Category: Rights

Scratch a Lib-Find a Tyrant #2744

There are some people I know that would actually relish the idea of this happening, just for the ‘opportunities’ it would present. And they are the kinds of opportunities I think all my readers can readily imagine.

Biden Administration May Consider ‘Vaccine Passports’ For Interstate Travel

President Joe Biden really wants Americans to get vaccinated, and after rolling out all the stops, from free beer to free Uber rides to child care, the administration has plans to penalize those that either won’t get the shot or don’t feel obligated to prove to the government or businesses that they’ve gotten the shot.

The administration may consider creating vaccine requirements for interstate travel for citizens within the US.

The AP reports that “…while more severe measures — such as mandating vaccines for interstate travel or changing how the federal government reimburses treatment for those who are unvaccinated and become ill with COVID-19 — have been discussed, the administration worried that they would be too polarizing for the moment.”

“That’s not to say they won’t be implemented in the future,” the AP writes, “as public opinion continues to shift toward requiring vaccinations as a means to restore normalcy.”

The Biden administration has forced many federal employees to vaccinate, and has urged US businesses to force their employees to get vaccinated as well, under penalty of losing their position or persistent COVID testing.

The Biden administration said they would work with businesses to create a vaccine credentialing system, but has repeatedly said that there would be no federal database of vaccine recipients.

Disney, United, and Google issued vaccine mandates for their employees. More than 600 colleges and universities are requiring the vaccine as well, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education.

“We are essentially saying there are different paths you can take, but the path that you cannot take is doing nothing—that’s the one unacceptable position right now,” said deputy director of strategic communication and engagement for Biden’s COVID-19 response team Ben Wakana.
Georgetown Law took up the question of Americans’ rights to travel freely within the United States under the Trump administration at the start of the pandemic. At the time, Americans in many parts of the country were asked to “lockdown” for two week and to “slow the spread” so that when Americans got sick and ended up in the hospital, they didn’t all end up there at once, overwhelming the medical infrastructure.

Meryl Chertoff, Executive Director, SALPAL writes: “The right of Americans to travel interstate in the United States has never been substantially judicially questioned or limited. In 1941, the Court declared unconstitutional California’s restriction upon the migration of the ‘Okies’—whose travails are famously documented in ‘The Grapes of Wrath.’ Justice Douglas referred to ‘the right of free movement’ as ‘a right of national citizenship,’ and the rights of the migrants were upheld under the Commerce Clause.”

“The Privileges and Immunities Clause protects the rights of US citizens,” Chertoff goes on to say, “who are each also the citizens of a state, against discriminatory treatment under the law of a different state. In a 1985 case, the Court found that the Privileges and Immunities clause prohibited discrimination against a non-resident except where (i) there is a substantial reason for the difference in treatment; and (ii) the discrimination practiced against nonresidents bears a substantial relationship to the State’s objective.

In deciding whether the discrimination bears a close or substantial relationship to the State’s objective, the Court has considered the availability of less restrictive means.”
“The baseline, then, is that freedom of movement within and between states is Constitutionally protected,” Chertoff concluded.
On Thursday, the CDC was asked outright what they would be doing to make sure that counterfeit vaccine cards were not in circulation, and if they’ve reconsidered creating a federalized system to track vaccine recipients and issue identification for the vaccinated to enable them to move freely through society while those who don’t have the credential are shut out from public life.

Biden administration COVID spokesperson Jeff Zients was asked “Is the administration reconsidering something like a QR code, or a passport, to help verify people’s vaccination status and if not, what are you doing to stop the proliferation of fake vaccine cards?”
“There are a number of ways people can demonstrate their vaccination status,” Zeints said. “Companies and organizations and the federal government are taking different approaches, and we applaud this innovation.”
“Through vaccination requirements, employers have the power to help end the pandemic,” Zients said.

But, Zients said, “There will be no federal vaccination database as with all other vaccines, the information gets held at the state and local level. Any system that is developed in the private sector or elsewhere must meet key standards, including affordability, being available both digitally and on paper, and most importantly protecting people’s privacy and security.”
Biden said on Thursday “I know there are a lot of people out there trying to turn a public safety measure, that is children wearing masks in school so they can be safe, into a political dispute. And this isn’t about politics. It’s about keeping our children safe.”
“I saw a video and reports from Tennessee, protestors threatening doctors and nurses, who before a school board were making the case that to keep kids safe there should be mandatory masks. And as they walked out these doctors were threatened, nurses were threatened. Our health care workers are heroes. They are the heroes when there was no vaccine. They’re doing their best to care for the people who are refusing to get vaccinated,” Biden said.

“And unvaccinated folks are being hospitalized and dying as a result of not being vaccinated,” the president continued, harkening back to his statement that COVID is now a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”
“To the mayors, school superintendents, local leaders,” he said, “who are standing up to the governors who are politicizing mask protection for our kids, thank you, thank you as well. Thank God that we have heroes like you. And I stand with you all, and America should as well.”

Do We Still Have the Constitution?

The Constitution — when interpreted in accordance with the plain meaning of its words and informed by a fair reading of history — does not permit the government to infringe upon personal freedoms, no matter the emergency or pandemic. For those who agree with me, worry not. We will persevere. For those who trust the government, worry a lot. You are not in good hands.

As I write, it appears new orders of restraint on personal liberty are coming in the name of fighting a new pandemic. Yet, the purpose of the Constitution is both to establish the government and to limit it. Some of the limitations are written in the Constitution itself. Most of the limitations that pertain to personal freedoms are found in the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments.

These amendments were ratified to restrain the federal government from infringing upon personal liberties. Since the enactment of the 14th Amendment in 1868, and subsequent litigation, the Bill of Rights, for the most part, restrains the states as well.

So, the rights to thought, speech, press, assembly, worship, self-defense, privacy, travel, property ownership, commercial activities and fair treatment from government are plainly articulated in or rationally inferred from the first eight amendments. The Ninth declares that the enumeration of rights in the first eight shall not mean that there are no other rights that are fundamental, and the government shall not disparage those other rights. The Tenth reflects that the states have reserved to themselves the powers that they did not delegate to the feds.

The Ninth was especially important to its author, James Madison, because of his view that natural or fundamental rights are integral to each person, and they are too numerous to list.

In the following century, the anti-slavery crusader Lysander Spooner would explain it thusly: “A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber … or by millions, calling themselves a government.”

Natural rights collectively constitute the moral ability and sovereign authority of every human being to make personal choices — free from government interference and without a government permission slip.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that government derives all its powers from the consent of the governed. And Madison understood the Ninth Amendment to declare that our personal choices are insulated from government interference so long as their exercise does not impair another’s rights.

From this it follows that if governments interfere with our personal choices — and we have not consented individually to their power to do so — the interference is invalid, unlawful and, because our personal choices are essentially protected from governmental interference by the Bill of Rights, unconstitutional.

Now, back to the coming restraints in the name of a new pandemic.

The former and future interferences with the exercise of rights protected by the Bill of Rights devolve around travel, assembly, commercial activities, the exercise of religious beliefs and your face. These infringements have all come from mayors and state governors who claim the power to do so, and they raise three profound constitutional issues.

First: Do mayors and governors have inherent power in an emergency to craft regulations that carry the force of law? The answer is no.
The Guarantee Clause of the Constitution mandates a republican (lowercase “r”) form of government in the states. That means the separation of powers into three branches, each with a distinct core function that cannot constitutionally be performed by either of the other two.

Since only a representative legislature can write laws that carry criminal penalties and incur the use of force, a mayor or a governor cannot constitutionally write such laws.

Second: Can state legislatures delegate away to governors their law-making powers? Again, the answer is no because the separation of powers prevents one branch of government from ceding to another branch its core powers. The separation was crafted not to preserve the integrity of each branch but to assure the preservation of personal liberty by preventing the accumulation of too much power in any one branch.

We are not talking about a state legislature delegating to a board of medical examiners in the executive branch the power to license physicians. We are talking about delegating away a core power — the authority to create crimes and craft punishments. Such a delegation would be an egregious violation of the Guarantee Clause.

Third: Can a state legislature enact laws that interfere with personal liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, prescribe punishments for violations of those laws and authorize governors to use force to compel compliance? Again, the answer is no because all government in America is subordinate to the natural rights articulated in the Bill of Rights and embraced in the Ninth Amendment.

We should encourage massive peaceful resistance to mayoral and gubernatorial ignorance and arrogance that disregards the Bill of Rights.

We need resistance to tyranny in order to stay free. Power unresisted continues to grow and to corrupt. History teaches that most people prefer the illusion of safety to the cacophony of liberty. The only reason we have civil liberties today is because generations of determined minorities — starting with the revolutionaries in the 1770s — have fought for them.

Today, we are governed by dangerous people who are again threatening to take away our ability to make personal choices, and to use force to compel compliance. In doing that, they will not only have violated their oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights; they also will have committed the criminal acts of nullifying our rights.

We must remind them that by using the powers of state governments to do this, they will make themselves candidates for federal criminal prosecutions when saner days return.

The people in Washington calling it an insurrection are doing so to justify their own attempt to illegally seize power.

Dare I Say That January 6 Was Not an Insurrection?

Please don’t share this article with anyone except for your neighbors, friends, enemies, relatives, and coworkers — I don’t want to get into trouble — but I remain adamant that January 6 was not an insurrection. To say otherwise is a despicable lie.

Insurrection was not on the mind of anyone serious at the Capitol on January 6. It was a very large demonstration aimed at protesting the way an election was conducted. No matter what anyone thinks of the November 2020 election, there was something wrong with states changing their election laws months, even weeks before balloting. In addition, social media monopolies suppressed the news of the Hunter Biden laptop, which would have been a game changer.

In the face of all that stuff, many thousands came to Washington, D.C. to protest. They did not come to seize the reins of power. There were no U.S. military generals or captains or colonels or lieutenants leading or strategizing a coup. There was no shooting of rifles or taking of hostages. Rather, people came dressed like it was a carnival, such as the men dressed in bear or wolverine outfits.

Anyone who ever has read or learned anything about military coups or Bolshevik-style revolutions knows that January 6 was a demonstration that got out of hand, as did scores of racist, anti-Semitic “Death to the Police” Black Lives Matter demonstrations all summer. 

Continue reading “”

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 “”

“…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.

BLUF:
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 “”

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

117th CONGRESS
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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
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

RESOLUTION
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.

 

BLUF:
……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.

WHY IS IT THAT THE HARRIS-BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS REALLY WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS?

PART ONE

GUN OWNERS; TRUMP SUPPORTERS; ANTI-MARXISTS; ANTI-GLOBALISTS—ARE THESE THE HARRIS-BIDEN “DOMESTIC TERRORISTS?”

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.

WITH A RADICAL DEMOCRAT PARTY-CONTROLLED GOVERNMENT AND A BELEAGUERED, BESIEGED, WEAK REPUBLICAN CONTINGENT IN CONGRESS, AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BOXED INTO A CORNER AND MUST TAKE MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS TO REGAIN CONTROL OF THEIR COUNTRY?

Continue reading “”

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.

 

F-15S & NUCLEAR WEAPONS: BIDEN SHRUGS OFF 2A IN GUN CONTROL SPEECH

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.”

BLUF:
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 “”

Yes, Gun Control Did Help Facilitate The Holocaust

The Holocaust is one of the most horrible events in human history. It became the benchmark by which we compare atrocities, and for good reason. Millions of Jews slaughtered. Millions more put through some of the worst abuses a person can visit upon another. It was awful in so many ways.

However, we on the gun right side have pointed out over and over again that if the Jews had been able to have guns, the Holocaust may never have happened.

Unsurprisingly, some people disagree.

But the freshman congresswoman is hardly the only figure in the nation to have manipulated the Holocaust. The National Rifle Association, or at least its modern leaders led by its now embattled CEO, Wayne LaPierre, have long searched for “proof” that gun control is nothing more than a slippery slope to genocide. And in recent years, the NRA has manipulated the Holocaust to claim they finally found it, funding research that has allegedly discovered a new link between gun control and the Holocaust that generations of scholars have yet to find.

In 2013, the Anti-Defamation League said “Nazi Analogies Have No Place In Gun Control Debate” after a half dozen commentators including Sean Hannity and Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News out of the blue all raised the matter of gun control and the Holocaust.

“If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and the ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust,” claimed Napolitano.

It’s as if they were all laying the groundwork for the book, “Gun Control in The Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and ‘Enemies of the State,’” published later that year by the Independent Institute, a small think-tank in Oakland. Research for this book was partly funded by the NRA. Its author, Stephen P. Halbrook, is the nation’s best-known pro-gun lawyer. Several years before, during the watershed gun rights case Heller vs. District of Columbia that established that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep arms, Halbrook filed a successful amicus brief on behalf of 250 members of the House of Representatives, 55 senators, and the president of the Senate, then-Vice President Dick Cheney.

Halbrook’s thesis about gun control and the Holocaust is novel at best. Most Holocaust scholars, like Alan E. Steinweis, director of holocaust studies at the University of Vermont, say that the idea that gun control was a factor in the Holocaust is “simply a nonissue.” But Halbrook claims that prior gun control laws during the Weimer Republic, or Germany’s democratic years before Hitler took power, were used to seize firearms from Jews, enough to have helped enable the Holocaust.

Never mind the weak evidence, the NRA’s house organ crowed about the book’s supposed breakthrough.

The problem with this line of “reasoning” is that they’re demanding pro-gun voices provide proof for something that wasn’t allowed to happen.

Did the Weimar Republic ban guns? Yes.

Were the Jews in Nazi Germany armed? No.

As such, were they able to offer armed resistance when herded into concentration camps? Also, no.

No one is saying that the Weimar Republic actively sought to empower those that followed them to commit genocide against the Jewish people. No one is claiming that things proceeded along a set plan all built around the idea of exterminating not just the Jews but also homosexuals and gypsies.

To make that claim, you’d need a great deal of evidence and that evidence likely doesn’t exist.

However, there’s ample reason to suggest that the Nazis could capitalize on the existing laws and take advantage of a disarmed population. In fact, no one disputes the fact they were disarmed and while some claim the Holocaust didn’t happen, I don’t really care about their opinions on much of anything.

Now, let’s also be clear that we can’t be certain that an armed population would have prevented the Holocaust. Even in the modern United States where guns outnumber people, a lot of folks are unarmed by choice. That would likely have been true right up until the Nazis decided to put the Jews in concentration camps. How many would have been able to fight back?

Frankly, we’ll never know.

Continue reading “”

Dumb, Disarmed and Diseased
Dumb, Disarmed and Diseased

Have you noticed how the elite is bent on creating the perfect serf? From ensuring we are unarmed to pushing pot – yeah, America needs more of a drug that makes people lazier and less interesting – to hyping the pandemic, everything the ruling caste has been doing lately seems focused on turning us into drones. And far too many people are just letting it happen.

And now the US government will be pimping BLM to foreigners. Great. How could that go wrong? Our nonpartisan government is now fully partisan – weren’t norms important just a few months ago?

Building The Perfect Serf

With a hat-tip to Aaron, whose tweet alerted me to the painfully dumb meme of the commie gov of Pennsylvania, the campaign to change Americans from proud, industrious citizens into submissive, dependent subjects is going full-throttle. The governor, recently rebuked by the citizens who voted away his dictatorial flu powers in a welcome bit of push-back, decried the fact people can buy guns from each other without his permission but can’t have dope without a medical ID card – I guess requiring ID for getting high is as onerous as it is for voting. So, in his optimal universe, people can’t get arms to protect themselves unless he thinks it’s okay and grants them a dispensation to do so, but it should be open season at the dope dispensary. And, of course, they have to be masked while doing it, at least until they wrap their lips around the bong.

Being able to defend yourself: Bad.

Being stoned on a couch watching Scooby-Doo: Good.

Being masked all the time: Better.

Guns allow people to break the monopoly on force held by the government, creating a limit to what the government can do. No wonder liberals hate that. This right gives people the impression that the consent of the governed matters. Bunch of wicked “insurrectionists” they are, daring to think they should possess some sort of ultimate veto power over their betters!

Continue reading “”