Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

This Democrat Defending Hasan Piker Says His Extremist Rhetoric Reflects Rising American Frustration

Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA) was asked in a recent interview why he continues to defend left-wing political pundits like Hasan Piker, who is widely known for inflammatory rhetoric, in the aftermath of an attempted assassination targeting top Trump administration officials at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday.

Despite acknowledging some of the controversial remarks attributed to Piker, including comments defending the killing of the UnitedHealthcare CEO and praise for Hamas, Rep. Khanna argued that Piker is expressing a broader sense of frustration among Americans, one that he described as important to acknowledge.

“I have said that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. I was one of the first people who condemned the shooting of the United Healthcare executive. But millions of people follow Hasan Piker. Why? Because he’s speaking about some of the frustrations,” Rep. Khanna said. “He’s speaking about the fact that people don’t have health care in America.”

“There are a lot of people on the podcast world, etc., who say things that are outrageous or sensationalist,” he continued. “And I push back when you do that. But we have to understand the anger in this country of people who feel they can’t buy a house, they can’t afford gas, they can’t have health care.”

“They’re upset at the system. It’s one of the reasons Trump won twice. And we have to engage while condemning the violence,” he said. “I never engage in approving of violence, approving of the incitement of violence, and I’ll condemn it when I hear it.”

Unfortunately for both Khanna and Piker, murder, theft, and other illegal acts are not the ways in which real Americans choose to effect change in their country.

We effect change the way we learned after the American Revolution, through voting, and through persuading and changing the minds of our fellow Americans, not through violence. The moment that approach begins to falter, we risk watching our system of law and order fade, becoming a mere suggestion rather than a requirement.

Mainstreaming individuals who support or excuse violence, on either side, is reprehensible, and often indicative of an attempt to sow chaos and exploit it.

Now is the time to double down on the American system of governance, not to abandon it in pursuit of revolutionary change, which would not lead to positive reform but rather to an erosion of the American way of life.

Looks like he is one of those ‘refugees’ imported from Somalia.

Minneapolis man sentenced to 8.5 years in prison over support for ISIS.

MINNEAPOLIS — A Minnesota man was sentenced in federal district court to more than eight years in prison Wednesday for supporting the efforts of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a designated terrorist organization rooted in the Middle East.

A statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota said 23-year-old Abdisatar Ahmed Hassan, of Minneapolis, was handed eight-and-a-half years in prison, followed by 15 years of supervised release, after he pleaded guilty in September to attempting to provide material support and resources to ISIS.

Court documents show that in 2024, Hassan began collecting and redistributing ISIS propaganda, while obtaining various manuals about sniper-training skills and how to make “highly explosive” materials and ammunition. Officials said Hassan also researched articles online related to gun ranges, weapons and “ISIS-inspired attacks and terroristic acts.”

Prosecutors found Hassan engaged with ISIS media wings and recruiters in Somalia for months before he decided to quit his job and liquidate his savings, cashing in on a one-way ticket from Minneapolis to Somalia in early December 2024. Hassan was actually turned away from that flight after airport officials discovered he lacked the proper travel documents, but just a few weeks later, he was granted the same one-way ticket with the proper documentation.

According to the district attorney’s office, Hassan made his first flight to Chicago, but was stopped and questioned by Customs and Border Control agents, missing his flight to Somalia and later admitting to his ties to the terrorist organization.

Hassan returned to Minnesota and continued to praise ISIS through his social media accounts until being arrested by the FBI in February 2025. A grand jury then indicted Hassan on one count of attempting to provide material support and resources to ISIS.

“The sentence handed down today takes a would-be terrorist off the streets and sends a clear message that the FBI and our partners will unremittingly pursue anyone seeking to join or support a foreign terrorist organization,” said FBI Minneapolis Division Special Agent in Charge Christopher D. Dotson.

Chicago Man Gets 25 Years for Serving as a ‘Press Person’ for the ISIS Terrorist Organization

A federal judge on Thursday handed a 25-year prison sentence to a former Chicago software developer who the feds say functioned as a “press person for the Islamic State” terrorist organization and held a sincere, “radical urge for bloodshed.”

Ashraf Al Safoo, 41, already has served more than seven years behind bars since prosecutors filed charges against him in 2018. His attorney sought a sentence of time-served, arguing he’s caused no trouble in jail and basically amounted to a “keyboard warrior.”

But U.S. District Judge John Blakey said Al Safoo’s crimes went beyond words — “it was material support for the murder and destruction of other human beings.”

“While you did not pull a trigger or detonate a bomb or behead someone with your own hand, by your own knife, you engaged in a course of conduct that facilitated and rooted them on,” Blakey told Al Safoo while handing down the sentence.

In a bench trial last year, Blakey convicted Al Safoo of conspiring to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, among other crimes.

Before learning his fate, Al Safoo told the judge he’d fled Iraq with his family as a teenager before he could be enlisted in Saddam Hussein’s military. He said he’s betrayed the United States, the country that gave him a home, and cries when he receives photos of his children.

“I reap what I sow,” Al Safoo repeatedly told Blakey.

The sentence is among the stiffest in recent memory to be handed down in a terrorism case at Chicago’s Dirksen Federal Courthouse.

Ashraf Al Safoo, 41, already has served more than seven years behind bars since prosecutors filed charges against him in 2018. He received a 25-year sentence Thursday.

Continue reading “”

It’s not just a threat to America

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas blasts progressivism as threat to America.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Wednesday delivered a televised broadside against progressivism, a political philosophy he described as an existential threat to America and the principles that founded it 250 years ago.

“Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government,” Thomas said in a speech at the University of Texas Austin Law School pegged to the nation’s upcoming milestone birthday. 

A spirit of “cynicism, rejection, hostility and animus” toward America — by Americans — has taken hold, Thomas said in remarks carried live on CSPAN.

Thomas, the Supreme Court’s senior conservative member, spoke broadly, not referencing specific contemporary events or political figures to make his case. But his comments come at a critical time for the sharply divided country and the Court.

He said that the values enshrined in the 1776 Declaration of Independence have “fallen out of favor” among Americans — a trend perpetrated, he argued, by “intellectuals” and the nation’s colleges and universities.

“intellectuals” he says…
George Orwell –
Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them

Thomas also said he believes many people no longer believe “all men are created equal” and deserving of “unalienable rights” protected by a limited government.

 “[Progressivism] holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government,” he said. “It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights.”

The 77-year-old justice was appointed by Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1991 and is one of the longest-serving justices in history. He is a staunch conservative and has been a reliable vote in favor of the Trump administration’s positions in cases.

Thomas said Washington has been overrun by elected and appointed officials who lack commitment to “righteous cause, to traditional morality, to national defense, to free enterprise, to religious piety or to the original meaning of the Constitution.”

“They recast themselves as Institutionalists, pragmatists or thoughtful moderates, all as a way of justifying their failures to themselves, their consciences, and their country,” he said.

Thomas called on Americans to stand up for their principles and endure personal “sacrifices,” if necessary, to preserve the nation’s democracy.

“In my view, we must find in ourselves that same level of courage that the signers of the Declaration have so that we can do for our future what they did for theirs,” he said.

DC Circuit Slams Brakes on Boasberg’s Criminal Contempt Probe of Those AEA Flights

Judge James Boasberg, Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court, has become a bit of a household name over the past year or so — in large part because of the rather notable rulings he’s made in the case arising from the now infamous flights removing suspected Tren de Aragua members to El Salvador, pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act, in March of 2025.

The J.G.G. v. Trump case has already made its way up to the Supreme Court once, and while the case is still working its way through the courts on the merits, there’s been a contemporaneous contempt proceeding, in which Judge Boasberg has been assessing whether he’d hold certain members of the Trump administration in criminal contempt over its actions following his order to effectively turn the planes (already in transit to El Salvador) around.

In connection with that, the administration sought a writ of mandamus from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, essentially asking that Boasberg’s contempt inquisition be shut down. On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit granted the writ and halted the district court’s ongoing contempt investigation into the administration’s March deportation flights, blocking further testimony and fact-finding aimed at determining whether officials defied a temporary restraining order.

In a 2-1 decision, the appellate court ordered Boasberg to terminate the criminal contempt proceedings in the case. Judge Neomi Rao (Trump) authored the majority decision, with Judge Justin Walker concurring (Trump), and Judge J. Michelle Childs (Obama) penning a lengthy dissent.

The crux of the majority decision is this:

The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order because it was premised on a legal error and the plaintiffs’ suit was brought in the wrong court. Nonetheless, the district court threatened to hold government officials in criminal contempt unless they complied with the now-vacated order by, for instance, taking back custody of the plaintiffs. We issued a writ of mandamus vacating the court’s first contempt order.

Undeterred, the district court is proceeding with criminal contempt for the government’s decision to transfer the plaintiffs to the custody of El Salvador. To cooperate, the government identified then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem as the official responsible for the transfer decision. The district court previously said this was the only information it required to make a referral for prosecution. But the district court has now expanded its inquest and ordered hearings to extract more information from government counsel about exactly what happened last March. The government petitions for mandamus.

The widening gyre of the district court’s investigation again calls for the extraordinary remedy of mandamus to halt the judicial “impairment of another branch in the performance of its constitutional duties.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 390 (2004) (cleaned up). The district court proposes to probe high-level Executive Branch deliberations about matters of national security and diplomacy. These proceedings are a clear abuse of discretion, as the district court’s order said nothing about transferring custody of the plaintiffs and therefore lacks the clarity to support criminal contempt based on the transfer of custody. Moreover, the government has already provided the name of the responsible official, so further judicial investigation is unnecessary and therefore improper. In these circumstances, mandamus is appropriate to prevent the district court from assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction that encroaches on the autonomy of the Executive Branch.

 

Continue reading “”

Trump Vows to Hunt Down, Jail Leaker Who Endangered Missing F-15 Pilot By Tipping Off Iran

President Trump vowed to hunt down and jail the leaker who revealed that U.S. forces could not initially reach the second American crew member of an F-15 fighter jet shot down over Iran.

Speaking in the White House briefing room on Monday, a clearly perturbed Commander in Chief declared that the media’s disclosure tipped off Tehran and directly endangered the airman’s life. Not to mention the lives of hundreds of troops searching for the missing crew member.

“We’re looking very hard to find that leaker,” he said. “They basically said that we have one, and there’s somebody missing. Well, [Iran] didn’t know there was somebody missing until this leaker gave the information.”

The President indicated he would pressure the media outlet that published the story to reveal their sources.

“We think we’ll be able to find it out,” Trump continued. “Because we’re going to go to the media company that released it, and we’re going to say, ‘National security. Give it up or go to jail.’”

The leak, first reported by Israel’s Channel 12 and quickly picked up by U.S. outlets including Axios and the Washington Post, came as the wounded second crew member was fighting for his life behind enemy lines.

The information prompted a race between our military heroes and the terrorist regime.

Iran’s state television, you may recall, quickly urged civilians in the area to hunt down the American airman, placing a bounty on his head. An anchor told residents to hand over any “enemy pilot” to the police with the promise of a “precious prize” if they do so.

“Those who succeed in capturing or killing hostile enemy forces will be specially commended by the Governor’s office,” the governor of Iran’s southern Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad province announced, according to the BBC at the time.

“All of a sudden, they know that there’s somebody out there,” Trump told reporters at the briefing. “They see all these planes coming in. It became a much more difficult operation because a leaker leaked that we have one, we’ve rescued one, but there’s another one out there that we’re trying to get.”

“So actually, the country Iran, put out a major notice — you all saw it — offering a very big award for anybody that captures the pilot,” he added. “So in addition to a hostile, very talented, very good, very evil military, we had millions of people trying to get an award, so when you add that to it, but we have to find that leaker, because that’s a sick person.”

This wasn’t just a leak — it was a direct assist to the enemy that turned every member of the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps), not to mention every civilian looking for a quick payday, into a bounty hunter gunning for our airman.

Anti-Gunner Offers Cartoonish Version of U.S. History to Demand Civilian Disarmament

At one of the two No Kings protests held in Richmond, Virginia this past weekend, one of the speakers urged attendees to go out and buy a gun and exercise their Second Amendment rights. There was no call to violence in his statement, just a call to arms.

I’m not sure how well that comment went over with those in attendance, but I’m pretty sure that if California writer Matt Stone had been in the audience he would have turned tomato-faced with rage. In a diatribe for the Davis Vanguard, Stone has taken aim at “the gun,’ which, in his mind, has primarily (and perhaps only) been a tool of oppression for hundreds of years.

To understand the American obsession with firearms, you have to strip away the nostalgia and look at the ledger. The gun was the specific technology required to seize a continent and build an economy. It was the instrument that turned “uninhabited” land into private property and human beings into chattel.

The Second Amendment was not drafted in a vacuum of philosophical abstraction. It was drafted to protect the state militias, whose primary function, explicitly cited in the text, was to execute the “Law of the Union” and suppress “Insurrections.” In the language of the time, that meant one thing: killing Native Americans to clear the land and terrorizing enslaved Africans to keep the labor force in check.

I could devote this entire post to debunking just this paragraph, but I’ll settle for the Cliff’s Notes version since there’s so much more stupidity to cover. Chattel slavery existed long before the musket ever came into existence, and the African slavers who were the source of the millions of souls trapped in bondage weren’t dependent on firearms.

The Second Amendment was drafted, in part, to ensure that militias, which were comprised of every able-bodied male from young adulthood to old age, would not be destroyed by an act of Congress, but it was also meant to ensure that the people’s right to keep and bear arms outside of those militia purposes would not be infringed. Stone is simply off his rocker when he claims that “insurrections” only meant targeting Native Americans and “terrorizing” slaves. Even if Stone had referred to putting down slave revolts (which did fall under “insurrections”), it’s just flat out false to say those were the only “insurrections” in the colonies where the militia was used to stop the disorder.

Continue reading “”

Demoncrap lawmakers seek data on US gun exports linked to cartels, criminal violence

WASHINGTON, March 30 (Reuters) – Two Democratic members of Congress are pressing the Commerce Department for detailed data on U.S. exports of semi-automatic weapons, citing concerns that ​legally exported American firearms are fueling criminal violence and arming cartels ‌across the Western Hemisphere.
Reuters reviewed the letter sent on Sunday by Senator Elizabeth Fauxcahontas Warren of Massachusetts and Representative Gregory Meeks of New York to Under Secretary of Commerce Jeffrey Kessler.
Warren and ​Meeks, the top Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee and House Foreign ​Affairs Committee, respectively, invoked their oversight authority under the Export Control ⁠Reform Act of 2018 to demand a sweeping accounting of semi-automatic firearm export ​licenses approved since January 2025.

Continue reading “”

Virginia Illustrates Insidious Anti-Gun Threat

I’ve joked before that Virginia’s politics swing back and forth like an unlatched screen door in a hurricane. From red to blue to red to blue, all so fast it makes your head spin.

But last year’s elections opened the door for a lot of troubling things in Virginia, up to and including their redistricting plan that seeks to essentially wipe out Republican representation from the state, and with it, support for gun rights. Sure, there’s one district, but only because there was no way to gerrymander the state badly enough to make it solid blue.

However, Virginia reveals an insidious threat because the state is too purple to suddenly swing this far left.

Progressive groups are behind a wave of tougher restrictions on firearms, wielding a quiet power that Second Amendment proponents worry could unravel gun rights in friendly territory.

Earlier this month, Virginia lawmakers sent a spate of gun bills tightening firearms restrictions to Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s (D-VA) desk. It’s a development fueled by Moms Demand Action, and one that one of the country’s most prominent pro-gun rights organizations fears foreshadows things to come in other purple states.

“Virginia is a purple state, and so having this sweeping, massive gun control package in the state that’s got a lot of gun owners, to see that happen and happen so rapidly should really be alarming to everybody in this country,” National Rifle Association’s Director of Public Affairs, Justin Davis, told the Washington Examiner.

“It’s really just a blueprint of what’s to come in this country. This is a trial balloon for the midterm elections,” he said. “They’re seeing what they can pass in a purple state? What is the backlash from that? And how do people react?”…

Davis said many such state races can be “so easily” flipped with small “injections“ of cash. Due to progressive activism, every state is “ripe for flipping at any time,” he said.

“To think that the stuff they’re pushing here is happening in Virginia should wake up every single purple state in the country, any place that is, it was in the realm of what a ‘moderate state’ is that there’s a very well-trained, very concerted effort to get progressives elected positions,” Davis said. “There are people who literally look at these races, race by race, and say, ‘How do we make sure that we can flip this for a broader scale, to flip this state to pass these same leftist laws?’”

Groups like Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety are specifically named for injecting a significant amount of cash into the race, and the truth of the matter is that these groups will run ads that feature policies other than gun control, usually pretty progressive ones.

So what happens is that for a few million dollars, they can push a candidate who might not appear all that bad in the grand scheme of things–remember, Spanberger tried to position herself as a moderate, and a lot of people listened–only to take office and start trying to run the table with things like gun control.

Virginia is a purple state, but the current agenda in Richmond looks like something you’d expect in California.

No, it doesn’t help that Virginia governors can only serve a single term at a time, thus meaning they never have to worry about re-election. That means they can trot out their agenda on day one, and other than the midterms, there’s nothing stopping them from going as far left or right as they’d like. In this case, it means trotting out the most ridiculous anti-gun agenda you’re ever going to see in any part of the South.

This is something we need to be on guard against and work to counter if we don’t want to see our rights destroyed at the state level.

GOA:
WV: Setting the Record Straight on SB 1071

In recent days, West Virginia Senate President Randy Smith released a public statement regarding SB 1071, the Public Defense and Provisioning Act. His comments have created confusion about the bill’s drafting, legality, and level of expert review.

It is essential that West Virginians have the full and accurate factual record. Many of the claims made about SB 1071 do not reflect the truth, and the following information provides a clear, fact-driven response based on verifiable legal authorities and documented expert analysis.

A Bill with Momentum — and an Unexpected Intervention

The fight for modern firearms equality began in early February. West Virginia made national history when it became the first state in America to introduce legislation authorizing the lawful sale of post-1986 machine guns under the federal carve-out in 18 U.S.C.922(o)(2)(A).

SB 1071 immediately ignited excitement among legislators, industry leaders, and grassroots supporters. Other states quickly took notice—several have already copied West Virginia’s language, and more are preparing to introduce their own versions.

A flash poll conducted by Gun Owners of America showed overwhelming enthusiasm among West Virginians, with 94 percent saying their out-of-state family and friends would be more likely to move to West Virginia if this bill became law. The momentum was real, and the nation was watching.

SB 1071 was introduced by Senator Chris Rose, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the committee advanced the bill with overwhelming support. But immediately after that vote, the bill seemed to vanish.

Chairman Tom Willis, who had reported the bill out of Judiciary, was himself confused about why it had not moved to the Finance Committee as expected. This unusual stall prompted West Virginians across the state to begin calling their Senators, demanding Sen. Chris Rose (left), sponsor of SB 1071, stands with Senate President Randy Smith.
answers about what had happened to a bill that had just passed committee with overwhelming support.

In response to the growing public concern, Senate President Randy Smith publicly stated that he personally made the decision to halt SB 1071, clarifying that the choice did not come from Chairman Willis or the Judiciary Committee. This admission dramatically shifted the understanding of events. What many initially believed to be procedural delay within Judiciary now appeared to be a direct intervention from Senate leadership.

Additionally, several advocates and legal experts have raised serious concerns that President Smith may have been relying on information provided by an outside individual who strongly opposed SB 1071 and may have misrepresented key legal facts about the bill.

According to these observers, this misinformation appears to have played a significant role in shaping the Senate President’s decision—ultimately stopping a bill that had strong public support, clear legislative interest, and validation from some of the most respected constitutional attorneys in the country.

This context is essential for understanding how SB 1071 was derailed and why an accurate factual record matters as West Virginians evaluate what happened and determine the path forward.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
Mexico’s attempt to sway U.S. courts with an opinion from IACHR runs into the problems that, unfortunately, have plagued Mexico. NSSF is sympathetic to the victims in Mexico who have suffered under the criminal violence wrought by narco-terrorist drug cartels. However, until Mexico addresses corruption and crime on their side of the border, this won’t be resolved.
The problem isn’t from U.S. firearm manufacturers or retailers

Mexico Tries to Use International Courts to Attack American Gun Makers and It Doesn’t Go Well.

Mexico’s hope to appropriate a human rights court to bolster its chances in frivolous lawsuits against U.S. firearm manufacturers and retailers is disappearing like a vapor in breeze.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights published an advisory opinion at the request of Mexico’s government. NSSF filed an amicus brief with the IACHR arguing that Mexico was attempting to improperly influence sovereign U.S. courts by co-opting an international human rights court that has no jurisdiction on pending decisions. Predictably, the IACHR leaned into the opinion anyway.

But if this was the boost for which Mexico was searching in its pending lawsuits, authorities there will be disappointed. They got platform shoes, not a platform with which they can walk in when they press their claims.

There are a couple reasons for that. First, U.S. courts are sovereign. Courts in the United States answer to the U.S. Constitution, from which all U.S. law stems. Second, the U.S. Supreme Court already dismissed one of their flagship and erroneous claims that U.S. firearm manufacturers are somehow responsible for the criminal violence and harms caused by narco-terrorists in Mexico. Lastly, there are growing and continuing reports of widespread corruption and arms smuggling within Mexico.

What the IACHR Said

The IACHR wrote in its opinion that companies have an obligation to supervise distribution of firearms to avoid “human rights violations,” but it didn’t name specific companies. In fact, it didn’t list U.S. firearm manufacturers at all. The IACHR also held that governments must guarantee effective judicial remedies for violations of human rights but, despite Mexico’s demand that the IACHR reject laws like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the IACHR did not even criticize, much less reject, these sensible procedural protections for the firearms industry.

The most egregious portion of the opinion noted that the IACHR takes pains to observe that human rights obligations are “transnational.” That means that companies in one country should be responsible for human rights violations that occur further down the chain. That can’t be interpreted as anything other than a swipe at U.S. companies.  However, here again, no companies are named.

The IACHR’s opinion will obviously have no bearing on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. In that case the Court held that the PLCAA bars Mexico’s claims that firearm manufacturers “aided and abetted” illegal firearms trafficking to narco-terrorist drug cartels in Mexico. NSSF filed an amicus brief supporting U.S. firearm manufacturers in that case. The Supreme Court rejected Mexico’s theory of liability in a 9-0 decision written by Justice Elena Kagan. It explained that the lawsuit is barred by the PLCAA because “Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers.”

Continue reading “”

Virginia’s Democrat Senate Majority Leader on Why Their ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban and Magazine Capcity Limit Really Isn’t a Big Deal

If you have an assault rifle, you can keep it. If you have an assault pistol, if you have one of these pistols with a silencer on it and a pistol grip in the front. A really big, big pistol…you want to have one with a telescope on it or lasers or whatever else you want, that’s okay. You just can’t buy a new one and you can’t sell it to anybody. If you want to have a magazine with more than 15 bullets, you can keep that, too. You just can’t buy a new one.

— Virginia Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell