Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

I wonder how fascinated they’ll be when one, or several, of the kids they mutilated for their sick anti-human religion will figure out they were lied to and decide to visit their own version of fire & brimstone on them.

Grandstanding for the morons who were stupid enough to elect him.

Chuck Schumer to Undertake Gun Control Push After Shootings Rock Democrat-Run Cities

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is pursuing more gun control after shootings rocked Democrat-run cities over the Fourth of July weekend.

The Hill reported weekend shootings in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Maryland; Lansing, Michigan; and Wichita, Kansas. All four cities are Democrat-run.

Breitbart News also noted at least 32 people were shot Friday into Monday morning in Democrat Mayor Brandon Johnson’s Chicago. Three of the shooting victims succumbed to their wounds.

President Joe Biden responded to the gun control by calling for his normal litany of gun control laws: an “assault weapons” ban, a “high capacity” magazine ban, universal background checks, the ability to sue gun makers over gun crime, and more.

The Hill pointed out that Schumer wants more gun control as well.

Schumer’s spokesperson, Allison Biasotti, spoke on Schumer’s gun control push, saying:

Leader Schumer was proud to have passed a significant bipartisan gun safety bill through the Senate last summer but more must be done. Schumer continues to work with his caucus to find a path forward that can garner enough Republican support and combat the scourge of gun violence, save lives and bring meaningful change.

Schumer will have to get 60 votes to pass gun control, and the prospects are not high.

Moreover, any gun control that may pass the Senate is likely defeated once it reaches the Republican-controlled House.

One Republican-led city, Fort Worth, also witnessed a shooting over the holiday weekend. Multiple gunmen opened fire in a crowd on Fourth of July eve, killing three people.

Almost like it’s not a bug, but a plan.

Suspect in shooting, carjacking spree previously had felon-in-possession charges dropped by DOJ

A 22-year-old man on probation for a knifepoint robbery at a D.C. Metro station is now accused of a carjacking and shooting spree in Prince George’s County, Maryland and the District of Columbia, and the suspect’s previous criminal history raises some major questions about why the Department of Justice chose to dismiss a charge of felon-in-possession just last year.

According to Prince George’s police, 22-year-old Daeyon Ross first carjacked a small SUV in Capitol Heights, Maryland; pointing a gun at the driver before taking off behind wheel, only to crash the stolen vehicle a few blocks away.

Police say Ross then attempted to carjack an Acura ILX in the drive-thru lane of a McDonald’s on Ritchie Road. When the driver, [56-year-old Kurt] Modeste, tried to get away, Ross allegedly shot him multiple times. Modeste managed to drive a short distance before he was pronounced dead.

Ross then carjacked a Toyota Scion, also in the drive-thru, that had three dogs inside. Police said he killed two of the dogs, before driving away in the Scion heading westbound on Central Avenue.

Officers from several agencies followed Ross, as he crossed into D.C. At the intersection of 52nd Street and Sheriff Road NE, he got out of the Scion and carjacked a fourth victim, stealing a GMC Terrain, but got into another crash. When officers approached Ross at the crash scene, an officer with the Capitol Heights Police Department fired shots, but neither the officer nor Ross was injured.

“It’s extremely rare to come across an individual who has such a disregard for life,” said Acting Deputy Chief Zachary O’Lare of the Prince George’s County Police Department.

And yet, authorities have come across Ross on several occasions over the past few years. In 2017 Ross was convicted as a juvenile for an armed robbery and according to WUSA-TV served five years in juvenile custody before he was released last year. Shortly after, and while he was still on probation for that earlier crime, D.C. police caught Ross with a pistol, only to see the resulting charges dropped by the U.S. Attorney’s office.

D.C. Superior Court records show Ross was arrested on Aug. 11, 2022 on multiple charges for allegedly carrying a handgun despite his felony conviction. According to an affidavit, Ross allegedly had a “wide-eyed stare” when he saw officers while walking in the 1400 block of Congress Place SE and then took off running while grabbing his waist band. Officers chased him, during which Ross allegedly pulled out a black handgun and threw it on the ground. Ross was taken into custody shortly thereafter and the gun was determined to be a Taurus G3 9mm with 13 rounds of ammunition.

Ross was charged with being a felon in possession, carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm, possession of unregistered ammunition, altering identification marks of a weapon and possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia dropped all of those charges two months later, however, after Ross’ public defender filed motions challenging the constitutionality of the search under the Fourth Amendment and of the charges under the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which established a new “historical tradition” test for evaluating firearm regulations.

The U.S. Attorney’s office didn’t drop the charges because of the Bruen decision, even if that’s one of the reasons Ross’s public defender gave for why the case against their client should be dismissed. Biden’s DOJ contends that only “law-abiding citizens” have any right to keep and bear arms and have continued prosecuting prohibited persons cases even after the Bruen decision was handed down, so I don’t see how Bruen would have had any impact on the charging decision here.

Instead, as writer Matthew Yglesias recently highlighted, D.C. courts are throwing out a surprising number of prosecutions for firearm-related offenses on Fourth Amendment grounds; an issue that Ross’s public defender also raised last year. Yglesias pointed out a case decided in April called T.W. v. United States that seems to bear a close resemblance to the circumstances of Ross’s arrest. From the decision:

T.W. raised his hands in the air upon seeing the two officers exit the front vehicle. Ewing asked T.W. whether he had a gun on him, and T.W. responded no. Ewing and Gendelman continued approaching T.W. from each side, and Ewing asked “You sure?” to which T.W. replied, “Yeah, I’m positive.” Gendelman then asked, “I can pat you down just to make sure?” T.W. said “Yeah,” and Gendelman responded, “My man,” as he began to pat T.W. down. Gendelman found a gun in T.W.’s waistband. The encounter lasted about ten seconds from when the first officers exited their vehicle to when the pat-down search began, and it took just about another five seconds for the officers to find the gun on T.W. He was charged with carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, and possession of a large-capacity ammunition- feeding device.

Before trial, T.W. moved to suppress the gun, its magazine, and its ammunition. He argued that he was unlawfully seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment when he consented to a pat-down search, and that his consent was the fruit of the illegal seizure. During a hearing on his motion to suppress, T.W. testified that he was “scared and nervous,” never having been arrested before, and did not think he could say “no” to Gendelman’s pat-down request. Asked why not, T.W. responded, “Because of how they came up on me. I felt like I couldn’t walk away.” T.W. further highlighted his youth (21 years old at the time), his “complete lack of experience” with police, “and the fact that he was confronted by multiple officers” who “essentially jumped out on [him] and immediately began asking accusatory questions.”

As Yglesias points out, a jury convicted T.W. at trial, but the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed that conviction on the grounds that the tactics used by police violated T.W.’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Did the USAO believe that was likely going to be the end result of prosecuting Daeyon Ross for being a violent felon in illegal possession of a firearm? If so, it would indicate that this problem has been going on for quite some time in the District, given that Ross’s charges were dropped last year, and T.W.’s case was only reversed a few months ago.

So far the DOJ isn’t talking about why the U.S. Attorney made the decision to drop all of the gun charges Ross was facing last year, but I’m not sure that there’s an answer that’s going to be acceptable. A violent felon was allegedly found in possession of a loaded gun just a short time after being released from custody, and DOJ ultimately took a pass on providing any consequences for that crime. Less than a year later Ross is now charged with first-degree murder, armed carjacking, and even cruelty to animals for shooting two dogs in the second vehicle that he stole at gunpoint.

While Joe Biden is demanding new gun laws aimed at peaceable gun owners his own DOJ is turning down the chance to prosecute repeat offenders; something to keep in mind the next time the president calls for a gun ban, a crackdown on firearms manufacturers, or other infringements on our right to protect ourselves from the violent offenders the Department of Justice are letting go.

Democrat Rep. Has Psychotic Meltdown – Calls Supreme Court “Illegitimate White Patriarchy”

The separation of the political left from any sort of reasonable governance has been obvious for years now. To put it simply, they see the government as their personal weapon for deconstructing the country so they can rebuild society the way they want. They believe this is their right – The right of the collective to socially engineer

The notion that elements of the government might serve the interests of conservatives and independents is an unthinkable heresy. And, whenever they don’t get exactly what they want from the government (which is rare) they immediately act as if they have been betrayed; that an “insurrection” is afoot to enslave them.

This attitude seems to overlook the fact that every major institution in the US has been catering to the far-left for decades. Even when GOP Republicans have taken a majority in the House, the Senate or put their man in the Oval Office, the general legislative trend has always taken a progressive direction, to the point that America has become increasingly more socialist in its functions. It’s also the reason why America has become economically and socially unstable.

In truth, leftists have been getting what they want from governments and the corporate world for so long they have become utterly entitled, like spoiled children.

That’s the kind of sad energy we now see on display among Democrats in the face of multiple Supreme Court losses, including the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the blocking of Biden’s student loan relief program and the end of affirmative action on college campuses. All these court decisions really amount to is a reversal of entitlements that never should have existed in the first place. Leftists see such entitlements as “civil rights,” never mind that they exist as a means to take the rights of others.

Democrat Representative Jaamal Bowman echos this ideology, combining it with a tired and psychotic rant about “white patriarchy” being the core function of the Supreme Court.

The message? It’s complicated because it’s unhinged, but at bottom the far-left wants to fundamentally change the very fabric of the government so that it always acts in their favor regardless of who else is trampled in the process. Let’s try to break down Bowman’s claims…

Playing the racism card is the Democrat go-to tactic for a reason. The primary purpose is to incite civil unrest as a tool for control – “Give us what we want or the cities will burn.” The secondary purpose is to declare ownership of minorities. The propaganda acts as if all minorities are a monolith that serves the aims of the political left. The idea that minorities might also be conservative is ignored.

Affirmative action has always been a racist policy; it allows institutions to actively discriminate based on skin color and ethnicity. Interestingly, white people are not the most affected by affirmative action on college campuses; Asian people are the most discriminated against, with double standards in testing and academic excellence designed to keep them out of the classrooms. According to research from Princeton University, students who identify as Asian must score 140 points higher on the SAT than whites and 450 points higher than Blacks to have the same chance of admission to private colleges.

The notion of a constitutional convention has already been cited by other Democrats including California Governor Gavin Newsom as a means to dismantle the 2nd Amendment, but Bowman seems to be suggesting a convention to completely upend the Supreme Court and the very foundations of the law. Keep in mind that Democrats have avidly defended the court structure when it works in their favor, but since the court is finally operating on a more constitutional framework they argue it is now corrupt and white supremacist.

Student loan debt relief is nothing more than a way for Dems to buy votes – “Put us in office and we will eliminate the debts you accrued getting that degree that was probably useless.” Of course, taxpaying Americans would have to cover the bill for debt forgiveness on college loans, not the Democratic Party. It’s rather brilliant when you think about it – Democrats use your money to buy votes to keep themselves in office so they can continue to erode your constitutional rights. You pay for your own oppression.

People should have to pay for their own debts. Taxpayers should not have to pay their debts for them. It teaches a terrible lesson to the next generation that if they make mistakes the government will make sure they don’t have to learn from those mistakes.

Finally, it’s not surprising that Bowman attacks expanded gun rights in his diatribe on affirmative action, given that the political left cannot maintain power unless the public is eventually disarmed. Leftists believe in majority rule, as long as they are the majority. If they are the minority, they riot. If they are the majority, they demand government suppress their political opponents. In either case, gun rights stand as a major obstacle to them.

It was only a couple years ago that establishment elites and Democrats were pushing for permanent covid mandates, jail time for those who spread information contrary to the government narrative and economic discrimination for anyone who refused to take the vaccines. The political left took the mask off completely and showed who they really are. They cannot be trusted to rewrite or rebuild core government structures.

Their hatred of the Supreme Court is not based on any legitimate grievances, it’s based on how they view power. The court is a center of power that does not always act according to the dictates of social justice Marxism. They see the court as just another “platform” that needs to be co-opted.

Many conservatives and moderates also have concerns about how the Supreme Court makes decisions, but one cannot deny the constitutional logic behind their recent rulings. It’s a shift that should have happened a long time ago, though it is happening in an era in which leftists see ideological deviation as treason. They will use every trick at their disposal to undermine the law and create double standards to their benefit. Bowman essentially admits that this is the plan.

Michelle Obama Takes Time From Opulent Greek Isles Vacation to Tweet About Muh Oppression.

Everyone in life faces disadvantages of one form or another. Almost all children get called an unpleasant name or two in grade school. Some are oppressed by a drunk, abusive, or absent parent. Others may be trapped in horrific schools or extreme poverty. Still others are simply not gifted with high IQs or the ambition to work hard and succeed. The list of reasons why most people don’t go to Ivy League schools and then on to lucrative careers is long, and “oppression” comes in many forms.

If you are the first black White House family, oppression takes the shape of having only two exclusive island waterfront mansions in which to spend your days. Sometimes, you simply must jet to the Greek isles to vacation with your Hollywood besties at their Aegean private island manse. People covered the former first family’s sad exile these past few weeks:

Barack Obama and Tom Hanks can’t turn down a holiday in the sun together.

The 44th president, 61, as well as former first lady Michelle Obama, 59, and their daughters, Sasha, 22, and Malia, 24, met up with some famous friends for lunch on the Greek Island of Sifnos, as captured in photos obtained by theDaily Mail.

The family were spotted dining seaside with Tom Hanks and his wife Rita Wilson while both parties enjoyed a summer outing on the Aegean Sea.…

The group were reportedly shuttled to the picturesque restaurant from a yacht docked nearby, according to the Mail. And it’s not the first time the famous friends have met up aboard a luxury ship.

Barack, Michelle and Hanks previously enjoyed a vacation outing aboard billionaire music mogul Dave Geffen’s personal yacht in French Polynesia in April 2017. At that glamorous meetup, they were also joined by Oprah and Bruce Springsteen.

Geffen’s 450-foot vessel, The Rising Sun, was the 11th largest yacht in the world at the time and valued at an estimated $300 million.

One’s heart convulses with sympathy at the thought of these oppressed victims, doing their best to get by, struggling through their dreary, opportunity-free life aboard a yacht or on a terrace, bathed in gentle Mediterranean breezes. But for the most part, the plucky Obamas have borne their burden with quiet dignity.

The final straw for Lady Michelle of Oahu and Martha’s Vineyard was the racist, racist decision by the racist Supreme Court that Universities may not discriminate against Asian or white applicants. Such racist, oppressive racism was simply too much, and the former First Lady took to Twitter with her thoughts. Let’s take a look-see:

Michelle starts off strong by enunciating one of the many evils inherent to the practice of affirmative action:

Back in college, I was one of the few Black students on my campus, and I was proud of getting into such a respected school. I knew I’d worked hard for it. But still, I sometimes wondered if people thought I got there because of affirmative action. It was a shadow that students like me couldn’t shake, whether those doubts came from the outside or inside our own minds.

That right there is reason enough to outlaw the pernicious practice. It’s now impossible to see a black woman in a prominent position without suspecting that she does not merit it. This is destructive to her authority as well as her own self-confidence. And it harms the people affected by her decisions if, in fact, she is not the best person for the job.

Does Michelle imagine that her family would ever have seen the inside of the White House if they were white? That a first-term senator — with zero executive experience and enough serious ties to known communists and domestic terrorists to make him unlikely to get basic security clearance — was an attractive candidate otherwise?

(As an aside, if I ever need a serious operation, I will choose an Asian or white male doctor because I know he must be an absolute wizard if he was able to get into medical school.)

Mrs. Obama goes on to decry the advantage kids with rich parents have, to which we utter a collective, “No sh*t, Sherlock.” By the way, how did Sasha and Malia enjoy their one-percenter vacation, Michelle?

“Today is a reminder that we’ve got to do the work not just to enact policies that reflect our values of equity and fairness, but to truly make those values real in all of our schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods,” intones the island girl. Perhaps she should blaze an equity trail by selling one of the high-end properties in her family’s portfolio and sponsoring some promising scholars whose skin color she judges worthy.

Another Financial Attack on Gun Owners

As Americans frequently utilize credit to purchase a wide array of things for everyday living, it should come as no surprise that one anti-Second Amendment congressman has decided that firearms purchases using one form of credit should be illegal. Specifically, it should be illegal for semi-automatic rifles that might fall under the political definition of “assault weapons.”

Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.) is attempting to do just this with H.R. 4289, the “Assault Weapons Financing Accountability Act.”

According to the bill’s text, an importer, manufacturer, or retailer selling a firearm under a “Buy Now, Pay Later” (BNPL) financing agreement would be subject to a $100,000 civil fine. Likewise, the purchaser of a firearm bought using BNPL would be subject to the $100,000 civil fine.

In a press release touting this proposed legislation, Larson says, “Banning use of instant financing like BNPL options for assault weapons and the ghost gun kits [to make such rifles] is a step toward reducing the instant accessibility of these weapons and preventing the tragedies of gun violence before they occur.”

The elitism of it all is rather staggering, as Larson is effectively telling Americans they can’t use credit to purchase lawfully made and lawfully sold products. This legislation is certainly in line with other recent attempts by gun-control proponents to attack the right of citizens’ to purchase firearms some people simply do not like by impeding their access to the financial marketplace.

The anti-Second Amendment founder of Mom’s Demand Action, Shannon Watts, for example, is on record proposing that credit-card companies should be able to block their cards from being used to purchase firearm parts.

Closely related to this idea is the announcement by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) that it would create a new Merchant Category Code (MCC) specific to firearm and ammunition retailers—and, in the process, likely create a gun registry.

The ISO announcement followed a petition by Amalgamated Bank to create such a code just for gun stores. That petition was supported by some of the top anti-Second Amendment politicians, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and New York Mayor Eric Adams (D), as well as the anti-gun groups Giffords and Guns Down America.

BNPL financing for firearms is offered by the company Credova. A prospective buyer applies for the BNPL financing as part of their firearm purchase. If the BNPL request is approved, the sale goes through.

Larson falsely stated in the press release that the BNPL financing provides “instant access” to firearms. Even if the BNPL purchase is approved, the buyer of the firearm still must successfully pass the required federal firearms background check, as well as any state-applicable checks and requirements, before a firearm can be transferred.

Like so many of the attempts to strangle Second Amendment rights, Larson and his allies claim that the “Assault Weapons Financing Accountability Act” is needed to reduce “mass shootings,” which they insist are being financed by BNPL even though they haven’t produced any data to support this claim.

Given the current political make-up of the U.S. House of Representatives, this bill is unlikely to gain traction. If both chambers of Congress were in line with the Biden administration’s view of our rights, however, then this could certainly become law.

New Jersey Attorney General Platkin whines like a baby about gun owners

Platty-kins, Platty-kins, unconstitutional man.
Execute me a law as fast as you can.
Lie about it, double down on it, and mark it with a “D.”
Keep it on the books for Danielsen and me!

Well there you have it; the Attorney General of New Jersey’s official nursery rhyme. Just when the patriots thought that Matt “Stuart” Platkin couldn’t get any more swampy or whiney, he sends out this whiny little tweet over all his social media channels!

Okay Plattykins, we’re rest assured. Rest assured you and the rest of the swamp creatures are in over their heads. The awful law, allegedly written by Assemblyman Joe Danielsen (I highly doubt Danielsen has the mental capacity to write something like the “carry-killer” bill by himself) has hit a minor speed bump on its journey to be overruled. The AG should be well aware that this is just a procedural thing, and that the stay on the injunction of New Jersey’s law is likely going to be reversed. This really only has to do with the fact the state asked for an emergency stay.

The state’s case is meritless. Attorney Daniel Schmutter mapped out everything that needs to be known about sensitive locations during the preliminary injunction hearing for the consolidated cases challenging this garbage law:

As Your Honor is aware, we so far have only seen one thing that gets you a sensitive place. That’s “governance.” And it’s actually narrower than government functions, because as Your Honor knows, the State claims that libraries and museums and all that stuff is government functions. It’s the function of governance. Legislatures, courthouses, polling places, those are the three Bruen sensitive places.

The policies that Platkin, Murphy, et.al. pushed for have no historical analogues. The insurance mandate, the ban on carry in the car, the fee hikes – all of it baseless and only enacted to make it more difficult on the law-abiding. Platkin is tired of defending himself because his position is indefensible. Why is he whining so much about this all of a sudden? Because he probably realizes he’s losing and has over caffeinated crazed Karens crawling up his two-hole. The guy screaming “I’m not crazy,” as he’s being whisked out of the room, usually is…well you know.

Continue reading “”

This movement could retake control of prosecutors’ offices: Our country needs a group of conservative prosecutors who are bold

The spate of politically motivated prosecutions against former President Donald Trump in recent months has further underscored how the left – with a big financial assist from liberal megadonor George Soros – has weaponized local district attorney offices to target their political enemies while failing to punish actual criminals. Conservatives desperately need an answer to this alarming trend to restore the rule of law in our country.

In addition to the Biden Department of Justice’s persecution of Trump, the former president has already faced an indictment from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and is also being targeted by Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis and Westchester County, New York, District Attorney Miriam Roach.

All of these investigations are noticeably light on the facts and reek of partisan motivations. As I have written previously, Ms. Willis is reportedly attempting to charge President Trump under Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute, better known as RICO — a state-level version of the federal RICO law that prosecutors have used to target the mob and criminal gangs.

But these sham investigations are only a few of the many egregious derelictions of duty from Bragg, Willis, Roach, and their compatriots in the criminal justice “reform” movement.

So-called “reform” prosecutors have flat out refused to prosecute many crimes, leading to predictably disastrous results for their communities. In Manhattan, Bragg has downgraded 52 percent of felony cases to misdemeanors, while cutting sweetheart deals for rapists and murderers. In Fairfax County, Virginia, Steve Descano, another “reform” prosecutor, cut a plea deal with a child sex offender that was so lenient the judge told the victim, “your government has failed you.”

George Gascon in Los Angeles, Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, Kim Foxx in Chicago, and dozens of other radical left DAs have similarly tragic track records. Chesa Boudin in San Francisco and Kim Gardner in St. Louis have already been booted out of office before the end of their terms.

Far from acting independently of one another, all of these prosecutors are part of a cohesive national movement with a shared set of policy goals, including the elimination of cash bail, a drastic reduction in prison sentences, and a refusal to prosecute entire categories of crimes.

One of the biggest and most public patrons of this movement is George Soros, who has poured more than $35 million into DA races throughout the country via a complex network of PACs, dark money groups, and nonprofits. As these contests are typically low-dollar affairs compared to more high-profile state and federal races, that money has gone a long way. In some cases, Soros-backed candidates outraised their opponents by as much as 90 percent.

As of last June, Soros prosecutors represented some 72 million people – roughly one in five Americans.

The result has been the wave of violent crime that is now sweeping America’s cities. Murders in Los Angeles spiked from 258 in 2019 to 397 in 2021 and 382 last year. Violent crime is surging in Philadelphia and Chicago.

As Alvin Bragg has shown, these prosecutors are also willing to use the power of their offices to target their political opponents. For Soros and his far-left allies, installing loyal prosecutors is a cheap and effective way to bog down their political enemies in an endless sea of bogus litigation.

Replacing these “reform” prosecutors with candidates who will actually enforce the law and end the politicization of the justice system is a vital step toward securing our democracy and restoring public trust in the elected leaders charged with keeping our communities safe.

In order to accomplish this, conservatives need a unifying prosecutor movement of their own – one that upholds the rule of law rather than undermines it. One that pursues justice rather than perverts it. One that honors the hard work and sacrifices made by local law enforcement rather than seeks to defund it. One that remembers the lessons of Giuliani’s Manhattan and believes that small things like fixing broken windows matter. One that holds that the years 1789 and 1776 define our institutions rather than 1619.

Most importantly, our country needs a group of conservative prosecutors who are bold enough to say their communities: “we are not Manhattan, we are not Chicago, we are not St. Louis, we are not Los Angeles, and we are not San Francisco. If violent criminals hurt people in our community, we will not rest until justice is done.” In other words, “We’re your Huckleberry.”

By retaking control of prosecutors’ offices, conservatives can deliver a major blow to the radical left’s war on our institutions and republican system of government. For the future of our country, it is time to take a stand.

(Introducing:) The Big Money Donors Behind the Attacks on Conservative Supreme Court Justices.

The coordinated and sophisticated attacks on conservative Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are no accident. This is a deliberate campaign to tarnish the reputation of justices and delegitimize their decisions in the eyes of citizens.

These attacks are long on rhetoric and short on substance. But that’s how the game is being played. Lacking actual proof of wrongdoing, the left has taken to insinuating ethics violations.

The smears are being published on the left-wing website ProPublica.

“ProPublica isn’t a news organization; it’s a front group for liberal billionaires wanting to ensure that the court rubber stamps their political agenda,” Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino told the Washington Examiner.

ProPublica is a non-profit news site funded primarily by the Sandler Foundation, “which has given nearly $40 million to the organization since 2010,” according to the Examiner. The Sandlers have been plagued by ethics problems themselves. They helped initiate the Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s by being the first to offer “Adjustable Rate Mortgages” (ARM) that led to dozens of S&Ls going under. Then the Sandlers were also partly to blame for the housing crash in 2008, according to Time Magazine.

“The same Sandler Foundation that ‘made ProPublica possible’ with an astounding $40 million also gave $500,000 to Demand Justice, a ‘dark money’ court packing group that spearheaded smear campaigns against Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett,” Parker Thayer, an investigative researcher at Capital Research Center, told the Washington Examiner.

“ProPublica has been in the business of launching partisan attacks on conservative Supreme Court justices for months now, and it shouldn’t surprise anyone given their funding from left-wing groups,” Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article III Project, told the Washington Examiner, adding that the “entire project is revenge for overturning Roe v. Wade.”

The Sandler Foundation also gave $7.5 million to the Campaign Legal Center since 2015, a group whose senior director, Kedric Payne, testified before Congress as a Democratic witness arguing that the legislative branch should write ethics rules for the judicial branch. CLC wrote an April letter calling for a Department of Justice investigation into Thomas “for potential criminal and civil penalties.”

“The corrupt corporate media has been working with these liberal activists for decades, so of course Soros-type donors would be behind this,” a spokesperson for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told the Washington Examiner. “The fact is, Justices Thomas and Alito have complied totally with the Supreme Court’s ethics rules.”

If the tactics of the left in attacking Supreme Court Justices seem vaguely familiar to you, you’re correct.

“This is a textbook example of one of the Left’s favorite tactics: the pop-up pressure campaign,” Thayer explained. The left, through their media outlets and social media presence, creates the appearance of a political groundswell coming from the bottom up when actually, it’s a top-down effort all the way.

“It’s easy to spot once you know the secret,” he said. “First, one or two donors pay a legion of different organizations to get involved in a certain policy debate. Then, all at once, these groups start making noise about an issue nobody cared about five minutes ago.”

ProPublica claims that “40,000 people actively fund our investigative, nonpartisan journalism. Our newsroom operates with fierce independence. No donor or board member is even aware of the subjects of our stories before they are published.”

That’s no doubt true. But it’s also true that a huge portion of their funding comes from a few Democratic billionaire donors who give to ProPublica because they can be relied on to smear the conservative opposition and support the far-left agenda of their benefactors.

NY Gov. Kathy Hochul packs incredible gun control lies and claims into a 58-second video

I live in New York, which is one of the worst states to be a lawful gun owner and a taxpaying citizen. The proof is in the pudding; people vote with their feet when life becomes intolerable due to poor governance, and New York’s allegedly wonderful governance resulted in the loss of yet another congressional seat after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

It is grating to see Gov. Kathy Hochul still bragging about New York as some sort of bastion of freedom and opportunity in the face of the evidence of outmigration. Part of her braggadocio was a video her office posted on Twitter, discussing all the “good” she has done to keep the people of New York “safe from concealed carry weapons.”

First, you don’t have “rights” as a governor; you have powers to govern, and those powers are limited so they don’t violate the rights of the people.

Second, your job is to protect the people’s rights and liberties, and your matriarchal view on “protecting her people” is condescending bunk. Lastly, concealed carry weapons in and of themselves don’t do anything. It depends on who is carrying them. Criminals were carrying concealed weapons prior to NYSRPA v. Bruen and continue to carry after NYSRPA v. Bruen. However, ordinary people’s rights to carry guns in public were infringed by New York State’s discretionary permitting scheme.

Continue reading “”

New laws in Vermont that start July 1: Gun purchases,….

Vermonters will soon see new laws that affect their wallets or their legal choices — and even possibly cut down on the theft of car parts.

Every year, July 1 is the date that many new laws take effect. Some of these laws were recently passed by the Legislature; others were approved a while ago and are just now rolling out.

Here are 11 of the changes you should know about this summer.

Waiting period for gun purchases

Young people in Vermont are less likely than their peers in other states to report feelings of sadness, hopelessness or suicidal thoughts — and yet their rate of suicide deaths is higher than the national average.

Lawmakers have decided that easy access to guns is a significant factor in those deaths. And legislation that goes into effect July 1 will institute a 72-hour waiting period for gun purchases. Lawmakers hope that preventing someone in crisis from gaining immediate access to a gun will allow time for suicidal impulses to pass. The vast majority of people who survive a suicide attempt never make an attempt again.

A new law in Vermont creates a criminal penalty for unsafe storage of firearms if those guns are used in a crime.

The law will allow family members to petition courts for an extreme risk protection order, and creates a new criminal penalty for negligent storage of firearms, if that negligence results in commission of a crime.

The 72-hour waiting period provision is almost certain to invite a legal challenge. In a landmark ruling last year, the U.S. Supreme Court established a new precedent for the manner in which courts should assess the constitutionality of restrictions on gun ownership.

Though Gov. Phil Scott allowed the bill to become law, he said he doesn’t think the 72-hour waiting period will survive a constitutional challenge.

[It makes one wonder why the goobernor let it become law then, but scratch a lib, find a tyrant applies]

THIS IRS EMAIL CORROBORATES WHISTLEBLOWER’S CLAIMS ABOUT BIDEN DOJ INTERFERENCE IN HUNTER PROBE.

A senior IRS official corroborated a whistleblower’s bombshell allegation that Biden Justice Department officials meddled in the Hunter Biden tax probe, according to internal IRS emails released this week.

Whistleblower Gary Shapley’s boss confirmed Shapley’s account of a key meeting that occurred on October 7, 2022, between IRS agents and DOJ prosecutors handling the Biden probe. After the meeting, Shapley wrote to his boss, Darrell Waldon, that U.S. attorney David Weiss indicated he was prohibited from bringing charges against Biden in Washington, D.C. Weiss said that he requested special counsel status but that Justice Department headquarters had denied that request.

“Weiss stated that he is not the deciding person on whether charges are filed,” Shapley wrote.

Waldon, who attended the meeting with Shapley, signed off on his subordinate’s characterization of the meeting. “Thanks, Gary. You covered it all,” Waldon wrote.

The email is powerful evidence supporting Shapley’s claims that the Biden Justice Department interfered in the investigation into the embattled first son and that, contrary to statements from Attorney General Merrick Garland and others, Weiss could not operate freely.

Continue reading “”

Joe Biden Proclaims That He ‘Sold a Lot of State Secrets’ During White House Meeting.

Joe Biden is either the most shameless person ever to hold the presidency or he’s mentally gone. That’s the story after a video surfaced on Monday showing the president proclaiming “I sold a lot of state secrets” during a meeting at the White House.

As RedState reported, Biden hosted Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi last Thursday, and things were as awkward as ever. At one point, the president faced confusion during the Indian national anthem, apparently mistaking it for his country’s own. The next day, a state dinner was held in which Biden brought along Hunter Biden, fresh off his guilty plea, despite the fact that AG Merrick Garland was there.

But if that wasn’t enough to convince you that nothing matters to the current administration, the president decided to announce the following in front of Modi and others.

Remarks by President Biden and Prime Minister Modi of the Republic of India in Meeting with Senior Officials and CEOs of Technology Companies

He didn’t even have to get to the second part before things went haywire, with Biden once again saying “anyway” after obviously losing his train of thought in public. That happens very often to the president. Physically, his voice and pacing sound frail, almost as if he’s tired or on medication. Then he just blurts out that he’s “sold a lot of state secrets.”

Well, alrighty then. I suppose there are a few possible explanations here, some more likely than others. The first possibility is that Biden’s dementia is hitting him so hard that he just accidentally admitted to doing what he’s credibly accused of, which is mishandling classified national security information and accepting bribes from foreign entities. Certainly, the president has had a bad case of advanced age throughout his tenure, and with his condition comes a tendency to just blurt out things he shouldn’t. Who can forget him searching the room for a deceased congresswoman at an event set to honor her?

I suspect that’s not what happened here, though. It’s more likely that his ongoing senility caused him to deliver another one of his patented “jokes” that leaves everyone in the room perplexed, wondering just what the heck is going on. I’d challenge you to look at Modi’s reaction in the video and try not to laugh. The Indian PM isn’t taking anything that comes out of Biden’s mouth seriously.

Even still, it certainly takes a bit of chutzpah to make such a joke when you are currently under investigation for accepting bribes and you’ve already been shown to have illegally held classified documents in your garage. Biden doesn’t care, though, because as I said earlier, nothing matters. He knows he can say whatever he wants and the press will shrug. Compare that to the allegations of a Freudian slip that would be raging had this been a Republican president saying what he said.

Past that, how does any of this help the United States? If you were Modi, having formed a strong, dependent relationship with Russia, would you change course to ally with Joe Biden? What comfort is offered in doing so? The White House isn’t a retirement community, and there are real consequences to having a president who is so obviously out of it. I suspect we’ll keep suffering those consequences until voters make a change.

Conservative Supreme Court justice hit pieces: We are being lectured on ethics by scoundrels.

“Wait till the next empty shoe drops.”

That’s how law professor Josh Blackman concludes a discussion of The New York Times’ open-mouthed discovery that law schools have summer study-abroad programs and sometimes they recruit celebrity professors, even Supreme Court justices, to teach them.

The Times believes it has found a scandal because George Mason’s Scalia Law School has one of these programs and seeks Supreme Court justices to teach in the summer.

My law school has one of these too. So does Blackman’s.

He comments: “Shocker! A DC law school works hard to connect its students with the leaders of the profession. My own law school has organized similar programs in the past with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Ginsburg. (My students described it as a once-in-a-lifetime experience.)”

But, you see, the law school and the justices involved here are conservative, so the Times thinks — or, more accurately, wants its readers to think — there must be something nefarious going on, perhaps “collusion.”

Why, George Mason’s legal clinic sometimes files friend-of-the-court briefs in the Supreme Court, which the paper would like you to believe is some sort of conflict of interest.

Never mind that schools like Harvard and Yale were — until recently, anyway — much closer to many justices on the court than this.

(Note that every member of the court except Amy Coney Barrett is an alumnus of Harvard or Yale.)

There’s nothing there, but the Times doesn’t care.

The Supreme Court has ruled against the left on guns and abortion and is expected to strike down affirmative action any day now.

Thus it must be delegitimized in any way possible.

Continue reading “”

Always with the ‘but’………
Makes you wonder what he thinks about rights protected by the 4th and 5th amendments.

Tulsa police chief suggests nation transform response to gun violence

As mass shootings plague the country, Tulsa’s police chief is comparing the violence to 9/11 and urging a more comprehensive response. KWGS’ Max Bryan sat down with Chief Wendell Franklin for StateImpact. Please note, both the audio and transcript have been edited for length and clarity.

MAX BRYAN: So to begin, after the Saint Francis shooting, you said you would leave gun laws up to the state legislature, but by the end of that month, you had told media outlets that permitless carry was causing problems in Tulsa, and you reiterated that point after the mass shooting at Allen Outlet Mall in Texas last month. So my first question is what led you to decide to speak out?

WENDELL FRANKLIN: Well, because I don’t think that we’re moving the needle on anything. If you compare what we’re faced with 9/11, 9/11 occurred and it totally transformed America, totally transformed how you travel on airlines. No longer can you go to the terminal and see a loved one off or see someone come back. All of that is a sterile area. The federal government took over all airline security and there was this more robust effort to deal with and address some of the terrorist activities that were taking place. Fast forward to even structures, how structures were built, no longer are you building structures that have parking garages that you can access underneath a building. You can’t do that anymore. Today, all of that’s controlled. And any future buildings, those are not even a part of the actual building structure. They move those off to the side now, and here we are today, where we’ve recognized that we have some issues that need to be addressed, and we are operating as though everything is normal, and I don’t think everything is normal.

MB: So you’ve also criticized a lack of regulation of untraceable ghost guns and straw purchasing. Recently you indicated you would support regulating the purchasing of high-powered weapons like AR-15s. Is there anything you can add to that list today?

WF: Ultimately, I’m a Second Amendment guy. I own guns of course. But I’m okay giving up some of that freedom, right? We had to give up some of that freedom after 9/11. I’m okay with waiting three days, five days, or whatever to get my firearm if I go out and purchase another firearm. So I’m okay with a pause to allow for weapons to be purchased and allow the government and the gun companies to look at the background and do a thorough check before that gun goes to someone.

MB: Have you spoken to any members of the legislature about our state’s gun laws?

WF: In passing, I have. It’s a topic that’s not really brought up a whole lot and it’s something that gets glossed over quite a bit.

MB: How have those conversations gone?

WF: It’s an immediate pivot to some other topic. No one really wants to talk about it.

MB: Okay. So in December, you told me the second amendment was tricky. How do you balance challenges, or excuse me, changes that you believe will prevent crime with enforcing laws made by lawmakers who believe the second amendment means expanding firearm access?

WF: Ultimately, law enforcement, we are the experts. We’re the subject matter experts at protecting America, right? Protecting our cities. We should be utilized in that manner. I am charged with protecting this community. And if there are better ways of protecting it, I think we should be looking at those better ways to protect it. Anything that we do, ultimately, we give up something to have that protection. You know, we put seatbelt laws in place, I’m not exactly sure when, probably the 1980s, I think. And we mandated that everyone starts wearing a seatbelt, and it took some time for people to grab hold of that. But if you look today it is an automatic thing that people put on their seatbelt when they get into a vehicle. You feel uncomfortable not wearing that seatbelt. I think again, we give something up to get safety for, for something safe. I think that’s where we are today. We are going to have to give up some things. And I think there are some things that we can give up for a safer community.

 

PRESIDENT BIDEN’S FANTASY GUN CONTROL AGENDA

Where the Answers are Made Up and the Second Amendment Doesn’t Matter

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we have a problem. The President is on the loose again, uttering nonsense about the Second Amendment.

President Joe Biden spoke to a collection of political donors as he’s gearing up his 2024 re-election campaign and used his gun control grindstone to churn out well-worn and discredited Second Amendment tropes. The problem is – it’s all malarky. No kidding, man.

President Joe Biden might just be the lying dog-face pony soldier he accuses others of being.

F-16s and AR-15s
The president belittled Americans who agree that the Second Amendment exists to prevent a tyrannical government from usurping power from the people.

“You know, I love these guys who say the Second Amendment is — you know, the tree of liberty is water with the blood of patriots. Well, if [you] want to do that, you want to work against the government, you need an F-16. You need something else than just an AR-15,” said President Biden according to Fox News.

Aside from the veiled threat to use actual weapons of war against the American people, President Biden’s swipe at Americans who value their rights was intended to target the lawful ownership of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs). There are over 24.4 million MSRs in circulation today. They’re the most popular-selling centerfire rifle in America.

Second Amendment Second Thoughts
“We have to change,” President Biden said. “There’s a lot of things we can change, because the American people by and large agree you don’t need a weapon of war. I’m a Second Amendment guy. I taught it for four years, six years in law school. And guess what? It doesn’t say that you can own any weapon you want. It says there are certain weapons that you just can’t own. Even during when it was passed, you couldn’t own a cannon. You can’t own a machine gun.… No, I’m serious.”

First, he’s overselling his authority as a law professor. President Biden briefly served as Benjamin Franklin Presidential Professor of the Practice at the University of Pennsylvania for two years between his terms as vice president and his campaign for The White House, according to a fact check by the Austin American-Statesman. He was paid $900,000 and his duties “involved no regular classes and around a dozen public appearances on campus, mostly in big, ticketed events,” the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

His description as a “Second Amendment guy” might come as a surprise to other “Second Amendment guys.” That doesn’t normally include ideas like universal background checks that would require a national firearm owner registry, restrictions that would ban entire classes of firearms, repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to allow frivolous lawsuits against firearm manufacturers for the criminal misuse of lawfully sold firearms by remote third parties or – as the president points out here – a clear ignorance of the National Firearms Act.

Fox News reported, correctly, that the Second Amendment makes no mention of firearm restrictions. Gun control laws at the federal level didn’t start until 1934 when the National Firearms Act was signed by President Franklin Roosevelt. That’s 143 years later.

Americans can legally own machine guns, although it is extremely restricted. No automatic firearm produced after May 1986 is available for commercial sale but those produced before then can be – and are – legally owned. Owners have to pay a $200 tax stamp and register them with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

When it comes to cannons, well, President Biden blasted that one too. It was legal to own a cannon when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. It’s still legal to own one today.

President Biden made the same erroneous claim in April 2022 and in June of 2021, when The Washington Post fact checked him on that one. He earned “Four Pinocchios,” writing “Biden has already been fact-checked on this claim — and it’s been deemed false. We have no idea where he conjured up this notion about a ban on cannon ownership in the early days of the Republic, but he needs to stop making this claim.”

Rapid-Fire Falsehoods
None of this is new. President Biden, who claims to own two shotguns, is hardly the Second Amendment expert he presents himself to be. He once told his wife she should “fire two blasts” of a shotgun blindly into the air if she felt threatened. That’s terrible and dangerous legal advice. Among the four fundamental firearm safety rules is to know your target and what is beyond.

This advice was actually invoked in a court case, where the accused, Jeffrey Barton, was charged with aggravated assault. Prosecutors ended up dropping those charges and instead charged him with police obstruction, of which he was convicted.

President Biden once argued to ban 9 mm Glocks, claiming in an interview with Charlie Rose that he could kill more people with a .38-caliber revolver. He also oddly told police they should shoot “unarmed” attacking criminals wielding knives “in the leg.” Police ripped that suggestion. Fox News reported the Fraternal Order of Police said it was “completely ridiculous,” “unrealistic” and a “pandering talking point.”

President Biden didn’t stop there. He believes that 9 mm handguns are especially dangerous.

“A 9 mm bullet blows the lung out of the body,” President Biden said. “The idea of a high caliber weapon, there is simply no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection, hunting.”

The president’s 9 mm claim was debunked as “bullsh*t,” by a federal agent with 15 years of service. Another with 20 years said, “Not possible.” A 21-year veteran of the U.S. Marshal fugitive recovery task force told Breitbart that President Biden’s claim is, “… not even in the realm of possibility.”

That’s the problem with President Biden. He’s living in a fantasy world of utter nonsense.

She is lamenting that our society is not more like China’s, where the goobermint monitors you from birth and intervenes when your social index score gets too low.

IT’S NOT THE GUNS

The “guns cause killings” idea is bogus. (Dec. 1, 8A, “Guns, not mental health issues, cause US mass shootings”) There are more guns than people in America.
If guns cause violence, then the annual homicide rate should be more than 1 million killed, with hundreds of thousands wounded. The streets of every city, town and village should be running red with blood, and the bodies should be stacked like cord wood in the streets.

Two classes of homicides dominate mass media today: gang warfare killings and mass shootings by lone killers. Gang warfare is concentrated in urban areas. One-on-one homicides are fairly rare and sprinkled across America. Mass shootings are even more uncommon.

Dealing with lone killers would require America to tackle the very tough issue of privacy. In the past 60 years, civil libertarians have invented an impenetrable bubble of privacy around everyone. This makes it difficult or impossible for employers, law enforcement and school officials to do anything before a mass shooting takes place.

A final observation: Every handgun sold to honest, law-abiding citizens is a vote of “no confidence” in government’s ability — or even willingness — to control street crime.

– Brian Bloedel, Accomac, Virginia