A true alliance between Russia and USA would be far more beneficial to the American People than an alliance with Israel could ever be.

Let me ruin your June for a second. Every year when National Gun Violence Awareness Month rolls around, the same people who have not read a single page of John Lott's 13,312-regression peer-reviewed study start posting pictures of children and demanding you feel responsible for deaths you did not cause and had nothing to do with. So. Let us talk about children. Since they brought it up. In 2006, the CDC recorded 642 accidental firearm deaths in the entire United States. For children under the age of ten — the number was 31. Thirteen under age five. Eighteen between five and nine. Tragic? Absolutely. Every single one. But here is the number that will not appear on a single "Orange Friday" awareness post: 80. Eighty children under the age of five drown in bathtubs every year. Every. Single. Year. ALMOST THREE TIMES as many children drown in bathtubs annually as die from ALL firearm accidents combined — including adults. And forty more drown in five-gallon water buckets. The kind you buy at Home Depot for $4.99. I have given this information at talks and watched jaws drop, because people genuinely believe the number is in the thousands. They have been so thoroughly marinated in "gun violence awareness" content that their perception of actual risk is completely detached from reality. That is not an accident. That is the point of the campaign. Where is Bathtub Awareness Month? Where is the congressional hearing on five-gallon bucket control? Where is the hashtag? Where are the orange ribbons for the children who drowned while their parents were in the next room? There are none. Because the campaign was never about children. It was never about safety. If it were about safety, they would be equally outraged about cars — which killed 1,305 children that same year. Or fire. Or drowning. But they are not. The selective fury lands exclusively on firearms. And if you are a scientist, which I happen to be, you do not get to cherry-pick your data based on which conclusion you prefer. Quinn's Law Number Six: facts are the enemy of liberalism. Now let us talk about what the actual data says about guns and safety, because John Lott ran 13,000-plus statistical regressions across every county in America and the results are not ambiguous. Fifty-six percent of convicted felons surveyed in a ten-state study said they would NOT attack a target they believed was armed. Fifty-six percent. The deterrence is real, it is documented, and it functions whether or not a shot is ever fired. The firearm you carry protects your neighbor whether your neighbor knows it or not. When states passed right-to-carry laws, multiple-victim public shootings — what the media insists on calling "mass shootings" to maximize terror — dropped by 67 percent. Deaths in those events dropped by 75 percent. Injuries by 81 percent. States that adopted these laws virtually ELIMINATED mass public shootings within four to five years. The remaining events? They happened almost exclusively in the specific locations where guns remained banned. The gun-free zones. The places we hang the sign that only the law-abiding ever read. There were between 760,000 and 3.6 million defensive gun uses in the United States last year alone, depending on which of fifteen national polls you consult. A JAMA Network Open study from March 2025 estimated 489,000 DGUs in which a firearm was actually discharged. The Department of Justice's own National Crime Victimization Survey puts the conservative floor at 65,000 defensive uses per year against assaults, robberies, and home invasions. No dead body. No coverage. No awareness month. Here is one more number for you: 74. Seventy-four percent of convicted felons in a National Institute of Justice survey said they actively avoided homes they believed were occupied by armed residents. Criminals respond to incentives. That is not ideology — that is basic deterrence theory, and it is confirmed by the people who actually commit the crimes. I also want you to think carefully about something the Supreme Court already settled. DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989). Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005). Two separate rulings establishing that the government has NO legal obligation to protect you as an individual. None. You are your own first responder. That is not my opinion — that is settled constitutional law from the highest court in this country. So the political class that just told you the government is not required to protect you... is also the one demanding you surrender the tool you use to protect yourself. I want fewer people dead. That is why I know the data. That is why I read the book. That is why I am furious every June when emotion and fundraising replace science and evidence in a "debate" that has actual life-or-death consequences for real people. You want to honor the children? Honor ALL of them. The ones who drowned. The ones who died in car crashes. And the ones who will never be born because a woman alone in her house at 2 a.m. had no way to stop what was coming through her door. But what do I know — I am only a published textbook author, a science teacher, a father of four, and a combat medic who spent his career reducing human suffering and who actually read the peer-reviewed data before forming an opinion. IF you agree: LIKE this post so the algorithm shows it to people who need to read it. SHARE this. COMMENT below — did you know the bathtub number? Or did the narrative keep that from you? Tell me. And if you want MORE of this -- the data, the history, the science, the stories -- JOIN Bski's Classroom community on X or YouTube. #MAGA #Veterans #Trump @JoJoFromJerz @GuntherEagleman @catturd2

@kylegriffin1 Oh, look. A blatherskite with a blue checkmark and a copy-paste subscription to the New York Times "narrative department." Let me fix your math problem for you, since apparently neither you nor the NYT editorial board can count past the number that helps your argument. You wrote "at least seven Navy officers." The actual number reported across multiple outlets — NYT, WSJ, ABC — is SEVEN TO NINE. Of that group, the breakdown is roughly: two women, two Black men, and THREE OR MORE WHITE MEN. So the group "disproportionately targeted" includes... the majority being white men. Congratulations. You have accidentally argued that Pete Hegseth is waging a war on white men. I am sure that is not the narrative you were reaching for. Here is the part that really earns you the "has delusions of adequacy" award for today: the NYT framing — which you swallowed whole without chewing — states the decision was "driven by his anti-diversity stance RATHER THAN based on merit." That is not a fact. That is an opinion dressed in a reporter's blazer. The Pentagon's ACTUAL stated reason — which requires only the ability to read — is that these officers were flagged for participation in DEI programs, diversity recruitment events, and ideological training that critics argue lowered readiness standards and passed over more qualified candidates to hit demographic quotas. So the question is not whether women and minorities were on the list. The question is whether past DEI advocacy constitutes a professional demerit. You can disagree with Hegseth's answer. But calling it "anti-diversity rather than merit" is precisely backwards. His ARGUMENT is that the prior DEI framework was ANTI-MERIT. You do not get to assume your conclusion and call it reporting. Quinn's Law Number Six applies here with almost surgical precision: FACTS ARE THE ENEMY OF LIBERALISM. The moment actual numbers entered this conversation, your entire framing collapsed. Seven to nine removed. More than half white males. Reason stated publicly by the Pentagon. None of that appears in your tweet. The Pentagon statement reads: "Military promotions are given to those who have earned them. The Department will never consider the color of a servicemember's skin or their gender as a factor in promotions. Under President Trump and Secretary Hegseth, MERITOCRACY REIGNS SUPREME." Now I have a genuine question for you: which of these three things is true? You did not read the source material before posting and are just following what the left wants you to amplify despite your constituents — I mean, your followers — deserving better. You read it and lack the cognitive horsepower to understand the distinction between removing people FOR DEI advocacy versus removing people BECAUSE OF their race or sex. Or you understood it perfectly and just do not mind deceiving the people who trust you. Pick one. Because one of the three must be true. Civilian control of the military is real. The Secretary of Defense — confirmed by the Senate — has authority over promotion lists. This is not a secret. This is Article II and decades of DoD policy. The boards RECOMMEND. Civilian leadership DECIDES. That is the constitutional structure you are apparently upset about, which is a fascinating position for someone who spent four years demanding that Trump "listen to the generals." Somewhere out there a tree is tirelessly producing oxygen for this tweet. It deserves an apology. But what do I know — I am only a science teacher who actually looked up the source reporting before commenting on it, which apparently puts me ahead of the entire MSNBC news desk. @JoJoFromJerz @GuntherEagleman @catturd2 #MAGA #Veterans #Trump

Cosecha New Jersey just announced they will not be mobilizing to Delaney Hall tonight. They’re “talking to strikers and their families to regroup.” An outside activist organization is in direct communication with detainees inside an ICE facility. Coordinating strategy. Deciding when to push and when to pull back.