Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

Still No TRACE of the Truth

In our first installment of a critical analysis of an anti-gun propaganda podcast series from The Trace, we covered the lies, misinformation, and deceptive emotional arguments made in the first four episodes. Here, we will delve into the fifth episode, which continues the previous format, but adds embarrassing incidents where The Trace contradicts itself in an attempt to push its anti-gun messaging.

The intro to the transcript of the 5th installment of the podcast, which is titled “How a SCOTUS Decision Led to an Unprecedented Gun Sales Boom,” kicks off with the completely discredited claim popular among the anti-2A crowd;

“For most of American history, gun ownership was understood to be a collective right tied to militia membership. But that changed in 2008, when The U.S. Supreme Court established for the first time that gun ownership is an individual right.”

In fact, American history—judicial and otherwise—is replete with proof that our Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to arms that is in no way dependent on citizens being affiliated with a militia.

While there have not been many rulings on the Second Amendment from our highest court since the Founding Era, in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894) and U.S. v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court recognized that the amendment protects an individual right. It has never taken a different position.

Of course, it comes as no surprise that anti-gun fanatics would ignore history and court precedent to further their desire to disarm as many law-abiding Americans as possible. But the rewriting of history is something we’ve begun to see as a weirdly-common trope with those who oppose the Second Amendment.

The Trace, seemingly fixated on the Heller decision and the year 2008, implies the ruling led to that “unprecedented gun sales boom” mentioned in the title of its fifth episode of the propaganda podcast series. One of the “journalists” is so vested in this new “gun sales boom” connection to Heller that she forgets that last year she seemed to attribute the 2008 “boom” in the manufacture and importation of firearms in the U.S. to the election of Barrack Obama. In that earlier piece, she went with the term “surge” instead of “boom,” and attributed another “surge” between 2011 and 2012 to Obama’s reelection, then attributed another “surge” from 2015 to 2016 to the election of Donald Trump, and finally noted the “biggest year-over-year jump on record” was between 2019 and 2020. That “surge” she attributes to the pandemic.

Continue reading “”

misconstrue:
verb
To interpret erroneously…

erroneously:
adverb
In a way that is wrong or false…

Nothing out of the ordinary for demoncraps

Critics Fundamentally Misconstrue the Supreme Court’s Bump Stock Ruling

After the Supreme Court overturned the Trump administration’s bump stock ban last week, critics complained that the justices had interpreted the Second Amendment in a way that rules out perfectly reasonable gun regulations.

That was an odd complaint, because the case did not involve the Second Amendment.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) saw last week’s decision as a sign that the Supreme Court plans to “fundamentally rewrite the Second Amendment,” which will “make it very hard for Congress or state legislatures to be able to regulate guns.” MSNBC commentator Joyce Vance had a similar objection: “Does the history & tradition of our country really suggest the Founding Fathers meant for the 2nd Amendment to arm Americans with guns that fire 400 to 800 rounds per minute?”

Although Murphy is a lawyer and Vance is a law professor, they completely misconstrued what this case was about. The Supreme Court ruled that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives exceeded its statutory authority when it tried to ban bump stocks.

The products the ATF targeted are designed to assist bump firing, which involves pushing a rifle forward to activate the trigger by bumping it against a stationary finger, then allowing recoil energy to push the rifle backward, resetting the trigger. As long as the shooter maintains the requisite amount of forward pressure and keeps their finger in place, the rifle will fire repeatedly.

The “interpretive rule” at issue in this case, which was published in Dec. 2018 and took effect three months later, banned stock replacements that facilitate this rapid-firing technique by allowing the rifle’s receiver to slide back and forth. The ATF did that by classifying rifles equipped with bump stocks as machine guns, which contradicted the statutory definition and the agency’s long-standing interpretation of it.

Continue reading “”

Biden Importing Venezuelan Gangs Into U.S.

President Joe Biden’s border crisis has criminals pouring into the United States, infiltrating themselves into communities across the nation that were once deemed a safe and family-friendly place to live.

However, thanks to Biden’s blatant ignorance and complete failure to secure the southern border, the U.S. has become a free-for-all, with over 17 million illegal immigrants entering the country since he took office nearly four years ago.

According to a report, the number of Venezuelan gang members illegally crossing the border unvetted by the Biden Department of Homeland Security is rising to an unprecedented amount. U.S. law enforcement and immigration officials launched more than 100 investigations into crimes related to Venezuelan gang members living in the country. The cases involve the Tren de Aragua gang, one of the deadliest gangs.

According to Customs and Border Protection data, roughly, 30,000 Venezuelans crossed the U.S. border last year and 800,000 have tried to enter the country since 2021. The amount of illegal Venezuelans who have successfully crossed the southern border went from 50,500 in fiscal year 2021 to 334,900 in fiscal year 2023.

The report states that the gang members enter the U.S. illegally with no identification and give a fake name, hometown, and age to authorities. The authorities then release the illegal immigrants into the country with nothing but an order to appear in court to hear their “asylum” claim— which could be years down the road.

The cases involve one of the deadliest gangs, the Tren de Aragua gang. The gang is known for forcing illegal Venezuelan immigrants into sex slavery to repay smugglers who helped them cross over the border and into the U.S. illegally without detection.

Last month, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) busted a sex trafficking scheme in Louisiana involving members from Tren de Aragua who reportedly forced Venezuelan women into sex trafficking to repay coyotes who smuggled them into the U.S.

Venezuelans were the majority of new arrivals who fled to Democratic cities such as Chicago, New York, and Denver.

In May, Border Patrol Chief Jason Owens confirmed the arrest of 10 illegal immigrants associated with the gang in Texas.

The FBI has warned that it is possible the gang could team up with the MS-13— a deadly gang that originated in Los Angeles.

 

We now know the likely truth about COVID, and how scientists lied.

COVID-19, which killed 1.1 million Americans and destroyed the lives and livelihoods of millions more, is a manmade virus that escaped from a Chinese lab partly funded by the US government.

Even today, you’re not supposed to say that — even though it’s the only plausible scenario.

No, “fact checkers” will rush in to claim that eminent scientists deny this. Which is because those scientists have too much invested — in money, in time, in their own beliefs — to admit the truth.

NIH Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak
NIH deputy director Lawrence Tabak admitted that US taxpayers funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China before the COVID-19 pandemic started.Jack Gruber / USA TODAY NETWORK

But as Congress continues to probe, that truth is coming out, little by little, and the lies are being exposed:

China tried to deflect blame immediately by saying the virus supposedly began in a “wet market” of animal meat in Wuhan.

Dr. Anthony Fauci repeatedly argued it “evolved in nature and then jumped species” in the spring of 2020.

Since then, both long investigations and government reports have concluded that the virus is manmade. Fauci grudgingly admitted it “could be” true.

Continue reading “”

I suggest he provide the example

Climate Professor Thinks We Should ‘Cull’ the Human Population to Reach Emissions Targets

Professor Bill McGuire is a well-known vulcanologist and climate scientist who doesn’t care much for humanity. He tweeted out a scathingly brilliant idea if you’re in the mortuary business or work as a grave digger.

“If I am brutally honest, the only realistic way I see emissions falling as fast as they need to, to avoid catastrophic #climate breakdown, is the culling of the human population by a pandemic with a very high fatality rate.” https://t.co/hzga69EhV3
— Bill McGuire (@ProfBillMcGuire) May 11, 2024

Ooopsie. McGuire deleted the tweet a few hours later but had no regrets. The trouble is, we just don’t understand how brilliant he is.

Really? Many would beg to differ.

Even his peers were aghast at his suggestion.

“Eco-fascism,” indeed.

Continue reading “”

Joe Biden’s Weapons ‘Pause’ Will Get More Israeli Soldiers, Civilians Killed

President Joe Biden’s reckless halt of weapons to Israel will result in countless Israeli soldiers being killed in buildings that would otherwise have been destroyed.

According to a military source, Israeli soldiers will have to take cover in buildings as Hamas continues its attack in Rafah as the Biden Administration revealed it withheld 2,000-lb. and 500-lb. bombs. 

D.C. bureaucrats have urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to refrain from invading Rafah without defense for its civilians. The PM has long insisted that ground invasion into the region is necessary in order to remove Hamas from power. Biden’s halt of a weapons shipment to the Jewish state made that near impossible. 

During a CNN interview this week, Biden warned that the U.S. would stop supplying weapons to Israel if the IDF attacks Rafah.

The source claimed that everything in Rafah is rigged to blow up, including all of the buildings. He also warned that Hamas has been preparing for Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to enter the region. 

“We are being engaged in numerous buildings, and tunnels rigged in a manner we have not yet encountered,” the source said. 

Hamas had plenty of time to prepare after Biden’s opposition forced Israel to delay an operation in Rafah for three months. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) practice in Gaza has often been to identify buildings where Hamas has hidden, warn residents to leave, and then bomb the buildings.

Dozens of soldiers died earlier in the war in booby-trapped buildings. The IDF is prepared for a slow, methodical campaign in Rafah. But that also means Israel will have to accept a higher number of military casualties than it otherwise would have. Via Breitbart News. 

In a soon-to-be-released report from the Biden Administration, it does not indicate that Israel violated terms for its use of U.S. weapons. According to two U.S. officials and a third person briefed on the situation, the report is expected to be critical of Israel. 

Congressional aides claim the delay in bomb shipment’s value as “tens of millions” of U.S. dollars.

In addition to Republicans demanding answers from the Biden Administration on its efforts to withhold weapons from Israel, 26 Democrats sent a letter to U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan expressing concerns over the situation. 

In a rare unison, Republicans and several Democrats believe the U.S. should not abandon its top ally. 

“With democracy under assault around the world, we cannot undermine our ally Israel, especially in her greatest hour of need. America’s commitments must always be ironclad,” the letter read. 

Representative Massie finally posts his correcting the domestic enemy Nadler, who should one day be prosecuted under 18 US Code § 241.

Breyer’s ‘Pragmatic’ Approach to Destroying the Second Amendment

Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer may no longer be in a position to decide cases that come before the Court, but he’s still trying to shape the judiciary in a way that would allow for judges to uphold virtually every gun control law the anti’s could dream up.

Breyer’s new book Reading the Constitution; Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism outlines his approach to interpreting the Constitution. I’m actually surprised he managed to fill several hundred pages with material, given that his view is basically that judges should have the power to ignore what the text of the Constitution has to say if they don’t like it.

Breyer highlights the need for considering the broader context in which laws are passed and the “practical consequences” of different interpretations. He refers to the majority judgment in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), in which he dissented. The Court held, 6–3, that New York’s law requiring a citizen to have a license to carry a gun outside his home violated the right to carry arms under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Breyer expresses his disagreement with the ruling by emphasizing his preference to prioritize the practical implications. Considering the alarming patterns of gun violence in the US, Breyer believes the Court should have limited the access to firearms.

Does Breyer not know his history, or is he just choosing to ignore it? The Second Amendment was ratified shortly after a civil war that not only brought the United States its independence but led to small-scale reprisals between patriots and loyalists throughout the course of the war. As the Bill of Rights was being drafted and debated, the memory of Shay’s Rebellion was fresh in the mind of the Framers, while the Whiskey Rebellion broke out along the western frontier the same year the Second Amendment was ratified. The Founders knew all about “gun violence”. They just didn’t believe that disarming the American people was the answer.

Breyer’s criticism of textualism is based on his adherence to pragmatism. He contends that judges should endeavour to interpret the Constitution in a manner that is pragmatic and adaptable to the requirements of modern society. According to him, this approach is better aligned with the intentions of the Constitution’s framers, who intended for the constitution to be “workable” and responsive to evolving circumstances.

The Constitution is responsive to “evolving circumstances”, but the proper way to do that is through an amendment, not a panel of nine justices deciding that is language can be discarded because they think it’s right thing to do in our modern age.

Breyer’s not the first to adopt a “pragmatic” approach to the Constitution, of course. I’d argue that Roger Taney’s decision in Dred Scott is actually a pretty good example of the pragmatic philosophy that Breyer espouses. Taney twisted the Constitution’s text beyond recognition in order to reach his conclusion that black Americans could never be entitled to citizenship and that Congress had no power to regulate slavery in the territories. He did so in the belief that the practical implications of his ruling would make the country a more peaceful place by removing the issue of slavery and abolition (which Taney considered an act of “Northern aggression” from the national debate.

Pragmatism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. In Bruen, Breyer (joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan) argued that the majority opinion “refuses to consider the government interests that justify a challenged gun regulation, regardless of how compelling those interests may be,” adding “the Constitution contains no such limitation, and neither do our precedents.”

The text of the Second Amendment doesn’t include a clause after “shall not be infringed” that says “unless the government thinks there’s a good reason to do so”. The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to restrain the government from violating our individual rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment applies those protections to abuses from state and local governments as well. The only pragmatic way to change that while remaining faithful to the Constitution is to pass another amendment negating the right to keep and bear arms. That option has been available to the gun control lobby for decades, but as we’ve seen with Gavin Newsom’s proposed constitutional amendment, it’s not feasible because the support simply isn’t there.

Since repealing the right to keep and bear arms is off the table, Breyer (and others) are left to insist that the Constitution is essentially whatever they want it to be. That judicial arrogance is at the heart of some of the worst legal decisions in this country, including Dred Scott, but thankfully was consigned to the minority in Bruen. If Democrats are able to reshape the court in their image after the November elections, however, that “pragmatic” approach could very well become the majority view on the Court. Our right to keep and bear arms could disappear as quickly as Dred Scott’s right to live free did in 1857; not because the Constitution demands that result, but because the “pragmatic” enemies of individual liberty do.