Category: Enemies Domestic

NY Judge: The Second Amendment Doesn’t Exist Here

There’s been a case in New York that I should have been following more closely. Dexter Taylor was a hobby gunsmith. He liked the nature of putting together guns from lawfully purchased parts.

However, the state of New York disapproved of this pastime. They arrested Taylor and, on Monday, he was convicted.

My friend Jeff Charles over at our sister site RedState has been covering this case pretty much from the jump, and in his story from Monday about the sentencing, there was something we had to talk about.

You see, the judge in the case has decided that a certain right of interest to Bearing Arms readers doesn’t actually exist in her state.

From the beginning of Taylor’s trial, it was evident that the court would be biased against the defendant, according to [Taylor’s attorney, Vinoo] Varghese, who explained that two judges presided over his case before the current official, Judge Abena Darkeh, took over.

The judge disrupted Varghese’s opening statement multiple times as he tried to set the stage for Taylor’s defense. Even further, she admonished the defense to refrain from mentioning the Second Amendment during the trial. Varghese told RedState:

She told us, ‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.’

Varghese said he had filed the appropriate paperwork to “preserve these arguments for appeal” but that the judge “rejected these arguments, and she went out of her way to limit me.”

The Second Amendment doesn’t exist there? Excuse the hell out of me?

“This is New York?”

This just smacks of “the Aloha spirit” nonsense where some parties seem to think that the Constitution doesn’t actually apply because they really, really don’t like it.

Is the judge in this case, Judge Abena Darkeh, suggesting that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply anywhere she doesn’t approve? What other rights don’t exist in New York under Judge Darkeh’s paradigm? Do defendants not have the right to representation? Is free speech non-existent?

Oh, one might make the case that I’m being ridiculous, but I don’t think I am. Not based on Darkeh’s other actions.

Varghese also tries to take a jury nullification approach. Jury nullification basically means you convince the jury that while a crime might have occurred, the law in question is the real problem. It’s rare, but it’s still a thing. Judges aren’t supposed to encourage it, but they’re not supposed to stop it.

Yet Judge Darkeh did just that. She reportedly warned jurors in such a way as to suggest they could face consequences if they didn’t vote to convict.

So, basically, it feels like Taylor got railroaded and that Darkeh doesn’t actually think people have rights unless she, personally, approves of them.

Yet that’s not how rights work. They exist even if they’re inconvenient. They exist even if you don’t approve of how they’re used.

Varghese says he tried to preserve Darkeh’s comments for appeal and was stymied. However, her comments should still be on the record somewhere. If not, her attitude should be clear from the transcripts.

But either way, Darkeh makes it clear that at least some jurists in New York really don’t think the Second Amendment applies in either their courtroom or the state as a whole.

It’s time they’re disabused of that notion by higher courts.

Police Website Reveals CDC Suppressing Defensive Gun Use Data

According to a report from Law Enforcement Today, recent revelations have exposed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for allegedly suppressing data on defensive gun use (DGU). This action has ignited debates over the transparency and potential politicization of the agency’s research on gun policy and public health.

The CDC, which studies various factors contributing to injury and mortality including firearm incidents, has been criticized for omitting defensive gun use statistics from its public communications. Despite commissioning a study from The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, which recognized DGUs as a “common occurrence,” the CDC chose to exclude these statistics following pressure from gun-control advocates.

Documents obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests revealed that individuals such as Mark Bryant of the Gun Violence Archive, Devin Hughes of GVPedia, and Po Murray engaged with top CDC officials. They were introduced by the White House and Senator Dick Durbin’s office and pressed the CDC to downplay DGU frequencies, which range from estimates of 60,000 to 2.5 million annually in the U.S.

Mark Bryant was particularly outspoken, vehemently opposing the highest estimates of DGU. He was quoted in correspondence saying, “that statistic needs to be killed, buried, dug up, killed again and buried again. It is highly misleading, used out of context, and holds zero value even as an outlier in honest discussions surrounding DGUs.”

Despite initial reluctance, the CDC ultimately removed references to DGUs from its publications, a move that has been perceived as aligning the agency more with gun-control advocacy groups than with unbiased scientific inquiry. This has raised concerns about the CDC’s commitment to providing comprehensive and unbiased data.

Gary Kleck, professor emeritus at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice and a long-time researcher of DGUs, criticized the CDC’s actions, suggesting they indicate the agency is a tool of gun-control advocates rather than a neutral body. Kleck, whose research supports at least 760,000 DGUs annually, emphasized the importance of rigorous methodology and empirical evidence in academic research.

This situation highlights the ongoing tension between scientific research and political influence, particularly in the contentious arena of gun policy. Critics argue that the CDC’s actions compromise its credibility as an evidence-based institution and call for greater transparency and accountability in its research practices.

“CDC is just aligning itself with the gun-control advocacy groups. It’s just saying: ‘we are their tool, and we will do their bidding.’ And that’s not what a government agency should do,” Kleck told Eddie Killian, the author of the Law Enforcement Today article.

Left-Wing Dark Money Behemoth Behind Bail Fund for ‘Free Palestine’ Bridge Blockers
Community Justice Exchange, part of the Soros-funded Tides Center, solicits legal defense donations for arrested protesters

Scores of “Free Palestine” protesters across the United States took to the streets Monday to block major airports, highways, and bridges. Those who are arrested will receive bail money and legal support from a left-wing dark money behemoth funded by George Soros, an online fundraising page shows.

The protests, which took place in dozens of U.S. cities including San Francisco, Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia, were organized by A15 Action, a newly formed group that worked to “coordinate a multi-city economic blockade on April 15 in solidarity with Palestine.” The group’s website directs users to a “bail and legal defense fund” hosted through ActBlue, the Democratic Party’s online fundraising juggernaut.

Those who donate to the fund, the ActBlue page says, are sending money to the Community Justice Exchange, which provides “money bail, court fees and fines” and other legal services to “community-based organizations … that contest the current operation and function of the criminal legal and immigration detention systems.” The exchange is a project of the Tides Center, a left-wing dark money network funded by Soros and other liberal billionaires.

The protesters, who organized the global event under the title A15, targeted economic “choke points” with the express purpose of causing as much financial disruption as possible, according to their website.

Continue reading “”

Joe Biden Is a Sniveling, Unabashed Coward

Joe Biden is a coward in every sense of the word. Cowardice emanates from him like rotting garbage. Cowardice overflows his speeches like a drain backing up from a clogged sewer line. Cowardice infects everything he touches. The well from which he extracts his cowardice is truly bottomless. To witness it, in its shameless, reeking putrescence, is utterly cringeworthy.

There is nothing beneath the man. There is nothing he won’t say or do to retain power. This is true of many politicians, but most understand in some Machiavellian sense that at least some show of strength, however artificial, is required from time to time. Even Barack Obama had a moral compass that, on rare occasions, would spring to life just long enough to effect confident, decisive decisions like killing Osama bin Laden (you should recall that everyone in the room except Biden supported the move, a point of shame about which he brags).

Over the years, Biden’s media quislings have laughably associated many virtuous adjectives with him in efforts to fortify his reputation. Decent. Moderate. Accomplished. Steady. Lucid. It is telling that nobody, not even the most ludicrous of leftist outlets, has ever called him brave.

That’s with good reason. And anybody still quietly harboring that delusion before this past weekend just got the red pill they needed. His betrayal of Israel should cement for any fence-sitters what the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians already knew full well: that Biden has all the spine of a common garden worm.

To recap, Iran fired roughly three hundred weapons at Israel, the first time that Iran has attacked Israel directly rather than through its regional proxies. At this, I must make two observations before moving on. First, the “drone” attack on Israel included 100 ballistic missiles. Second, the Iranian strikes against Israel weren’t “retaliatory.” They were part of a half-century Iranian policy of exterminating the Jewish nation of Israel. The Hamas attack of October 7 was this policy in action. By definition, any strike by Israel against Iran is retaliatory, not vice versa.

Back to the point. Less than a day after the unprecedented attack, Biden allegedly told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “that we have to think carefully and strategically” about the risks of escalation. An Islamic terrorist regime just fired 300 drones and missiles at an allied democracy to achieve its stated goal of finishing the job that Hitler started. But we wouldn’t want to risk escalation, would we?

Continue reading “”

‘You got a win. Take the win’: Joe Biden tells Netanyahu

Joe Biden reportedly warned Benjamin Netanyahu that the US will not participate in any Israeli counter-attacks against Iran.

The US president and his senior advisers are highly concerned that an Israeli response to Iran’s attack would lead to a regional war with catastrophic consequences, US officials told Axios.

On Saturday evening, Iran launched its first-ever direct attack on Israel, involving more than 300 drones and missiles. The attack came in retaliation to an airstrike in Syria on April 1 that killed seven of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – Israel has neither confirmed nor denied responsibility.

Mr Biden said the US and Israel had shot down “nearly all” of the drones and missiles launched by Tehran overnight, aided also by Britain, France and Jordan. Israel said 99 per cent were intercepted without hitting their targets and that “very little damage” had been caused.

American forces intercepted 70 drones and at least three ballistic missiles, according to CNN, while Mr Biden also said that US support for Israel was “ironclad”.

“You got a win. Take the win,” Mr Biden reportedly told Mr Netanyahu, adding that the US will not participate in any offensive operations. Mr Netanyahu reportedly said that he understands the US’s position.

Iran has said the attacks “achieved all its objectives” and that it is not planning any further operations. It warned Israel against taking any “reckless” actions, and said it would not hesitate to retaliate with a “much stronger response”.

However, Israel has said the “campaign is not over yet”.

Lloyd Austin, the US secretary of defence, has asked that Israel notify the US ahead of any response against Iran.

World leaders have condemned Iran’s attack, with regional powers Saudi Arabia and Egypt calling for restraint. Leaders from the G7 will hold a video conference later on Sunday to discuss the Iranian strikes and coordinate a united diplomatic response.

Joe Biden Approved Iran’s Assault on Israel ‘Within Certain Limits’.

On Saturday, Iran initiated a barrage of drones and ballistic missiles at Israel. Thankfully, most of them were successfully intercepted and caused minimal damage. Of course, in a stunning move, President Biden is pushing Israel not to retaliate. It’s hard to imagine why Biden would do that, except when you consider that Joe Biden has been appeasing Iran since his days as Barack Obama’s vice president.

With that in mind, it’s also not surprising—though it’s still shocking— that Joe Biden not only had prior knowledge of Iran’s assault on Israel but also technically gave it the green light under certain conditions, according to a report from the Jerusalem Post.

Iran informed Turkey in advance of its planned operation against Israel, a Turkish diplomatic source told Reuters on Sunday, adding that Washington had conveyed to Tehran via Ankara that any action it took had to be “within certain limits.”

Turkey, which has denounced Israel for its campaign on Gaza, said earlier on Sunday that it did not want a further escalation of tensions in the region.

The Turkish source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan had spoken to both his US  Iranian counterparts in the past week to discuss the planned Iranian operation, adding Ankara had been made aware of possible developments.

Earlier this week, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke to Fidan to make clear that escalation in the Middle East was not in anyone’s interest.

“Iran informed us in advance of what would happen. Possible developments also came up during the meeting with Blinken, and they (the US) conveyed to Iran through us that this reaction must be within certain limits,” the source said.

I’ve said before that, despite his public support for Israel, Biden has not been a friend to the Jewish state. And this report proves that. Joe Biden publicly told Iran not to attack Israel. When it was clear they didn’t give a hoot what he said, the Biden administration basically said it was fine to attack Israel as long as the attack was “within certain limits.”

And then Joe went on vacation.

Related: Trump Warned We Were on the Brink of WWIII Under Joe Biden, and He’s Been Proven Right

Considering the size and intensity of the attack, it’s reasonable to question whether Iran heeded that warning, but I would say it’s obvious Iran’s leaders did not.

So, let’s recap the facts here: Joe Biden told Iran’s leaders not to attack Israel, but they ignored him. Then he said they could attack Israel with some restrictions, though they clearly ignored that as well. Now, Biden is telling Israel not to retaliate.

In short, Biden is still appeasing Iran.

Why is Joe Biden still kowtowing to Iran and throwing Israel under the bus? I can’t answer that, but I know that Israel can’t listen to Biden because doing so threatens its existence.

Will the mainstream media report on this interesting development? Not likely. Make no mistake about it: The media will always cover for Joe Biden. They will spin this conflict as Joe Biden displaying leadership and resolve on the world stage. They’ll prop Biden up as a strong and confident leader, hoping it will become true if they repeat the lie often enough, while we’re supposed to pretend that we’re not on the precipice of World War III.

THE DEEP MEANING OF “DON’T:”

Would that President Biden had not warned the Iranian regime not to attack Israel with his pitiful “don’t” yesterday. In Bidenspeak, “don’t” is an invitation. It something like the shout-out for contestants to “come on down” on The Price Is Right.

 

Q.E.D.

 

Observation O’ The Day
America has a problem, we now have several areas in America that the moslem population has risen to they level where they feel comfortable attacking us, our way of life, and they will become increasingly belligerent. It will require a massive effort to rein them in.

 

FBI Busts an ISIS Operative Planning a Major Attack

The FBI has arrested an 18-year-old Idaho man and recent convert to Islam for planning attacks against multiple churches on behalf of the Islamic State.

“Alexander Scott Mercurio, 18, of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, was arrested Saturday, April 6, 2024, in Coeur d’Alene for attempting to provide material support and resources to ISIS,” the Department of Justice released late Monday night. “According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, Mercurio pledged his allegiance to ISIS and intended to commit attacks on its behalf. He planned to attack individuals at churches in Coeur d’Alene on April 7 using weapons, including knives, firearms, and fire.”

FBI Director Christopher Wray is calling the plans “truly horrific.”

“The defendant allegedly pledged loyalty to ISIS and sought to attack people attending churches in Idaho, a truly horrific plan which was detected and thwarted by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force,” Wray said. “This investigation demonstrates the FBI’s steadfast commitment to work with our law enforcement partners to stop those who wish to commit acts of violence on behalf of – or inspired by – foreign terrorist groups.”

From the complaint:

This case began when MERCURIO reached out to confidential human sources online and indicated his support for ISIS and terrorist organizations, more generally. The FBI was able to work with a confidential human source (CHS) who met with MERCURIO in person. MERCURIO proceeded to express support for terrorist organizations, specifically ISIS, online and in-person. MERCURIO spread ISIS propaganda online and solicited ISIS’s involvement in and approval of his propaganda efforts, discussed travelling from the United States to join ISIS, considered and planned ways to support ISIS financially, and most recently, set forth on a plan to assault his father with a metal pipe, acquire his father’s firearms, and attack a local church. At the beginning of 2024, his conduct escalated to MERCURIO planning to carry out a suicide attack on a church(es) in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. His attack plan involved using flame-covered weapons, explosives, knives, a machete, a pipe, and ultimately firearms. His plan grew more precise as he eventually identified the specific church and date on which he planned to attack.

MERCURIO planned to attack the church on April 7, 2024, a date intentionally selected by him so his attack would occur before the end of Ramadan. As the date drew near, MERCURIO devised a plan to incapacitate his father, restrain him using handcuffs, and steal his firearms to use for maximum casualties in his attack.

MERCURIO purchased items consistent with his planned attack; this included butane canisters and a metal pipe. In planning the attack, MERCURIO made a ba’yah statement, pledging his allegiance to ISIS and stating his intention to die while killing others on behalf of ISIS. MERCURIO transmitted that statement on April 6, 2024, consistent with a prior representation where he claimed he would transmit the statement a day or so prior to the attack. He planned the attack for April 7, 2024. Law enforcement thwarted MERCURIO’s plans before, according to MERCURIO’s timeline, he could harm his father and acquire firearms. Law enforcement executed a search warrant on his house and upon his person. At MERCURIO’s house, law enforcement found items consistent with his planned attack (butane canisters, lighters, a pair of handcuffs, a knife, a pipe, and a machete).

Law enforcement also found several firearms in MERCURIO’s father’s possession, stored as MERCURIO represented in his plans. Also, law enforcement found an ISIS flag in MERCURIO’s bedroom.

Anti-gun group plagiarizes photos of top female shooters to gaslight the public
Victims never gave permission for use of their photos or personal information.

This is the busiest time of year for professional shooter, wife, mother and Army veteran, Julie Golob. She is hosting classes and training hard for the upcoming competition season, which begins later this month. She did not have much time to devote to a controversy that surfaced last week, when her image and personal information were misappropriated for a social media post by the anti-gun group, 97Percent, as part of its campaign to gaslight the public into falsely believing it is a moderate pro-gun group.

“I did not endorse their message. I gave no permission for the photo. It is unfair to use my image and likeness to give the perception that I support what they are all about. I certainly don’t,” Golob told the Second Amendment Foundation last week. “And the fact it was used for Women’s History Month is insulting.”

A special report published by the Second Amendment Foundation last week revealed how 97Percent uses slick marketing and an aggressive social media campaign to falsely portray itself as a pro-gun organization comprised of gun owners and non-gun owners, while in reality it is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill anti-gun group, not unlike Everytown, Giffords or Brady.

Last Wednesday, ostensibly as part of Women’s History Month, 97Percent posted tweets featuring images and personal information of nine female shooters and/or leaders within the Second Amendment community — six living and three deceased. They included Golob, Rhonda Ezell, Robin Sandoval, Lena Miculek, Kim Rhode and Carrie Lightfoot, as well as Lucille Ball, Mary Edwards Walker and Annie Oakley.

Last Thursday, after Golob responded to the post on Twitter/X and made it clear that she did not give permission to use her likeness or personal information, the group quickly deleted all of its Women’s History Month posts.

97Percent’s executive director, Olivia Troye, said during a recent appearance on ABC’s The View, that her group’s mission is “to bring gun owners into the conversation and to bring them to the table, in order to work on reducing gun deaths happening across the country, while including them in the solutions.”

However, the recent investigation by the Second Amendment Foundation revealed that 97Percent supports bans on “assault weapons,” standard-capacity magazines and bump stocks, and has called for permits to carry, purchase and even possess firearms. It supports mandatory background checks and mandatory storage laws and claims the Second Amendment is “overprotected.”

Troye declined to be interviewed for the previous story, and she did not return emails seeking an explanation for her group’s misuse of the women’s photos and personal information.

Screenshot of now-deleted tweet, which featured Chicago-based Second Amendment advocate, Rhonda Ezell. (Screenshot used for this story with Ms. Ezell’s permission.)

Chicago Guns Matter founder Rhonda Ezell pointed out that 97Percent lifted her image right off of her website, without her knowledge or permission.

“When I first saw it, I was shocked,” she told the Second Amendment Foundation. “Why would an anti-gun group post a picture of me? They never asked to use the photo. This doesn’t make sense. At best, this is theft of intellectual property.”

Ezell has since contacted an attorney.

“I didn’t know of 97Percent. I never interacted with them. They are working against our cause,” she said. “I pick my battles, but I did feel it was rude. The picture they took is from a professional photo shoot.”

Both Ezell and Golob are frustrated by 97Percent’s plagiarism and use of false light.

“Lawful gun owners have to be wary of organizations that make certain claims,” Golob said. “We have to be vigilant and speak up, because when something is done wrong to you, the burden of proof and all of the effort is on you.”

“This pesky Constitution keeps us from doing whatever we want…..”

Breyer says Supreme Court risks creating ‘Constitution that no one wants’

Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said the Supreme Court risks creating a “Constitution that no one wants” if it follows its current way of interpreting law.

In an interview with Politico Magazine published Tuesday, Breyer discussed his view of originalism, a legal theory based on the idea that law should be interpreted according to the writers’ original intent, which is popular among the conservative majority on the court.

Breyer said in the interview that he used to argue with the late fellow Justice Antonin Scalia, a noted originalist, about originalism and told him if the theory is used to interpret the Constitution, “or the statutes, we will have a Constitution that no one wants.”

“Because the world does change, not necessarily so much in terms of values, but certainly in terms of the facts to which those values are applied,” Breyer continued.

Breyer argued in the Politico Magazine interview that originalism discounts “lots of changes designed to further the value of protecting basic civil rights, because the world has changed.”

On Sunday, Breyer also said that he would support age limits for Supreme Court justices and that an age limit would have helped him make his own decision to retire in 2022.

“I don’t think that’s harmful,” Breyer said, talking about age-limited terms on the high court in an NBC “Meet the Press” interview with Kristen Welker on Sunday. “If you had long terms, for example, they’d have to be long. Why long? Because I don’t think you want someone who’s appointed to the Supreme Court to be thinking about his next job.”

“And so, a 20-year term? I don’t know, 18? Long term? Fine. Fine,” he said. “I don’t think that would be harmful. I think it would have helped, in my case. It would have avoided, for me, going through difficult decisions when you retire. What’s the right time? And so, that would be okay.”

Retired Supreme Court Justice Believes American’s Rights Are Subject to Changing Trends

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer wants America to know that today’s high court isn’t pragmatic. For good measure, he declares that he is, especially when it comes to interpretating law.

That’s not just conjecture. That’s laid out in the title to his new 250-page book, “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism.” It’s a gaslighting of the U.S. Constitution, an attempt to sway opinion that rights protected by the founding document aren’t applicable today, since society and technology have changed since 1791. Justice Breyer argues that the words written don’t mean what the Founders meant because reading them over 200 years later changes the meaning.

The liberal justice retired under pressure from Democrats to ensure President Joe Biden would appoint at least one younger liberal justice to the Supreme Court. In 2022, Justice Breyer was succeeded by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a former Breyer clerk.

Continue reading “”

Most Prog/Leftists are actually so stupid, they think we’re so stupid, we’ll accept their BS as fresh cattle feed.

RETIRED JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER GASLIGHTS BRUEN DECISION

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer wants America to know that today’s high court isn’t pragmatic. For good measure, he declares that he is, especially when it comes to interpretating law.

That’s not just conjecture. That’s laid out in the title to his new 250-page book, “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism.” It’s a gaslighting of the U.S. Constitution, an attempt to sway opinion that rights protected by the founding document aren’t applicable today, since society and technology have changed since 1791. Justice Breyer argues that the words written don’t mean what the Founders meant because reading them over 200 years later changes the meaning.

The liberal justice retired under pressure from Democrats to ensure President Joe Biden would appoint at least one younger liberal justice to the Supreme Court. In 2022, Justice Breyer was succeeded by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a former Breyer clerk.

Dueling Jurisprudence

The Washington Post offered a glowing review of Justice Breyer’s book, which rejects the legal doctrines of originalism and textualism that have been the favored approaches by several sitting Supreme Court justices, including Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. That was also the legal philosophy of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Originalism is the theory that constitutional text should be given the original public meaning at the time in which a law was enacted. Textualism is the legal interpretation that focuses on the plain meaning of a text of laws, emphasizing how the Constitution was understood at the time of ratification in 1788 and the subsequent Bill of Rights’ ratification in 1791.

That contrasts sharply with Justice Breyer’s constitutional pragmatist approach, which instead of focusing on what lawmakers meant with the words they chose to include in the Constitution and laws, considers what is the likely consequence of interpretations. Justice Breyer believes in a “living Constitution” or one that isn’t anchored by words lawmakers chose. Rather those meanings are reapplied by modern interpretations of those meanings. This judicial philosophy is an excuse to allow judges to act like kings (or queens) make law instead of interpreting and apply the law as enacted by the “people’s” elected representatives or the Founding Fathers.

Continue reading “”