WalMart – capitulates again

September 3, 2019



Walmart announces dramatic new gun policy, stops sales of handguns, ammo & more


While insisting that Walmart remains committed to its “long heritage” of “serving responsible hunters and sportsmen and women,” the retail giant announced several changes following a pair of shootings at its stores.

Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said in a memo to employees that the company was ending the sale of handguns in Alaska and will discontinue selling ammunition for handguns nationwide, according to Business Insider —  Alaska is the only state the retailer sells handguns in.

The sale of short-barrel rifle ammunition will also be discontinued nationwide.

Walmart Inc.


We’ve been working to understand the many important issues arising from the horrific events in El Paso and Southaven, as well as those raised in the national discussion around gun violence. Today, we’re sharing some next steps: 

View image on Twitter
11.4K people are talking about this

“After selling through our current inventory commitments, we will discontinue sales of short-barrel rifle ammunition such as the .223 caliber and 5.56 caliber that, while commonly used in some hunting rifles, can also be used in large capacity clips on military-style weapons,” McMillon said in the memo.

The CEO said the company understands “these decisions will inconvenience some of our customers, and we hope they will understand.”

“As a company, we experienced two horrific events in one week, and we will never be the same,” he said.

Screengrab CEO Doug McMillon – Walmart YouTube

There was the recent shooting at Walmart stores in El Paso, Texas, that claimed 22 lives, and an incident in Southaven, Miss., were two store managers were killed and two others wounded.

In addition to the changes announced above, McMillon cited recent incidents were stores have been tested to say the company is “respectfully requesting” shoppers to no longer open carry in its stores, to include Sam’s Club — the change doesn’t apply to licensed carriers of concealed weapons.

“There have been multiple incidents since El Paso where individuals attempting to make a statement and test our response have entered our stores carrying weapons in a way that frightened or concerned our associates and customers,” the CEO said. “These incidents are concerning and we would like to avoid them, so we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer openly carry firearms into our stores or Sam’s Clubs in states where ‘open carry’ is permitted — unless they are authorized law enforcement officers.”

There appears to be some ambiguity over the policy.

A Walmart spokesman told Business Insider that going forward, store managers will have the discretion to decide how to handle open carry situations.

The business news site said store managers may ask the shopper to leave and safely secure their firearm in their vehicle before returning, although the policy could vary by location and those who open carry may not always be asked to leave the store.

McMillon told employees a letter has been sent to the White House and Congress in support of stronger gun-control measures.

“We encourage our nation’s leaders to move forward and strengthen background checks and to remove weapons from those who have been determined to pose an imminent danger,” he said. “We do not sell military-style rifles, and we believe the reauthorization of the Assault Weapons ban should be debated to determine its effectiveness.”

Here’s a sampling of some of the immediate responses to the announcement from Twitter:

Dana Loesch


So the larger, more powerful caliber is still available. They’ll virtue signal by eliminating sales of the smaller caliber (and most popular for women who own rifles chambered for this).
Good grief, Walmart. 



Replying to @CNN

Walmart will continue to sell long barrel deer rifles and shotguns and much of the ammunition for those guns. Walmart will also continue to allow concealed carry by customers with permits in its stores. 

1,118 people are talking about this

Chris Loesch@ChrisLoesch

I will continue my tradition of not shopping at because of their decision to stop selling handgun ammunition. They are a shell of the great American company they used to be.

1,410 people are talking about this

Trudy Bentley Rech@Tbrech1

Dear Walmart,
Not that it matters to you, but the majority of ppl who own guns and buy ammo are LAW ABIDING and can find better places to shop for good prices.

313 people are talking about this

💪Adam 4 America💪@AdamJubal

Just started shopping @Walmart again despite my support for small local retailers. Looks like @Walmart has once again confirmed why i stopped shopping in the first place… Walmart is no longer pro-American.

149 people are talking about this


Please do not punish the majority to settle for the few!!! We “the law abiding citizens” deserve better!! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 Please rethink this with common sense not unresolved emotion!!

388 people are talking about this

Waffle House – Where that SPIRIT of INDEPENDENCE is real

September 3, 2019
I found this little thread on the Waffle House and how truly amazing they are.
We used to have much more of this in MAIN STREET America, but the big box chains, as big as some governments have changed this.  The spirit is not there because the big box chains have made it UN-Affordable.

Given the level of interest in my talk and that we’re currently battened down for #Dorian – perhaps it’s time for my first every “MegaThread”™

Here’s the points from the first 10m of my talk:

“Everything I know about concurrency and resiliency I learned at the Waffle House”

For the uninitiated – the Waffle House is a privately owned and VERY private chain of restaurants, predominantly in the South East.

They’re 24/7/365 and mean it.

They have a reputation for emergency preparedness like no other company because they are like no other company.

0. A Waffle House can operate without Water, Electricity, Gas, Communications – and in some cases – even without a building.

A restaurant without water? Isn’t that against Heath Code?

Yes – but Waffle House works to get variances for emergency operation – they re-configure.

In the example of no water:
i. They set up a dedicated hand-wash stations.
ii. They switch to bottled water / cans for drinks.
iii. They switch to disposable plates / cutlery et al.
iv. Their reduced menu is one that is designed to be efficient in a reduced water environment.

1. All Waffle Houses are the same and have preparedness designed in.

For example – the “Grills of Yore”™ run on both natural gas and propane so should the gas supply fail Waffle House can drop Propane Tanks at a location and just plug them in.

2. The Waffle House doesn’t outsource unless it has to. It’s not that they don’t trust their suppliers, but in an emergency they control everything end-to-end.

They ship in refrigerated trucks, gas, propane, water, cash, and people.

3. Volunteers from non-affected areas are flown in and staged in a fleet of RVs kept a safe distance away.

Those volunteers include the CEO/COO and their direct reports.

Where are the Waffle House executives during an emergency? They’re at the site of the emergency – not HQ.

If someone needs to make a decision about whether to say, cut a check for $20k to get something to open a location – in any other company that takes time and approvals.

In an emergency you don’t have that luxury – so they can just cut the check then and there.

4. In the case of no building, they have a fleet of food trucks.

When a Hurricane wiped out Panama City, the Waffle House deployed food trucks and **gave away** over 2000 meals a day.

5. Affected workers who don’t have a restaurant to go to or who have personal / familial destruction continue to get paid weekly in cash.Who feeds our first responders and the critical infrastructure people when there’s no infrastructure?

The Waffle House does.

Brexit Updated: The Queen Acts for the People

September 3, 2019

via Brexit Updated: The Queen Acts for the People

Sidney Powell – Flynn’s case is of Fed’s misconduct before the court

September 3, 2019


Michael Flynn’s Attorney Accuses Feds Of Hiding Exculpatory Information About His Case

Michael Flynn’s new attorney filed a 19-page brief detailing prosecutorial misconduct and seeking sanctions against government attorneys for withholding evidence.


On Friday, while most of America prepared for the long Labor Day weekend, things exploded in the Michael Flynn case. What began with an intriguing status report, which exposed the chasm between Flynn’s new powerhouse attorney Sidney Powell and prosecutors, culminated with Powell’s filing of a 19-page brief detailing prosecutorial misconduct and seeking sanctions against government attorneys for withholding evidence.

Flynn, who pleaded guilty in late 2017 to lying to FBI agents about conversations he had in December 2016 with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, awaits sentencing before federal Judge Emmett Sullivan. In Friday’s status report, prosecutors told Sullivan that Flynn’s “cooperation has ended” and that the case is ready for sentencing.

Conversely, Powell argued “the case is not ready for sentencing,” first because new counsel still needs “a significant amount of time” to review the mountainous file. But it was the additional reasons for a delay Powell detailed that piqued the interest of pundits.

“There are serious issues to be addressed by the Court before we can proceed further,” prosecutor-turned-defense-attorney Powell wrote. “First, the government continues to deny our requests for security clearances,” and the impasse requires court intervention, Powell argued. Among the classified information Powell sought clearance to review are “the transcripts and recordings of the phone calls that supposedly underpin the charges against Mr. Flynn,” and “the original or first draft of the FBI 302 of the interview of Mr. Flynn on January 24, 2017,” as well as “any records or documents that show everyone who made changes to that 302.”

Powell’s status report position ended with a note that Flynn’s defense team “expect[ed] to identify more issues for the Court promptly, and we will file the appropriate motions to address those issues as soon as possible.”

Powell soon proved to be a woman of her word, when hours later she filed a “Motion to Compel Production of Brady Material” under seal, and an accompanying brief in support of that motion, which was filed on the public record. (Under Brady and its progeny, the government must turn over material favorable evidence—called exculpatory evidence—as well as material evidence adversely affecting the credibility of a government’s witness, known as impeachment evidence.)

In her brief in support of the motion to compel, Powell pulled no punches. “The suppression of Brady evidence by the government here is ripe for a finding of contempt of this Court’s Standing Order,” Powell pronounced, referencing the order Judge Sullivan entered shortly after the case was transferred to him in December 2017.

That order required the “the government to produce to defendant in a timely manner—including during plea negotiations—any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” Sullivan further ordered the government, if it “has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material,” to “submit such information to the Court for in camera review.”

From there, Powell’s brief focused on two seemingly disconnected complaints. First, Powell highlighted evidence not provided to the defense team, in violation of Brady. Second, she detailed the many abuses in the Russian investigation, such as the Department of Justice’s use of Bruce Ohr and his wife, Nellie, to feed supposed intel from “Christopher Steele to the FBI through his secret back-channel,” after the FBI terminated Steele as a confidential informant. Powell’s brief also narrated a flow chart of the incestuous interactions between FBI agents and DOJ attorneys involved both in the Ohr-Steele shenanigans and Flynn’s targeting and prosecution.

Federal prosecutors will now need to respond to Powell’s motion to compel, although from the status report, their position seems clear. “We take very seriously our discovery and disclosure obligations,” the DOJ attorneys wrote, adding that “the government has exceeded its discovery and disclosure obligations in this matter,” and “is not aware of any classified information that requires disclosure to the defendant or this counsel under Brady or the Court’s Standing Order.”

Because a protective order necessitated the filing of the underlying motion under seal, it is difficult to assess the strength of Powell’s arguments. And it is impossible to predict Judge Sullivan’s reaction to the filing.

When Flynn’s former attorneys highlighted the strange circumstances of the FBI’s interview of Flynn, Judge Sullivan became unhinged and accused Trump’s former national security advisor of treason, before later back-peddling his statements and suggesting instead that Flynn had not truly accepted responsibility and might well see prison time.


This judge had an outburst that Flynn was looking at jail. His outburst then reflects his ignorance as to the misconduct before the court and was making a presumptive judgement, which is in and of itself “conduct unbecoming” a FEDERAL judge



What can be predicted, though, is that Judge Sullivan’s response will depend on whether Powell showed a clear violation of Brady, and Powell’s brief is not a mere spew of hyperbole.

In her brief, Powell argued that the government “affirmatively suppressed evidence (hiding Brady material) that destroyed the credibility of their primary witness” and “impugned their entire case against Mr. Flynn.” “They continued to hide that exculpatory information,” Powell stressed, “and they continue to suppress exculpatory information to this day.”

To illustrate her point, Powell then noted that “just two weeks ago,” federal prosecutors “produced 330 pages of documents with an abject denial the production included any Brady material.” Yet, as Flynn’s new attorney noted, “that production reveals significant Brady evidence that we include and discussion in our accompanying Motion.”

If Powell succeeds in revealing significant Brady evidence withheld by the prosecutors—or, for that matter, even one piece of Brady evidence the government lawyers hid—prosecutors have something to fear in Judge Sullivan, who made history when he launched an investigation into the DOJ’s misconduct in a criminal case against now-deceased Sen. Ted Stevens.

How this issue plays out will likely also set the tone on Powell’s requests for access to information concerning potential misconduct by FBI and DOJ agents related to Ohr and Steele. Federal prosecutors will pooh-pooh this request, arguing it is irrelevant to Flynn’s sentencing. But Powell has a solid argument that that evidence bears on the credibility of government witnesses.

So why does Powell want this evidence? Does she intend to pull Flynn’s guilty plea? “That is not what I want to see happen here,” Powell said during an interview on Friday on Lou Dobbs Tonight. “I expect frankly that we find evidence that warrants dismissal of the case for egregious government misconduct.”


%d bloggers like this: