I truly hope so.

The Duplicitous Ruling Elites Have Awakened the American People

Over the past three decades, a sizable majority of the ruling elites have been preoccupied with self-aggrandizement and cohabitation with the Communist Chinese, ignoring the gradual and now complete domination of many of the nation’s institutions, and most importantly the Democrat party, by American Marxists.

After a premeditated fraudulent election underwritten by the same credulous elites, and with a witless marionette in the White House, these collectivists have been de facto governing the nation since January 20, 2021.  The past six months have revealed that thanks to these Marxists’ mindless allegiance to failed ideology and breathtaking ignorance of the American experience and citizenry combined with the now unmasked duplicity of the ruling elites, there is a massive awakening bubbling to the surface.

This cabal has for the past five years marginalized, physically confronted, and repeatedly accused not only the 75+ million Americans who voted for Donald Trump but any American not in lockstep with them of being racists, fascists, and white supremacists as well as homophobic, xenophobic and among the vilest people on the face of the earth.

What did they do once in power?   Try to bury the hatchet or just ignore this vast swath of the citizenry and hope they go away?  Neither.  They chose to further alienate the bulk of the voting populace.

They are accelerating demeaning accusations and rhetoric and exploiting the January 6th Capitol incursion as a vehicle to isolate and intimidate many of these same Americans.  They are continuing to fuel racial animosity in the hope of further dividing the citizenry and colluding with social media to censor “misinformation.”  Thus, fomenting resentment, ongoing political confrontations, and a determined retaliation at the ballot box in 2022 and 2024.

Committed to changing the demographics of the nation, the American Marxists have flung open the borders and are pushing amnesty as well as ultimate citizenship for upwards of 29+ million illegal immigrants and at least another 2-4 million more every year.  It is immaterial to the Marxists that the vast majority of these illegal immigrants are lacking basic literacy and employable skills.

Currently, 30% of all working families (or nearly 50 million Americans) are low-income but above the poverty threshold.  60% of these are families headed by racial/ ethnic minorities.  African Americans, while 13% of the population (41 million), account for nearly 30% of low-income working families.  Another 39 million Americans live below the poverty level.

Thus, a total of 89 million Americans live in low-income families or in poverty.  The American Marxists, through the Democrat party, claim to be the champion of minorities and low-income families while they plot to ultimately legalize an illegal alien population equivalent to 75% of the current African American population.

The Marxists and the Democrat party do not give a damn about the African American population, native-born Hispanics, and the low-income white working families as the potential votes of the illegal population are more important.  As the voting patterns in 2020 confirmed, these Americans are rapidly awakening and turning on this traitorous cabal as they are becoming acutely aware of being permanently marginalized.

Thanks to the Democrat-Marxist policies of defunding the police, ending cash bail, and curtailing the prosecution of criminals, murder, and mayhem on the streets of America has skyrocketed.  Now that they are in charge of the federal government, it is national policy to actively and solely focus on gun control and disarming law-abiding citizens as the only solution to the increasing violence and criminality.

Currently, 235 million Americans either own or could see themselves owning a gun. The Marxists in the Democrat party believe they can effectively confiscate guns in a nation of 330 million and 3.8 million square miles by doing the following:

1) Putting language in various bills that will in effect create a national registry of all gun owners.

2) Outlawing semi-automatic weapons.

3) Punitively taxing the ownership of guns, magazines, and ammunition making gun ownership unaffordable and requiring a federal license to own a gun.

4) Expanding open-ended red flag laws allowing anyone to file a complaint against someone, ostensibly based on their suspicions, thus allowing the police to seize the guns of the accused prior to any judicial proceedings.

In their zeal to overturn the Second Amendment and a centuries-old tradition of gun ownership that predates the Constitution, the American Marxists do not fathom the building tidal wave of resistance and push back from nearly two-thirds of the nation’s citizenry who view gun ownership as the only viable means of self-defense against the unbridled criminality wrought by the unfathomable policies of the Marxists.

Continue reading “”

Warning; Some strong language within

Liberal Reporter Rips Biden White House’s Endorsement for Social Media Purges

The purge is coming. Actually, a soft version of it already happened after the 2020 election, but the real purge is coming. The previous one was merely a test run. Last Friday, White House Spokesperson Jen Psaki was quite clear that if you’re banned on one platform, you should be banned on all of them. Who the hell are these people? We were worried about authoritarianism under Trump which was always an overreaction by the liberal media because they’re babies, but this was an actual shot across the bow. Big government and the communists in Silicon Valley uniting to censor political speech they don’t like. I know I don’t need to say more on the subject, but even liberal reporters, like Glenn Greenwald, are appalled by this move, calling it some “pernicious s***.”

Continue reading “”

DHS/FBI: Owning guns and being familiar with them is a sign of “extremism”

Wow. And they want family/friends to report people. Surely this won’t be abused for political retaliation against people and harassment against pro-rights folks. No, never…..



Note that the linked file in their tweet is from 2019, but the current administration is positioning itself to use it on American citizens that don’t agree with their politics and ideologies

It’s pretty sad that we are at this point in our country’s history. Owning firearms and weapons for legal personal use (including defense and sport) is in our blood. Doesn’t matter what your politics are, it is not “extremism“ to spend your own money on what you want and buy legal products such as firearms/knives/etc. Perhaps the anti-rights extremists need to look in the mirror and realize that they are the minority and not the majority, which makes them the “extremists”.

Hey, wait a second……I know someone who fits THIS description:


President Joe Biden’s nominee to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has purged thousands of tweets from his Twitter profile, while still permitting communications on Facebook, raising flags over his prior hearing response that he made his account private due to “violent threats” that were forwarded to the Department of Justice.

In writing to Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, David Chipman said he “decided to set my Twitter account to private because of violent threats I had received in the past and anticipated receiving once my nomination was made public. I notified officials at the Department of Justice that I intended to make my account private.”

In addition, it appears Chipman has deleted the vast majority of his tweets. Whereas there were 1,815 tweets in October 2016, there are now a mere 115 as of Wednesday. It is unclear why his Facebook posts remain public and why he can be freely messaged if Chipman is legitimately worried about being threatened through social media. Surely, those threatening the ATF nominee would be smart enough to use other platforms. The contradiction was flagged by American Accountability Foundation.

Yeah, sure David, you did it because of “threats”…..

Now, for a minute, imagine this guy leading a federal agency and using it to target people based on owning guns and ”wrong think”, both of which can be potentially classified as “extremist” depending on opinion. Can you see where this is going?


“…right in Der Grëtchënführër’s face!”

Michigan Senate Repeals Emergency Powers Law, Whitmer Unable to Veto.

Michigan’s Senate on Thursday approved a petition that repeals Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s emergency powers, with another approval expected by the state’s lower chamber.

Whitmer, a Democrat, cannot veto the petition.

The Michigan Senate’s 20-15 vote came two days after the Board of State Canvassers certified the petition, which was started by a group called Unlock Michigan that gathered over 340,000 signatures.

The board deadlocked 2-2 in April but voted 3-0 this time around.

Continue reading “”

It’s not just the 2nd amendment that the demoncraps don’t like.
This is the US goobermint working with tech companies to censor unapproved opinions about the bug.
But since it’s just stopping the spread of “disinformation”, it’s perfectly acceptable and nothing to be worried about.

While anti-gun Democrats like Carolyn Maloney will use this GAO report to push for more gun control laws, what the study tells me is that a) we’ve got much bigger issues that are driving up healthcare costs and b) banning or tightly regulating items doesn’t solve the problem. Even if the right to keep and bear arms wasn’t protected by the Constitution, gun control wouldn’t be the best answer to bring down the rate of violent crime and firearm-related injuries, but the Second Amendment makes the idea a non-starter. Want to reduce gun-related injuries? Reduce the number of violent criminals, and leave the 100-million responsible gun owners alone.

The Fuzzy Math Behind The GAO’s New Report On The Cost Of “Gun Violence”

Democrats have a new talking point in their continued push for new federal gun control laws – restricting the rights of Americans doesn’t just save lives, but money too. A new report from the Government Accountability Office claims that that the United States spends $1-billion per year on hospital costs related to “gun violence,” and anti-gun politicians are already pointing to the new report as a reason to pass more anti-gun legislation.

The nonpartisan GAO found gun violence accounts for about 30,000 hospital stays and about 50,000 emergency room visits annually. More than 15 percent of firearm injury survivors are also readmitted at least once after initial treatment, costing an additional $8,000 to $11,000 per patient. Because the majority of victims are poor, the burden largely falls on safety-net programs like Medicaid, including covering some of the care for the uninsured.

The report, the first of its kind from the watchdog agency, is based available data on caring for people who suffer non-fatal gun injuries each year. It’s expected to fuel Democrats’ calls for expanded background checks amid a stalemate on gun control legislation.

“Congress must do whatever it takes — including abolishing the filibuster if necessary—to address this public health crisis,” said New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney, chair of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, who led the coalition requesting the GAO study.

Do you get the feeling that Maloney was going to use this report to call for an end to the filibuster no matter what it said? This report is a means to an end, and the end result that Maloney and her fellow Democrats are aiming for is the end of the filibuster and the establishment of one-party rule; from enacting sweeping gun bans with 51 votes to packing the Supreme Court full of anti-gun justices that will uphold every new infringement on the Second Amendment approved by Congress.

Continue reading “”

The Rise Of a Secret Unaccountable Police Force in America

Our founders knew that concentrating too much power in any one federal agency – especially a law enforcement agency – could lead to a tyrannical police state. It was one of their greatest fears. After all, they knew a thing or two about tyranny, and it was something they wanted to avoid at all costs.

As a result, today’s federal law enforcement agencies have very limited authority and very specific missions: Border Patrol patrols the borders, of course; DEA investigates narcotics; and the ATF enforces archaic alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives laws. The FBI has by far the broadest powers, but it too is constrained by a very specific set of rules and guidelines from the U.S. Attorney General – a process called predication. Contrary to what’s depicted on television, before FBI special agents can swoop in and take over a case, they must first have a federal predicate – they must believe that a federal crime or national security threat exists before they can investigate.

All of these federal agencies are transparent and accountable to the public, although some more so than others. They’re all subject to the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which was signed into law in 1966, and they routinely publish annual reports as well as internal investigations by their inspectors general.

All federal law enforcement agencies keep the public informed of their activities – all except one.

If you want to create a secret police force, the U.S. Capitol Police would be a good choice, since they’re already halfway there. The agency has scant oversight. It’s shrouded in secrecy and refuses to change.

The United States Capitol Police (USCP) is part of the legislative branch, which is exempt from FOIA requirements. Because they report to Congress, the USCP believes they too are exempt from FOIA. I should point out by way of comparison that even the CIA is subject to FOIA. Additionally, the USCP publishes no annual reports, and even the findings of its own inspector general are kept secret and not made public.

The mission of the USCP is to “Protect the Congress – its members, employees, visitors, and facilities – so it can fulfill its constitutional and legislative responsibilities in a safe, secure and open environment,” so you would think that the agency would focus its enforcement efforts in Washington, D.C., but that is no longer the case.

Congress is now seeking to nationalize the USCP by creating “field offices” in different states. Two field offices are planned for now, but more are coming.

“The new USCP field offices will be in the Tampa and San Francisco areas. At this time, Florida and California are where the majority of our potential threats are,” the agency announced in an email last week.

These new field offices will be used to “investigate threats” made against members of Congress, Acting USCP Chief Yogananda Pittman announced last week.

Clearly, Pittman and the agency she heads are reeling from the events of Jan. 6th 2021. In her press release titled: “After the Attack: The Future of the U.S. Capitol Police,” Pittman spells out some of the changes that have already taken place. While the chief announced the acquisition of two new “wellness support dogs” – Lila and Filip – a “pivot towards an intelligence-based protective agency,” the purchase of new riot helmets, shields, and less-than-lethal munitions. Note that she did not identify the types of threats her officers will investigate in their newly created regional offices.

The one thing that is clear, given the USCP’s penchant for secrecy, the public will never know what they’re up to.

Continue reading “”

This is basically Round 2, because almost undoubtedly, the goobermint will file for an ‘en banc‘ from the whole bench of the Circuit and we’ll see what happens after that.

Federal Appeals Court Tosses Ban On Gun Sales For Those Under 21


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Glen E. Conrad, Senior District Judge. (3:18−cv−00103−GEC)
Argued: October 30, 2020 Decided: July 13, 2021
Before AGEE, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Vacated, reversed, and remanded by published opinion. Judge Richardson wrote the opinion, in which Judge Agee joined. Judge Wynn wrote a dissenting opinion.

Prospective handgun buyers sued the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives seeking an injunction and a declaratory judgment that federal statutes prohibiting Federal Firearm Licensed Dealers from selling handguns and handgun ammunition to 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds (and the federal regulations implementing those statutes) violate the Second Amendment.

When do constitutional rights vest? At 18 or 21? 16 or 25? Why not 13 or 33? In the law, a line must sometimes be drawn. But there must be a reason why constitutional rights cannot be enjoyed until a certain age. Our nation’s most cherished constitutional rights vest no later than 18. And the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms is no different………

We first find that 18-year-olds possess Second Amendment rights. They enjoy almost every other constitutional right, and they were required at the time of the Founding to serve in the militia and furnish their own weapons. We then ask, as our precedent requires, whether the government has met its burden to justify its infringement of those rights under the appropriate level of scrutiny.

To justify this restriction, Congress used disproportionate crime rates to craft overinclusive laws that restrict the rights of overwhelmingly law-abiding citizens. And in doing so, Congress focused on purchases from licensed dealers without establishing those dealers as the source of the guns 18- to 20-year-olds use to commit crimes. So we hold that the challenged federal laws and regulations are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Despite the weighty interest in reducing crime and violence, we refuse to relegate either the Second Amendment or 18- to 20-year-olds to a second-class status.


The second case decided by the Supreme Court today was Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta. The case arises out of an initiative by Kamala Harris, when she was California’s Secretary of State, to force nonprofits to disclose to the state the identities of their major donors.

Schedule B to [IRS] Form 990—the document that gives rise to the present dispute—requires organizations to disclose the names and addresses of their major donors.
Since 2001, each petitioner has renewed its registration and has filed a copy of its Form 990 with the Attorney General, as required by Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, §301. To preserve their donors’ anonymity, however, the petitioners have declined to file unredacted Schedule Bs, and they had until recently faced no consequences for noncompliance. In 2010, the State increased its enforcement of charities’ Schedule B disclosure obligations, and the Attorney General ultimately threatened the petitioners with suspension of their registrations and fines for noncompliance.

Following a trial, the district court found for the plaintiff charities:

[T]he District Court held that disclosure of Schedule Bs was not narrowly tailored to the State’s interest in investigating charitable misconduct. The court found little evidence that the Attorney General’s investigators relied on Schedule Bs to detect charitable fraud, and it determined that the disclosure regime burdened the associational rights of donors. The District Court also found that California was unable to ensure the confidentiality of donors’ information.

This, of course, was the point. It was generally assumed that Harris wanted to know the identities of donors to conservative organizations so that they could be harassed by various California agencies, or so that their identities could be leaked in order for them to be “canceled” by left-wing activists.

In both cases, the court found that the petitioners had suffered from threats and harassment in the past, and that donors were likely to face similar retaliation in the future if their affiliations became publicly known.

The Supreme Court has long recognized that forced disclosure of association with a group can chill First Amendment rights. The seminal case was NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson:

We have also noted that “[i]t is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association as [other] forms of governmental action.” NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 462 (1958).
As part of an effort to oust the [NAACP] from the State, the Alabama Attorney General sought the group’s membership lists. Id., at 452–453. We held that the First Amendment prohibited such compelled disclosure.

In my view, this should not have been a difficult case. But the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision, and the vote in the Supreme Court was 6-3, with Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer dissenting. Justice Sotomayor made this very silly argument:

The same scrutiny the Court applied when NAACP members in the Jim Crow South did not want to disclose their membership for fear of reprisals and violence now applies equally in the case of donors only too happy to publicize their names across the websites and walls of the organizations they support.

Of course some donors are happy to publicize their support for a particular nonprofit, but others, fearing personal harassment or damage to business interests, are not. Which is why the nonprofits in this case did not want to give Kamala Harris their donor lists. It is unusual to see such a foolish argument in a Supreme Court opinion.

The fact that liberal judges were happy to side with California’s effort to pry donor lists loose from conservative organizations is a stark reminder of the importance of not losing control over the Supreme Court to the Left.

H.Res.388 – Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that President Biden’s gun policies are unconstitutional and should never be approved.

1st Session
H. RES. 388

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that President Biden’s gun policies are unconstitutional and should never be approved.

May 12, 2021
Mr. DesJarlais (for himself, Mr. Norman, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Steube, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Budd, Mrs. Harshbarger, Mr. Brooks, Mr. Perry, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Keller, Mr. Rose, Mr. Aderholt, and Mrs. Miller of Illinois) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that President Biden’s gun policies are unconstitutional and should never be approved.

Whereas the right of the people to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution as the Second Amendment;

Whereas our Nation’s Founders believed this right to be fundamental for Americans to protect themselves and the state of freedom;

Whereas President Biden has directly attacked this right by issuing numerous Executive orders and calling for stricter gun control policies;

Whereas President Biden’s Executive actions on pistol-braced firearms are an unconstitutional attack on Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights;

Whereas President Biden’s Executive actions on homemade firearms, such as 3D printed firearm files or unfinished receiver blanks, are an unconstitutional attack on Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights;

Whereas President Biden has called for Congress to pass unconstitutional laws requiring background checks on all firearm transfers, unconstitutionally banning “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines”, and holding law-abiding gun manufacturers liable for the acts of criminals;

Whereas President Biden’s gun restriction proposals would effectively ban commonly owned firearms and magazines used for lawful purposes;

Whereas President Biden’s gun restriction proposals would criminalize private firearm transfers; and

Whereas President Biden’s gun restriction proposals would seek to hold gun manufacturers and dealers civilly liable, encouraging abuse of the court system to drive them out of business through meritless litigation: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

(1) it should be the policy of the United States to strengthen the Second Amendment rights of Americans and prevent the potential erosion of these rights; and

(2) Congress should never stop fighting to protect the Second Amendment.


I’d say that’s a pretty good ‘cut’.

Some Missouri police cut ties with ATF as feds assess impact of new gun law

As Missouri officials argue with the Biden administration over the scope of the state’s new gun law, federal law enforcement agencies are quietly assessing whether police departments will cut ties with them in firearm investigations.

The passage of the Second Amendment Preservation Act, which blocks Missouri police from enforcing a variety of federal gun laws, has alarmed gun control advocates and sparked concern that it could hamper police efforts to arrest violent criminals or confiscate their guns.

Emails obtained by The Star show federal prosecutors in eastern Missouri have asked at least a dozen police departments whether they will stop participating in federal gun crime investigations. The FBI has also queried a southwest Missouri police department, and is assessing the responses of local police statewide.

At least two departments have pulled officers from assignments with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, spokesmen confirmed.

The Missouri State Highway Patrol has suspended its participation in an ATF task force, to which one trooper was assigned full-time and three part-time, Lt. Eric Brown said.

“With the passage of HB 85, Patrol members can continue to serve on federal task forces except where the task force’s primary focus is on weapons violations,” Brown said.

The O’Fallon Police Department has withdrawn two K9 officers “who were deputized to ATF on an as needed basis,” Operations Division Captain Derek Myers wrote in an email to other police officials.

An ATF spokesman did not return a call seeking comment.

Continue reading “”

……expect to see concerted efforts by the Harris-Biden Administration, to implement executive actions, albeit as a “temporary fix” to restrict the possession of semiautomatic weapons. This is being coordinated with efforts by the Democrat-controlled Congress to shoehorn semiautomatic weapons into the NFA, or, perhaps, to enact new stand-alone legislation, or to enact a ban on possession of semiautomatic firearms through obscure means, by placing a gun ban in some larger omnibus bill.

Whatever transpires, the American people should be prepared for a very rocky ride in the months ahead as the economy continues to deteriorate, as social volatility and unrest in society crank up, and as the Second Amendment undergoes an assault in a manner heretofore not seen.




The propagandists for the Democrat Party-controlled Government are nothing if not expert in the art of subterfuge, deflection, artifice, and duplicity. Turning the Bill of Rights on its head, they claim the Country will be better off once the American people just accept constraints on the exercise of their fundamental rights and liberties.

But for whom would the Country be better off: for the American people or for the Neoliberal Globalists, along with their cousin Marxists, who intend to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic and merge the skeletal remains of the United States into something truly obscene: a transnational new governmental world order akin to the European Union?

Already Biden has made overtures to Brussels, resurrecting the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or “T-TIP,” an arrangement that had stalled under the Trump Administration as did the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP.

The true, if unstated, purpose of the G-7 Summit was to reassure Brussels that the U.S. was back on track to complete the agenda commenced in earnest thirty years ago—an agenda that had been making substantial headway under Obama, and that would continue under Hillary Clinton. But that agenda came to a screeching halt when Trump was elected U.S. President, to the surprise and shock and consternation of Neoliberal Globalists and Marxists both inside the Country and outside it, and no less to the chagrin of China, as well.

But with the mentally debilitated, and easily manipulated Joe Biden firmly ensconced in the Oval Office, the Globalist and Marxist agenda could get back on track. The EU would get what it wants from the U.S.; China would get what it wants from the U.S.; even Russia got what it wanted. And who was left out of the mix? The American people, of course.

But then, the Harris-Biden Administration and their cohorts in the Democrat Party controlled Congress, together with the seditious Press and social media and information technology titans haven’t bothered to ask the American people for their perspective on any of this. They really don’t care. They have effectively shunted Trump aside and they are treating tens of millions of American dissenters as potential “Domestic Terrorists” who refuse to go along with the game plan. The Globalists and Marxists will suffer no dissident thought or action. They are intent on stamping out all dissent. And this portends something serious on the horizon for the well-being of the Country and for the well-being of the American people.


Continue reading “”

Bill Cosby to Walk Free After Sex Assault Conviction Overturned
Cosby was convicted of drugging and molesting Andrea Constand at his suburban estate. He served two years of his three-to-10-year sentence

Pennsylvania’s highest court overturned Bill Cosby’s sex assault conviction Wednesday after finding an agreement with a previous prosecutor prevented him from being charged in the case.

Cosby has served more than two years of a three- to 10-year sentence at a state prison near Philadelphia. He had vowed to serve all 10 years rather than acknowledge any remorse over the 2004 encounter with accuser Andrea Constand.

The 83-year-old Cosby, who was once beloved as “America’s Dad,” was convicted of drugging and molesting the Temple University employee at his suburban estate.

He was charged in late 2015, when a prosecutor armed with newly unsealed evidence — Cosby’s damaging deposition from her lawsuit — arrested him days before the 12-year statute of limitations expired.

The trial judge had allowed just one other accuser to testify at Cosby’s first trial, when the jury deadlocked. However, he then allowed five other accusers to testify at the retrial about their experiences with Cosby in the 1980s.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that testimony tainted the trial, even though a lower appeals court had found it appropriate to show a signature pattern of drugging and molesting women.

Legislation proposed to make Ky. Second Amendment sanctuary state

FRANKFORT, Ky. (KT) – Kentucky would become a Second Amendment sanctuary state if legislation being proposed for the 2022 General Assembly is enacted.

The measure, which will be sponsored by Rep. Josh Bray, R-Mt. Vernon, would bar state and local law enforcement agencies from enforcing federal restrictions on the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. It would also prohibit local governments and other public agencies from allocating public resources or money in the enforcement of federal firearm bans. It includes firearms themselves, ammunition and firearm accessories.

“President Biden has declared gun control a priority for his administration, and we know that if he doesn’t get what he wants from Congress, he will abuse his executive authority through rulemaking,” said Bray, who represents all of Garrard and Rockcastle counties and a portion of Madison County. “This sends a clear message that Kentucky is a Second Amendment sanctuary and that there is no question we will defend the Second Amendment against any attempt to infringe upon it.”

Continue reading “”

Dangerous, Threatening Rhetoric is the Tactic of Tyrants

Only tyrants threaten the use of force against their own people. On Wednesday, President Biden remarked,  “If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”

This is reminiscent of California’s infamous Chinese-spy-bedding Congressman, Eric Swalwell’s threats via Twitter back in 2018, when he said about a hypothetical war against gun owners, “And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes….”

Both references to nuclear weapons is designed to do one thing: to intimidate America’s  armed populace.


Drilling down, the core question is why do these politicians distrust the people with the arms the Constitution guarantees their right to keep and bear? What are they doing, or planning, that makes civilian disarmament a priority? If civilian gun ownership isn’t a threat, why are lawful gun owners constantly conflated with criminals, scapegoated for crimes they didn’t commit, and their rights under incessant, incremental attack?

The reason is the power of an armed civilian populace is not to be underestimated, and they know it.

All men have the potential to be tyrants. As Aristotle warned . . .

The three aims of the tyrant are, one, the humiliation of his subjects; he knows that a mean-spirited man will not conspire against anybody; two, the creation of mistrust among them; for a tyrant is not to be overthrown until men begin to have confidence in one another — and this is the reason why tyrants are at war with the good; they are under the idea that their power is endangered by them, not only because they will not be ruled despotically, but also because they are too loyal to one another and to other men, and do not inform against one another or against other men — three, the tyrant desires that all his subjects shall be incapable of action, for no one attempts what is impossible and they will not attempt to overthrow a tyranny if they are powerless.

Wednesday’s speech was a prime example of attempts to humiliate, foment mistrust, and lay the foundation for plans to render popular action ineffective, just as Aristotle described. Biden’s ham-handed remarks about the government’s arsenal of F15s and nuclear weapons were intended to mock and humiliate anyone who believes she is free citizen, not a subject. Anyone who believes her life if worth defending against those who wish her harm. Anyone who subscribes to the historic values enshrined in our Constitution.

The second tactic was intimidation, the use of divisive language, stoking fear and mistrust amongst our fellow citizens by scapegoating gun owners. He all but blamed us for higher crime rates rather than looking at other, more politically inconvenient factors such as defunding, demonizing, and demoralizing police forces throughout the nation.

Biden tried to stoke fear of modern sporting rifles, of which there are about 20 million in common use in the United States. Attempting to ban them over arbitrary, mostly cosmetic features defies all logic. If it wasn’t so clearly tyrannical, it would almost be humorous.

Finally, Aristotle recognized that tyrants desire to render their subjects incapable of acting. In Biden’s case, through civilian disarmament. How would one actually accomplish this? Enter Biden’s ATF Director nominee and current gun control lobbyist, David Chipman. The man refused to identify what constitutes and “assault weapon” because he knows it will be far more convenient to let that definition be whatever the tyrants want or need it to be.

In the end, Biden’s speech was embarrassing and his empty threats pathetic. America’s gun owners will not be intimidated. If gun-grabbing politicians didn’t fear the people, they wouldn’t spend so much time, energy, resources, and linguistic wrangling attacking Second Amendment rights.

We rest easy knowing our constitutional foundations, and the pre-existing rights codified therein, have brought us to this. Not to disappoint the President, but we know that the Supreme Court has already ruled that we have an individual right to possess arms in common use. That’s a feature, not a bug as this very moment was thoughtfully crafted and designed by the Framers. Our duty and responsibility is to uphold the Constitution.



Just over a week before the country’s Independence Day celebrations, President Biden delivered a speech on gun control in which he ridiculed the meaning, feasibility, and intent of the Second Amendment.

In an event meant to be the kickoff for another round of anti-gun legislation and executive actions for an Administration just 155 days in the White House, Biden tried to frame the Constitutional gun rights argument to justify his proposed efforts.

“The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon,” he said.

While the first part, about the Amendment “limiting the type of people,” is somewhat true– for example, the gun rights of enslaved and in some cases even freed blacks were often denied in the Southern States from the earliest days of the Constitution despite the Second Amendment– Biden fails the fact check on cannon ownership. As we have covered before, anyone with the desire and extra cash could acquire their own battery of fully functional cannon without any government paperwork or permission until 1968. 

With that being said, modern breechloading artillery is still available in the “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave,” provided it is registered with the federal government and properly taxed. Still, legacy artillery systems such as muzzleloading black powder field guns, do not require tax stamps.

Biden also went further into the woods against what the Second Amendment protects, arguing the enumerated right had something to do with hunting, although many in the gun rights community point out that Washington didn’t cross the Delaware to get to a duck blind.

“No one needs to have a weapon that can fire over 30, 40, 50, even up to 100 rounds unless you think the deer are wearing Kevlar vests or something,” he said, although magazine capacity restrictions have only been adopted in nine states– and have been recently found to be Constitutionally suspect by a federal court. Further, industry data suggests consumers in the U.S. own at least 230 million detachable magazines, with about half of those able to hold more than 10 cartridges, the traditional threshold for a “large-capacity magazine” in restricted states.

Then, Biden seemed to paint the Second Amendment’s potential check against tyranny, a concept that dates to the days of Constitutional framer James Madison, as ludicrous in the days of modern warfare, notwithstanding the realities of multi-domain modern insurgency.

“Those who say the blood of lib- — ‘the blood of patriots,’ you know, and all the stuff about how we’re going to have to move against the government. Well, the tree of liberty is not watered with the blood of patriots. What’s happened is that there have never been — if you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons,” he said.

The quote Biden ramblingly alluded to, drawn a 1787 letter from Founding Father Thomas Jefferson– author of The Declaration of Independence and later third U.S. President– to William Smith, John Adams’ secretary, can be argued to be directly related to the right to keep and bear arms and was penned at the time of Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts.

We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & 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. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.

It is not the first time that Biden trotted out the Jeffersonian quote in relation to his view on gun policy. In February 2020, while on the campaign trail for the Democratic nomination for President, he argued at a town hall event in New Hampshire that, “Those who say ‘the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots’ — a great line, well, guess what: The fact is, if you’re going to take on the government you need an F-15 with Hellfire Missiles. There is no way an AK-47 is going to take care of you.”

The cold civil war is being fought in civic meetings. The battles are local and the battle maps cover streets rather than continents, but it is a conflict driven by the impetus of revolutions and civil wars in which one people, as Jefferson wrote, seeks to part ways with another, not to rule over them, but to be free of their thievery, their abuses, and their tyrannical rule

The Small Secessions of the New Civil War: Neighborhoods secede from cities, cities from counties, and counties from states.

That a battle over Atlanta would play nearly as pivotal a role in the country’s second civil war as it did in the first might have surprised few historians. What might have surprised them is that the battle would involve civic meetings rather than bullets. There are plenty of bullets in Buckhead, a part of Atlanta coping with runaway crime under the pro-crime rule of Mayor Keisha Bottoms, and those bullets have inspired local residents to secede and form their own police force.

Buckhead is not the first part of Atlanta to try and secede. Sandy Springs had already successfully seceded from Atlanta and a number of cities in Fulton County, which includes Atlanta, have tried to break away to form Milton County. These efforts to escape the blight and corruption of Atlanta aren’t new, but Buckhead’s fight to escape Atlanta’s pro-crime government has captured the imagination of millions of Americans from one coast of the country to the other.

The cold civil war is being shaped not by national, but local secessions like the one in Buckhead as neighborhoods try to secede from cities, cities from counties, and counties from states in a powerful struggle by conservative and centrist communities to define their own way of life.

Continue reading “”