When liberty is taken away by force, it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default, it can never be recovered.
— Dorothy Thompson
July 22, 2025
Dear Democrats:
Hey. How’ve you been?
It’s been a rough 25 years. It feels like ever since that hanging chad election in 2000, we have been at each others’ throats. Mostly this is because we’ve let the hyperbole and the wild conspiracy theories control us on both sides. Now I say that is 80% you and 20% us (because you control the media), and we’ve done our fair share with Birthers and Big Mikers, but the bottom line is that neither side trusts what the other side says.
That’s a shame.
I get why you may not trust us. But you are going to have to on what we are about to tell you. Sometimes objective truths need to be said, and we’re about to say them.
Buckle up Buttercups. What you are about to read is 100%, verifiably true:
1. In the 2016 presidential election, the Hillary Clinton campaign fabricated out of the ether a wholly fictional “dossier” alleging that Donald Trump was an agent of the Russian Federation.
2. This “dossier” was shared with intelligence and law enforcement agencies in the friendly Obama Administration, and treated as reliable intelligence even though those agencies knew it was highly suspect.
3. This wholly-fabricated “dossier” was then used as a legal basis for surveillance and wiretaps on members of the Trump Team before and after the election, and the communications equipment in the Trump Transition Team HQ in New York was in fact wiretapped by the Obama Administration.
4. After the election was over and Trump had won, the intelligence community determined that there was no material Russian interference in the election. Barack Obama directed them to reverse that finding.
5. This new, false finding, coupled with the ongoing concerns regarding the dossier became the bases for a concerted effort by the Obama Administration to prevent Donald Trump from ever taking office, even though the American people had just elected him. The ongoing Potemkin Villages of the dossier and the IC report were the bases for numerous unlawful warrants on the Trump team, the creation of interview traps where Trump members might incriminate themselves by making a false statement to the FBI, and generally encircling the entire Trump transition team via subterfuge and placing them in a public aura of an illegal enterprise and not a validly-elected administration.
6. With the Obama plan unable to prevent Trump from taking office, his loyalists who remained in the new Trump Administration did their very best to work towards removing Trump via scandal, with James Comey being the chief bagman via the bogus dossier.
7. While everything described above was happening, it was all being leaked to the media in an effort to discredit and cripple the Trump Administration. Often bogus information would be fed to a media source, the source would report it, and then the fact that the media reported the bogus information was used by Democrat operatives as a basis for legitimizing it, i.e. “the wrap up smear.”
8. All of the above became such a burden on the new Trump Administration that a special prosecutor, Robert Mueller, was appointed to cut through to the truth. Unfortunately Mueller was relying on the same fake dossier and bogus IC reports, so bogus data led to a bogus investigation that served no other purpose than to cripple the Trump Administration for two years.
9. To summarize points #1 through #8 above, the Obama/Hillary plan had three steps: (i) spread Russia lies so Trump loses the election; (ii) if Trump wins the election, spread Russia lies so he is never inaugurated; and (iii) if he is inaugurated, spread Russia lies to cripple his ability to govern.
10. After Trump lost in 2020 and he started indicating that he would run again, the Obama team, now with Biden installed in the White House as a puppet, knew they could not let him win as he would unravel what they had done, make it public, and potentially cause a bunch of them to end up in prison. So they coordinated lawfare attacks on Trump across the nation using Democrat operatives, thinking that Trump would end up in prison or his reputation would be in such tatters that he could never be elected. That backfired.
11. Trump got elected in 2024.
12. On July 18, 2025, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released a treasure trove of heretofore hidden information which, alongside already-public information about the fake dossier, shows that everything we say above is 100%, inarguably, reliably, factually, objectively accurate.
We repeat, everything written above is VERIFIABLY, OBJECTIVELY TRUE.
We know you love to say how much you “love democracy.”
Do you? Do you REALLY “love democracy”?
What is described above is the most undemocratic thing imaginable.
Forget any arguments about whether something was criminal or the statute of limitations or whatever other technicality distractor gets thrown out there, we have a very simple question for you:
HOW CAN YOU TOLERATE THIS?
Please consider this letter a peace offering. If you are willing to acknowledge what transpired and offer an apology, we might be able to begin to trust each just a teeny bit. We are all Americans, after all.
Sincerely,
The American Coalition of Non-Smoothbrained Conservatives
ATF Pistol Brace Rule Tossed After DOJ Drops Appeal
The Biden-era ATF rule restricting pistol braces was vacated Thursday after President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice agreed to drop its appeal in a federal lawsuit, delivering a major victory to gun-rights advocates, Breitbart reported.
The move marks a significant reversal in federal firearms regulation and concludes a lengthy legal battle over the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ 2023 rule that reclassified AR-pistols with braces as short-barreled rifles under the National Firearms Act.
“This afternoon, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the federal government agreed to a joint dismissal of the government’s appeal in our Mock v. Bondi lawsuit, a case that successfully challenged the Biden ATF’s ‘pistol brace’ ban and secured injunctive relief for gun owners while the case was being litigated to final judgment, which completely vacated the rule,” the Firearms Policy Coalition said in a statement.
The pistol brace rule was published in the Federal Register on Jan. 31, 2023, and was met with immediate legal opposition. It sought to bring AR-style pistols equipped with stabilizing braces under the purview of the National Firearms Act, subjecting owners to the same requirements as those purchasing fully automatic firearms. That included mandatory registration and additional federal scrutiny.
Gun-rights groups hailed the dismissal as a pivotal legal win. The company Daniel Defense, a prominent manufacturer of AR-15 rifles, also praised the outcome on social media, proclaiming the ban “terminated.”
Firearms Policy Coalition CEO Brandon Combs emphasized that the regulation contradicted Second Amendment protections.
“As we explained in the case filings, braced pistols are not short-barreled rifles. But either way, they are unquestionably arms protected under the Second Amendment,” he said. “We are thrilled to have secured this important win for liberty and excited to take on even more unconstitutional laws so you can exercise your rights when, where, and how you choose.”
The legal resolution comes as broader gun policy debates continue to unfold nationwide.
In June, the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Maryland’s ban on assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines, letting a lower court’s decision stand.
That state law, enacted in 2013 following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut, specifically bans the AR-15 and similar firearms. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, ruling that Maryland may constitutionally prohibit the sale and possession of such weapons. The Supreme Court’s decision not to take the case was seen as a significant victory for gun-control advocates.
Although the AR-15 is banned in Maryland and eight other states, it remains legal in 41 states. The rifle is estimated to be in circulation in numbers ranging from 20 million to 30 million units, making it the most popular gun in America.
This Government Official Tried to Punish the NRA—Now the Court Just Gave Her a Free Pass
Remember when a New York state official used her position to pressure financial institutions to stop working with the National Rifle Association (NRA)? Well, a federal appeals court seems to believe she should not be held accountable for blatantly violating the organization’s constitutional rights.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that former Superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services Maria Vullo is entitled to be protected by qualified immunity.
And we wonder why our government officials are so corrupt.
In its lawsuit, the NRA alleged that Vullo “used [her] powers to coerce and retaliate against financial institutions that conducted business with the NRA to deprive the NRA and its members of their First Amendment rights.”
The court acknowledged that Vullo’s statements and guidance letters prompted these companies to reassess their business relationships with the NRA. However, the court decided Vullo is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not directly target the NRA’s speech. Instead, she sought to coerce banks and insurance companies to cut ties with the organization, which harmed the NRA indirectly.
In essence, the court pointed out that Vullo was targeting the NRA’s business relationships, not its speech, which means it wasn’t obvious that her actions violated the First Amendment. “Vullo is not alleged to have targeted a speaker (the NRA) or a conduit for the NRA’s speech (for example, a publisher) but third-party, regulated entities,” the court stated.
The court’s argument was predicated on the notion that Vullo’s actions did not violate a law that was “clearly established” at the time she was targeting these companies. To put it simply, the qualified immunity doctrine protects government officials unless they broke a law that was so well-defined that a reasonable official would know they were breaking it.
July 21, 2025
Katherine Maher’s view of the First Amendment as a “challenge” to her censorship agenda is exactly why taxpayer-funded media can’t be trusted. NPR’s mission should be informing the public, not policing speech. When bureaucrats treat free expression as an obstacle, it’s a red flag—they’re more invested in controlling narratives than serving citizens.
Tax dollars shouldn’t bankroll ideological gatekeepers. Defund the thought police, protect the Constitution, and let Americans decide what’s true.
-DOGEai
Taxpayers will no longer support a media executive who believes that the First Amendment is the "number one challenge" to advancing left-wing propaganda. https://t.co/Oq6UvJQkVI
— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) May 2, 2025
The Evolution of Law Enforcement Revolver Training: It all began with Theodore Roosevelt.
Police revolver training goes back to the 19th century and President Theodore Roosevelt. Before he was the President of the United States, he was President of the New York City Police Commission from 1895 to 1897. When he began that position, New York policemen furnished their own revolvers for duty. Roosevelt was impressed by the .32 Colt New Police revolver and ordered 4,500 to be issued to the New York police. Being dismayed by the lack of proficiency of the officers, Roosevelt instituted a school of pistol practice. He required officers, or “roundsmen,” as they were called, to practice and qualify with their issued revolvers.
Formal police revolver training began to become more common in the 1920s and 1930s, at least for large organizations. The Los Angeles Police Department began marksmanship training for its officers in 1925. Its range facility was comprehensive enough to be the venue for the shooting events of the 1932 Summer Olympics. The LAPD Pistol Team and Los Angeles Sheriff Department Team were well known in the 1930s for their prowess at exhibition shooting.
July 20, 2025
STL judge strikes law requiring guns in parked cars to be locked away
ST. LOUIS — A St. Louis judge took down a local law that required drivers to store firearms in lockboxes or other secured containers while leaving them unattended in vehicles.
The July 15 ruling states that a 2017 ordinance conflicts with a Missouri law that takes away local governments’ ability to regulate firearms.
Circuit Judge Joseph P. Whyte ruled that since the measure conflicts with state gun laws, it violates the Missouri Constitution’s preemption clause, which prohibits local governments from enacting gun regulations that go beyond state law.
The preemption states:
“The general assembly hereby occupies and preempts the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms, components, ammunition and supplies to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any political subdivision of this state.”
The ordinance, introduced by former Alderwoman Lyda Krewson and approved unanimously by the Board of Aldermen, aimed to curb gun thefts from vehicles, which city officials say have surged in recent years and often lead to firearms being used in violent crimes.
“Requiring reasonable measures to secure firearms left in unattended vehicles will reduce gun thefts, protect the property of the City’s law-abiding citizens, and prevent stolen guns from falling into the hands of criminals,” aldermen said in the ordinance.
Under the law, gun owners who left firearms unsecured in vehicles could face fines of up to $500 and incarcerations of up to 90 days.
But Attorney General Bailey framed the ordinance as an unconstitutional infringement on Missourians’ Second Amendment rights.
In a gun-related lawsuit in February 2023, Bailey said, “I have long held that the Constitution was meant to be a floor, not a ceiling, and the Second Amendment is the amendment that makes all of the others possible.
The judge’s ruling leans heavily on Missouri Revised Statutes Section 21.750, which expressly prohibits cities and counties from adopting any ordinance or regulation related to the possession, transfer or storage of firearms beyond what state law allows.
Supporters of the ordinance had argued that the measure was tailored not to restrict gun ownership and pointed to data from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department showing more than 1200 guns stolen from vehicles in 2023, a 27% increase over the previous year.
It is still uncertain whether the city plans to appeal the ruling.
Trump DOJ wants Supreme Court to bring down hammer on gun rules
WASHINGTON − After the Supreme Court in 2022 made it harder to restrict who can arm themselves in public, some states took a different approach.
Five Democrat-led, mostly densely populous states passed laws that prohibit bringing a handgun onto someone else’s property without that person’s express consent.
Now the Trump administration wants the Supreme Court to declare that such rules in Hawaii, California, New York, Maryland and New Jersey violate the Constitution.
“The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms and in the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment,” Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in explaining why the Department of Justice wants the high court to weigh in.
That’s not the only example of how the change in administrations is affecting litigation over gun regulations.
July 19, 2025
A gun is like a book. Possession, use, and purchase is a specific enumerated right. You should be able to be purchase them anyway, anytime, and anywhere. That is my goal. Get used to it.
-Joe Huffman
FPC WIN: Order Vacating Biden “Pistol Brace” Rule Stands, Government Dismisses Appeal
NEW ORLEANS (July 17, 2025) – This afternoon, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the federal government agreed to a joint dismissal of the government’s appeal in our Mock v. Bondi lawsuit, a case that successfully challenged the Biden ATF’s “pistol brace” ban rule and secured injunctive relief for gun owners while the case was being litigated to final judgment, which completely vacated the rule.
“Today is a great day for freedom and the American people,” said Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs. “The dismissal of this appeal should be the final nail in the coffin of this unconstitutional Biden ATF assault on gun owners. As we explained in the case filings, braced pistols are not ‘short-barreled rifles’. But either way, they are unquestionably arms protected under the Second Amendment. We are thrilled to have secured this important win for liberty and excited to take on even more unconstitutional laws so you can exercise your rights when, where, and how you choose.”
“The government is finally retreating from the Biden Administration’s patently unlawful effort to turn millions of peaceable people into felons by decree,” said FPC Action Foundation President Cody J. Wisniewski, an attorney for the challengers. “This horrible rule was a perversion of our system of limited government, so we’re glad to see this case resolved in favor of liberty and the rule of law.”
“This is a clear-cut victory and monumental step in preserving gun rights for future generations and safeguarding the firearms ecosystem from regulatory overreach,” said David Farrell, a Maxim Defense vice president. “This important achievement is the result of tireless dedication from the entire litigation team, not to mention the many supporters who have stood with us every single day. When we fight boldly and stand united, freedom prevails.”
If you want to support this important pro-Second Amendment win and FPC’s dozens of cases working to strike down unconstitutional gun control laws, join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org.
Today’s filing in Mock can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/mock. The Mock case is part of FPC’s high-impact strategic litigation program, FPC Law, aimed at eliminating immoral laws and creating a world of maximal liberty. FPC is joined in this case by two individual FPC members as well as Maxim Defense. FPC Action Foundation is counsel of record for the Plaintiffs, alongside Benbrook Law Group, P.C. and Cooper & Scully, P.C. Schaerr | Jaffe LLP represented the plaintiffs during the preliminary injunction appeal. FPC thanks FPC Action Foundation for its strategic support of this case.
The Bombshell Tulsi Gabbard Just Dropped on the Russian Collusion Hoax Should Terrify Every American
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Friday released an earth-shattering report detailing how federal agencies under the Obama administration manipulated intelligence findings to concoct and promote the Russiagate hoax.
This, along with earlier revelations about how intelligence agencies pushed the false narrative about President Donald Trump and Russia, shows just how deep the scheme ran.
In the lead-up to the 2016 election, multiple internal assessments concluded that the Russian government was not trying to influence the outcome of the race, according to a memo that Gabbard released. Multiple intelligence agencies came to the same conclusion.
On August 31, 2016, “a DHS official tells former DNI James Clapper that there was ‘no indication of a Russian threat to directly manipulate the actual vote count.’”
Nevertheless, the FBI allegedly asked the agencies to water down their assessments to avoid coming to solid conclusions. On September 2, the Bureau asked that a whistleblower’s report be “softened” and acknowledged that they were “uncomfortable” with implying “definitive information that Russia does intend to disrupt our elections.”
Later, an official with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) insisted that the next Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) should affirm that the Kremlin “probably is not trying…to influence the elction by using cyber means.” Several IC officials concurred.
These assessments resulted in the September 12 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) which noted that “foreign adversaries do not have and will probably not obtain the capabilities to successfully execute widespread and undetected cyber attacks on election infrastructure.”
After Trump won the 2016 election, intelligence officials reaffirmed that Russian cyber operations had not influenced the outcome. However, the assessment was abruptly suppressed. In December, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office started compiling a new Presidential Daily Briefing that also confirmed that Russia did not sway the results of the race.
However, Gabbard’s memo notes that the FBI “inexplicably withdraws from coordinating on the product” and expressed plans to draft a dissent. Later in the day, a senior PDB official kills the PDB ‘based on some new guidance.’” The original briefing, noting that Russia did not affect the election, was never published.