Editorial O’ The Day – Page 4

Legal Adults, Limited Rights: The Second Amendment Fight for 18–20-Year-Olds

Over the last few weeks, I’ve noticed a trend that’s hard to ignore. New lawsuits are popping up. Legislatures are introducing bills. Some states are loosening restrictions. Others are cracking down. But they all revolve around the same issue: the Second Amendment rights of 18- to 20-year-old adults.

It struck me just how widespread and fast-moving this fight has become. In a single day, I saw headlines about a federal court striking down the handgun sales ban for young adults, while another state pushed a new law to raise the ammo purchase age to 21. The issue isn’t isolated—it’s everywhere.

In the United States, turning 18 makes you a legal adult. You can vote, serve on a jury, enter contracts, and enlist in the military. But in many states—and under some federal laws—you still can’t buy or carry a handgun. This paradox has sparked a legal and legislative battle stretching across the country, with courts divided, lawmakers digging in, and gun rights advocates pushing back hard against age-based restrictions.

A National Patchwork of Rights

While some states have recently expanded Second Amendment rights to include adults under 21, others have doubled down on restrictions. In 2025 alone, at least a dozen legislative or judicial actions have focused on the question: Do 18- to 20-year-olds have full Second Amendment rights?

In Iowa, lawmakers passed House File 924, lowering the age to carry a handgun from 21 to 18. Florida considered a similar rollback to age of purchase with House Bill 759, while Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and Nevada all saw legislative action aiming to either expand or restrict firearm access for this age group. Meanwhile, Colorado moved in the opposite direction, raising the age to purchase ammunition to 21 and restricting home delivery.

Major Lawsuits Reshaping the Debate

The fight isn’t just in statehouses—it’s in the courts.

In Worth v. Jacobson, the Eighth Circuit struck down Minnesota’s age-based carry restriction, ruling that 18–20-year-olds are indeed part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. This ruling directly conflicts with NRA v. Bondi, where the Eleventh Circuit upheld Florida’s ban on handgun purchases for those under 21. The NRA plans to petition the Supreme Court for review, but we’ve already seen SCOTUS pass on issuing any ruling on Worth v Jacobson so the conflict between these Circuit court decisions may exist for a long time.

In NRA v. Bondi Florida’s ban on firearm purchases by adults under 21 was upheld by the Eleventh Circuit Court.

In the Fifth Circuit, another milestone was reached when the court struck down the federal ban on handgun sales to 18–20-year-olds, declaring the law unconstitutional under the Bruen standard and citing a lack of historical tradition supporting the restriction.

Lara v. Paris: A Turning Point

One of the most significant rulings so far came from the Third Circuit in Lara v. Paris. The court held that 18–20-year-olds are “the people” under the Second Amendment and that the relevant historical benchmark is 1791, not 1868 as some courts had previously argued. This decision has already restarted previously paused litigation like Young v. Ott, which challenges Pennsylvania’s concealed carry age restriction.

The Road Ahead: SCOTUS Showdown?

With multiple federal circuits now in direct conflict and more states enacting laws both for and against under-21 gun rights, the U.S. Supreme Court may be forced to weigh in despite them already passing on the opportunity to do so. The question will be whether constitutional rights can be delayed based solely on age—even for adults legally recognized by every other standard.

Conclusion: A Defining Test for the Second Amendment

This unfolding legal battle isn’t just about guns. It’s about defining what it means to be a legal adult in America. The coming months and years will likely shape not only Second Amendment jurisprudence but also broader civil rights questions for young Americans caught in legal limbo. I find it utterly disgusting that our country has any question at all about allowing the same men and women we send to war to purchase guns and ammo here at home for their own personal protection. It is an absolute insult.

CP nails it again

Cynical Publius

I feel like I have been sleepwalking for years and just woke up.

It’s kind of embarrassing as I have always considered myself to be very astute and alert when it comes to American politics.

But Trump 2.0, DOGE and civilian heroes like Data Republican woke me up.

For DECADES, the Deep State has been taxing us at obscene levels, all the while claiming through their media mouthpieces that it was all going to national defense and untouchable entitlements, and there really wasn’t any fat in the budget to cut.

But there WAS fat. Lots of it.

And here’s the thing: that fat was seized from our pockets at the point of a gun, added to the federal budget, then dispersed to NGOs tasked to carry out ostensibly useful tasks which were in reality a concerted effort to undermine and destroy our Constitutional Republic. We were paying for our own demise, and were oblivious to it. We were like a parasite’s host, growing weaker day by day and totally unaware of the parasite thriving on our life’s blood.

What’s worse is that the cycle of America-hating NGOs also wrapped an entire class of Democrats in luxury. Exploiting the basic goodness of Americans to help those in need, we were in reality funding grift and graft whereby Democrats cycled from elected office, to lobbyists, to industry, to NGOs, and back again on an endless loop where the only true value was enriching themselves. Five of the seven richest counties in America are on the Washington DC Beltway. I just explained why that is so.

Now I know there are some who will belittle the cuts we are seeing as being inconsequential in the grand scheme of the entire federal budget and the national debt, and as a solely mathematical analysis this may be true. But this minority portion of the federal budget has nevertheless had an enormous and outsized impact on the destruction of the United States of America.

Cutting off the dollars we have been paying to these parasites will silence their voices of hate and American destruction, and allow us room to maneuver to recover our nation, all in the nick of time.

Ending the doom loop of America-destroying NGO graft is the greatest thing Donald Trump is doing. He deserves a statue on the National Mall for this alone. (With little statues of Elon, Big Balls and Data Republican.).

Thank you, Trump 2.0 Team, for saving us from funding our own demise.

‘Law-Abiding’™ – *cough*
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
– Thomas Jefferson

The Constitutional Rights of Law-Abiding Gun Owners

By Rep. Adrian Smith (NEB-3)

The right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to the American experiment in self-governance. From its founding, our nation has recognized how a free people must not be deprived of means of protection and self-defense. In 1791, the Founders enshrined the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, declaring the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed.”

I have always strongly supported the Second Amendment because I recognize it speaks to the heart of our country. This right is more than a safeguard for sportsmen, hunters, and firearms collectors. Law-abiding Nebraskans and other Americans across our land own and utilize guns in order to deter crime and protect or defend themselves, their families, livestock, crops, and homes.

Congress has a responsibility to uphold the Second Amendment and apply its constitutional authority to our nation’s laws. For this reason, I am again a cosponsor of the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. This bill would provide legal clarity for carrying concealed firearms when crossing state lines. In 2023, Nebraska passed constitutional carry legislation enabling individuals over 21 years old to carry concealed firearms without a permit, and many other states already practice reciprocity. In 2024, with my support, the House passed a version of this bill. However, it was not taken up by the Senate before the end of the 118th Congress.

I am also an original cosponsor of the Reining In Federal Licensing Enforcement (RIFLE) Act. Under the Biden administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF’s) zero tolerance policy of revoking licenses from dealers threatened the livelihood of Federal Firearm Licensees (FFLs) such as small and mid-sized gun stores for making minor clerical errors and typos on paperwork required by federal law.

I am encouraged to see how after President Trump took office, ATF’s zero tolerance policy was repealed administratively. Yet, the consequences of this overbearing policy have been serious. In 2024, the ATF recorded its third straight year of increased FFL license revocations and the greatest number of revocations in 20 years. The RIFLE Act would reinstate licenses suspended, revoked, or denied under Biden’s zero tolerance policy and enact permanent avenues for FFLs to appeal before the ATF moves to revoke a license.

Furthermore, I am a cosponsor of the No Retaining Every Gun in a System That Restricts Your (REGISTRY) Rights Act. Currently, FFLs which go out of business must provide all firearm transaction records to the ATF, which maintains these records in the Out-of-Business Records Imaging System (OBRIS) database. This bill would safeguard the privacy of American gun owners by requiring the ATF to destroy existing firearm transaction records and requiring FFLs to destroy existing transaction records should they go out of business.

Without privacy protections like the ones provided by this bill, creating such record keeping requirements leads down a path toward a mandatory gun registry, threatening law-abiding citizens with excessive scrutiny. The constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners must be respected. Standing the test of time, the Second Amendment has proven the wisdom of the Founders. Its critics are misguided, and I will never stop defending American liberties from abuses by the ATF or encroachment by overreaching restrictions.

Long, but worth reading as he takes apart all these claims

Easter Is Not Pagan, and Neither Are Its Origins
Jesus is our Passover, and the events of one specific Passover week are the origin of the holiday, no matter how many Cadbury eggs you may consume.

Every year, as Christians around the world celebrate Easter, skeptics revive a familiar claim: that Easter is just a repackaged pagan festival. They point to spring fertility rites, to goddesses like Ishtar and Eostre, and to symbols like eggs and rabbits, declaring Christianity guilty of cultural plagiarism.

But these assertions, repeated so often they’ve become clichés, collapse under any serious historical scrutiny. The truth is simple: Easter isn’t pagan, and neither are its origins. Rather, it is the central celebration of the Christian faith, grounded in real events, rooted in Jewish (not pagan) practice.

Perhaps some of the people who claim otherwise are simply used to distrusting authority (a good thing). A few may feel “superior” by asserting “hidden knowledge” (which is not at all a good thing: it’s pride, or gnosticism, or both).

But the truth is, even if Easter had all manner of pagan trappings (it does not), it wouldn’t matter: Christ came to conquer and redeem all things. That’s the whole point of the Resurrection: our Lord even conquered death! And Scripture tells us that it is indeed that Resurrection which is our hope, and that if it is not true then “we are to be the most pitied among men.” (1 Corinthians 15:17-19)

Continue reading “”

The Right To Bear Arms

In recent decades, the US government has been doing its best to find a way to limit the ability of its people to bear arms. And, in turn, the people respond vehemently that their Constitution guarantees them the right to bear arms.

Regardless of which side of the argument any particular American is on, I’ve almost never met one who knows what caused this right to be written in the Constitution.

Countless Americans believe that they have the right to bear arms, so that they can protect themselves and their homes from burglars or other miscreants. Others, particularly those who live in rural areas, believe in the right to go hunting if they wish.

Whilst both of these concerns are reasonable, they’re not by any means the reason why the founding fathers were so adamant that the right to bear arms is critical.

The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, was passed by the US Congress in 1791, some eighteen months after the ratification of the Constitution in 1790. The reason why it was considered essential by the framers leads directly back to the Gunpowder Incident in 1776.

In 1774, in Boston, a meeting of the First Continental Congress took place to discuss the introduction of the Intolerable Acts by Britain, including the seizure by the British of gunpowder that was stored in Charlestown. In addition, Lord Dartmouth, Secretary of State for the Colonies, prohibited the importation of further supplies of gunpowder.

In Boston, this generated discussion, but no action. But in Williamsburg, then the capitol of Virginia, the reaction was quite different. There, the colonists, in early 1776, began to form armed militias. Governor Dunmore (the ruling British representative in the colony) decided to repeat the Boston seizure in Virginia. Just down the street from the Governor’s mansion, in the House of Burgesses, Patrick Henry had just delivered an impassioned speech in which he proclaimed, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Around the corner from the Governor’s mansion was the Magazine (pictured above), where gunpowder and armaments were stored by the Crown for the protection of the colony from Indian attacks or other disturbances.

Governor Dunmore ordered that the gunpowder be removed from the Magazine to limit the colonists’ ability to resist official diktat. As it was being removed to a British ship anchored in the James River, a few colonists discovered the fact and alerted others.

The city council demanded its return, stating that it was the property of the colony and not the Crown. Patrick Henry led the Hanover County Militia – about 150 men – to Williamsburg to reclaim the gunpowder.

A wealthy (and loyalist) plantation owner paid £330 for the powder, to calm Henry, who was then charged with extortion by Lord Dunmore. Dunmore’s popularity quickly waned. He left Williamsburg and attempted to continue his rule from a British ship, offshore.

Virginia’s government was taken over by a Committee of Safety and Henry became the now-independent state’s first governor in July, three months after the seizure.

The Gunpowder incident not only led directly to the creation of the Second Amendment. It led directly to the independence and liberty of the American people.

Think that over for a moment, with regard to the present times.

Now, as I’m British, it would be fair (though possibly incorrect) to suggest that I cannot be trusted to comment on the independence of the American colonies from Britain.

So, let’s ask the American founding fathers for their views. Although very few Americans can actually name them, there were seven, and they all had something to say about what they learned from the Gunpowder Incident.

George Washington – “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” — First Annual Address, to Congress, 8th January, 1790

John Adams – “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.” – Stated during the drafting of the Second Amendment, 1780.

Thomas Jefferson – “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Letter from Jefferson to John Cartwright, 5th June, 1824.

James Madison – “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” – Annals of Congress 434, 8th June, 1789.

Benjamin Franklin – “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Alexander Hamilton – “[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.” – Federalist #28, 10th January, 1788.

John Jay – “Government that wants away citizens right to bear arms is unworthy of trust.” – Date unknown

And a final one from Thomas Jefferson, from a letter to James Madison in 1787:

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”

But perhaps the most succinct quote from that time is from George Mason, stating in the Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 14th June, 1788,

“To disarm the people… [i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”

These are indeed words to be remembered. Just as all governments will do their utmost to prevent their citizens from being armed, so too should those citizens do their utmost to be armed.

Editor’s Note: Unfortunately, most people have no idea what really happens when a government goes out of control, let alone how to prepare…

Where Is the DOJ’s Second Amendment Report?

On February 7th, President Donald Trump gave Attorney General Pam Bondi 30 days to finalize and submit a policy plan of action for enacting pro-gun reforms. Nearly two months later, the Trump Administration hasn’t released any plan.

“Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,” the order stated.

The 30-day due date for that report would have been March 9th, but that day came and went without any movement from Bondi or the White House. When this omission got some attention, the Department of Justice (DOJ) told ABC News that the deadline was extended to March 16th. Since then, the department has not provided any additional progress updates and did not respond to a request for comment for this article.

The administration’s apparent slow-walking and opacity surrounding its progress raises questions about how much it plans to follow through with the order’s proposed scope.

Trump promised gun voters swift action in undoing all of President Biden’s gun-control achievements during his “very first week back in office.” But he took three weeks before even broaching the subject, and only ordered a review to eventually consider which, if any, of his predecessor’s policies to reform or reverse.

To date, that has not resulted in the initiation of any new rulemaking to repeal any Biden-era regulations.

The few concrete indications of DOJ compliance with the order have mostly taken the form of requests for pauses in various ongoing gun cases to allow it to consider what position it wants to take. The department also began to push for a new framework for restoring the gun rights of former convicts. The New York Times has reported that move could benefit actor Mel Gibson and at least nine other as-yet-undisclosed individuals, though they haven’t announced any action yet.

While each of those fronts may eventually play out in gun-rights advocates’ favor, the administration’s restrained approach, especially in contrast to actions it has taken elsewhere, has already resulted in one significant loss for gun-rights groups. Though it could have immediately started rolling back Biden’s gun rules without Bondi’s review as an intermediate step, the Trump Administration’s decision to wait left the “ghost gun” kit ban case uninterrupted. That culminated in the Supreme Court issuing a 7-2 ruling upholding that ban at the end of last month, which could make undoing the ban down the line harder.

Delaying legal challenges while the department decides what position to take also risks drawing out the gun-rights movement’s longer-term project of stacking up court decisions permanently invalidating federal gun laws. Even if the DOJ decides not to defend a given gun law or de-prioritize enforcement, subsequent administrations can simply reverse that discretion. The same holds true for the new gun-rights restoration process, which risks undermining gun-rights advocates’ legal challenges to the federal ban on non-violent felons possessing firearms.

To be sure, the administration has also offered gun voters policy changes with more straightforward upsides. It unceremoniously dispensed with the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, for example, which was set up by former President Biden to promote gun-control policies. Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services also scrapped a 2024 surgeon general advisory calling for an “assault weapon” ban, among other new gun restrictions.

It has also, at times, broadened its view beyond the federally-focused executive order. For instance, the DOJ last month announced a civil rights investigation into Los Angeles County over its practice of subjecting concealed carry permit applicants to lengthy wait times and high application fees, and it suggested that additional investigations could soon follow. Shortly thereafter, Trump also issued a separate executive order establishing a new federal task force charged with, among other things, “increas[ing] the speed and lower[ing] the cost of processing concealed carry license requests in the District of Columbia.”

Those moves have no doubt been welcome developments for Second Amendment advocates. Still, they are less potentially impactful than the areas Trump ordered the DOJ to review, and those have seen little to no movement.

DataRepublican

I’ve had a change of heart on federal income tax. On the surface, it’s just a way for the government to generate revenue—it has to get its funding from somewhere. But I now see that the method of taxation itself fundamentally alters the relationship between the government and its people.

When the government relies on taxing individual income, it shifts from serving its citizens to exploiting them as a revenue source. This dynamic creates an inherent friction, where the government no longer answers to the people but to the system that extracts from them. And if you look around, it’s clear—whatever our tax dollars are funding, it’s not serving us.

This is what modern economists fail to grasp when they dismiss tariffs, sales taxes, or luxury taxes as harmful. The structure of taxation matters, not just the amount collected. The income tax distorts governance itself—and it needs to go.

The Unitary Executive Meets the Unitary Judiciary

The Use of Nationwide Injunctions by U.S. District Courts

Authors

Paul Larkin

Rumpel Senior Legal Research Fellow

GianCarlo Canaparo

Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center

Federal courts may—and should—supply complete relief to a victorious party, but that can be done without granting strangers the same judicially enforceable rights that a judgment provides to a successful litigant. Nationwide injunctions not only cross that line, but also prevent the federal government from enforcing an act of Congress, executive order, or agency rule against nonparties. Unless and until Congress endorses that practice, the federal courts should limit the reach of their judgments to the parties to a lawsuit. The Supreme Court would need to overrule its unanimous decisions in Zbaraz and Mendoza to uphold a nationwide injunction like the ones that have been entered against the government. That is as unlikely as it would be unwise.

Key Takeaways

Supplying complete relief to a victorious party can be done without granting strangers the same judicially enforceable rights that a successful litigant enjoys.
Nationwide injunctions both cross that line and prevent the federal government from enforcing an act of Congress, executive order, or agency rule against nonparties.
Unless and until Congress endorses that practice, the federal courts should limit the reach of their judgments to only the parties to a lawsuit.

[FYI; It’s l-o-n-g, and like all legal treatises by lawyers, they interject the source of citation directly after a cite, breaking up the text and making it difficult to read.]

So:

Introduction: The Practice of Issuing Nationwide Injunctions

The Unitary Executive Theory1

Continue reading “”

Well, I did too, so…….

The Left Knew They Were Lying to Us All Along

Victor Davis Hanson

For years, the left has advanced utter untruths for cheap partisan purposes that it knew at the time were all false. And now when caught, they just shrug and say they were lying all along.

They damned as incompetent, racist, and conspiratorial any who dared follow logic and evidence to point out that the Chinese government and its military were both culpable for the virus and lying.

A million Americans died of COVID. Millions more suffered long-term injuries. Still, the left-wing media and Biden administration demonized any who dared speak about a lab origin of the deadly virus.

The lies were designed to protect the guilty who had helped fund the virus’s origins, such as Doctors Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins.

The Biden government also tried to use the lab theory to ridicule a supposedly pro-Trump “conspiracy.”

Western corporate interests deeply invested in China did not want their partner held responsible for veritably killing and maiming hundreds of millions worldwide.

Almost as soon as Joe Biden was inaugurated, the left knew that he was physically and mentally unable to serve as president.

Indeed, that was the point.

Biden’s role was designed as a waxen figurine for hard-left agendas that, without the “old Joe Biden from Scranton” pseudo-moderate veneer, could never have been advanced.

His handlers operated a nightmare administration: the destruction of deterrence abroad, two theater wars, 12 million illegal aliens, a weaponized justice system, hyperinflation, and $7 trillion more in debt.

Continue reading “”

The Only “Constitutional Crisis” is That Democrats Lost, Now They’re Trying To Govern from the Courtroom

My Hot Take on Democat Lawfare: “There is no constitutional crisis other than the Democrats lost. They are trying to create a constitutional crisis by having the judiciary and the federal district courts assume control of the executive branch.”

Democrats have launched a pre-planned, well-organized lawfare campaign against the Trump administration.

The NY Times reported in late November 2024 on the massive effort which was two-years in the making and in the immediate post-election period focused heavily on finding plaintiffs and lining up legal groups to challenge expected Trump policies:

More than 800 lawyers at 280 organizations have begun developing cases and workshopping specific challenges to what the group has identified as 600 “priority legal threats” — potential regulations, laws and other administrative actions that could require a legal response, its leaders said. The project, called Democracy 2025, aims to be a hub of opposition to the new Trump administration….

Democracy Forward has spent the last two years working to identify the possible actions the new Trump administration could take on issues they see as key priorities to defend, the group’s leaders said, using as a blueprint Mr. Trump’s first-term actions, his campaign promises and plans released by his allies, including the Heritage Foundation and its Project 2025 agenda….

The flotilla of lawyers is preparing to challenge new regulations released by the Trump administration, even beginning the process of recruiting potential plaintiffs who would have legal standing in court.

We have seen the fruits of the lawfare planning in the opening three weeks of the Trump administration, with several dozen lawsuits filed, and many (not all) district court judges willing at least to grant temporary restraining orders, incuding one ex parte TRO issued by an emergency duty judge at 1 a.m. last Saturday morning that by its terms removed political appointee control of Treasury payment systems. (That TRO was scaled back by the judge permanently assigned to the case, and is under review by her in a ruling expected soon.) It may be that the short-term TROs are not extended to longer-term preliminary injunctions, and if that happens the “crisis” may solve itself, but I’m not hopeful.

Here is my ‘hot take’ on how the lawfare, not the Trump administration, is creating the real ‘constitutional crisis’. This is a short excerpt from my much longer (almost 20 minute) explanation as part of the podcast we just posted.

Continue reading “”

Cynical Publius

It used to amaze me at how effective Democrats were at flooding the zone with huge numbers of zealous demonstrators for whatever the party’s cause de jure was at the time.

I was always jealous of the ideological commitment that it took to get so many individuals to turn out for those sorts of events, and wished we conservatives could similarly harness such passion.

But I was really wrong.

It turns out that Democrats do nothing for free, and instead our tax dollars–funneled through America-hating NGOs–were in many cases paid to hired “demonstrators” to create that aura of political passion.

We’re already starting to see the effects of cutting off that firehose of dollars, as the anti-Trump demonstrations thus far tend to consist of a gaggle of patchouli-smelling ex-hippies in their late 70s singing Woody Guthrie songs, accompanied by a handful of obese, nose-ringed transgender college students with blue hair LARPing at Marxism.

Deon Joseph

So I get into it with a friend on another platform who keeps spewing the same propaganda as if anyone who voted for Trump lost their minds and rely on him like God to make our lives better. He also accused me of being willing to sidestep democracy to get the things I want.

I may have lost a friend, because my correction was as follows:

“You folks and your propaganda are nauseating. You think it’s about making my life better? It’s all about me?

You know what I wanted out of Trump?

The same damn thing I wanted out of Obama, Biden, Bush, Big Bush and and Clinton.

Those those things are the following

– Transparency
– A secure border
– Honesty
– Common sense leadership
– Doing exactly what you campaigned on
– A strong military
– An end to political indoctrination in our schools
– Respect for personal freedom
– And someone who would think about America first before giving everything to the world while his own people suffer.

Not one of them came through. Each one of them failed. Most didn’t even try. They just faked it well enough that you are still pining for their pipe dream. But guess who did come through? As flawed as he is as a person, it was freaking Trump. A man I was never a fan of personally but respect because he does the hell what he says he’s going to do or tries.

That’s what I voted for. Not some polished fake politician who pretends to be an angel but is doing the devils work as we are distracted by their platitudes and symbolic gestures that get us absolutely no where.

No one is side stepping democracy, genius. By the way, we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic.

But let’s go with your twisted idea of democracy.

Was it democracy when Biden coerced Big Tech into silencing millions of Americans for their opinions and thoughts?

Was it democracy when that old man lied to you and told you he didn’t know about his sons dealings and that the laptop didn’t exist? Because for many that may have changed their vote in the 2020 election if they knew then candidate Biden was compromised.

Was it democracy when he got 51 intelligence agents who we are supposed to trust, to go along with the lie and call it Russian disinformation?

Was it democracy to force people to choose between feeding their damn family and a damn shot in the arm that is causing damage to a lot of people?

Was it democracy when Biden flew in hundreds of thousands of migrants in the middle of the night without telling us and also opened the borders? Did we the American people have a say in that? No the heck we didn’t.

Was it democracy when if we question elections or vaccines that we get silenced and are forced to self sensor just to survive?

It that’s your democracy? You can keep that crap bro, respectfully.

Trump is no God or saint but it’s a damn shame it took a flawed man to do right by the American people. He’s showing you how corrupt your government truly is and I’m here for it. No regrets whatsoever.”

Mollie Hemingway

Yesterday, [February 28]Susan Rice said of the Trump-Zelensky meeting, “There is no question this was a set up.” She revealed full knowledge of the mineral agreement, complained that it didn’t include “concrete” security agrees (meaning, apparently, commitment of US troops on the ground if conditions merit), and then mischaracterized Trump’s behavior, counting on most Americans to not have watched what transpired over the entire hour in the Oval Office.

You can look at this and dismiss it as typical Democrat talking points, but you could also view it as almost a confession, one that includes details about the current “Get Trump” effort. Yes, Trump won the popular vote against unbelievable odds, but if you think Team Obama is being any less involved in quiet insurrections than they were during the first Trump administration (Russia collusion, Ukraine impeachment, etc.), you’re clueless.

I’ll remind you that Susan Rice was in the small Jan. 5, 2017 meeting in the WH with other key Russia collusion hoax perpetrators. Zelensky repeatedly declined opportunities to sign the deal in Kyiv and Munich, and requested the meeting at the White House. It later came out that Rice and Tony Blinken, Victoria Nuland, and Alexander Vindman may have been personally advising Zelensky to do this meeting in the way he did — that they recommended him to be hostile and to try to goad Trump into blowing up. Even though he didn’t, and even though Zelensky’s actions horrified many normal Americans, the Obama team went on the airwaves to falsely characterize what happened.

I think their goal was to have a wonderful performance by Zelensky, an angry Trump appearing to scuttle the deal, and the support of the neocon portion of the GOP to start applying pressure on Trump to have US Troop commitments as part of the “security guarantee.” It was a set-up, in Susan Rice’s interesting choice of words. Instead, Zelensky had one of the worst stage performances of his acting career, and Trump was statesmanlike (against all odds) throughout.

Zelensky followed Team Obama’s advice to be hostile to a tee, but it didn’t land how they thought it would. Surprisingly, one of the most important aspects of it not working out might have been Lindsay Graham’s reaction. Had he and other neocons thought Zelensky was being reasonable, Trump would be having to fight (even moreso) the neocon portion of the GOP in addition to Team Obama’s dirty tricks.

Even the “conservative” neocon pundits on TV last night were admitting Zelensky had royally messed up. As you can see from the hostility of the bureaucracy to any Republican oversight, no matter how reasonable or minor it may be, the entrenched bureaucracy and permanent DC apparatus is quite active. That goes quadruple for the deep state in the Intelligence Community. I’d expect more and more shenanigans and to be prepared so that you don’t fall for the next information operation.

The post-WWII architecture in Europe and the US needs this war to continue or be settled on “US troops on the ground” type guarantees, even though that’s not what Americans want. Things will heat up here, and it’s a very dangerous time.

Also, the immediate and near-identical reaction of leaders of various European countries in support of Zelensky’s temper tantrum yesterday also suggests a high-level of coordination and indicates a set-up. All very interesting.

Getting Past the “Duck Dynasty” Stereotype of Gun Owners
Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

The New York Times recently published a super multimedia article about new, nontraditional gun owners called “The Tipping Point” (16 February 2025). Subtitle: “America’s newest gun owners are upending preconceptions about who buys and gun and why.”

I read it with interest and was later told by someone at the Times that the piece took two years to put together. Bravo for real journalism.

In an otherwise fascinating and well-reported story on the changing face of gun owners in America today, the authors include a significant misstatement. They write, “a majority of gun owners are white, conservative, male and from rural areas.”

This “Duck Dynasty” stereotype of gun owners is one I have challenged for years now, from my 2019 presentation on Gun Culture 2.0 to my recent opinion essay in The Hill on the unrecognized diversity of gun owners.

To build a better gun debate, we need to ground our arguments in the diverse reality of contemporary gun ownership, rather than perpetuating divisive mythologies.

Continue reading “”

Kostas Moros

Moms demand recently published a defense of AB 1333, saying its “right wing extremists” attacking it. Wrong. No rational person wants some antigun prosecutor second-guessing whether you “could have run away” when you are attacked by some criminal and are forced to shoot.

If I am out with my toddler and a lunatic comes at us with a knife or other imminent deadly threat, I should not have to waste several moments (while under an adrenaline rush) calculating if I have a chance to escape before shooting to defend my little girl and myself.

That’s what “duty to retreat” does. It is outright evil. California has always had a Stand Your Ground defense and it’s never been a problem. California’s Stand Your Ground jury instruction already doesn’t allow for a viable self-defense claim if you provoked the attack. The antigunner’s claimed fear is not a thing. They just hate the right to bear arms and hate that more people in California can now exercise it thanks to Bruen.

@Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur have the decency to scrap this monstrous bill. Haven’t California’s voters made it clear they are done with you catering to criminals? If this passes, I say we get a proposition submitted to enshrine SYG into the CA constitution. I think that would pass even in this blue state.

This is already true under current law! SYG still requires that you reasonably bellieve you are facing an imminent deadly threat. All the legal elements of self-defense must still be there, or its criminal homicide. It just makes it so you arent obligated to try and flee first. And again, you don’t want Soros-backed prosecutors second-guessing what was “truly necessary”.

Read all of the Moms Demand’s nonsense here if you want.

Victor Davis Hanson

Ten bad takeaways from the Zelenskyy blow-up

1. Zelenskyy does not grasp—or deliberately ignores—the bitter truth: those with whom he feels most affinity (Western globalists, the American Left, the Europeans) have little power in 2025 to help him. And those with whom he obviously does not like or seeks to embarrass (cf. his Scranton, Penn. campaign-like visit in September 2024) alone have the power to save him. For his own sake, I hope he is not being “briefed” by the Obama-Clinton-Biden gang to confront Trump, given their interests are not really Ukraine’s as they feign.

2. Zelenskyy acts as if his agendas and ours are identical. So, he keeps insisting that he is fighting for us despite our two-ocean-distance that he mocks. We do have many shared interests with Ukraine, but not all by any means: Trump wants to “reset” with Russia and triangulate it against China. He seeks to avoid a 1962 DEFCON 2-like crisis over a proxy showdown in proximity to a nuclear rival. And he sincerely wants to end the deadlocked Stalingrad slaughterhouse for everyone’s sake.

3. The Europeans (and Canada) are now talking loudly of a new muscular antithesis, independent of the U.S. Promises, promises—given that would require Europeans to prune back their social welfare state, frack, use nuclear, stop the green obsessions, and spend 3-5 percent of their GDP on defense. The U.S. does not just pay 16 percent of NATO’s budget but also puts up with asymmetrical tariffs that result in a European Union trade surplus of $160 billion, plays the world cop patrolling sea-lanes and deterring terrorists and rogues states that otherwise might interrupt Europe’s commercial networks abroad, as well as de facto including Europe under a nuclear umbrella of 6,500 nukes.

4. Zelenskyy must know that all of the once deal-stopping issues to peace have been de facto settled: Ukraine is now better armed than most NATO nations, but will not be in NATO; and no president has or will ever supply Ukraine with the armed wherewithal to take back the Donbass and Crimea. So, the only two issues are a) how far will Putin be willing to withdraw to his 2022 borders and b) how will he be deterred?

Continue reading “”

BLUF
There is no more just and moral war than the war against Islamic terrorism. If the west fails, the west will fall and billions will die. There is no running away from it. It’s coming.

Cheryl E

This is going to hopefully be my most eye-opening thread I’ve written to date. I only regret that like all my other threads, this will never be seen by those who need to see it. I wish the big accounts would share it so the reality and truth can be seen by everyone.

There are so many people I wish I could tag and who would read it and share it, because it’s a history few talk about today that is so important and so frighteningly identical to everything that’s happening today. And incredibly, it has nothing to do with Israel and the Jewish people. It has everything to do with the United States of America.

When you read this thread, you’ll understand, and you’ll instantly be able to see events of today being identical to events from back then. If you are true to yourself, true to truth, you will see that the hero today in our modern times is @President Donald J. Trump @Donald J. Trump, @Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו and their administrations, including@SecRubio @Pete Hegseth @Pam Bondi @Elon Musk.

If you see otherwise, then not only are you unAmerican, but you’re simply not serious about truth. This thread has been written in conjunction with my wonderful friend, @(Salam) سلام, and as I mentioned, it touches on what @Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 said earlier in the week, and on information stated by @Stealth Medical and @Insurrection Barbie a few weeks ago (and I’m a massive fan of both). So let’s begin the journey to a time in history that tells the story of how it all began… the first ever: WAR ON TERROR

Continue reading “”

Safetyism Kills

Watching the meetings and town halls in Los Angeles featuring the nitwits in charge getting yelled at by enraged homeowners as the city burned was enlightening. Again and again, the ridiculous Mayor Karen Bass, an openly communist revolutionary, brought up a persistent theme: the cult of safety.

The term “safetyism” became popularized in The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt. It refers to the way modern society is overprotective and overbearing, the ultimate helicopter state, which has led to excessive and even destructive regulations that don’t actually keep you safe, and which in fact may endanger you.

During President Trump’s visit to Pacific Palisades and the round table meeting he held with California’s worst supervillains, Karen Bass repeatedly admonished the angry, devastated Palisades homeowners that “the most important thing is your safety.” The homeowners were angry about the timeline they had been given by L.A. County officials. According to the bureaucrats, it would take 18 months to clear the burned-out lots. Bass insisted they would be able to start rebuilding “immediately.” When pressed on the 18-month clean-up the city was planning, she hedged with, “Well, you know that you will be able to soon. The most important thing is keeping you safe.”

President Trump countered: “Safe? They’re not safe now.”

The “safety” that Bass was fighting for was the mandatory EPA Phase 1 clean-up of their lots. A doctor named Muntu Davis with the L.A. County of Public Health issued an order forcing all homeowners to wait for the EPA to complete their hazardous waste removal before anything else can happen to the destroyed lots. This, as Mayor Bass keeps reminding everyone, is for “your safety.”

God forbid a piece of “highly toxic ash” touches your skin! God forbid a hazardous particle enters your body! Karen Bass is here to keep you safe as you sit in a cramped hotel room with your children and your dog, or on your friend’s couch.

This overreach by the L.A. County Department of Health is the same playbook they ran during the pandemic. Schools were closed, toddlers were forced to wear masks outside, and you had to show a vaccine pass to get into a restaurant for your safety. Everyone in L.A. started ending conversations with admonitions to “be safe!”

At the same time, violent riots and looting were permitted to take place. LAPD officers often stood around and watched helplessly as unmasked hordes smashed plate glass windows and cleaned out retail stores. Targets were picked clean and then set on fire. But if you tried to walk into a grocery store, you would be hounded out by angry women who screamed that you were putting their “safety” at risk.

It was all fake. A mirage. A real culture of safety would have made sure that fire departments in fire-prone areas were not short staffed. They would pre-position fire trucks in the spots of highest risk. And most importantly, they would have working fire hydrants. Across the Palisades and Altadena, where some 9,000 homes burned to the ground in the span of 12 hours, there were few working hydrants.

Continue reading “”

Gun Ownership – Right Not Privilege

Democrats continue to pass laws infringing the uninfringeable right to “keep and bear arms.” Count on that, as it happens over and over. Where does it end? From Maine to California, Democrat legislators and governors trample the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Thank God, for good judges.

Beyond the saving grace of sane, reasoned, reasoning, historically faithful Supreme Court justices, the federal bench is divided – in favor of Democrat appointees. While we hope political views are replaced by reading plain text and history after a lifetime appointment, that is not always true.

Luckily, judges exist with enormous integrity, understand their oath, no interest in being a legislator, governor, member of Congress, or president. They read the law, review history, and interpret. One such judge resides in Maine, Lance Walker. His recent 2^nd Amendment decision is powerful.

Last August, Maine’s legislature – together with Maine’s Democrat governor – passed a bill that aimed, as so many Democrat bills do, to restrict gun rights. While not the constitutionally reprehensible “red flag law” – defeated by Republicans and citizen groups like AMAC – it was bad.

The law aimed to eclipse Second Amendment rights in Maine, specifically imposing a three-day waiting period for acquiring a firearm – on top of a background check. True, nine states and DC have waiting periods, and so far the US Supreme Court has not yet reviewed and repudiated them.

True, the US Supreme Court turned back challenges (in January ) to other Second Amendment restrictions, specifically by Maryland (waiting period, weapon style) and Rhode Island (magazine size). But the US Supreme Court is selective, as well as overwhelmed by cases on appeal.

Bottom line: The Maine federal district judge issued a preliminary injunction – blocking a transparent Democrat power grab. Finding: Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on merits, irreparable harm is likely for Mainers who need a firearm for self-defense, equities tip toward gun owners, and an injunction is in the public interest.

Maine Democrats, represented by Democrat Attorney General Aaron Frey, argued citizens may have a right to keep and bear arms, not to acquire them. The judge shredded that nonsense, noting no one can “keep and bear” without “acquiring.”

Nor does the Bill of Rights say your rights to speech, worship, gun ownership, or anything else kick in after 72 hours. If you interpreted the Bill of Rights that way, we would have “prior restraint” on speech, restrictions on when, where, and whether you can worship, and other nonsense.

Interestingly, Democrats are adept at finding ways to suspend rights and did so – as many Mainers will recollect – during COVID. Not only has “cancel culture” been afoot, but restrictions on gathering for prayer, which seem unthinkable, were pushed by Democrat lawmakers.

On guns, the recent ruling by Judge Walker makes clear a waiting period has no constitutional basis, offends the Constitution, and creates “indiscriminate dispossession” and “temporary disarmament.”

He continues, noting history does not support such restrictions, as there is “no suitable regulatory analog” to justify this limit on a right to keep and bear arms; it is not an “objective, narrow, or defined “ regulation. In short, this act is like “prior restraint,” indefensible and unconstitutional.

Interestingly, the Augusta, Maine Democrats – out of touch with their own State, like Maine’s Democrat Congressman Jared Golden who pushed for more gun control – argue waiting periods are justified by the Constitution notwithstanding, to stop the use of guns in suicides.

Perhaps surprisingly, I take things as they come, and think hard about what is right. I am a trained constitutional lawyer, litigated in multiple states, clerked on a US Court of Appeals for a Reagan appointee, and grew up with guns, from .22s to shotguns, was an NRA “safe hunter” at age 12.

I decided to look into suicides, not because that issue would cancel the US Constitution, but just to understand what was afoot. I learned more than I bargained for. Maine is – compliments of the Democrat lack of leadership – awash in mental health issues, drug addiction, and depression.

Much that should be right is wrong, businesses going bankrupt, taxes unsustainable, housing unaffordable, good jobs fleeing, education in collapse, families in distress, anxiety and suicide high.

But here is a fact no one talks about, further lying to Maine’s Democrats and their push to take away rights. Nationally, the top five causes of suicide are poisoning, cutting, gassing, hanging, and drowning – then guns. Should we try to stop suicides? Yes. Violate the US Constitution? No. ]

The recent ruling by Judge Walker, in Beckwith v. Frey, is solid jurisprudence. If leftist Democrats continue to go after Maine gun owners, they will find the US Supreme Court siding with Walker. Until then, maybe common sense is about to make a comeback. Guns are a right, not a privilege. Period.

Robert Charles is a former Assistant Secretary of State under Colin Powell, former Reagan and Bush 41 White House staffer, attorney, and naval intelligence officer (USNR).