Other objectives of TVP included taking a complete accounting of GOP performance in every election district and providing a baseline level of support for every GOP candidate in the state. The group also wanted to share tools and best practices to optimize branding, marketing, messaging, voter outreach, and mobilization throughout the state. The goal was to disrupt the Democrats’ narratives and force them to play defense.
After the 2020 election, Gordon realized that to put Democrats on their heels, TVP would have to go on offense. There was no way to verify the vote in Virginia after nearly 60% of Virginians voted early or by mail. The window for challenging congressional elections closed in 25 days. There was no point in fielding candidates across the state without shoring up election integrity. So with the help of Ned Jones, Gordon and TVP set about securing Virginia’s elections.
The group forced the implementation of voter roll management laws already on the books. TVP ensured the process was logged, transparent, and consistent in every Virginia county and removed a half million bad entries from the voter rolls statewide. Then TVP made sure a system was in place for 2021 that had what Gordon refers to as “Eyes on Every Ballot.”
Challenging elections after the fact proved fruitless at the state and national levels in 2020. The key would be to challenge violations on the spot rather than post facto. TVP prepared and delivered training for election observers. The Virginia GOP went from 33% to 95% observer coverage. Gordon said, “The worse Biden gets, the more people volunteer. A good look in some of the disputed states in 2020 also motivated people to get involved.”
The success in recruitment and training allowed the GOP to challenge every suspected violation on election night 2021. As a Twitter thread from TVP noted, “[DNC lawyer Marc] Elias’ now-legendary losing streak started with us stopping him. We fought for and won every legal stipulation needed to enforce our rights.”
President Biden unveiled new sanctions Thursday targeting influential Russians and President Vladimir Putin’s yachts on the 99th day of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine — but two oligarchs linked to his son Hunter Biden again were spared.
The slow rollout of sanctions comes despite the president threatening “swift and severe” penalties ahead of the invasion, which began Feb. 24.
New US-targeted individuals include the steel and gold-mining oligarch Alexey Mordashov, Putin-linked money manager Sergei Roldugin, billionaire property developer God Nisanov, electronics executive Evgeny Novitsky, banker Sergey Gorkov and Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova. The Treasury Department also sanctioned two yachts that Putin allegedly co-owns and the Monaco-based yacht brokerage Imperial Yachts and its Russian CEO, Evgeniy Kochman.
It remains unclear why Hunter Biden’s alleged Russian business associates — the billionaire oligarchs Yelena Baturina and Vladimir Yevtushenko — eluded the latest round of US sanctions against members of Russia’s business elite.
It’s a great mystery.
Baturina, whose wealth derives largely from construction, in 2014 paid a firm associated with Hunter Biden $3.5 million, according to a 2020 report written by Republican-led Senate committees. She is the widow of former Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov, and documents from Hunter Biden’s laptop indicate she may have attended a 2015 dinner in DC with then-Vice President Joe Biden.
Yevtushenkov, who owns a nearly 50% stake in Russian conglomerate Sistema — which has telecom, retail, banking, food and health interests — faces UK sanctions over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but hasn’t yet been targeted by the Biden administration. He met with Hunter Biden in 2012 at Moscow’s Ritz-Carlton hotel, but recently claimed they had no subsequent contact.
Before the war, [Sgt. 1st Class Chris] Freymann, a cavalry scout in the Washington state National Guard, had been the lead instructor in the U.S. military’s program that trained soldiers in Ukraine how to use the shoulder-fired tank-killing missiles. He trained about 200 Ukrainian troops during his months with the program.
Russia launched its invasion in February, after U.S. trainers left. But the relationships Freymann made remained. His former students — now troops fighting on the front lines — again reached out for help on operating the Javelins as they encountered technical issues or forgot details.
“When the war started, I had a lot of guys hitting me up on WhatsApp,” Freymann told Military.com. “One of our linguists, her husband was one of the few soldiers who were left. A lot of the students trained by the other [Guard units] died.”
Freymann would relay information on operating the Javelin to the linguist. Her husband, who was in the fight, would then send Freymann photos and videos of destroyed Russian tanks. Freymann says at least four tanks were destroyed after some of his over-the-phone coaching.
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: Americans are abandoning high tax states (New York, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey) and moving to low tax states (Florida, Texas, Arizona, North Carolina, Tennessee). (Hat tip:Ed Driscoll at Instapundit.)
Catastrophic failure at an aluminum extrusion line. Looks like an overpressure event and the oil itself (over a drop ceiling no less) open a portal to a demon dimension… pic.twitter.com/VQeM0f85Mw
Not news: Real estate owners in New York City jacking up rates. News: Jacking up New York real estate. Namely jacking a landmark Broadway theater up 30 feet to put retail space underneath it.
I am very far indeed from an expert on ATF regulations, and have never bought an 80% lower (i.e., a partially milled metal blank that can be machined at home to produce the receiver for an AR-15 pattern modern sporting rifle). Youtuber Brandon Herrera digs into new proposed ATF rules and finds a lot of really worrying ambiguous language:
He’s especially concerned that a new, broader definition of “frame or receiver” could now be interpreted to include mundane firearms parts kits.
