Category: Enemies Domestic

When they write articles like this, they merely indicate the title of their site is incorrect. They are not ‘good men’. And it begs the question: Which right will be the next one they decide the people should not have?

Uttering the Unutterable: Repeal the Second Amendment Now I uttered the unutterable, the ultimate taboo in U.S. political discourse.

I love life, and I love the people of my country far far far more than I value the “freedom” to bear arms. I don’t know if any “reforms” will really solve the problems of gun violence in the United States. In all actuality, I believe, therefore, that we must repeal the Second Amendment now!

There! I uttered the unutterable, the ultimate taboo in U.S. political discourse. But I am not running for public office or reelection. I am not expecting large payouts from the National Rifle Association or from the firearms manufacturers through their lobbyists.

As the horse once served as a primary means of transportation in earlier times, it now grazes and prances peacefully on rich pastures. Possibly during former moments in our history, we may have had reason to enact and enforce the Second Amendment of our great Constitution, but those bygone days have long since passed. Now we must put the Second Amendment out to pasture.

Continue reading “”

White House Misled Public About FBI Search of Penn Biden Center.

The ongoing scandal involving Joe Biden’s mishandling of classified documents continues to get worse. Despite repeated claims of cooperation and transparency, sources close to the investigation reveal that the FBI conducted a search of the Penn Biden Center back in November.

This is a detail that neither the White House nor the Department of Justice had revealed before.

“The FBI searched the Penn Biden Center offices in mid-November, according to two sources familiar with the investigation, after lawyers for President Biden had found about 10 documents marked classified there on Nov. 2. The material originated from Mr. Biden’s time as vice president,” CBS News reports. “It is not clear whether FBI personnel found any additional classified or presidential material during the mid-November sweep.”

“The FBI search of the think tank was not previously disclosed by the White House, Mr. Biden’s personal attorneys, or the Department of Justice,” the report notes. “A Jan. 14 statement from the president’s personal attorney Bob Bauer referred to the government conducting ‘its inquiry, including taking possession of any documents and reviewing any surrounding material for further review and context.’”

The White House previously misled the public when White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claimed that the search of Biden’s Wilmington, Del., home had been completed when the search was still underway.

“We are being fully cooperative with the Department of Justice throughout this process, as part of the President’s lawyers look through the places where documents could have been stored and the Counsel’s Office released, as you said, a statement explaining that,” Jean-Pierre said during the January 12 press briefing. “But that search was completed last night. And now, this is in the hands of the Justice Department.”

But, in reality, the search continued the following day, during which more documents were found.

So why not reveal the FBI search of the Penn Biden Center? It’s a good question, just like the question of why it took more than two months for the public even to learn that classified documents had been found there in the first place. The obvious answer to both of these questions is that the White House was not expecting this situation to be made public at all. It doesn’t take a genius to deduce that the leak of the story blindsided the White House, that they’ve been struggling to contain it ever since, and that they’ve been doing everything possible to cover up whatever they can.

Anti-gun groups press Biden to issue executive action on “assault weapons”

We already know that Joe Biden is going to repeat his call for Congress to ban modern sporting rifles during next week’s State of the Union address. The real question is whether he’ll trot out his stale talking points about deer in Kevlar vests and the falsehood that you couldn’t own cannons when the Second Amendment was ratified.

We also know that a divided Congress is unlikely to implement a legislative gun ban, which is why a coalition of anti-gun groups is demanding that Biden direct the ATF to pursue a gun ban via regulation instead.

In a new letter to Biden, the groups say its time for the ATF to take a look at imported firearms to see if they pass the “sporting purposes” test created by the Gun Control Act of 1998; a move they hope will lead to the ban on the importation of many modern sporting rifles produced overseas.

And though the president doesn’t appear to have the votes for an assault weapons ban in Congress, the groups argue that Biden has tools at his disposal to further limit the proliferation of these guns in the U.S., including by fully enforcing the importation ban of foreign-made assault weapons that do not have a “sporting purpose.”

As Giffords notes in its memo, the ATF, which oversees the importation of guns in the U.S., “has not conducted a comprehensive review of semi-automatic assault rifles and handguns under the sporting purposes test” since the Clinton administration.

Giffords and the other gun control groups don’t want the ATF to merely conduct a review of currently imported firearms, but to “issue new criteria” to enforce the sporting purposes test. In doing so, however, they could be opening up a Pandora’s Box that leads to the demise of the “sporting purposes” test altogether.

In Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the fundamental purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is self-defense, not sport. Our ability to hunt, compete, or even recreate with a firearm is ancillary to our ability to use a gun to protect human life. Does the GCA’s “sporting purposes” test infringe on that right to keep and bear arms by prohibiting the importation of arms that are identical in nature to some of the most commonly-sold firearms in the United States, or does it merely impose a regulation on gun companies without directly impacting would-be gun owners?

Most of the litigation taking on the ATF’s rules banning bump stocks, re-labeling pistols with stabilizing braces “short-barreled rifles”, and declaring unfinished frames and receives to be “firearms” have avoided a direct challenge to the constitutionality of the Gun Control Act, primarily arguing instead that ATF’s rules violate the Administrative Procedures Act and create new law instead of merely interpreting existing regulations. However, if the Biden administration follows the demands of the gun control lobby and orders the ATF to review existing imports and establish new criteria for the “sporting purposes” test, that would provide a golden opportunity to challenge the legality of the test itself.

There are risks to that strategy for both sides, of course, and I’m not convinced that Biden will acquiesce to these demands. The gun control lobby has also been quietly advocating for the administration to re-classify large numbers of semi-automatic firearms (including many common handguns) as machine guns; an even broader proposal than what they’re publicly calling for in their demand letter to the White House. As I’ve said before, that would be the nuclear option for Biden, and could not only lead to the Supreme Court weighing in on bans on modern sporting rifles, but the underlying statutes being used to implement the unconstitutional actions.

For gun owners, the concern is that the Court might not be ready or willing to nuke the GCA, either in whole or in part, and could even end up upholding the gun grab on the flimsiest of legal theories.

It’s not up to Second Amendment advocates to chart Joe Biden’s course on gun control over the next two years, and frankly, given that the gun control lobby itself hasn’t had much luck convincing him on things like establishing a White House czar on “gun violence”, I don’t know that it’s up to groups like Everytown or Giffords either.

What I do know is that Biden’s anti-gun ideology isn’t just for show or a position he trots out for the press when circumstances dictate. He’s a true believer in banning our way to safety at the expense of fundamental civil rights, and as he sinks further into lame-duck status an administrative gun grab might start to look more attractive. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said last week that the administration will “continue to pursue executive actions” in the future, and though she declined to offer any specifics I think we know that there are several options on the table
 including the nuclear one

The nomenklatura is real. It sprang to life with the first law Congress passed that restricted the people and exempted goobermint.

American Nomenklatura.

A few weeks after Elon Musk formally acquired Twitter in October 2022, a senior official at the company who quit in the wake of Musk’s arrival took to the New York Times to pour cold water on Musk’s vision for the social-media platform. Yoel Roth, whose title had been Head of Trust and Safety, sought to assure his fellow progressives. Roth wrote that even if Musk wanted to remove the web of content-moderation rules and procedures Roth had helped create and enforce, the tech billionaire would be unable to achieve his aim. “The moderating influences of advertisers, regulators and, most critically of all, app stores may be welcome for those of us hoping to avoid an escalation in the volume of dangerous speech online,” he wrote.

What Roth meant was this: No Internet platform is an island, and Musk simply didn’t have the power to do what he wanted despite his 100 percent ownership of the social-media platform. It wasn’t merely that Musk would have to contend with Twitter’s progressive workforce, which believes that some political speech is so awful that it should be throttled or banned. He would also come into conflict with European regulators, the Federal Trade Commission, and Congress, all of whom also seek to limit what can be said online. And what about the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a trade organization of some of the world’s biggest consumer brands that advocates for “online safety”—a euphemism for protecting social-media users from accounts that may offend, harass, or trigger them?

He would also be dogged by advocacy groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, which have found a new and lucrative mission monitoring social-media platforms for hate speech. They work hand in hand with elite journalists and think tankers, who have taken to tracking the spread of misinformation and disinformation online. In Washington, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security have personnel whose job it is to alert social-media companies to foreign propaganda and terrorism. In Atlanta, the Centers for Disease Control seeks to quarantine dangerous information that might lead Americans to forgo masks or vaccine boosters. And perhaps most important, there are other Silicon Valley giants—Apple and Google—that provide the digital storefronts or app stores that Twitter needs to update their software and continue to run its service.

Call it the “content-moderation industrial complex.” In just a few short years, this nomenklatura has come to constitute an implicit ruling class on the Internet, one that collectively determines what information and news sources the rest of us should see on major platforms. Talk about “free speech” and “the First Amendment” may actually be beside the point here. The Twitter that Musk bought was part of a larger machine—one that attempts to shape conversations online by amplifying, muzzling, and occasionally banning participants who run afoul of its dogma.

The existence of this nomenklatura has been known for a few years. But thanks to Musk and his decision to make Twitter’s internal communications and policies available to journalists Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, and others, more detail is now known on why and how this elite endeavors to protect us from all manner of wrongthink.

Continue reading “”

Der apfel fĂ€lt nicht weit vom baum (The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree)

Klaus Schwab’s Father Ran ‘National Socialist Model Company,’ Exploited Nazi Slave Labor.

Davos frontman Klaus Schwab’s daddy, Eugen Schwab, while the Third Reich was ravaging Europe in the 1930s and 40s, served as managing director of Escher Wyss Ravensburg, an engineering firm that constructed turbines and fighter plane parts for the regime.

While the elder Schwab worked in this capacity, the Nazis awarded Escher Wyss Ravensburg the prestigious title of “National Socialist Model Company” for all of its hard work in the service of the FĂŒhrer.

To achieve this recognition, Escher-Wyss Ravensburg, under Eugen Schwab’s leadership, utilized Nazi slave labor and prisoners of war in its facilities.

Ravensburg itself, aside from the slave factory, was the site of numerous Nazi crimes against humanity, such as forced sterilization for the purpose of “racial improvement.” But to Eugen Schwab, that was just the cost of doing business with the Third Reich.

You want to make an omelet, you gotta break some eggs, right?

Klaus Schwab’s sanitized Wikipedia page contains none of the gruesome details of his daddy’s wartime activities, other than to say “his parents had moved from Switzerland to Germany during the Third Reich in order for his father to assume the role of director at Escher Wyss.”

Newsweek ran a corporate “fact check” in which they cherry-picked a falsely attributed image of Eugen in a Nazi uniform as a way to seem to disprove his connection to the Third Reich entirely. But deep into the article, Newsweek subtly admits that it’s all true — which almost no one will get to, thanks to short attention spans:

The posts shared online in May, 2022, claim Klaus Schwab’s father, Eugen Schwab, was a close ally of Hitler, and include a photo of the World Economic Forum leader alongside a man in Nazi uniform
 the photo shared online is not of Eugen Schwab, but of Nazi general Walter Dybilasz
 Klaus Schwab’s father, on the other hand, was the managing director of a subsidiary of Zurich-based engineering firm Escher Wyss. 

The history of Eugen’s relationship with Nazism in general is complex
 Eugen Schwab was a member of some National Socialist organizations, but that alone does not prove any relationship to German high command or a belief in Nazi ideology. While the Escher Wyss branch in Ravensburg, Germany, (which Eugen managed) used prisoners of war and forced laborers, it is not clear whether the company was forced to do so by the Nazis or because of a lack of workers.

So, Eugen Schwab was an avowed National Socialist, and yes, okay, his firm did use Nazi slave labor. But, you see, that doesn’t mean he was a Nazi. And maybe Escher Wyss had to use slave labor to make their products for the Nazis because of a worker shortage.

This is a common tactic in corporate media: Take a false claim that circulates on the web (in this case, an image incorrectly identified as Eugen Schwab) and use that single post to discredit the entire factual connection between Schwab and the Nazis.

Quote O’ The Day
In 1789, it was merely ridiculous for a public figure to propose that the citizenry should relinquish its arms; in 2023, it is downright psychotic.

Biden’s Most Grotesque Gun-Control Argument

By declaring that Americans would and should have no hope against a tyrannical government, the president disavows a central premise of our nation’s Founding.
At this point in the proceedings, President Joe Biden resembles nothing so well as a cheap, faux-interactive children’s toy from the early 1990s. Pre-loaded with a small handful of vacuous stock phrases, and programmed to repeat them at random whenever the conversation meanders onto familiar ground, Biden has become so predictable, monotonous, and dull that one occasionally wonders whether his doctor is ever tempted to search his lower back for a double-A-battery compartment and a row of rudimentary activation buttons. On the left side of the array, he might find the catchphrases: “Malarkey!” “No joke!” “Literally, folks!” etc. On the right, he might uncover some circumstance-specific clichĂ©s, which, though appearing to the uninitiated to be bespoke, are in fact involuntary staples selected from an ever-dwindling list.
Nowhere is this tendency more evident than when the president is discussing firearms. In comes the topic, and out come the chestnuts. Button A yields the false claim that, at the time of the Founding, “You couldn’t buy a cannon.” Button B yields the line, “Deer aren’t wearing Kevlar vests out there.” Button C yields the contention that, “If you want to take on the federal government, you need some F-15s, not an AR-15.” The audience may change, the location may vary, the impetus may shift from time to time, but the bromides will remain as constant as the sun.
Musing yesterday on the utility of privately owned firearms, Biden ran once again through the hits. “If you need to worry about taking on the federal government,” he smirked, “you need some F-15s. You don’t need an AR-15.”
This is a grotesque thing for an American president to say. Happily, there is no need at present for the American citizenry to fight its own government. One hopes there never will be. But this is not the sort of thing about which a sitting president should be brooding. Having been written by a group of successful insurrectionists, the U.S. Constitution is, in effect, a hybrid document. In some places, it establishes the powers that the national government may exercise; in others it ensures that, if the government oversteps its bounds, the people have the opportunity to resist. By declaring that the public would and should have no chance against a tyrannical American government, President Biden was implying that the Declaration’s central promise — “that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it” — has been rendered moot.

Continue reading “”

Paranoid Biden Worries That 2A Supporters Only Want to Overthrow the Government.

When you hear the words “Second Amendment,” what’s the first thing that comes to mind? For some, it’s a hunting trip with your dad or perhaps a memory of being taught how to shoot by a loved one.

For Joe Biden, revolution is the first thing that pops into his head.

“I love my right-wing friends who talk about [how] the tree of liberty is water of the blood of patriots,” he said. “If you need to work about taking on the federal government, you need some F-15s. You don’t need an AR-15.”

That’s probably true — in a radically paranoid way. Jefferson’s “tree of liberty” adage — which Joe Biden horribly botched — refers to a passage in a 1787 letter to William Stephens Smith, the son-in-law of John Adams, where Jefferson dismisses some unrest in Massachusetts as no big deal.

Biden’s inability to understand the basic tenets of the Second Amendment and probably the rest of the Constitution is shocking. The constitutional right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with rebellion and everything to do with self-defense.

Biden claims that there’s no “socially redeeming value” in owning a semi-automatic weapon. If that’s the case, why doesn’t the president ban pornography? He can’t ban porn for the same reason he can’t ban AR-15s or any other semi-automatic firearm. The Constitution protects free speech and the right to bear arms.

Continue reading “”

Senile SloJoe can’t do anything but obsess on his past, thinking he’s going to get any new gun control laws even passed by congress. He also neglected to finish that sentence in the quote by Thomas Jefferson:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

I wonder why…..

Biden’s MLK Speech: ‘Ban the Number of Bullets That Go in a Magazine’

President Joe Biden spoke on the Martin Luther King Jr. Day and reiterated his belief that it is time to “ban the number of bullets that go in a magazine.”

Mediate.com published the portion of Biden’s MLK speech in which he pledges to ban firearms which Democrats label “assault weapons.”

Biden said, “I am going to get ‘assault weapons’ banned. I did it once and I’m going to do it again.”

He added, “And ban the number of bullets that go in a magazine.”

Biden then said, “I love my right-wing friends who talk about the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots. If you need to worry about taking on the federal government you need some F-15s. You don’t need an AR-15.”

He said, “I’m serious, think about it. Think about the rationale for this. It’s about money. Money, money, money.”

On December 7, 2022, Breitbart News reported Biden’s push to “limit the number of bullets than can be in a cartridge.”

On October 24, 2022, Breitbart News pointed out Biden’s claim that is was time to limit gun owners to “eight bullets in a round.”

WA State Preemption Law Under Attack from 15 Democrats demoncraps

Fifteen Washington State Democrat members of the state House of Representatives wasted no time launching an anticipated effort to repeal the Evergreen State’s nearly-40-year-old model preemption law, threatening a system of gun law uniformity that has been upheld in the state courts more than once.

And that appears to be the problem, as the opening language of House Bill 1178 illustrates.

“For over 30 years,” the bill laments, “local towns, cities, and counties have been blocked from taking action on their own to prevent gun violence because of the statewide preemption of local regulations relating to firearms. The legislature intends to provide local jurisdictions the ability to build upon statewide standards and adopt responsible approaches to firearm regulations to help address the epidemic of firearm violence in their communities by restoring inherent local authority to adopt firearm regulations that are in addition to or more restrictive than the requirements of state law under the police power to protect public health, safety, and welfare.”

While the language suggests good intentions, the thrust of this measure is to roll back the calendar four decades to a time when Washington had a checkerboard of confusing and possibly conflicting local regulations. State preemption provided relief from that situation, say supporters.

Continue reading “”

IL Gov. Pritzker signs weapons assault ban bill

SPRINGFIELD, IL (WSIL) — Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed the weapons assault bill Tuesday night after legislatures recently passed the ban in both House and Senate.

“For the past four years, my administration and my colleagues in the State Capitol have been battling the powerful forces of the NRA to enshrine the strongest and most effective gun violence legislation that we possibly can,” said Gov. JB Pritzker. “I couldn’t be prouder to say that we got it done. And we will keep fighting — bill by bill, vote by vote, and protest by protest — to ensure that future generations only hear about massacres like Highland Park, Sandy Hook, and Uvalde in their textbooks.”

State Representative Dave Severin released the following statement upon Governor Pritzker’s signature.

“Democrats in Illinois have taken their quest to pass unconstitutional gun control legislation to the next level tonight, as Governor Pritzker has signed a bill that will make law-abiding citizens into felons for failing to comply with government managed gun registry.”

Severin continued, “The Illinois State Rifle Association has pledged to sue the State of Illinois for passing this bill to stop it from being implemented. I support their planned court challenge and will continue to advocate for the Second Amendment Rights of the people of the State of Illinois and the United States of America.”

State Representative Patrick Windhorst released the following statement upon Governor Pritzker’s signature.

“In light of tonight’s bill signing by Governor Pritzker, law-abiding gun owners will be impacted yet again by the loss of their Second Amendment rights. In the United States of America, we have inalienable rights that are enumerated in our founding documents. These include our Second Amendment rights. Our nation’s founding documents protect rights that are sometimes unpopular. We protect the freedom of speech because sometimes, speech is unpopular. We protect the freedom of religion because some religions are not popular. We protect the freedom of the press, because sometimes, the press is not popular.”

Windhorst continued, “The rights that we as Americans are promised in the Declaration of Independence and granted in the Constitution have been violated by the passage of this legislation and the signing of it by Governor Pritzker. The Illinois State Rifle Association has promised legal action aimed at stopping the implementation of this law. I support their effort and look forward to a favorable outcome for law-abiding gun owners.”

House legislatures approved the ban earlier Tuesday afternoon by a vote of 68-41.

 

I’d say Bloomberg is cutting funding since MDA turned into a useless black hole that never accomplished anything.

Bye, Shannon Watts. We’re going to miss ya

Over the years, Shannon Watts has done a lot.

In her mind, she’s championed gun control and pushed for countless new regulations. She would argue she’d done untold good for the world.

In our mind, she’s been a clown who illustrates just how little she understood the guns she wanted to regulate.

Now, she’s announced she’s retiring from Moms Demand Action.

Shannon Watts, one of the country’s most influential gun-safety activists, says she will retire later this year from Moms Demand Action, the grass-roots advocacy group she began in her kitchen a decade ago and grew into a political juggernaut.
“I have asked myself, honestly, every year since I started this organization: Is it time for me to step back and let other people step forward?” Watts, 52, said in an exclusive interview with The Washington Post to announce her decision. “And I think this is the right time.”
Watts’s success stems from an uncommon blend of qualities and experience that made her ideally suited for the job’s challenges. Her previous work as a communications executive gave her a deep understanding of how to attract media attention and market ideas. She turned a severe case of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder into what she called a “superpower” that allowed her to hyperfocus for many hours straight, a skill she’s harnessed hundreds of times to live-tweet details and context after shootings

Watts says she won’t stop after resigning either, and though some around her have suggested she run for public office, the mother of five has yet to decide what will come next.

Really, this is a puff piece that seeks to do nothing but lionize Watts.

It doesn’t talk about any of the negative, such as how she strives to block pretty much every pro-gun voice on social media she thinks she can get away with. It doesn’t note that she’s freaked out over firearms that would survive just about any bit of gun control legislation she cares to say she supports and would only be restricted in a near-total gun ban.

So, with all of that, shouldn’t we be happy Watts is leaving?

I’m not.

For one thing, while Moms Demand Action likes to claim they’re effective, they tend to only get results in areas where anyone would manage to get results. Watts hasn’t really accomplished all that much with the organization she founded.

What if someone who can actually do something takes control next?

We’re already in a fight for the very life of the Second Amendment. The Bruen decision helped significantly, but whether that will be enough long-term or not remains to be seen.

Watts is a joke, but the person who takes over Moms Demand Action–either the next or the one after that–may not be.

Besides, Shannon Watts is comedy gold. She’s guaranteed to say something colossally stupid. One should always be so blessed as to have opposition as “gifted” as Watts.

Not that the Washington Post will acknowledge such a thing.

So yeah, I’m legitimately sorry to see her go. I hope wherever she lands next, we have an opportunity to hear more stupid from her that we can mock endlessly and I pray her replacements at the gun control group named like an adult film channel is just as mockable.

But I’m realistic enough not to hold my breath.

Cori Bush reveals that when Democrats talk about race, they simply mean party

Democratic Rep. Cori Bush (MO) wants you to know that Republican Rep. Byron Donalds (FL) does not count as black.

That’s the only interpretation of her comment. Donalds has been nominated to be speaker of the House. Regardless of the circumstances, and regardless of what you think of Donalds’s politics, that’s historic.

At least, this was the rule when Democrats were nominating their first black man or first woman to be president.

“Everybody ought to celebrate it, Republican or Democrat alike,” Democrat John Kerry proclaimed after Clinton won the nomination. “It’s a breakthrough.”

This was always a lie, I wrote after Giorgia Meloni and Rishi Sunak got no grand congratulations on their elections in Italy and the United Kingdom, respectively.

“When they said we should celebrate racial diversity and historic firsts, what they really meant was: ‘We should celebrate the Left’s wins and come up with excuses to call the Right racist or sexist.’”

We know for a fact that Democrats and liberals use the charge of racism dishonestly as a cudgel — as a way to shut up political enemies and increase the cost of opposing them.

Recall how liberals wrote in private emails they expected only their allies to see: “Take one of them … who cares — and call them racists.”

“What is necessary,” liberal journalist Spencer Ackerman explained, “is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [face] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear.”

Continue reading “”

Elon Musk Exposes Adam Schiff for Colluding With Twitter

On Tuesday, the next round of Twitter Files were dropped by journalist Matt Taibbi.

The bombshell dropped continued to expose how government agencies were working closely with Twitter to censor and ban their opposition.

One revelation from Taibbi showed how Democratic Representative Adam Schiff used his influence to attempt to get investigative journalist Paul Sperry banned from Twitter.

Twitter was accepting requests “from all over: from Treasury, the NSA, virtually every state, the HHS, from the FBI and DHS, and more,” Taibbi explained.

“They also received an astonishing variety of requests from officials asking for individuals they didn’t like to be banned. Here, the office for Democrat and House Intel Committee chief Adam Schiff asks Twitter to ban journalist Paul Sperry,” Taibbi reported.

He attached the following photo:

Image

Musk then called out Schiff on Twitter: “Hey @RepAdamSchiff, what’s this?”

Continue reading “”

More of Sun-Tzu’s advice to know your enemy

This is what passes for ‘liberal’ these days.
A wanna-be tyrant with a minimal IQ who somehow believes he’s  discovered an as yet never postulated way to achieve his goal.

The Second amendment is not, and never had been, a permission to allow the People to do anything. It ‘gives’ nothing. It is in no way a ‘the people may’. It declares rights and restricts goobermint power over those rights.
The People already have the right not just to keep and bear arms, but to also make them, right along with the accoutrements and ammunition necessary for their use.
Even this latest ‘ghost gun’ regulation by the bureaucraps at BATFE does nothing to stop a person from making their own guns.

The Second amendment is, as clearly stated by the Bill Of Rights own preamble – quoted below – is a restriction on goobermint power, not on the rights of the people

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The author’s mindless idea is that of the ignoramus who was never taught, or slept through their course in, U.S. Civics. That also goes for many of the people commenting there. Either that, or they have an ulterior motive, a disarmament agenda for their political enemies, because unless they disarm them, they can’t deal with them the way all tyrants want to.

Read Second Amendment Literally: Ban Making and Selling Guns

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A fully contextual reading of the Second Amendment tells us that the Founding Fathers protected the right to bear arms for the sole purpose of supporting a well-regulated militia to keep America free and secure. But various gun cranks and judges have dismissed that prefatory clause and read all sorts of non-original intent into the right to bear arms—self-defense, shooting government officials we don’t like, yadda yadda.

So let’s ignore the preface and focus strictly and literally on the operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. (I’m also going to ignore that erroneous comma—a comma should never separate a subject and a predicate unless there is some intervening descriptive phrase or dependent clause.)

The Second Amendment says we may have guns. It says we may carry guns.

The Second Amendment does not say we may make guns.

It does not say we may sell guns.

It does not say that we may box up a gun and mail it across state lines.

We could shut down every gun factory and store and dealer in America today and not violate the Second Amendment. We already have 393 million firearms, more than enough to allow every living American to carry a gun. If you have a gun, you can keep it. You just can’t buy any more or sell the ones you have.

Ah, but what if your gun breaks and you want another one? Or what if you grow up in a household that chooses not to bear arms but then decide when you grow up, you want to be a hero like Kyle Rittenhouse? You can’t exercise your Second Amendment right if you can’t get your hands on a gun? To keep and bear an arm, don’t you have to be able to buy a gun or build your own from bamboo, charcoal, sulfur, and diamonds?

Well, if governments are instituted among men to secure our rights, then the government can secure our Second Amendment right by producing arms—just contract Sig Sauer to crank out a few million more M17s and M18s—and distributing them at local police stations or Army recruiting offices to every citizen willing and able to carry one.  No right is absolute, of course: the government can and should decline to hand free guns to people who are drunk, crazy, angry, or elsewise identifiably dangerous. But if the government ensures that every able-bodied and responsible American who desires to keep and bear an arm can get an arm, then there is no need for private, extra-constitutional gun-running.

The Second Amendment has been perverted by profit-seekers. The Second Amendment does not protect gun commerce. End gun commerce, and we’ll defuse the fear– and machismo-stoking marketing that drives our destructive gun culture.

Use These Five Easy Tricks to Identify the Marxist in the Room.

People are waking up to the Marxist onslaught facing our nation. If you still don’t see the pile of bolshie we are up against, I suggest you read this brilliant four-part series by Larry Alex Taunton on Klaus Schwab, his not-at-all secret commie plans for global power, and, more importantly, just how close he is to succeeding.

Communism comes disguised as virtue. Rarely does a despot announce, “I’m here to control every aspect of every life I chose not to murder,” though Schwab is pretty upfront about his planned fascism. Actually, Hitler was too.

Look for communism masquerading as morality in the forms of:

  • Black Lives Matter
  • Critical race theory
  • “Trans rights”
  • Climate change
  • ESG–Environmental, Social and Governance

All of these pretend to help the helpless, but in America, no one is defenseless.

Continue reading “”

2022 Closes with A Nation On the Precipice of Ruination

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- As one more year draws rapidly to a close in these first three decades of the 21st Century, the United States stands precariously at the edge of an abyss.

After a century of sidestepping the issue, the U.S. Supreme Court established, in three precedential case law decisions, what had been visibly plain in the language of the Second Amendment itself all along if one would only look.

All three cases were handed down in the first three decades of the 21st Century. They include:

District of Columbia vs. Heller in 2008, McDonald vs. City of Chicago in 2010, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen in 2022.

These three cases, together, stand for the following propositions, now black letter law:

  • The right of armed self-defense is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia
  • The right of armed self-defense is a universal right, applicable to both the States and the Federal Government.
  • The right of armed self-defense applies wherever a person is, inside the home or outside it.

These three legal axioms are, together, the singular Law of the Land.

But for this Law, the Republic would have fallen into ruin, this Century.

There would be nothing to rein in a rogue Congress, a rogue Biden Administration, or rogue jurisdictions like those around the Country: New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California, Washington State, Washington D.C., Oregon, Hawaii, and several others.

The rot from those State jurisdictions and from the Federal Government would eventually infect many other states.

Forces inside the Government and outside it, both here and abroad—wealthy and powerful, malevolent and malignant—constantly machinate to destroy the right to armed self-defense. These forces will not tolerate an armed citizenry. The existence of an armed citizenry contradicts their end goal of a neo-feudalistic world government. The armed citizenry precept deviates from their plan of world conquest.

Their goal for the 21st Century is a return to the political, social, and economic feudalistic construct operating in the world of the 5th through 15th Centuries—the Middle Ages.

These ruthless elements have declared——

  • The United States can no longer continue as a free Constitutional Republic;
  • The American people must be subjugated; and
  • Any thought of an armed citizenry must be erased from the collective memory of the American people.

The ashes of a once powerful, respected, sovereign, independent United States are to be commingled with the ashes of other western nations.

The EU and the British Commonwealth Nations are a step in the direction of that world empire.

The neoliberal democratic world order is conceived as——

  • One devoid of defined geographical borders,
  • One absent national government; and
  • One bereft of any defining history, heritage, culture, ethos, or Judeo-Christian ethic by which the people of one nation may easily distinguish themselves from any other.

Continue reading “”