Looks Like a Coverup Is In Full Swing

And the Republicans are helping

First, you should have some notion of my qualifications to opine on this matter.

I’ve owned and used firearms for more than 65 years. I bought my first .22 rifle, a Marlin Model 34, used, from a local hardware store in 1958 with paper route money. The only hoop through which I had to jump was the clerk at the store asking me, “Your dad know about this?”

“Yessir.”

“Okay. That’ll be twelve dollars.”

Different times, different world. I still have that rifle, and it is still a tack driver. I used it with my buddies on forays into the local woods seeking birds, bunnies, squirrels, and other such prey.

I’ve owned firearms of various sorts, both short and long guns, ever since. I currently have more than a dozen in my “collection,” which is a grandiose name for the odds and sods nature of it, although collection does make more sense than the standard leftwing gun-hating ninny appellation of “arsenal.”

Based on my concerns that because of the US border policies since Reagan, and especially those under the Obama and Biden administrations, the notion of an October 7 Israel-style terror attack here in the US no longer seems far-fetched to me, I’ve recently added a new “everyday carry” handgun, and a .223/5.56 carbine (same caliber as the standard AR-15 platform, but a different platform entirely). I’m currently in the dry-fire/familiarization stage with both weapons.

I can do most basic things with firearms, from shooting them accurately to fixing them (generally) when something goes wrong. Long story short - I know more about guns because I have more experience with them than just about every purveyor of mainstream commentary on the matter that I’ve come across.

As for my other observations, that’s just a finely honed sense of pattern recognition at work.

First, a summary of everything I’ve been more or less able to confirm about the assassination attempt on President Trump.

Thomas Crooks, 22 years old, was the shooter. He was said by at least one fellow student to be a very bad shot with a rifle, based on his performance when he “tried out” for his high school rifle club before the start of his junior year, missing a target by more than twenty feet at least once. There was also some mysterious reference to “not being fit for the rifle team,” whatever that is supposed to mean.

He would have been just on the cusp of turning 17 at the time of his rifle club tryout, which would have been sometime in September of 2020. In other words, he was said to be a very bad rifle shooter nearly four years ago. That has almost no bearing on what his skill level might have been when he shot President Trump.

By the way, yes, he shot President Trump. He aimed his rifle at Trump, pulled the trigger, and the bullet struck a part of Trump’s body. In the normal understanding, that means he shot President Trump. “Attempted to assassinate” seems to fuzz that bald description a bit too much for my taste.

At any rate, he apparently (the final word is not quite yet in on that) fired seven, perhaps eight, shots at Trump, the first dead center on Trump’s skull with what would have been fatal results had Trump not shifted his head after the shot had been fired. Three of his next shots struck bystanders who were in the line of fire. His next four shots seem to have hit nothing but a hydraulic hose on a large piece of equipment, also in the line of fire.

The result was that Trump was lightly wounded, setting off an incompetent clusterfark of monumental proportions among what passed for his Secret Service “protective” detail, who seemed to miss no possible opportunity to screw up their primary duty to keep their principle safe from harm.

In order to understand where I’m going next with this, you should probably watch the following two videos, both of which involve analyses from highly experienced and credible commentators.

In the first, former CIA analyst Larry Johnson interviews J. Lawrence (Larry) Cunningham, whose analytic qualifications on this matter are without peer. (As an adjunct, check out the explanation of the shot trajectories here).

The other source I am using is a long interview with a Tim Kennedy, a man still in the personal protection field, who has done a great deal of work with, and for, the US Secret Service, as well as other federal agencies, as a sniper and counter sniper, as well as a consultant on such matters to various very high profile entities. His qualifications to comment on this matter are also superb.

My intent here is to avoid the hot take, the clickbait, and instead get deep into the weeds on the attempted assassination of President Donald Trump.

What follows is based on the sources above, in the form of summaries and conclusions, but I do not attempt to replicate everything these men had to say. Watching these videos will give you a much more complete grasp of their analyses, and, I feel, a much better handle on what actually happened on July 13th in Butler, PA.

This incident is already fading back into the “yesterday’s news” media fog. It seems that a consensus is emerging, among the media, at least, (and I’ve little doubt this consensus is being fed to them) that the REAL QUESTION is why the shooter’s building was “left unsecured.” Apparently this will be the focus of the upcoming congressional hearings, and both Republicans and Democrats seem more interested in that issue than anything else. But if you peruse my sources here, you will see that is almost the least of the questions that need to be answered. However, it reduces everything to a simple question that Joe Bumblefart, normalcy-addled mass media consumer, can wrap his mind around, and it is already obvious that the answer will be, “We screwed up,” from Kim Cheatle, who then will be sacrificed with great ceremony on the altar of “appropriate disciplinary actions,” and will be allowed to retire - although not without pensions and all the other perks of those who retire from high government office after having utterly failed in their primary responsibilities.

Which brings me to one of the Iron Laws, this one from Jerry Pournelle:

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people:

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

In other words, the bureaucracy will capture any organization and sacrifice or ignore its original intended purpose in favor of the survival of the bureaucracy and its bureaucrats, and that survival will become the sole reason for the existence of the organization.

Another way to look at it is to regard a bureaucracy as a virus infecting a healthy organization. It will eventually hijack all the organs and cells of the organization, and turn them into factories dedicated only to making more virus - at the expense of everything else. At that point the original organization is dead, and only the virus remains, with its sole purpose being to reproduce itself into infinity.

Hence adopting DEI practices in the current socio-cultural environment helps the bureaucracy that does so to survive, prosper, and grow, which makes such adoption not just desirable (from the bureaucracy’s point of view). but inevitable.

That aspect, to my mind by far the more important aspect of this incident, is going to get extremely short shrift in any investigations, in favor of a slam-dunk blame game about a single failure to secure that building which will result in a suitable villain - Kim “The Buck Stops Here” Cheatle - and a suitable punishment for the failure, thus permanently closing the circle with a pleasant fairy tale of crime and punishment that Joe Bob Normal will eat up like a snack cake and then, sated, will forget about anything else, secure in the conviction that justice has been served.

The problem is, of course, that the unsecured building is not the problem. It is a symptom of the real problem, which is the reason that the Secret Service failed in its primary mission is because that is no longer its primary mission.

The survival and growth of the bureaucracy is. (And that is, by the way, the reason why the bureaucratic “solution” to any problem is always more people and more money.

The coverup is that none of this will be addressed. The reason short chubby females entirely incapable of competently carrying out the ostensible primary mission of the SS were on scene is that the primary mission of the bureaucracy that has entirely swallowed and digested the original organization saw them as just another aspect of their real goal - bureaucratic survival, health, and growth.

And the biggest thing for you to understand is that competence at the nominal mission of the organization is so far down the list as to be non-existent. In fact, competence is generally viewed as a threat to the bureaucracy, and is discouraged by it.

If what we are now going to see was not a mutually agreed-upon coverup (which many of the participants, themselves being incompetent at their primary mission, which should be, but is not, governing the United States for the primary benefit of all its people, what we would expect to see is Director Cheatle fired, stripped of her pensions, perks, and other perquisites, and then prosecuted under whatever criminal charges can be found that would address her near-treasonous failures of leadership.

Following that, every single DEI hire at the agency would be summarily dismissed, and the whole farce of separate and lower standards of physical and mental ability for women (and others) that guarantee institutional mission incompetence would also be done away with. New standards would be promulgated whose sole justification would be that they increase the ability of employees to competently carry out the tasks required by the original, primary mission of the Secret Service.

That is not going to happen because that issue will not be addressed in any significant way by all of the phoney-baloney “investigations” to which we are all about to be treated.

Incompetence has become the standard of American bureaucracies at every level and in every field. Which is why you should expect the general collapse not only to continue, but grow worse at an ever-increasing rate.

And while you’re thinking about that, spare a moment to ask why we still know essentially nothing about the weapon Thomas Crooks used to shoot President Trump, beyond a single fuzzy shape that could be almost anything, but which we are informed is an “AR-style” rifle. Why an AR-style rifle? Is it an AR or not? What caliber? What make and model? How good a marksman was Crooks? We really don’t know, and they aren’t telling us.

There are dozens of questions like this, and no answers so far. Why? Whose tender toes might be trod upon by such answers?

Even Trump is pretending that the SS did a wonderful, beautiful, gorgeous job.

Let that sink in.