Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

Printer Panic: Everytown 3D Gun Summit Targets Technological Advancement

Recently, Everytown for Gun Safety hosted a 3D Printed Firearms Summit in New York City with the goal being to “build cross-sector collaboration and chart actionable strategies to stem the tide of 3D-printed firearm (3DPF) related violence.”  The gathering of gloom is seemingly a leftover from the Biden-Harris administration, which convened similar confabs of gun control absolutists. One positive note is that these kinds of anti-gun “summits” must now be funded with Everytown’s own money rather than by taxpayers through Biden’s defunct White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Media hype ahead of the summit warned, “We’re at the start of a new public safety crisis and there is no time to waste,” and “3D-printed firearms are the new frontier in the fight against gun violence.” Everytown is apparently measuring this crisis by “recovery data from twenty U.S. cities submitted exclusively to Everytown” according to their Facebook post. Exclusive crime-related data given just to Everytown may raise its own kinds of red-flags to consider.

While 3D printing is a newer and developing technology, homemade firearms, or PMFs — privately made firearms — are not. Since the birth of our nation, citizens have enjoyed the right to create their own privately made firearms. A review of the basic facts on PMFs would have made for a helpful presentation at the summit.

As far as federal law is concerned, individuals can legally make firearms for personal use without a license as long as the person isn’t prohibited from possession of firearms, the firearm is detectable, and the firearm isn’t made or sold for profit. Firearms and related items that are illegal under federal and/or state law, however, are still illegal. Items that are already regulated by federal and/or state law are still regulated.

Firearms continue to be heavily regulated regardless of how they are manufactured. Articles referring to 3D printed firearms are a mishmash of terms interchanging 3D printed firearms with “ghost guns” and undetectable firearms. The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, to name just a few, continue to govern firearms produced by 3D printing.

The mere absence of a serial number does not make a gun undetectable and if 3D printers were capable of producing undetectable firearms, such guns would already be illegal to manufacture and possess anywhere in the country.

Continue reading “”

Self-Proclaimed ‘Human Rights Defenders’ Attack Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Self-defense is a human right. In fact, I’d argue it’s the most fundamental of all our inherent rights. Without that right to protect our lives, what does it matter if we have the right to think or say what’s on our mind, or to worship (or not) as we choose?

So, anytime I see a self-described human rights activist talking about the right to keep and bear arms, I’m always curious to see if they’ll actually embrace the human right of self-defense, or pretend that it doesn’t exist.

Sadly, it seems that the group Mindbridge Center falls into the latter category. In a new post at Psychology today, the self-described human rights defenders argue that only by denormalizing gun ownership and adopting laws that make it harder, if not impossible, for people to defend themselves, can we build a safer America.

While many Americans believe gun ownership is widespread and normalized, the truth is more nuanced. Only about 30 percent of Americans own a gun, and among men, 60 percent do not own a firearm (Pew Research Center, 2024). Yet, public perception often overestimates gun prevalence due to cultural portrayals and media emphasis.

If 1-in-3 people engage in a particular activity, I’d say that’s a pretty normal activity, wouldn’t you? More importantly, the Mindbridge Center itself says on its website that human rights defenders are those “advocating for minoritized groups such as racial minorities, Indigenous people, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, or the disabled community.”

So here’s my question to Mindbridge; if advocating for minoritized groups is defending human rights, and “only” 30% of Americans own guns, then why isn’t advocating for gun owners a defense of human rights?

And a followup: if members of these minoritized groups face threats of physical violence because of who they are, do the folks at Mindbridge really believe that they’re better off disarmed and defenseless? Shouldn’t they have the ability to protect themselves from those who would do them harm? Don’t they have the right to protect their lives?

The most obvious answer is that the folks at Mindbridge don’t think so. After all, it’s clear they want to denormalize and stigmatize gun owners. As they write in their call to action::

You don’t need to be a policymaker to help shift the culture. Start by challenging the myths: Most men don’t own guns, and most Americans support regulations like background checks. Share this truth in conversations, on social media, and in community spaces. Campaigns that highlight these facts, such as billboards or digital media stating “60% of American men don’t own a gun,” can help redefine what responsible citizenship looks like.

Got that? For Mindbridge, being a “responsible citizen” means not owning a gun. Which brings up another question: why bother pushing for things like “universal” background checks if they think that gun ownership itself is a problem?

The fundamental premise of their mindset is that, unless “both structural change and cultural transformation” surrounding gun ownership takes place, it’s impossible to “build a safer future.” That ignores the fact that violent crime is dropping at record levels at the moment, and 2025 is on pace for the lowest homicide rate in more than 60 years.

We are building a safer future (and a safer present as well), and we’re doing so while robustly exercising our right to bear arms… as well as our human right to self-defense.

I’ve got a phone number for them: 1-800-CRY-BABY

Giffords: Increase in Defensive Gun Uses ‘Must Be Stopped’

When I covered the WSJ’s hit piece on Stand Your Ground laws on Wednesday, I wondered if the reporters had any behind-the-scenes help from gun control activists.

It’s not proof of anything, but since the story appeared online only one gun control group has promoted the story on X or Bluesky.

The premise of the WSJ story is that Stand Your Ground laws have led to a 59% increase in the number of justifiable homicides in some states between 2019 and 2024, and that the law is allowing some folks to literally get away with murder.

As we discussed yesterday, though, none of the anecdotal cases cited by WSJ in support of that premise are slam dunk examples of murders that were deemed justified as a result of SYG laws. The data set used by the paper is also suspect, since it did not include the significant number of states where Stand Your Ground exists in common law but not specifically in statute.

There are only 11 states that impose a general duty to retreat before acting in self-defense. The vast majority of states don’t require you to present your back as a target to your attacker while you try to run away; instead, they allow you to act in self-defense so long as you have a reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm.

Stand Your Ground laws also aren’t really a new thing. Florida’s statute, for instance, has been in place for two decades. If the law automatically led to more unjustified shootings being deemed justifiable homicides by the courts, we would have expected to see that phenomenon occur long before 2020, but there’s no evidence that’s the case.

We saw a huge spike in violent crime in 2020, along with a big spike in new gun owners. That’s the most likely reason for an increase in justifiable homicides since then; with more crimes being committed and more people carrying for self-defense, there are more occasions when legally armed citizens will use a firearm to defend themselves. That doesn’t mean, however, that people are getting away with murder just because they tell police that they were in fear for their lives. Every time a life is taken a police investigation is going to take place, and charges may very well be filed even when there’s evidence of self-defense.

Even using the WSJ’s own flawed dataset, the percentage of homicides deemed justified in SYG states has climbed from about 2.8% in 2019 to 3.8% in 2024. We don’t know how many self-defense claims were raised in the 96.2% of homicides that were deemed murder, but we know the number isn’t “zero.” Stand Your Ground laws aren’t a “get-out-of-jail free” card for armed citizens, despite the slanted reporting from the WSJ and Gifffords’ wild suggestion that many or all of these justifiable homicides are actually murder.

Take this recent case from Stand Your Ground-Wyoming. Back on June 24 of this year a man named Kevin Hefley was shot and killed. It wasn’t until this week that the Laramie County Sheriff’s Office and the local D.A. officially deemed the shooting justified, with the sheriff’s office declaring it had “meticulously” investigated the case over the past several months despite what appears to be pretty clear evidence that the armed citizen had reason to believe his life was in danger.

Deputies responded at 4:22 p.m. that afternoon to a “disturbance” involving a shooting, says the sheriff’s office’s statement.

Earlier that day, Christine Hefley moved horses from the property she and Kevin shared to Patrick Gross’s property, “upsetting Kevin,” the statement says.

The two men had a recent history of conflict.

The sheriff’s office reports that on the morning of the shooting, Kevin Kefley threatened Gross via text message, saying, “I shoulda kicked your ass right in your own home.”

Later while Gross was parked in his own driveway, Kevin Hefley drove rapidly towards him, reportedly.

“Just prior to being rammed by Hefley, Gross shot Hefley’s radiator in an attempt to stop the vehicle,” says the statement, adding that later crash reconstruction indicated that Kevin Hefley hit Gross’s truck at 60 mph, “constituting the threat of deadly force.”

Kevin Hefley got out of his vehicle, approached Gross who was in hiw own truck, and punched him multiple times.

During the altercation, Gross shot Kevin Hefley, the statement says.

Though shot, Kevin Hefley kept attacking Gross while clinging to the driver’s door of Gross’s truck as Gross tried to drive away, the sheriff’s office reports.

Kevin Hefley kept attacking until he died of his injuries, the statement adds.

The sheriff’s office says investigators examined the scene “meticulously,” built advanced crash reconstruction analysis and analyzed evidence from phones and social media.

Kevin Hefley’s blood alcohol content was 0.143%, nearly twice the legal limit to drive, says the statement.

The statement says the Laramie County District Attorney’s Office has concluded that Gross acted in self-defense.

This is an example of the “legally sanctioned killings” that Giffords says must be stopped, which begs the question: would they have uttered a word if Hefley had managed to kill Gross by ramming into his truck at 60 mph, or by beating him to death afterwards?

Of course not. No gun would have been used, so there would be no reason for the gun control group to offer any kind of comment. It’s defensive gun uses like Gross’s they think must be stopped, not the actions of violent criminals that lead lawful gun owners to act in self-defense. I guess that shouldn’t be surprising coming from a group whose founder is working for a future with “no more guns,” but it’s a position that puts Giffords at odds with both the Constitution and common sense.

17 Anti-Gun AGs Side With Hawaii On Purchase Permits, Inspection Requirement

A coalition of anti-gun attorneys general from 17 states has filed an amicus brief with the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of two restrictive Hawaii laws being challenged as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The lawsuit revolves around two provisions of Hawaii’s permitting regime— a 30-day time limit to purchase a firearm after receiving a permit and a requirement that police inspect legally purchased firearms within five days.

The brief argues that not only do the laws directly violate the Second Amendment, but they also lack historical support and impose undue burdens on law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights. In March, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court struck down the two provisions, but the state government appealed to the full 9th Circuit.

However, the brief from the 17 anti-gun AGs urges the 9th Circuit’s en banc panel to reverse the decision striking down the provisions. The brief claims that states’ interests in implementing “appropriate, reasonable regulations tailored to their specific circumstances” is more important than the protections afforded by the Second Amendment.

Heading up the AGs’ efforts is California Attorney General Rob Bonta, one of the most anti-gun attorney generals in the country.

Do tell…..

Sharyl Attkisson: Mexican government bought US guns used in cartel crimes

For years, escalating violence and bloodshed in Mexico was blamed on U.S. gun smuggling and lax firearm laws. American-made weapons litter Mexican crime scenes.

But what if the truth is far different? A former federal agent is flipping the script with a jaw-dropping twist: Many of the U.S. guns used in cartel crimes were bought by Mexico’s own government.

Deadly shootouts and clashes with police are a daily reality among Mexico’s killer cartels. As a result, Mexico’s gun homicide rate is two to three times worse than the U.S., with over 21,700 gun murders in 2022. It’s a flashpoint in the debate over firearms and crime and who’s to blame. Mexico and gun control advocates have long blamed smuggling and America’s loose gun laws.

That’s the story John Dodson says he was told throughout his 15 years as a special agent with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The narrative was, “We are to blame. Our civilian firearms market, our right to bear arms, is to blame for the violence in Mexico and along the southwest border,” Dodson said.

But that narrative, he says, has been upended by the surprising truth: “The vast majority of crime guns recovered in Mexico are purchased directly by the Mexican government,” he said.

Tracing data confirms it. Most of the U.S. firearms recovered from Mexican crime scenes weren’t trafficked or smuggled. The Mexican government legally purchased them.  Exact numbers are hard to come by, but a 2023 State Department report confirms the U.S. approved $147.7 million in small– arms sales to Mexico from companies like Sig Sauer and Glock. Still more weapons are supplied through U.S. Foreign Military Sales.

“When we first started telling the Mexicans, ‘You have to do something to stop the drug trafficking coming north of the border,’ the Mexican authorities needed resources and funds to do that,” Dodson said. “So we started funding these operations … providing them with hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase equipment — much of that firearms.”

He says he queried ATF’s gun-tracing network. And he saw that most of the U.S. guns turning up at cartel crime scenes were originally sold to the Mexican government. Dodson said he was “flabbergasted.”

We reviewed data from 2016 to 2023. It confirms the Mexican government was the top buyer of U.S. guns later traced to crime scenes in Mexico. One document shows the Mexican military, listed as “dealer,” purchased more than 2,000 from 2016 through 2021.

A 2023 document sources a year’s worth of U.S. guns from Mexican crime scenes, with 779 of them originally bought by the Mexican government. No other source is anywhere close.

The State Department, which oversees foreign weapons sales, declined our interview request and wouldn’t answer any of our questions. We also couldn’t get any information from the Justice Department or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The State Department has told Congress that its priority is national security.

“From what I know,” Dodson said, “the amount of those firearms that are ending up being diverted to the black market — I would cease and desist all transactions with the Mexican government when it comes to firearms.”

Newsom Signs Glock Ban Bill Into Law

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has been calling himself a Second Amendment supporter for several months now, but if anyone had any doubts about his lack of sincerity those can now be put to rest. On Friday afternoon the governor signed AB 1127 into law, which will outlaw the sale of Glock handguns in the state starting in January.

In addition to AB 1127, Newsom also signed legislation that will require sales of gun barrels to go through an FFL and a background check, as well as AB 1078, which replaces California’s “1-in-30” handgun rationing law (which is already on hold thanks to a lawsuit) with a “3-in-30” law. The bill, however, states that California will return to its previous one-gun-a-month scheme if it’s ultimately upheld by the courts.

As you can imagine, gun control activists are thrilled to see California become the first state in the nation to outlaw the sale of some of the most popular pistols in the country, and they’ll be making a major push for other blue states to adopt similar bans in the months ahead. From Everytown for Gun Safety:

“We applaud Governor Newsom and state lawmakers for putting California at the forefront of the fight against DIY machine guns, which are just as scary as they sound,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. “It speaks volumes about the gun industry’s fixation on profits that only a new law can force it to take the most basic steps to prevent mass carnage.”

“Governor Newsom, state lawmakers, and California volunteers continue to prove that the days of putting gun industry profits over our lives are long gone,” said Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of Moms Demand Action. “DIY machine guns should never have had a pathway onto our streets, and today, we’re taking a big step to get them out of our communities. Our movement will keep fighting to hold reckless gun manufacturers accountable — because they shouldn’t get to profit off our tragedies.”

AB 1127 theoretically allows for Glock to change the design of its Gen 3 model to block the installation of illegal switches, but even if the company could take that step CalDOJ would view the redesigned pistol as a new firearm subject to the state’s handgun roster, and it would be rejected due to a lack of a magazine disconnect feature. That’s the reason why newer Glock models haven’t been approved for sale in California, though the Gen 3 was previously grandfathered in to the roster.

The NRA is already vowing to sue Newsom over the ban.

My guess is most of the other national Second Amendment groups will soon be filing suit as well, and we’ll probably see a coalition or two combining forces to take on the new laws.

So far there’s been no word from Glock on the new legislation, which is part of a broader effort to prohibit the sale of the popular handguns. The cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and Seattle are also suing the company, claiming the gunmaker is willfully allowing the illegal conversion of their pistols into full-auto machine guns through the installation of illegal switches. New York also has a similar Glock ban bill pending in the legislature, and now that Newsom has signed AB 1127 into law that could start moving as well.

The gun control lobby can’t ban handguns outright, so their new strategy is to go after the most popular pistols on a piecemeal basis. In the short term, Glock sales will likely skyrocket in California, but unless AB 1127 is stayed via an injunction those sales will come to a screeching halt once the new law takes full effect.

Violence and the Left’s Five-Part Strategy

President Trump’s designation of Antifa as a “major terrorist organization” is a major step in dealing with the epidemic of left-wing violence that has gripped the country.  For the first time, we have a president who understands that riots with pallets of bricks that show up at just the right time and place, attacks on law enforcement and on passing motorists, physical attacks on opponents and even assassination do not just arise organically but instead are all part of a larger subversive strategy that enables and supports the left’s violence.

Just prosecuting a violent leftist here and there without countering that subversive strategy is like swatting a mosquito or two while leaving in place the pool of stagnant water that breeds them. Consequently, the president’s executive order recognizes that any effort to stop left-wing violence has to address the larger ideological, organizational, and financial feeder system that breeds and incites that violence.

Now comes the challenge for mainstream Americans.  The radical left knows that the political will to carry out President Trump’s directive will depend on continuing support from mainstream America, and so the left will mount a counter-offensive to wear away public support for any attempt to counter the left’s subversion.  If you think leftists get unhinged when someone simply disagrees with them, wait until you see their reaction when their support network is investigated, their funding is threatened, and they feel exposed and cornered. The left-wing media and elected Democrats who supported the weaponization of government against peaceful opponents during the Obama and Biden administrations have already started a propaganda campaign with cries of “fascism” and “dictatorship” at the prospect of leftists being held accountable for inciting and committing political violence.

To hold fast in the face of the left’s counter-offensive, mainstream Americans need to see how the pieces of the left’s strategy work together to demoralize and destabilize our system of government. In his must-read book, The Memo: Twenty Years Inside the Deep State Fighting for America First, Rich Higgins describes in detail the pattern of subversion that he encountered within America’s security apparatus and his attempt to warn President Trump about it. In addition to a shocking account of delay and subversion from within the deep state, Higgins also reveals in this book and in his other work how leftist violence is only one of five lines of effort in the Maoist approach to political warfare. Expanding on his work, we see the outlines of the left’s five-part strategy:

(1) Forming alliances of grievance groups:  Socialists, radical feminists, minorities, gender identity groups, climate extremists, Islamists, and other grievance groups are pulled together toward a common aim, the destruction of the Judeo-Christian foundations of America and the West.  Supported by a complex web of foreign and domestic funding, conflicting interests such as those of the LGBT movement and those promoting sharia law are tempered—at least for now—by that shared aim.

(2) Non-violent action: Many of the left’s tactics are non-violent in themselves but promote a dangerous climate for anyone who disagrees with their authoritarian agenda. Condemnatory terms such as “homophobic,” “Islamophobic,” “transphobic,” or “fascist” and characterizing opposing opinions as driven by hate are all intended to intimidate and silence any viewpoints deemed politically incorrect by the radical left. Boycotts of companies that don’t toe the party line as well as deplatforming and debanking of opponents create a climate of fear and send a clear message that you will pay if you cross the left.

(3) Violent action and intimidation: The above tactics provide propaganda air cover for looting, riots, attacks on people who disagree, and even assassination as supposedly legitimate means of bringing down “fascists” and the hateful and oppressive system they support. As was the case with the paramilitary Red Guard in China, we see that young people are particularly enticed to join in the destruction of the existing cultural and political order.

(4)  Sanctuary:  Subversive actors need safe spaces where they can be encouraged and protected from the consequences of their actions, and so speech codes and leftist indoctrination in our education system make it clear that only left-wing opinions are permissible and that open exploration of ideas should not be tolerated.  Left-wing DAs who view criminals as victims and victims as oppressors release dangerous offenders on the street, undermining public trust in government protection.

(5) Direct political action: The above tactics then enable the election of radical leftists who use the formal power of government to attack and undermine our constitutional system. You don’t’ have to search long to see a number of public officials who already spout the Marxist line under the cover of “progressive” or “democratic socialist” labels.

When we see the full extent of the left’s multi-front campaign of subversion, it becomes clear that only a multi-front response such as that in President Trump’s directive has any hope of protecting public safety and restoring our ability to have civil discussion of differences without threats of violence from the left.  When you hear the left bemoaning “weaponization” of government, remember that an age-old tactic of the left is to accuse their opponents of what the left actually does.

Dr. Tim Daughtry is co-author of Waking the Sleeping Giant: How Mainstream Americans Can Beat Liberals at Their Own Game.  F

10 US Code Chapter §252  (the Insurrection Act)

“Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”

Women don’t need gun control activists telling them how to defend themselves
Proper training addresses mindset, marksmanship, and decision-making under stress. It’s not about checking boxes or reciting slogans — it’s about preparing women for the real-world challenges they face.

It may surprise some, but women and minorities are now the fastest-growing segment of new gun owners. Since 2019, nearly half of first-time gun buyers, about 3.5 million, have been women. Their reasons are simple and deeply personal: they want to feel safe, protect their families, and take responsibility for their own security in an uncertain world.

That growth is something gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action can’t ignore. After years of demonizing gun owners and lobbying to restrict our rights, they now see they’re losing ground. Instead of rethinking their position on Second Amendment Rights, they’re trying a new tactic: launching firearms “training” programs and repackaging their political agenda as education to sway public perception.

Think about the irony. These are the same groups that claim the Second Amendment is obsolete, insist no one “needs” a gun, and argue that firearms make families less safe. Now they want to be seen as trusted sources for firearms instruction? It’s as backwards as letting burglars write your home security manual or foxes guard the henhouse.

This isn’t a genuine change of heart — it’s a calculated strategy. They know that if new gun owners connect with trusted, pro-Second Amendment communities, they’ll lose their influence for good. So, they’re attempting to insert themselves into the training space to control the message from within. These gun control groups don’t support your constitutional rights, but they are masquerading as a trusted resource because they want to shape how you exercise them and dilute your empowerment.

Continue reading “”

Well it sure took them long enough……

Kash Patel’s FBI Cuts All Ties to Southern Poverty Law Center

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—The FBI has confirmed that it severed all ties to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a far-left activist group that puts conservatives and Christians on a “hate map” along with Ku Klux Klan chapters. The “hate map” has inspired at least one terrorist attack against a conservative organization.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center long ago abandoned civil rights work and turned into a partisan smear machine,” FBI Director Kash Patel told The Daily Signal in a statement Friday. “Their so-called hate map has been used to defame mainstream Americans and even inspired violence.”

“That disgraceful record makes them unfit for any FBI partnership,” Patel added.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

The FBI confirmed that it has no intelligence products from the SPLC and does not engage in contact or information sharing with the SPLC.

The statement comes days after Patel told Fox News Digital that the FBI had severed ties with the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish nonprofit that opposes antisemitism but also leans left and condemns critics of transgender ideology.

Continue reading “”

ENEMY ORGANIZATIONAL CHART:

Original Intent: What the Founders Had to Say About Guns
The very idea of American freedom hinges on the right to keep and bear arms.

The US Constitution took effect March 4, 1789 – and the Bill of Rights a while later on December 15, 1791. Among other freedoms, this included the Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. But now it’s 2025, more than 230 years removed from that great work of America’s Founding Fathers. So where do our gun rights stand – and what would those men think if they could see us today?

The Birth of Gun Control Meant Death to Liberty

In 1934 – more than 140 years after the Bill of Rights and nearly a century after the last remaining Founding Father, James Madison, died in 1836 – the nation’s first successful gun control bill became law. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was president, and he led a trifecta in the Swamp that included a supermajority in the Senate and a large majority in the House. The gun control that they passed regulated, for the first time, various types of firearms differently. Even with the majorities necessary to bulldoze the minority opposition, they knew an outright ban wouldn’t fly. So, instead, they passed a bill technically regulating the sale and taxation of certain types of arms – and, in practice, pricing out most Americans from owning them.

Three decades later, Democrats once again held both houses of Congress and the presidency. And, once again, they capitalized on a series of crises to justify further restricting the right to keep and bear arms. With the Gun Control Act of 1968, we got the establishment of prohibited persons – entire groups of people who would be stripped of the right to be armed. Guns could no longer be bought and sold commercially without going through a federally licensed dealer, in person.

In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and the background check as a way to weed out prohibited persons. This was followed quickly by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which made certain semi-automatic firearms illegal for anyone, though it expired in 2004. Democrats have been trying ever since to pass another ban – this time, without a sunset clause.

Every gun control law passed in this nation’s history – and the time between them seems to shrink with each one – brings us farther from the Founders’ vision of liberty. Yes, in the last few years, Supreme Court rulings, executive actions, and the spread of the constitutional carry movement through the states all seemed to push back on this slow march to disarmament. But freedom today doesn’t mean what it did to the Founders. They envisioned something quite different, and nothing paints a better picture of that vision than their own words.

Continue reading “”

He must really be handing out the $$ to both sides as I can’t figure out why he hasn’t been taken care of for so long

BLUF: Donald Trump suggested RICO charges against George Soros and his son Alex, a favorite chum of Democrats, for their funding of violent protests in the United States. It certainly seems to be past time for serious investigation into and accountability for Soros’s funding of dangerous Marxist revolution.

Soros Poured $80M Into Pro-Terror Groups, Says Non-Profit Watchdog

Insidious leftist billionaire George Soros donated no less than $80 million to pro-terror groups in less than a decade, according to a new report.

In his 1987 book, The Alchemy of Finance, Soros wrote, “I have always harboured an exaggerated view of my self-importance. To put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes, or, even better, like Einstein.” Unfortunately, he transfers his god complex and massive wealth into trying to reshape our world into a globalist Marxist oligarchy.

Capitol Research Center (CRC), a watchdog of non-profits, released a report Sept. 17 stating that George and Alex Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF) lavished more than $80 million on groups with ties to terrorism or extremist violence since 2016.

The evidence is stark: Open Society has sent millions of dollars into U.S.-based organizations that engage in “direct actions” that the FBI defines as domestic terrorism.

These groups include the Center for Third World Organizing and its militant partner Ruckus Society, which trained activists in property destruction and sabotage during the 2020 riots, and the Sunrise Movement, which endorsed the Antifa-linked Stop Cop City campaign, in which activists currently face over 40 domestic terrorism charges and 60 racketeering indictments.

At the same time, Open Society awarded $18 million to the Movement for Black Lives, a group that co-authored a radical guide that glorifies Hamas’s October 7 massacre and instructs activists in the use of false IDs, blockades, and economic disruption.

Continue reading “”

Antifa Defence Fund Shuts Down After Trump’s Terrorist Designation

Democrats love to scream that Antifa cannot be designated a terrorist organization because it is a noble idea rather than an organized movement. That is bosh, and a fund that raises money for Antifa just tacitly admitted as much.

The International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund has suddenly suspended its operations and indicated that, while it presently operates within the United States, it is going to move operations overseas, asserting the president and his administration are “fascists.” But the great point that ought to be hammered home is that Antifa must be a specific, organized movement with a detailed funding structure, or the fund would not suddenly be in panic over the president’s designation of the group as a terrorist entity.

Below is the current message on the International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund’s website under the “Donate & Support” tab:

In September 2025, United States president Donald Trump issued an edict declaring “antifa” a domestic terrorist organization. As a precaution, we have shut down the donation infrastructure for The International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund to protect our donors and recipients.

We are presently exploring our options for re-establishing the Defence Fund’s infrastructure in a country not currently governed by fascists and we hope to have good news about that shortly. Please stay tuned.

So who funds the International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund? It is an interesting question, and one worthy of further investigation. Donald Trump promised that his administration would be investigating the funding sources for Antifa and other leftist radical organizations. The FBI and Treasury Department are in fact already investigating, and it would certainly be worthwhile to dig deeper into this fund.

Significantly, Marxist, leftist billionaire George Soros has donated at least $80 million to pro-terror groups since 2016. It would hardly be surprising if he and his Democrat-loving son Alex had given money to Antifa.

Speaking of which, what is the International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund? Below is the jargon-laced description from the fund’s website:

We saw a need for a standing fund that could be used to provide immediate support to anti-fascists and anti-racists anywhere in the world, whenever they found themselves in a difficult situation as a result of their stand against hate.

Modelled on the defence fund run by the Anti-Racist Action Network in the late 1990s/early 2000s, The International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund accepts proposals for support from anyone (by contacting Antifa International).

The page vaguely mentioned a “crew of individuals and groups” who have donated above $20 or €20 or £15, who make decisions about where the money goes.

The fund’s homepage currently promotes an individual identified as Big Tex who has been charged in Texas with multiple crimes, including resisting arrest. The fund claims he was targetted because he protected attendees at a drag event from “transphobes.” The homepage also refers to ICE officers as “Gestapo agents” and describes the July 4 ambush on an officer at the Alvarado ICE facility, for which nearly a dozen individuals were charged with attempted murder, as a “poignant” “protest” against a “violent, colonialist tradition.” The organization openly admitted to contributing to the attempted murderers’ defense fund.

All the fund is proving is that Trump was 100% right to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization.

NAILED IT! The FBI DID Send Hundreds of Undercover Assets Into the J6 Protest!

Yet another victory for the tinfoil hat, “conspiracy theory” crew: the FBI sent 274 “plainclothes” agents into the crowd of people protesting in and near the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, according to Just the News.

And many of those agents are not happy about how it all went down, not to mention the bureau’s liberal bias.

FACT-O-RAMA! When the House Judiciary Committee asked him if the FBI had undercover assets involved in the January 6 protest, then-FBI director Christopher Wray testified that such an idea is “ludicrous.” Maybe he and James Comey can enjoy a little yard time together.

An FBI after-action report that Kash Patel’s office recently discovered not only reveals that the agency sent 274 agents and personnel into the January 6 fracas but also how poorly planned and executed the plan was. The report also reveals that many rank-and-file FBI agents complained that they felt as though they were “pawns in a political war.” Others suggested that the FBI was too “woke.”

After the January 6 melee, dozens of FBI agents and officials lodged anonymous complaints to the bureau, outlining how the bureau sent them into a dangerous situation without safety gear or a proper way to identify themselves as armed federal agents to other law enforcement officers.

The most common complaint from the agents was the left-leaning political bias of the bureau and how the BLM rioters of 2020 received far better treatment than the January 6 protestors.

Some of the complaints were scathing. One of the bureau’s damning complaints read:

The FBI should make clear to its personnel and the public that, despite its obvious political bias, it ultimately still takes its mission and priorities seriously. It should equally and aggressively investigate criminal activity regardless of the offenders’ perceived race, political affiliations, or motivations; and it should equally and aggressively protect all Americans regardless of perceived race, political affiliations, or motivations.

That same agent also asked the FBI “to identify viable exit options for FBI personnel who no longer feel it is legally or morally acceptable to support a federal law enforcement and intelligence agency motivated by political bias.”

Another agent pulled no punches and suggested that the problem of political bias wasn’t just an FBI problem but that it extended to the Office of the U.S. Attorney:

Currently, the US Attorney’s office is dictating what it is that gets investigated. This is a dangerous precedent because we can barely get them to prosecute investigations that clearly meet thresholds needed for Federal prosecutions,” the agent wrote. “However, their willingness to conduct a search warrant on someone’s life for a misdemeanor seems ridiculous. It is unreasonable for the FBI to conduct investigations involving misdemeanor violations at a federal level… it is not our role.

Many agents focused their ire on the “wokeness” of the Washington Field Office (WFO), with one writing, “WFO is a hopelessly broken office that’s more concerned about wearing masks and recruiting preferred racial/sexual groups than catching actual bad guys.”

Yet another agent lowered the boom and spoke directly about the FBI’s treatment of January 6 suspects:

However, their willingness to conduct a search warrant on someone’s life for a misdemeanor seems ridiculous. It is unreasonable for the FBI to conduct investigations involving misdemeanor violations at a federal level… it is not our role.

 

FACT-O-RAMA! A vast majority of J6 defendants were charged with four misdemeanors, one of which involved trespassing. Most were not sentenced to serve time in jail.

This bombshell after-action report discovery comes hot on the heels of the arrest of former FBI Director Comey, who faces charges of lying and obstruction.

Had enough yet?