Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

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?

This commie group, along with the Socialist Rifle Association and ANTIFA are the domestic enemies we need to ‘Find and Fix’ for when it comes time to TCOB, so work on your local intelligence operations

John Brown Gun Club Invokes Kirk Assassin’s Message on Campus Flier

The John Brown Gun Club is a leftist gun organization that is, basically, an armed militia. The existence of such an organization, even if they disagree with me on countless issues, isn’t troubling in and of itself. People have a right to keep and bear arms, and they have a right to associate with whoever they wish. That includes a gun club with some sketchy ideology.

What’s not cool is making threatening moves, statements, or anything else.

Whether it’s criminal or not might be another matter, but what the group just did crosses at least some lines with me. You can’t just invoke a message from an assassin and not invoke serious concern.

Since Charlie Kirk’s assassination on September 10, the left has been scrambling to control the narrative, insisting that political violence is a uniquely right-wing problem. But the disturbing reality is that the most recent eruptions of extremism are coming from their side of the aisle, thanks to rhetoric that Democratic leaders and their ideological allies still openly encourage.

This week’s incident at Georgetown University is a stark example. Students at one of the nation’s elite campuses discovered bright red flyers plastered across bulletin boards, distributed by the John Brown Gun Club, a self-described far-left militia with a history of violent activity.

These weren’t harmless announcements about progressive bake sales or climate marches. The flyers featured the chilling words, “Hey fascist! Catch!” the exact phrase investigators say Tyler Robinson, the man accused of murdering Charlie Kirk during a Turning Point USA event in Utah, scrawled on a shell casing. Even more disturbing, the flyer boasted that the group is “the only political group that celebrates when Nazis die,” before urging students to scan a QR code to join its cause and “make a real change” through aggressive activism instead of “ceremonial resistance.”

This rightly alarmed conservatives on campus. “So obviously I read this immediately as a threat, not only for me but for everyone on this campus,” Shae McInnis, a Georgetown sophomore and College Republicans treasurer, told Fox News Digital. And who can blame him?

The flyer’s message was unmistakable: violence is not only permissible but worth celebrating if you belong to the wrong political camp. We’ve been saying all along that when Democrats use rhetoric dehumanizing people on the right, it makes people on the left feel morally obligated to use violence against them.

Now, the problem here is what constitutes “aggressive activism.”

If it’s marches and protests every day of the week, that might be annoying, but it’s protected speech. The inclusion of the phrase “Hey fascist! Catch!” suggests something very different.

That’s not activism. That’s crossing a line.

No, it might not be an overt threat–or, at least, not enough of one for a DA to consider prosecuting anyone–but the message is clear. They not only approve of what Tyler Robinson actually did, but also want folks to believe they’re willing to emulate it. That is a threat, no matter how you slice it.

I’ve long stated I’ll stand with almost anyone who will defend gun rights. That includes John Brown Gun Club members.

Or, more accurately, it did.

I want nothing at all to do with people who use these kinds of threats to try and affect political change. I don’t want to be associated, even at a distance, with an organization that seeks to recruit people with methods like this. Especially since they either need to deliver on the promises of that particular kind of “aggressive activism” or those who signed on for it will go it alone, only now they’ll have others who think that’s a good idea.

At a time when we need to ramp down the tensions, this isn’t going to come to a good end.

As almost always, the expense of the process was the punishment.

Second Amendment Foundation declares ‘vindication’ as Attorney General ends investigation

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) announced this week that it has reached an agreement with the Washington State Attorney General’s Office. This concludes a three-year investigation that found no misconduct by SAF or its personnel.

As part of the settlement, SAF will withdraw its federal civil rights lawsuit against the Attorney General’s Office, former Attorney General Bob Ferguson, and other named defendants. This agreement includes the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) canceling its request for public records from the Washington Attorney General’s Office.

In return, the AG’s Consumer Protection will end its investigation into SAF and the other parties involved.

Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb stated the agreement represents a “vindication of our position that SAF, its partners and personnel did nothing wrong.”

Gottlieb says Ferguson’s investigation was political retaliation, not justice.
Gottlieb expressed his dissatisfaction with the investigation initiated by Bob Ferguson, describing it as an effort to “discredit our work on behalf of gun owners and the Second Amendment.”

“Ferguson’s witch hunt wasted three years of our time and cost us thousands of man hours and more than $200,000. We’re convinced this happened because he is a devoted anti-gun rights politician and we are a national organization whose mission is to protect and defend the Second Amendment,” he added.

All of SAF’s sister companies were targeted as well, including the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Merril Mail Marketing, the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, the Service Bureau Association, and Liberty Park Press, where Gottlieb currently serves as publisher.

Gottlieb expressed relief that the ordeal is over, though he added, “we’re not happy that Ferguson is not held responsible for the damage he did. It is our sincere hope that no future attorney general in Washington state will conduct a politically motivated attack under color of law against any non-profit organization with which he or she has a fundamental philosophical disagreement.”

As parts of the agreement, the Washington State Attorney General has decided not to pursue any legal action stemming from the investigation.

This outcome comes as no surprise to Gottlieb, “since they couldn’t find any wrongdoing.”

The Correct Argument for the Second Amendment

Taking a person’s quote out of context is unfair and disingenuous. Doing so when that person is not present to defend themselves is truly heinous and cowardly. Such has been the case in the weeks following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Of all the misrepresentations and outright lies surrounding Charlie Kirk, his beliefs and actions, perhaps the most insidious is the one used to justify his murder. His quote circulating on social media goes as follows: “It’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.” The deliberately fallacious logic of the Left then concludes that by Kirk’s own words, he deserves to be one of those unfortunate casualties. They leave out, of course, the part where Kirk stresses that while the Second Amendment allows us to protect many of our God-given rights, this decision comes with an imperative to reduce gun violence.

Rather than waste time justifying the value of Charlie Kirk’s human life to the soulless who do not care to hear it, it is both in better service to the memory of Charlie Kirk and more edifying to focus on just why a full gun ban should not exist in the United States of America.

There are two common answers conservatives give in defense of the Second Amendment, and both are not only insufficient but fundamentally incorrect. The first and most useless is hunting. While in simple terms, the right to hunt animals is self-evident, guns for the sole purpose of hunting would logically exclude the necessity of semi-automatic weapons and AR-15s. As Joe Biden was wont to say, deer do not run around in Kevlar vests. Furthermore, the benefits of hunting are persuasively dismissed by a side that ostensibly argues for human lives. For the average American influenced by media narrative, it is unjustifiable to allow school shootings in order to allow middle-aged men wearing camouflage to shoot deer.

The second is self-defense. This argument holds up considerably better, though it is still lacking. There exist evil actors, some with guns. The best way to counteract this unfortunate reality is by having good actors with guns, both for deterrence and defending against such actors. Taking away Second Amendment protections leaves good-faith actors susceptible to attack, and leaves the likelihood that bad actors will procure firearms illegally. The argument against this, however, is that an effective repeal of the Second Amendment and large-scale gun confiscation would produce a world with no guns for evil actors, eliminating the need for self-defense from gun violence. From a procedural perspective, a full gun confiscation is unfeasible and would not yield the utopian society the Left desires. While these are valid arguments, they are questions of practical application rather than objective principles.

The argument that Charlie Kirk makes, and the argument made by the Founding Fathers, is in fact the correct one. Americans have the right to bear arms because we have the right to possess a physical check against a tyrannical government. In the aftermath of the Revolutionary War, the Founding Fathers were careful to create a constitution that would prevent their new government from devolving into the tyranny they had escaped under the British. An armed citizenry is a blunt solution to this problem. The Swiss resistance model, for example, inspired the American Revolution and the Second Amendment. It allowed the Swiss people to fend off time and again both foreign and domestic tyranny. Consent of the governed does not mean anything at all if the citizens do not have an alternative option. Without the right to firearms, consent of the governed is a vacuous phrase meant to cleverly enslave the population using the delusion of freedom.

Unfortunately, this is a far more uncomfortable argument. The modern American does not like the idea of rising up to fight a tyrannical power. While the Constitution is one of the great written works in the history of the world, it rests on values and assumptions greater than the document itself. One of these values has been lost by the American spirit, namely, a willingness to die for something. The founders, though differing in theological details, held a deep respect for eternity and the final end. Only with that worldview is it at all reasonable to throw away an earthly life for another person, an ideal, or simply God Himself. The modern American has lost this.

This does not mean that every American should be thirstily awaiting civil war. It is simply a reminder that love for America means a respect for its founding principles. Respect here means more than tacit agreement to these principles — it requires a willingness to defend them. If this sentiment were commonly held among Americans, the right to bear arms would not be a rigorous debate but an assumed fundamental bedrock of our country. When Charlie Kirk acknowledged the risk of gun violence, he did so because he understood this fact. Charlie Kirk’s message and legacy are greater than himself. The fact that his enemies are so intent on distorting his words is a sign that we should listen more carefully to them.

Every Democrat that opens their mouth and says a single thing about free speech needs to watch a video montage of themselves being complete and total hypocrites.
I would like to point out that the last person in that montage is a sitting United States Supreme Court justice, who does not understand that the first amendment is supposed to hamstring the government from restricting the free speech rights of American citizens. – Insurrection Barbie

 

 

If you don’t yet understand the problem: