Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

U.S. Senate Quietly Adds Permanent Gun Control Law Into 2024 NDAA Authorization

Republicans and Democrats are reportedly working together to end the sunset provision on a law gun rights orgs call ‘a backdoor gun ban’

As Congress begins consideration of the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Senate leaders are attempting to quietly slip in gun control legislation.

The discovery was made by the Second Amendment advocacy group Gun Owners of America, who combed through the text and found an amendment inserted into the bill that would indefinitely authorize the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988.

According to a version of the proposed NDAA bill dated July 13, the amendment introduced by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) would end the sunset provision on the 1988 law, which criminalizes firearms unable to be detected by metal detectors and x-ray machines commonly used at airports.

Though the provision was introduced by a Democrat, gun rights organizations say that Republicans are also involved in the effort to permanently codify the gun control law.

Continue reading “”

The Only Legitimate Framework

This court is not interested in the outcomes of single cases alone. The conservative majority has greater ambitions: to impose its conception of the Constitution as the only legitimate framework within which to interpret the law.

Caitlin B. Tully
June 25, 2023
Rethinking the Liberal Giant Who Doomed Roe

She says this as if it were a bad thing. And, in my mind, how could it be legitimate any other way?

I am reminded of Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty:

When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.

And that is why the political left is so upset at the current SCOTUS. The political left is intent upon being the master of all and if the U.S. Constitution were to be interpreted as written they would have, comparatively, no power.

Sen. Chris Murphy Targets Military Gun Owners In Defense Bills

It takes a certain amount of brazenness to put the responsibility of defending the nation on a young American and then, in the next breath, demand they forfeit those freedoms they are literally willing to die to protect.

U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) is never one to disappoint, though. His latest legislative move is to put a target on the back of every service member as someone who cannot be entrusted to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Military members already sacrifice many of their freedoms to protect the United States. Sen. Murphy, who has never served a day in uniform, doesn’t think that’s enough.

Sen. Murphy thinks Second Amendment freedoms for those in uniform is, well, too much freedom.

Gun control isn’t anything new to Sen. Murphy. He’s made a career of attacking the Second Amendment and the firearm industry. That’s made him the darling of gun control groups but now he’s putting the Second Amendment rights of military gun owners in his crosshairs.

Sen. Murphy introduced an amendment to the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which empowers our government to fund and support our nation’s military. As a “must-pass” bill, it naturally attracts thousands of amendments for pet projects every year. Most of those are ruled out of order, or not defense related, so they can’t be attached to the bill.

Continue reading “”

You Will Own Nothing: Your War with a New Financial World Order and How to Fight Back

When Carol Roth first heard that one of the World Economic Forum’s predictions for 2030 was “You will own nothing, and be happy,” she thought it was an outlandish fantasy. Then, she researched it. What she found was that a number of businesses, governments, and global elites share a vision of a future that sounds utopian: Everyone will have everything they need, and no one will own anything.

From declines in home and vehicle ownership to global inflation and government spending, many of the trends of modern life reveal that a new world that is emerging—one in which Western citizens, by choice or by circumstance, increasingly do not own possessions or accumulate wealth. It’s the perfect economic environment for the rich and powerful to solidify their positions and prevent anyone else from getting ahead.

In You Will Own Nothing¸ Roth reveals how the agendas of Wall Street, world governments, international organizations, socialist activists, and multinational corporations like Blackrock all work together to reduce the power of the dollar and prevent millions of Americans from taking control of their wealth. She shows why owning fewer assets makes you poorer and less free. This book is essential guide to protecting your hard-earned wealth for the coming generations.

The Left’s Culture of Death V: What Can We Do?

This series I have been writing on, “The Left’s Culture of Death” could go on, well, almost endlessly.  I have quoted a very, very small part of one book (Frank Dikötter’s The Tragedy of Liberation); he has three in his series, and they are about only one brutal Leftist, mass-murdering, totalitarian thug, Mao Zedong.  There are books on Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Che, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Robespierre, etc.  This is my fifth article.  I doubt Townhall will let me write an entire encyclopedia—which is what it would take to list all the horrors of the application of Leftist philosophy in the last 200+ years, the dominant philosophy of today’s elite, including the Democratic Party of America.

But then, what I have recorded in these articles is sufficient, or at least should be, to spur the interest of decent, intelligent people who truly care about their families and others.  If you are still skeptical, read Dikötter yourself, and follow it up with other studies on Stalin et al.  The cure for ignorance is knowledge; sadly, there is no cure for stupidity and a closed, bigoted mind.  Hate can be overcome by love, but one must be willing, and too many Leftists have demonstrated they aren’t.  Barbarity is cured by civilization, and Leftists don’t want that, either.  Civilization isn’t the road to totalitarian power.  Many naïve believers always exist, and they are forever swept up in the torrent of true Leftism.  They don’t open their eyes until it is too late.  “I’m a proud liberal!” One Leftist recently emailed me.  He’s going to be a dead one if his side wins.

But the history I have recorded in these articles is accurate and fairly portrays what the Left did in the 20th century in China, is still doing there and in many places in the world, and will continue to do wherever they have power and opportunity.  It is simply intrinsic to the Leftist worldview.  We know that because it is always the result of their philosophy wherever it gains ascendancy.  A tree is known for its fruit.  And they are doing it—so far, in moderation in America—but they will follow the Stalinist and Maoist mass murdering model if they ever feel they need to and can get away with it.  Keep buying guns and ammo, Americans; it is your best line of defense and might be the only salvation for the country.

But the problem is…what can we do?  Leftism has infiltrated deeply into America and is making every effort to spread its tentacles as far and wide as possible.  Decent, God-fearing people are at a disadvantage.  We have morals; they don’t.  We believe in the sanctity of human life; they don’t.  We want to practice “love thy neighbor” and “mind your own business;” they don’t.  Leftists practice hate and want to tell you how you MUST live, or you will be shot.  Conservatives try to teach people the best choices in life, too, but we don’t kill people when they don’t do what we suggest.  We CAN’T kill people.  It isn’t in the true philosophy of God-fearing people to do things like that.  Unlike Leftists, we aren’t the kind of people who will line our enemies up against a wall and shoot them.  Leftists do that.  We can’t, at least not to innocent people, six-year-olds, women, and poor farmers.  The Left has no qualms about it.  You and I do.

So, again, what can we do?  We can fight, of course; we have every right to defend ourselves to the death if necessary.  But we can’t commit mass murder like communists do.  We can’t throw people into gulags and labor camps and work them to death.  We can’t steal people’s land and businesses and terrorize them if we don’t like how they look (“white supremacists”).  That’s what Leftists do.  That’s what they have done, and that is what they will continue to do—even in America.  And we aren’t Leftists.

I’m not saying we always must “fight fair” (all is fair in love and war?).  But mass murder is totally, well, it’s simply beyond the capability of people like you and me.  We would never think of doing something like that or of stealing somebody’s property and goods; honor simply forbids it, and most conservatives are honorable people.  So, again, that puts us at a disadvantage because we cannot use many of the weapons—terror, mass murder, rape, theft, gulags—that Leftists use.  A decided disadvantage, indeed.

We can only win by the word, by persuasion, by faith in God; the gun is our last resort, and even then, only in self-defense.  But, as history is our witness, our hope is not great.  Decency, persuasion, and self-restraint can’t stop bullets.  Our nation rose in decency and civility.  It will end in decadence and barbarity—in other words, the path the Democratic Party is leading the country down right now.  The American people, from our Founding, have been some of the best people the world has ever produced.  Not perfect by any means, but by comparison, far superior to almost any other people’s history has ever witnessed.  And I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that.  And that sort of person, by the millions, still exists in the United States today.  I suspect the people reading this article are among them.  The problem is…are we outnumbered now?  That is a question I don’t know the answer to.  Decadence and barbarity are rampant in America, including in the highest echelons of power.  Indeed, Joe Biden is the number one trash cheerleader.  Are good words and persuasive arguments enough to gain victory?  They never have been before.

America produced great people, but there is nothing special about us as human beings.  That is what the Democratic Party is demonstrating to us today.  So, it may already be too late.

This is legal stonewalling by a judge who purposefully flips what SCOTUS ruled in Heller, Caetano and Bruen in what she hopes will take years of legal wrangling in the off chance that either or both Justices Alito and Thomas pass on and a demoncrap administration can appoint anti-gun Justices and get all these case law restorals of the 2nd amendment protections on RKBA undone…because the unwashed masses really shouldn’t have the means to tell goobermint where to go, and make it stick.

Federal Court Ruling Upholding Oregon Gun Law Will be Appealed

U.S.A. — A federal district judge’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of Oregon’s restrictive gun control Measure 114 will definitely be appealed, the head of the Second Amendment Foundation assured via email with a terse one-word statement.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, responding to an email inquiry asking, “Certainly, there will be an appeal, right?” responded bluntly: “Right.”

The ruling was immediately blasted by the Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF), one of several plaintiffs challenging the law in a consolidation of four federal lawsuits, two of which involve SAF and several partners. In a scathing reaction, OFF declared Judge Immergut’s ruling “absurd” and further said her decision was “against gun owners, the Second Amendment and a basic understanding of the English language.”

Immergut’s ruling does appear oblivious to facts involving firearms and self-defense when, on Page 120, she states, “The Supreme Court has held that Second Amendment protects an individual right to self-defense inside and outside of the home. LCMs are not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.”

This seems to ignore the prevalence of modern semi-automatic pistols, which are commonly used for personal protection, and which come from the factory with magazines holding more than 10 cartridges.

According to The Hill, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum praised the ruling while acknowledging the law still cannot be enforced because it is still being challenged in state court. A judge in Harney County has scheduled a trial in September. By that time, Judge Immergut’s decision will likely have been appealed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Rosenblum, a Democrat, was quoted by The Hill, stating, “Our team looks forward to ultimately prevailing in the state courts as well.”

Continue reading “”

God’s Children Are Not for Sale: Why the Left Hates Sound of Freedom

I recently went to see the movie Sound of Freedom. It was the first time I had gone to a movie theater since before Covid and it was well worth the wait for such a superb and important film. I was curious about a number of things including whether, in the midst of a heatwave (and rumors that AMC Theaters were sabotaging the air-conditioning in theaters showing the film), the theater would be air-conditioned and why the left has been so distraught over a movie about child sex trafficking – a seemingly nonpartisan issue about which all people of good conscience should be concerned.

I am happy to report that the theater, in West Nyack, NY, was air-conditioned and comfortable. I’m also happy to report that other than the first two rows, every seat was occupied. In fact, when I went to purchase the ticket, the 6:30pm and 7:30pm showings were completely sold out other than the first two rows, so I attended a 9:15pm showing.

And leftists won’t be pleased to hear that the composition of the audience was “representative” of the country’s demographics, i.e., it was quite diverse. In fact, the vast majority of the audience was Hispanic (my guess with the amount of Spanish I heard is first generation), Black, and much of the audience was likely 30 and under, although there were definitely people a bit older as well (I spotted only one white man who appeared to be older than 50). These are people the left thinks they own.

Continue reading “”

KAMALA, ON A ROLL
First, Kamala Harris committed an epic “Kinsley Gaffe” (that is, where someone in Washington accidentally tells the truth) with this amazing remark a couple days ago:

Pretty sure she just blurted out what lefty environmentalists really want to do (reduce population). Even the White House saw that this could not be ignored, and tried their best to clean it up:

Continue reading “”

Federal court rules Measure 114 constitutional despite criticism

The ruling (hold onto your hat for the legal acrobatics the judge used)

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – Oregon’s Measure 114 is constitutional, according to a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.

The federal court ruled in Oregon’s favor in a lawsuit against the gun control measure approved by voters by a slim margin in 2022. The ruling means the state may ensure Oregonians get a permit before obtaining firearms, require a state police-maintained permit/firearm database and prohibit “large capacity” ammunition magazines.

There is an exception for military and law enforcement.

The measure describes “large capacity” magazines as “fixed/detachable magazines (or functional equivalent) that can accept ‘more than 10 rounds of ammunition and allows a shooter to keep firing without having to pause to reload.’” The measure also includes exceptions for “’lever-action’ firearms and permanently altered fixed magazines, 10 rounds or fewer.”

The plaintiff’s attorney made the case that magazines are critical for the gun, so they should be considered arms, but attorneys defending Measure 114 argued that detachable magazines are accessories – not firearms – and don’t affect the operability of the gun itself.

In response to the measure’s ruling, Jess Marks, the executive director of the Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety, issued the following statement:

“We know Measure 114 is an effective and life-saving policy, and now a federal judge has ruled it is also in line with the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has articulated that Second Amendment rights are not unchecked — they come with responsibilities — and the U.S. District Court affirmed this in our case. This victory belongs to those who have lost loved ones to gun violence and to every Oregonian who demanded change.”

“Our team looks forward to ultimately prevailing in the state courts as well,” she said. “Measure 114’s provisions – passed by Oregon voters – are common sense safety measures that will save lives.”

Kamala Harris anti-gun comments a warning

Vice President Kamala Harris has never been a fan of the right to keep and bear arms. We’ve long known this and no one will be surprised to hear this.

Yet as vice president, she hasn’t been all that outspoken about guns, all things considered. Why would she need to be? Her boss is making plenty of anti-gun waves as it is.

Harris isn’t going to stay out of the debate, though. She’s ready to push the anti-gun agenda as well.

Kamala Harris Takes Aim at NRA and Guns: The National Rifle Association’s convention in Indianapolis was in Vice President Kamala Harris’ crosshairs during a speech before the non-profit civil-rights group the National Action Network back in April.

The speech, at the time, could be seen as a start to the 2024 campaign season on the Democratic side…

Her speech marked a clear departure from the rambling and incoherent statements she made that landed her in hot water with Democrats and Republicans alike.

It was clear and focused, and filled the vice presidential attack dog role.

Kamala Harris ridiculed the convention slogan about freedom asking “freedom for who?”? She noted that it was not freedom for gun-violence victims or their families.

“This is not for the parents who pray their children will come home from school safe,” Harris said.…

Whether Harris can stay on message remains to be seen, but she appears to have found a message that Democrats think can be effective.

Yes, this isn’t exactly breaking news. I get it.

But the point is that it’s clear that gun control is going to be a big issue in 2024 and both Biden and Harris are doing battlespace prep for that fight.

What’s more, it seems that Harris is ready to make this a racial issue, but only by telling one side of the story.

“Gun violence is now the number one cause of death of children in our nation,” she said. “And while all this violence impacts all communities in devastating ways, we know it does not do so equally. Black people are only 13% of America’s population but more than 60% of homicide victims from gun violence.”

FBI statistics also show that the number of black offenders in homicides is significantly higher. In 2019, the last year for which national statistics are available shows that 55.9% offenders in gun crimes were black compared with 41.1% who were white.

Honestly, this isn’t surprising.

The White House isn’t interested in having a discussion. They’re not interested in a debate. When Harris said this, it made it clear that they want to paint this as a racial issue and that if you’re not for gun control it’s because you want black people to die.

But the problem is that it’s black people doing damn near just as much of the killing.

What’s more, though, they’re disproportionately represented among those convicted of firearm possession crimes. If we’re going to play that game, how is gun control not racist?

This is what we’re in for in 2024, folks, so buckle up.

And it’s what we need the various gun rights organizations combatting as we go forward. We need the spokespeople out in front on this one.

Unfortunately, far too many of them have been silent. That’s not a heartwarming fact if you ask me.

The upside, however, is that while they think this is an issue they can win on, this is also the administration that thinks the economy is doing great and seems to want to tout that as a winning issue, too, so there might not be too much to worry about.

RYAN BUSSE IS A FEAR MERCHANT AND LIAR, AND NO FIREARM INDUSTRY EXPERT

By Larry Keane

Anytime the media’s favorite former “gun guy” turned-gun control advocate gets invited to speak about gun control, hold on. It’s going to be a wild ride.

Ryan Busse, Senior Advisor for Giffords gun control group, was invited to MSNBC’s “Reidout” to speak with host Joy Reid as she bemoaned that she was afraid to leave her home on Independence Day for celebrations because “America’s awash in guns” and is insane.

Busse jumped right in with gun control talking points regardless of whether they are actually true to feed Reid’s fears, scare her viewers. The conversation went down the road of hairpin turns around the truth and straight off the ledge with outright falsehoods. Busse passes himself off to adoring gun control media as a firearm industry expert but make no mistake he’s nothing of the sort. He dresses in plaid flannel, hunts with expensive shotguns and spends more time dabbling in progressive politics than he does actually concentrating on the facts.

Don’t believe him. He’s nothing more than a modern-day snake-oil salesman hawking gun control as a cure-all elixir.

Continue reading “”

California Democrats Block Bill Making Trafficking of Minors a Serious Felony

Democrats on the California Assembly’s Public Safety Committee have blocked a bill that would make the trafficking of minors a serious felony.

The inexplicable move was met with outrage from human trafficking victims who have been advocating for the bill.

The bill, HB 14, noted that “California consistently ranks number one in the nation in the number of human trafficking cases reported to the National Human Trafficking Hotline.”

“Human trafficking is among the world’s fastest-growing criminal enterprises and is estimated to be a $150,000,000,000 a year global industry,” it adds.

The legislation would have made human trafficking of a minor subject to California’s Three Strikes Law.

Under the law, someone convicted twice could be sentenced to life in prison.

The bill had already passed unanimously in the State Senate.

However, not even one of the six Democrats on the committee would vote on the bill.

The only yes votes were cast by two Republicans, Assemblymen Juan Alanis and Tom Lackey.

Los Angeles Democrat Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, the Assembly Public Safety Committee’s chairman, opposed the bill.

GOP state Sen. Shannon Grove, who co-authored the bill, said she had spoken with Democrats on the committee prior to the hearing.

“They all thought it was a good bill and said they would consider it, but there is this issue of rolling the chair, so I don’t think anyone was going to stand up against the chair,” she said.

“You’re horrible!” yelled members of the audience at the meeting.

Feds Argue First Amendment Causes ‘Irreparable Harm’ in Bid to Save Censorship Regime
In seeking to stay the injunction against their speech policing in Missouri v. Biden, the government betrays its view that your right to speak is conditional, while its power to censor is absolute

U.S. Government Says Inability to Censor You Causes It ‘Irreparable Harm’

The U.S. government betrayed its total and utter contempt for the First Amendment in a recent filing in the landmark Missouri v. Biden free speech case.

The filing—a motion responding to U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s bombshell Independence Day injunction freezing federal government-led speech policing—calls for the judge to permit the federal government to continue its censorship activities while it fights the injunction.

While Judge Doughty has now smacked the federal government down, ruling against its motion for a stay, the feds’ perverse position merits scrutiny, especially given it’s likely to persist in it for as long as this case is litigated, and as high as it will reach, perhaps up to the Supreme Court.

The crux of the government’s argument for staying the injunction was this: Prohibiting federal authorities from abridging speech, directly and by proxy, could lead to “grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes,” thereby causing the government “irreparable harm.”

Another way to read the government’s argument is that if it can’t interfere in elections or engage in rampant viewpoint discrimination, that causes it “irreparable harm.”

Still another way to read the government’s argument is that your right to free speech causes it “irreparable harm.”

I explain why in a new piece at the Epoch Times.
As I conclude in part:

The government’s fight for the right to censor reveals a conception of free speech, and its own authority, that is totally backward.

The government operates as if speech is a privilege over which it holds total power, ceding to us only the ability to talk on heavily circumscribed terms—rather than that we have a natural right to speak freely, and that the government’s ability to regulate our speech is heavily circumscribed.

Government derives its powers from us, and with our consent, not the other way around.

At stake, therefore, in Missouri v. Biden is more than free speech.

At stake—and currently on display—is the very nature of what remains of our republican system of government.

Read the whole thing here.

Nice when PID is provided.

Law professor: ‘Unfortunate’ that Michigan anti-free speech bill likely unconstitutional.

A constitutional law professor at Georgia State University recently said it’s “unfortunate” that the Michigan “pronouns” bill making its way through the state legislature is likely unconstitutional.

Georgia State College of Law Professor Eric Segall told Newsweek this was his “personal view” regarding House Bill 4474, which would criminalize sparking “frightened” feelings in someone in a protected class such as sexual orientation or gender identity.

The proposal “is probably in trouble under American law. I also think that’s unfortunate because my personal view is the law should be constitutional, but I think it’s likely not,” he said.

“In a sane world, which is most free countries on Earth, you just outlaw all threats,” said Segall (pictured). “And if you threaten somebody, you go to jail. It’s much more complicated in America. Guns and free speech. America is crazy about both.”

But the author of “Originalism as Faith and Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges” emphasized what makes the U.S. rather unique regarding free speech.

“The [Michigan] law basically says you can’t threaten somebody with speech that will discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity,” Segall said. “And here’s the deal. Hate speech and threats aren’t the same thing.”

Segall noted “the fact that I can stand on a street corner and say ‘All Jews should be sent back to Israel’—which I can do in America—does not mean that I can go up to a Jewish person and get in their face and say, ‘You should be sent back to Israel.’”

The U.S. Supreme Court would strike down the Michigan law, Segall added, “both because it protects LGBTQ speech, which this court no longer wants to do at all, and because of their definition of free speech which is way overbroad.”

The College Fix asked Segall via email if he indeed would favor fining or jailing someone who, for example, told a transgender female in a non-threatening manner that she (he) “really is a man.” (Someone violating HB 4474 could face a $10,000 fine and up to five years in jail.)

Segall reiterated that “threats are unprotected speech” and repeated his point about someone saying (peacefully) that Jews should go back to Israel “should probably be protected speech.”

However, he added that such “depends on context” and he “could be talked out of” his current view.

As previously noted by The Fix, Western Michigan University Law Professor William Wagner warned that those in favor of the Michigan legislation will use it “as a weapon capable of destroying conservative expression or viewpoints grounded in the sacred.”

The Michigan Democratic Party’s Andrew Feldman told Newsweek that HB 4474 was being “deliberately misinterpreted to polarize voters and cause outrage among conservatives.”

Well, they understand it. They just don’t like it.

What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do leftists not understand?

With nauseating predictability, the usual political hacks clamor to compromise our Second Amendment every time some ghastly crime involving a firearm occurs.  Seldom if ever is attention paid to the workings of the twisted mind that actually caused the horrible event.

A combination of ignorance and the desire to deceive has led to the inherent misnomer of the term “assault weapon.”  Recent nuance has added the suffix “style” to the word “assault” — supposedly to add a hint of honesty to the expression, although a recent nominee to head the BATF was still unable to define what an assault weapon is.  I shall give it a try right here: a common military weapon, being a rifle that has selective fire options of single shot, bursts of three, and full-automatic.  It may also have enhanced magazine capacity and heat displacement.  Oh, and by the way, full-automatic weapons have not been legal for American civilians to possess for about a hundred years — except for people who have a Class Three federal firearms license.

[I’ll let this pass because the vast, vast majority of people have no real idea of how NFA ’34 and Title II of GCA’68 operate]

Assault-style weapons are nothing more than single-shot, semi-automatic rifles that only look like actual military weapons…usually because they have a second grip for the shooter’s other hand.  There may also be a heat shield around the barrel…whoopie!  So what’s the big deal about how they look?  It’s because political demagogues, whose arguments hardly have any substance, have to rely on superficiality to get their points across.

Continue reading “”