Category: Enemies Domestic

where we stand depends upon who has the guns

“where you stand depends upon where you sit.”
this saying has grown old and hardened like oak as only deep truths may.
and many of the disciples of saul know this all too well.

let us start with SA’s own words:

The essence of Lenin’s speeches during this period was “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot.

When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” And it was.

-Saul Alinsky “rules for radicals”

saul and his adherents appreciate and ape such aims.
this goes well past the modern ideas of ‘supporting rights when we are in the minority and democracy when we are in the majority” and on into “we will rule by force and once we have the guns, they will all be pointed at you.”

this has been marxism 101 since it first became praxis.
get the guns, use them to rule.

it’s not new, you just don’t think it could happen here.

but you know what the thing that all societies which succumbed to armed marxist or fascist oppression by violence have in common?

they didn’t think it could happen there either.

they mistook the invaders for liberators and invited these vampires in. the orgies of savage blood sucking and societal destruction and degradation that followed rank among the worst calamities in the history of the human species, likely worse even than world wars if only for their sheer duration.

put into this context some recent events in the US that could be mistaken for simply silly or just stupid flexes take on more sinister overtones.

because he who controls the military controls a lot of guns.

and this is an actual training video from the US navy.

it’s stunning in both its childish, sesame street level tone and set dressing. the actors feel like cartoon puppets. it’s clearly not aimed at adults.

i doubt this is an accident.

i see two possibilities:

  1. the people pushing these agendas are really, truly this tone deaf and have no idea how badly this will play.
  2. this was a deliberate shank as a means for rebellious middle ranks to follow new diktat from on high to the letter while simultaneously making it an object of ridicule thought the use of a format so bad and ill-suited to audience as to render it (quite literally) ridiculous. i mean, listen to these two. does anything about them appear poised to command the respect of soldiers?

either way, my suspicion is this:

these new “woke till you choke” impositions are being used not so much as a means to change minds as a screen for ideological purity and a form of signaling about “what sort of people are welcome in the military these days.” if you’re not a “pronouns in email” kind of guy, uh, person, uh, entity, uh, (jeez this gets hard) then ship out. we don’t want you here, won’t promote you, and intend to make your life a misery.

Continue reading “”

“How to Spot a Groomer With This 1 Weird Trick”

The Clinical Steps To Grooming Kids Match Exactly How They’re Being Taught In Schools

The steps predators take to groom children for sexual abuse bear a remarkable resemblance to some modern lesson plans in American elementary schools, according to descriptions clinical experts provided to the Daily Caller.

Proponents of introducing Critical Gender Theory curricula and graphic sexual education to young children in schools have rejected the “groomer” pejorative critics recently began lobbing at them. Still, the grooming methods that experts outlined for the Caller bear a striking resemblance to some of the newer sexual education lessons the fringe political left is pushing into classrooms.

The most common tactics groomers employ are cultivating a positive reputation within a community, introducing sexualized topics or imagery to kids, isolating them from their parents, and encouraging them to keep secrets, experts told the Daily Caller. Each of these red flags have manifested themselves in classroom policies or public programs for children across America in recent years.

“I can’t think of too many times where I would think that an unrelated person should say, ‘Don’t say this to your parents,’” Daniel Pollack, professor at the Wurzweiler School of Social Work at Yeshiva University, told the Daily Caller.

“[Parents] should be informed [about sex education], especially the younger kids are,” Chris Newlin, executive director of the National Children’s Advocacy Center, said. “I’m just not a fan of things being held secret from parents, and kids being told not to tell.”

Yet a culture of secrets is exactly what’s cropping up in some schools. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that a school could institute a policy in which kids change their gender identity without informing parents. In March, a Texas elementary school told 5-year-old kids not to tell their parents what adults taught during pride week classroom discussions. A new Philadelphia policy requires teachers to hide the transgender status of students from parents.

Examples are international, too: in Canada, one school hosted a “pride dance” that parents were prohibited from seeing.

The dictionary definition of groomer is “the criminal activity of becoming friends with a child in order to try to persuade the child to have a sexual relationship,” according to the Cambridge English Dictionary. Some critics of sexualized education for kids and programs like Drag Queen Story Hour allege that kids aren’t only being groomed for potential abuse, but are being mentally groomed into a particular worldview regarding sexuality and gender.

Continue reading “”

China tried to obtain internal info and build a network of informants inside the Federal Reserve, says a new GOP Senate report.

The Chinese government tried to obtain sensitive internal information and build a network of influence and informants inside the Federal Reserve, according to a new report released Tuesday by Republican staff members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

The report from the committee staff of Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, the ranking member, did not conclude whether the attempts, which included the detention of a Federal Reserve employee, were successful.

Since at least 2013, the report found, China has targeted the Federal Reserve System and sought to recruit U.S.-based economists to share information in exchange for money and other benefits. Thirteen Federal Reserve employees working across eight of the Fed’s 12 locations were identified as the “P-Network” by a Federal Reserve analysis that deemed them to be of potential concern, according to the report.

Continue reading “”

22 States Sue Biden Admin for Plan to Block Lunch Money From Schools That Reject​ ‘Gen­der Iden­ti­ty’ Ideology

There are two cornerstone truths about the left — and by extension, the Democrat Party. First, the depth of left-wing hypocrisy knows no bounds. Second, there is no low to which the left will not stoop to cajole, threaten, punish, or destroy, if necessary, those opposed to their agenda, or whose agenda they oppose.

This article is about the Biden administration’s latest effort to do the latter.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in May announced that K-12 schools must comply with its interpretation of the ban on discrimination based on sex in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which includes sexual orientation and gender identity — and allowing boys to use girls’ restrooms and locker rooms — in order to receive federal funding for school breakfasts, lunches, and other food items.

Enough is enough, say 22 state attorneys general, who have joined forces in a lawsuit against the Biden administration’s new “guidance,” naming the USDA as a defendant in the suit, which was filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee, as reported by UPI.

The 22 states are Indiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia.

In the lawsuit, the attorneys general argue the USDA’s Guidance is unlawful

Continue reading “”

Yep, it’s true! They’re coming for your guns.

Democrat Rep. David N “Spare Me The B——- about Constitutional Rights” Cicilline and others have said the quiet part out loud: they want to ban almost all semi-automatic weapons in common use.

If you wondered why the nation’s socialist news cabal American Pravda suddenly decided to drop the terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” from their propaganda lexicon, your answer was soon forthcoming in their triumphant announcement of their next onslaught against your sensible civil rights: “Democrats push for 1st semi-automatic gun ban in 20 years.”

In a tyrannical two-for-one special, not only have the enemies of liberty of the fascist far left admitted that the whole point of this was to ban weapons in common use, but they’re also tacitly defying the United States Supreme Court ruling District of Columbia v. Heller.

This video from pro-freedom patriot Colion Noir gives a good rundown on the facts in this case.

Most damning is this exchange between Dan Bishop (R) and chairman of the Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler (D) in a congressional committee meeting during the markup of the bill on July 20, 2022:

Bishop: Is there anyone on the other side that would dispute that this bill would ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?

Nadler: Yeah, that’s the point of the bill.

Bishop: To clarify, Mr. Chairman, you’re saying it is the point of the bill to ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?

Nadler: Yes, the problem is they are in common use

If we’ve heard it once, we’ve heard a thousand times: all they want is “commonsense,” “sensible,” or “reasonable” gun control.  Except they never define those terms — on purpose.

Well, now we know what they mean.  They want to ban almost everything aside from a few “manually operated” firearms.

The most important section of the bill is section 2, the “Definitions,” which sets out the scope of what the bill covers.  After wading through the text that modifies the relevant federal code, we get to this part:

Continue reading “”

Joe’s eyes don’t move or blink in this whole clip and it has to be a deepfake but it’s his official account. Please help me understand.

Those eyes

Are they taping them open?? Is it the Botox??

Is the dude amped up on Adderall???

Also, is he trying to turn cops against Americans for disagreeing with unconstitutional Democrat power grabs and calling it insurrection?

I don’t know… I can’t think about anything other than those eyes.

BLUF
This new law is a blatant attempt to stop people from challenging California’s oppressive firearms laws. It is likely unconstitutional. But will someone be willing to challenge it in court? And even if so, how long will it take for the legal process to play out?

California’s move may also be a sign of things to come from other deep blue states. Now that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, expect to see many more frenzied efforts to curtail gun rights by any means, fair or foul.

Analysis: Examining the California Gun Litigation Trap Few Have Noticed

California lawmakers just passed a law that will have an extraordinary chilling effect on Second Amendment rights—and it has received hardly any discussion.
The state’s latest move should scare anyone concerned about protecting the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The measure can be found toward the end of SB-1327, which both houses of the California legislature recently passed. It awaits Democratic Governor Gavin Newsome’s signature. The goal? To block court challenges to California’s gun laws.
The dry, legalistic language obscures the significance: “Notwithstanding any other law, any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent [California, local governments, or government officials] from enforcing any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any other type of law that regulates or restricts firearms, or that represents any litigant seeking that relief, is jointly and severally liable to pay the attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party.”
What does this mean in plain English? If you challenge California’s gun-rights restrictions in court and lose any aspect of the lawsuit, you will be held liable for paying all of the government’s legal fees and costs.
This is a huge matter because the First Amendment affirms the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” and for more than 150 years, federal law has allowed plaintiffs to sue any level of government (federal, state, or local) for violations of constitutional rights. That is why so many civil rights protections have arisen from court challenges. Think of landmark cases involving free speech, equal protection, and voting rights.
Second Amendment rights, too. Only last month, the Supreme Court affirmed the individual’s right to carry firearms outside the home, all because the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association challenged New York State’s restrictive gun-carry law in court.
That is exactly the kind of case California is trying to thwart.

Continue reading “”

‘Active Shooter Alert’ Bill, Designed to Scare, Draws in GOP Traitors and Suckers

“H.R. 6538, the Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022, is not a public safety tool, but rather an anti-gun propaganda program intended to further public hysteria by hyper-inflating the authentic number of ‘active shooter’ incidents to expand support for unconstitutional gun control measures,” Gun Owners of America advised members in a mid-July alert. “Under the Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022, justified self-defense shootings, gang violence, drug violence, or accidental shootings will be used to send alerts to the American people about the presence of an ‘active shooter’ to intentionally misguide the public and create mass hysteria.”

I imagine an uninterrupted night’s sleep would be damn near impossible on an average weekend in Chicago.

You’ll note whenever GOA uses the term on its own (as opposed to citing what the bill is named) they put the words “active shooter” in quotation marks. There’s a reason why that’s appropriate, and something gun owners should emulate. Per Firearms Coalition Managing Director and “proud active shooter” Jeff Knox:

“It is inaccurate because it does not include any direct suggestion of criminality, using ‘shooter’ to infer that, and it is insulting because by doing this, it implies that shooting is a criminal activity.”

Rep. Thomas Massie describes the bill more bluntly.

“House Democrats are trying to condition Americans to repeal the Second Amendment,” he warns, and he’s not using hyperbole. Any longtime gun owner who doesn’t recognize by now that yes, the prohibitionists really do want to take your guns, is either an oblivious fool or in the enemy camp. (There are also citizens new to owning guns who have never given the matter much thought to see how they’ve been lied to, who are ripe for manipulation and the subjects of another analysis.)

Two points:

Repealing the Second Amendment would not invalidate the right to keep and bear arms, which the Supreme Court has recognized, first in Cruikshank and later cited in Heller:

“The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”

Massie knows that. He also knows the Democrats want us to believe rights come from them, using the term “bill of rights” to propose government-mandated privileges that are generally dependent on dragooning (that is, enslaving) others to provide the “granted” services. (See “FDR’s ‘Second Bill of Rights’ and UN Declaration Show How ‘Progressives’ View You.”)

The second point is addressed directly to Donald Trump in the (admittedly improbable) hope that someone who knows him will call it to his attention: Don’t you think it’s past time you to publicly apologize to Rep. Massie and admit that he was right for putting the Constitution over GOP Democrat Lite politics?

As for the “Active Shooter” Alert bill, it passed in the House of Representatives with 43 “Republicans” either knowingly signing on with or being suckered in by a confirmed enemy of the Second Amendment, bill sponsor David Cicilline (D-RI). He’s the professional worm tongue who out of one corner of his mouth professes, “We all respect the Second Amendment but…” and out of the other corner snarls, “Spare me the bulls*** about Constitutional rights.”

Continue reading “”

The Biden administration and the new ‘Intolerable Acts’

In 1774, the British imposed the Intolerable Acts on the American colonies.  These acts, also called the Coercive Acts, were punishment for the Americans’ disobedience to the crown, particularly as symbolized by the Boston Tea Party, a rebellion against a (relatively mild) increase in the tax on tea.

My fellow Americans, we have recently been subjected to a second set of Coercive Acts.  Call them the Intolerable Acts 2.0.

These acts have been imposed on American citizens by their own supposedly representative government, the Biden administration, as punishment for disobedience to the Democrat party and the Deep State, as symbolized by the MAGA movement and the election of Donald Trump.

What are the new Intolerable Acts?  I will list a number of them here for you now, many of them a result of executive fiat, not unlike those directed at the colonists by King George III.

– Rescinding the Keystone Pipeline permit, depriving his country’s citizens of vast quantities of oil and canceling countless well-paying jobs at the same time.

– Withdrawing oil and gas leases across the nation and its coastal waters, depriving his country’s citizens of vast quantities of oil and gas and canceling countless well-paying jobs at the same time.

– Dramatically restricting fracking and preventing all new extraction of oil or gas on federal lands, depriving his country’s citizens of vast quantities of oil and canceling countless well-paying jobs at the same time.

–  Proposing and fostering other policies guaranteed to dramatically worsen inflation, adversely affecting all Americans lives, especially those with lower incomes and less leverage and fewer opportunities.

– Refusing to close or even effectively monitor or police our southern border, condemning Americans to suffer significant increases in violent crime, drug overdoses, sex-trafficking, and the proliferation of diseases like COVID-19.

– Treating illegal aliens far better than citizens in fly-over country, in many cases putting them up in hotels and then granting them sanctuary status, driver’s licenses and free education and health care…all paid for by taxpayers, including those dolts in fly-over country.

– Instituting policies guaranteed to worsen crime and supporting groups like Antifa and BLM that routinely burn and loot American cities — and sometimes kill innocent people and police officers.

– Jailing January 6 protesters, nearly all of whom were actually peaceful, in many cases indefinitely and without charging them, because, well, January 6 was, in some ways, the MAGA movement’s Tea Party.

– Sending the FBI and/or DOJ after individual political opponents, raiding their houses in the wee hours with preposterously overwhelming force, dragging them out in their underclothes — and making a spectacle of them for the media.

– Targeting legal firearm owners and attempting to repeal the God-given right to self-defense, a right more important now than ever before…due to the very policies of so-called progressives like those in the Biden administration who want to strip you of this inalienable right.

– Attempting to repeal the First Amendment and strip all of us of our right to free speech, religion, and assembly.  Labeling speech with which they disagree as “hate speech.”

– Telling us that there is no way to definitively ascertain sex at birth…or any other time, for that matter.

– Attempting to force us to take an experimental gene therapy “vaccine” into our bodies, while simultaneously saying everyone should have the right to decide whether or not to kill their unborn babies because it’s “your body, and therefore your choice.”

There were five original Intolerable Acts.  Those acts were the proximate cause of the First Continental Congress…and the American Revolution.

I have listed nearly three times that number of (what should effectively be considered to be) “intolerable Acts” the American government has imposed on its citizens in the past 18 months.

What say you, Americans?

Image via Picryl.

Alleged Lee Zeldin attempted attacker charged with felony, immediately released just as congressman predicted

A man who allegedly attacked Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., with a sharp object at a campaign stop in Perinton, New York, Thursday evening was charged with a felony and released from custody within hours of his arrest, the Monroe County Sheriff’s Department said.

The suspect, identified as David G. Jakubonis, 43 of Fairport, N.Y., was charged with attempted assault in the second degree. He was arraigned in Perinton Town Court and released on his own recognizance, the sheriff’s department said.

Zeldin, who is the Republican candidate for governor in New York, predicted the alleged attacker would be released.

Zeldin was giving a speech about bail reform at a Veterans of Foreign Wars post when the alleged assault happened.

Jakubonis was tackled by AMVETS national Director Joe Chenelly, according to witnesses.

“His right hand came up, I assume out of his pocket, and he had a blade on his hand,” Chenelly told Fox News Digital. “His fingers were like two finger holes in the blade and lunged at the congressman. And Congressman Zeldin blocked the first lunge. And then as he tried to lunge again, I grabbed him from behind and tackled him down to the ground and held him on the ground,” Chenelly said.

Zeldin released a statement after the attack that said: “Thank you to everyone who reached out following tonight’s attack in Fairport. Someone tried to stab me on stage during this evening’s rally, but fortunately, I was able to grab his wrist and stop him for a few moments until others tackled him. I’m ok, and @EspositoforNY, and all other attendees are safe. The attacker is in custody. Grateful for the attendees who stepped up quickly to assist and the law enforcement officers who quickly responded. I’m as resolute as ever to do my part to make NY safe again.”

‘That’s The Point’
Rep. Nadler Admits Bill Will Confiscate Guns In ‘Common Use’

Democratic New York Rep. Jerry Nadler admitted a Democrat-led bill intends to confiscate guns in “common use” during a Wednesday House Judiciary Committee hearing.

Republican North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop asked House Democrats if they dispute the fact that the proposed legislation H.R. 1808, titled “Assault Weapons Ban of 2021,” bans firearms in “common use” throughout the country.

“Would anyone on the other side dispute that this bill would ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?” Bishop asked.

“That’s the point of the bill,” Nadler replied.

“So, to clarify, Mr. Chairman, you’re saying it is the point of the bill to ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today,” the Republican representative pressed.

“Yes,” Nadler clarified. “The problem is that they’re in common use.”

The bill, introduced by Democratic Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline, would ban a so-called “semi-automatic assault weapon,” including all AK types of weapons and AR-15s. The legislation, if passed, would ban semi-automatic weapons that contain a magazine, a pistol or forward grip and a “folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.” It also intends to ban weapons that can fire more than 10 rounds or contains a threaded barrel or second pistol grip.

The representative then told Cicilline that he has used his advanced legal skills to “obfuscate” the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which deemed a ban on handguns a violation of the Second Amendment. The decision further protected a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms that are in common use.

“What you suggest that this order can possibly comply with what the Supreme Court has held in now three separate cases is absolutely absurd. You defy the Supreme Court of the United States in the same way the Democrats mounted massive resistance to Brown v. Board of Education,” Bishop said. “We’re going to explain that for the American people in the course of this hearing. The Democrats of the 1960s are the Democrats of the 2020s.”

The Court ruled that “self-defense is a basic right recognized by many legal systems” in the case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, which struck down the city of Chicago’s ban on handguns in 2010. The decision further ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states.

He cited the recent Court decision in the case, New York State Rifle Association v. Bruen, that the state implementing “proper cause” to obtain a conceal carry permit violates a citizen’s Fourteenth Amendment right to practice their Second Amendment protection to self-defense.

“This bill bans many types of weapons that are in common use in the United States today,” Bishop said.

Approximately 20 million AR-15 style rifles are in circulation in the United States and continue to be one of the “most popular rifles sold in America,” according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Spoiler Alert: It’s All a Scam
This is war. We need to go on the offensive. It starts by describing the four corners of deceit, exposing them, and actually taking them back. It is late, but never too late.

Here is the hard-discovered truth.

The Left, which now controls all the centers of power and the commanding heights of the world economy, seeks to codify their ideology as science, and thereby make it irrefutable. You can’t disagree with it or you are a kook or insurrectionist. You are outside what Thomas Kuhn, called the “paradigm of normal science.”

Think about it. Everything these authorities tell you is true is, in fact, precisely the opposite of the truth.

Global warming is a hoax.

Universities are about indoctrination, not education.

Government is a form of manipulation with a two-tiered justice system.

The media is fake and journalism died long ago.

The financial system is a Ponzi scheme.

Trump did not collude with Russia.

The border is wide open.

Inflation is not transitory.

Defunding the police increases crime.

The pandemic did not originate in a wet market from pangolins.

Joe Biden is illegitimate.

Crackhead Hunter is not innocent.

Epstein didn’t kill himself.

Black Lives Matter and critical race theory are not about racial justice.

Women are not men and vice versa.

Virtue signaling isn’t about virtue.

Religion is not malevolent.

The late, great Rush Limbaugh was one of the first to visualize and expose the “four corners of deceit” in our culture that altogether combined, suffice to lie to students, citizens, and the American people.

The four corners of deceit are: government, academia, science, and the media. I had a hard time coming to this radical conclusion myself, as I wanted to believe otherwise, was not a conspiracist, and have attained all the laurels on offer from our current system. Just read my memoir, Davos, Aspen & Yale. I have been behind the elite curtain.

Like an Orwell novel, the clock is striking 13 in America. The farm animals on top know it and are so cynical they are laughing all the way to the bank and the voting booth. The populace, like lemmings, just goes along. What else can they do? As in the Thomas Hardy tale, Far From the Madding Crowd, the sheep, listless and unknowing, just fling themselves off the cliff, one after the other.

Continue reading “”

Not surprising for demoncrap tyrants

Gavin Newsom’s Weird Idea of ‘Freedom’
Newsom resembles a pathetic owner of a once successful but now run-down, high-priced gas station without clients.

In a run-up to what is likely to be a 2024 presidential bid, California Governor Gavin Newsom hit upon the bizarre idea of boasting in commercials that California is America’s true “free” state.

Part of his ad campaign is to attack Florida—currently run by Newsom’s possible rival, Governor Ron DeSantis.

Yet, with the most burdensome regulations and high tax rates, Newsom’s California is arguably the most unfree state in the union.

In return for these steep costs, the state’s public institutions, infrastructure, and services are among the country’s worst.

Continue reading “”

Not surprising for demoncrap tyrants

Politicians Defy the Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Right To Bear Arms
Several states are retaining subjective criteria for carry permits or imposing new restrictions on gun possession.

After the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms last month, some states promptly complied with the ruling by eliminating subjective requirements for carrying a gun in public. But other states are either dragging their feet or refusing to acknowledge the decision’s implications.

The Court said New York had violated the Second Amendment by requiring “proper cause” to carry handguns for self-defense, a standard that gave local officials wide discretion to reject carry-permit applications. But anti-gun politicians have other tricks up their sleeves, including similarly vague standards and bans on firearm possession in specific locations, that will invite further litigation to vindicate a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

New York responded to the Court’s rebuke with a law that eliminates the “proper cause” requirement but specifies a long list of “sensitive locations” where gun possession is a felony punishable by up to four years in prison. Those restrictions will make it impractical or legally perilous for many permit holders to actually exercise the right recognized by the Court.

In addition to listing myriad places where permit holders may not carry firearms, New York’s law bans guns in all private establishments open to the public unless they post conspicuous signs announcing that they are deviating from the default rule—a step many business owners will be reluctant to take. A bill backed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta takes a similar approach.

New York’s law retains a requirement that permit applicants demonstrate “good moral character,” an assessment that includes perusing their social media posts. Bonta likewise maintains that California’s “good moral character” standard remains constitutional, and he suggests that controversial opinions could be disqualifying.

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment specialist, thinks such a wide-ranging inquiry is “clearly unconstitutional.” Volokh notes that “the government can’t restrict ordinary citizens’ actions—much less their constitutionally protected actions—based on the viewpoints that they express.”

Although Massachusetts dropped its “good reason” criterion for carry permits, it still requires that an applicant be “a suitable person to possess firearms,” a standard that leaves considerable room for subjective judgments. The same vague requirement applies in Connecticut, where Attorney General William Tong has promised to resist any changes to the law.

Delaware requires that a carry-permit applicant demonstrate “good moral character” and “a good reputation for peace and good order.” The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), an industry group, reports that Delaware officials are taking a “wait and see” approach, meaning the law probably won’t be changed without additional litigation.

In Rhode Island, the attorney general “may issue” a carry permit based on “a proper showing of need,” while local licensing authorities “shall issue” a permit “if it appears” that the applicant is “a suitable person to be licensed” and either “has good reason to fear an injury to his or her person or property” or has “any other proper reason” to carry a handgun. Attorney General Peter Neronha seems to think his state’s rules are different enough from New York’s that no reform is necessary.

“This Case Involves a Religious Psychic Trying to Break a Family Curse by ‘Cleaning’ ‘Dirty’ Money”
By contrast, Hawaii Attorney General Holly Shikada last week said a concealed-carry applicant in that state will no longer be required to show he represents “an exceptional case” and has “reason to fear injury” to his “person or property.” Maryland and New Jersey recently dropped similar requirements: “good or substantial reason” in Maryland and “justifiable need” in New Jersey.

Even before the Court’s ruling, the vast majority of states either did not require permits for carrying firearms or had “shall issue” carry-permit laws, meaning applications generally were approved as long as gun owners met objective criteria. Those policies recognize, as the Court did, that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” cannot be treated as a privilege for the lucky few.

Some politicians still seem determined to reject that point. They will not respect their constituents’ rights until new constitutional challenges force them to do so.

George Soros and the EU Parliament condemn the SCOTUS for following the Constitution.

This year on July 4, George Soros penned an editorial piece expressing his concern against the limited government principles of these United States, specifically the idea of state sovereignty as detailed by the Tenth Amendment.  On a day when many Americans celebrate independence from a far-off and unrepresentative government, a foreign-born globalist castigated the supreme law and court of these United States.  In the article, Soros wrote:

From abroad, the US is threatened by repressive regimes led by Xi Jinping in China and Vladimir Putin’s Russia who want to impose an autocratic form of government on the world.

But the threat to the US from the domestic enemies of democracy is even greater. They included the current Supreme Court, which is dominated by far-right extremists, and Donald Trump’s Republican Party, which placed those extremists on the Court.

Recent decisions regarding abortion, the scope of the EPA, and God-given rights to self-defense have apparently struck a nerve.  Soros kicks it off by denouncing Alito’s line of reasoning in the reversal of Roe v. Wade, inferring that “logically,” the Court might regress towards racial inequality — masterfully applying the Alinsky tactic of “rubbing raw the sores of discontent.”  He then gripes about the decision that “denied the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to issue regulations needed to combat climate change” before claiming the SCOTUS is beholden to the gun lobby, rather than the words of the Second Amendment.

Soros wasn’t alone in his indignation or his constitutional illiteracy.  Subsequently, just one week after the publication of Soros’s critique, the Parliament of the European Union took a vote officially condemning the American High Court for returning to responsibly interpreting our supreme governing document.

What don’t these European elites understand?  In America, legislative bodies are tasked with lawmaking, not the Courts and not the Executive.  The Constitution does not explicitly mention abortion, so at the moment, that decision legally belongs to each individual state.  And aside from the obvious fact that the EPA has no right to exist, it certainly has no authority to dictate “regulations” to be followed as though they were federal or state law.  Lastly, the Second Amendment is quite clear when it says “shall not be infringed.”  Interpreting that correctly does not hinge on the financial clout of the “gun lobby.”

It’s no secret that George Soros and the European Union embrace and encourage the erosion of American strength and sovereignty.  This structure of government, founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, is antithetical to global tyranny and oppression, and their disdain for our Constitution cannot be concealed.