Category: Enemies Domestic

What They Mean by ‘Civility’
The New York Times raises no objection to murderous, racist rhetoric at a Common Cause rally.

The New York Times editorial page, a division of the New York Times Co., on Saturday endorsed Common Cause’s personal attack on Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. As we explained Friday, Common Cause, a Washington-based corporation, is complaining about Scalia and Thomas’s having joined Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, the 2010 decision that overturned a law criminalizing certain political speech by corporations.
As the Times explains, Common Cause implies that Scalia and Thomas had a conflict of interest:

The framers of our Constitution envisioned law gaining authority apart from politics. They wanted justices to exercise their judgment independently–to be free from worrying about upsetting the powerful and certainly not to be cultivating powerful political interests.

A petition by Common Cause to the Justice Department questioned whether Justices Scalia and Thomas are doing the latter. It asked whether the court’s ruling a year ago in the Citizens United case, unleashing corporate money into politics, should be set aside because the justices took part in a political gathering of the conservative corporate money-raiser Charles Koch while the case was before the court.

If the answer turns out to be yes, it would be yet more evidence that the court must change its policy–or rather its nonpolicy–about recusal.

The answer will not turn out to be yes, for Common Cause’s complaint is not only meritless but frivolous. Koch was not a party to the lawsuit. Citizens United, which brought the case to the court, is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation, just like Common Cause.
Further, both Justices Scalia and Thomas, in joining the majority opinion, merely reaffirmed the legal positions that they, along with Justice Kennedy, had previously taken in dissenting from the precedents that Citizens United overturned: McConnell v. FEC (2003) and, in Justice Scalia’s case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990, the year before Thomas joined the court). Thus it is preposterous to suggest that their purported association, years later, with “powerful political interests” influenced their decision in Citizens United.
Common Cause’s complaint does not even allege any actual impropriety on the justices’ part. In its letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, the corporation asserts that “it appears” the justices “have participated in political strategy sessions.” This is based on promotional material for a conference called “Understanding and Addressing Threats to American Free Enterprise and Prosperity,” which says that “past meetings have featured such notable leaders as Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.”
What exactly did Justices Scalia and Thomas do at the conferences “it appears” they attended? Neither Common Cause nor the Times offers any evidence bearing on the question. But the Times makes another accusation against Justice Scalia that may provide a clue:

Continue reading “”

‘The Nation Can’t Stand’: John Durham’s Response to Harriet Hageman’s One and Only Question Portends a Chilling Truth

Special Counsel John Durham testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday for nearly six hours. The Democrat members of the committee trotted out their standard barrage of sly accusations and sinister insinuations, while the Republicans, for the most part, sussed out the highlights (or lowlights) of the most critical findings contained in Durham’s report. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) shook things up a bit, going right after Durham and accusing him of essentially serving as the Washington Generals to the Swamp’s Globetrotters.

For his part, though he appeared somewhat ill at ease, Durham kept his composure, even lobbing a brushback pitch at Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). He took some affront to Gaetz’s accusations. But it was his response to Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) at the very end of the hearing that served as a chilling portent for the nation’s future.

Hageman utilized most of her allotted five minutes to address Durham, reading prepared remarks:

 

Mr. Durham, in reviewing your report, I sincerely wanted to understand the work that you did and decipher the various investigations that we have been discussing: the origins, the history, the backstory, the whos, the whys, the whats, the what ifs, and the hows.

I desperately wanted to figure out what happened to what was once our flagship law enforcement agencies — the FBI and the DOJ — to determine what went wrong and to evaluate how we can go forward from here. I have listened with great interest, hoping to find some answers to the burning questions of the day. And I have reached a few conclusions that I do not believe are subject to dispute or debate.

Now, I truly appreciate your regard for the agency you have dedicated your career to. I am sure that as your investigation progressed, you must have been truly saddened by what you found. What you have exposed, however, is that we are dealing with something so corrupt and so rotten that no amount of face paint, deflection, or whitewashing can fix this. You have been asked lots of questions about predicates, protocols, the Steele dossier, the Australian connection, Mr. Papadopoulos, Mr. Carter, the FISA court, and Crossfire Hurricane, among others. Your responses have been enlightening, but let’s get to the brass tacks: None of those people or documents or reports were relevant to the FBI when it identified Donald Trump as Public Enemy Number One.

What do I mean? The accuracy and veracity of the Steele dossier was irrelevant to the FBI. The accuracy and veracity of the reports coming from the Australian embassy were irrelevant to the FBI. The fact that the Russian experts in the CIA, FBI, NSA, and other agencies had no evidence of any kind of relationship between Mr. Trump and Putin or Russia was irrelevant to the FBI. And the fact that there was no verifiable evidence, such as testimony, documents, videos, or recordings of Russian collusion was irrelevant to the FBI.

Hageman continued, laying out her theory of the motivation behind the whole endeavor.

 

Nothing — and I repeat, nothing — that the FBI did was designed to show that Donald J. Trump was a Russian asset. That wasn’t the purpose of the entire charade. How do I know this is true? Because they told us so. The very people who cooked this up, and the ones who ran this entire operation: Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, Clinesmith, Steele, the DNC, Perkins Coie.

It was never their purpose to prove Russian collusion, and in fact, from the very beginning, they knew that no such thing actually existed. They knew that the entire Russian collusion narrative was fabricated by the Clinton campaign to deflect attention from her mishandling of classified materials and destruction of official emails.

They didn’t need to prove Russian collusion. They just had to keep the investigation alive. And so long as they had a complicit press, and so long as they had people in this very body, who has been here — one of the gentlemen, who has been here much of the day, who would go on TV every night and lie about the smoking gun — they could further their personal and political agendas.

Oh no, the purpose of Crossfire Hurricane wasn’t to prove Russian collusion — it was to destroy Donald J Trump, and they told us that with the text messages that are set forth on page 49 and 51 of your report — 49 and 50 of your report.

And then, if they failed at blocking Mr. Trump from being elected as president, well, they had a backup plan — they had their “insurance policy,” to use Strzok’s terminology — which was to make it impossible for him to govern; to use whatever tools were available to taint his presidency, the legitimacy of his election, his ability to work with foreign leaders, and to make everything about “Russia, Russia, Russia.”

And then, Hageman drilled down to the heart of the matter.

 

And how has this corruption and rot manifested itself in our everyday lives? In our national culture? In our ability to solve the problems we are facing? It has destroyed some of the key foundations of this country, a foundation built on equal protection, on the belief that justice is blind, on the belief that you will be held accountable if you commit a fraud of the magnitude of what we have been discussing here today, on the belief that due process, justice, and constitutional rights are more than mere words.

It has left a smoldering hot volcanic mess where the soul of this country used to be — all because a few people in the FBI decided they wanted to destroy a political candidate and ultimately a president and anyone associated with him. While these folks set out to destroy a presidential candidate and later a presidency, the fact is that they destroyed so much more — and that will be their ultimate legacy.

One casualty is America’s faith in our institutions, and another casualty is the erosion of a justice system that is supposed to apply equally to all Americans, but that has been weaponized to protect the favored few elites — the Clintons, the Bidens — while targeting political enemies. That is the current legacy of the FBI and DOJ,

Now at the end of her allotted time, Hageman asked her one and only question of Durham — though Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) did his level best to cut her off:

Mr. Durham, here is my question: How long do you think that this country will survive with a two-tiered justice system that seeks to persecute people based on their political beliefs?

Whatever one’s takeaway of Durham’s report and his testimony might be, it would be difficult to doubt the sincerity (or the foreboding accuracy) of his response:

I don’t think that things can go too much further with the view that law enforcement, particularly the FBI or Department of Justice, runs a two-tiered system of justice. The nation can’t stand under those circumstances.

Well, it’s SloJoe. We shouldn’t expect him to make sense

Biden’s Latest Anti-Gun Claims Aren’t Just False — They Don’t Even Make Sense

Biden’s most recent anti-gun claims during the National Safer Communities Summit are false, incomplete, and incoherent.

Biden’s gun control speech on Friday at the National Safer Communities Summit in Connecticut got attention because the president nonsensically concluded with “God save the Queen, man.” However, this was not his only incoherent claim.

In his speech, Biden stated: “Put a pistol on a brace, and it ma- — turns into a gun. Makes them where you can have a higher-caliber weapon — a higher-caliber bullet coming out of that gun. It’s essentially turning it into a short-barreled rifle, which has been a weapon of choice by a number of mass shooters.”

Of course, a “stabilizing brace” doesn’t turn a pistol into a gun. A pistol already is a gun.

What’s more, stabilizing braces have only been used in two mass public shootings (Dayton, Ohio, in 2019 and Boulder, Colorado, in 2021), but there is no evidence that the braces even made any difference in these attacks.

Even so, few realize that stabilizing braces were originally designed to allow veterans with hand disabilities to hold handguns, not for mass shooters to commit a crime more effectively. The braces are straps that allow the disabled person to keep hold of the gun when it recoils. Without a gun and a steady aim, disabled people are very vulnerable to criminals. But Biden will never mention that.

Even when pistol braces are used among law-abiding gun owners who are not disabled, their personal efforts to ensure steadier aim are not inherently negative or dangerous.

If Biden is worried about the dangerous potential of more powerful guns with less recoil, he should also address the various ways they can be obtained apart from stabilizing braces. For example, rifles are powerful weapons — 70 out of 82 bullets used in rifles are ranked as more powerful than a .223. If a criminal wants reduced recoil, he can simply use a rifle — heavier guns dampen the recoil, and rifles weigh more.

What’s more, in guns with short barrels, such as pistols, the bullet leaves the barrel before full pressure is developed and travels at a lower velocity. However, if an attacker wants a more powerful and more compact gun, there are alternatives to handguns. He can easily saw off part of the barrel of the rifle. After all, when facing multiple life sentences for murder, an additional penalty for sawing off the end of a rifle won’t make much difference.

But even Biden’s claim that short-barrel rifles are the weapon of choice for these mass murderers is also ridiculous. Again, only two of the roughly 100 mass public shooters over the last 25 years involved handguns with pistol braces. In 56.4 percent of mass shootings, only handguns were used (no braces), in 14.9 percent, rifles were used, and in 16 percent of attacks, rifles and another type of gun were used.

Finally, there is Biden’s screaming claim that “We are sending dangerous weapons, particularly assault weapons, to Mexico.” Mexico’s president does indeed blame America for his country’s high murder rate — in some recent years, it has been six times higher than the rate in the U.S.

According to data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), close to 70 percent of all criminally-owned guns in Mexico traced from 2009-2014 came from the U.S. A significant number of these were purchased legally in southwest states before being criminally smuggled over the border.

However, these figures are based only on the limited number of guns that Mexican authorities have seized, traced, and submitted to the agency for checking. For instance, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF in 2007-08, though it seized 29,000. Of those, they successfully traced 6,000, and 5,114 (or 85 percent) of those traceable weapons came from the U.S. Thus, only about 17.6 percent of the firearms that Mexico collected were traced back to the U.S. That’s a small subset.

More recent data from the ATF for 2016 to 2021 even shows that the 70 percent has declined to around 50 percent, but we don’t have the rest of the breakdown in the numbers for this later period. And a 2016 U.S. Government Accountability Office report complained of limited collaboration with Mexican authorities on tracing guns.

And what about the fully automatic guns and grenades used to commit murders in Mexico? You can’t just go into gun stores in the U.S. and buy these types of weapons. However, between 2005 and 2014, the Mexican government seized more than 13,000 grenades.

“These kinds of guns — the auto versions of these guns — they are not coming from El Paso,” Ed Head, an Arizona firearms instructor with over two decades of experience as a U.S. Border Patrol agent told Fox News. “They are coming from other sources. They are brought in from Guatemala. They are brought in from places like China. They are being diverted from the military. But you don’t get these guns from the U.S.”

Similarly, as an anonymous Tijuana-based police authority told Fox News, “Most cartels buy in bulk, and the weapons are coming from places like Nicaragua and other South American countries. Also Asia and some from the Middle East.”

Machine guns, grenades, and other weapons are also stolen from the Mexican military before being sold to these cartels.

Unfortunately, the news media and their “fact-checkers” are prone to ignore Biden’s false gun claims from misstating how guns work to the source of Mexico’s violent crime problem. Sure, once in a while they acknowledge how he lied about a U.S. cannon ban at the country’s founding. But they refuse to address his lies and how they are unjustly shaping today’s public opinion surrounding gun ownership.

Meet the U.S. Senate’s Gun-Control Caucus

It is real American political theater to think of all the members of the U.S. Senate’s new gun-control caucus, which formally named itself the “Gun Violence Prevention Caucus,” sitting around a table in some hidden-away chamber in the Dirksen Senate Office Building plotting their many gun-control schemes—and, as you’ll see, they do have quite the list. This, after all, is how Hollywood has often treated the pro-freedom side.

Indeed, the members of this little gun-control cabal, as this was going to print, are a who’s who of senators who want to strip this civil right from we the people. They are Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.).

Closed-door meetings and quiet handshakes do take place as one senator promises to co-sponsor another’s bill if that senator will vote for their proposed legislation (or if they won’t oppose some measure). And there are legislative tactics congressional leadership can use to rush legislation with little debate or, in some cases, to temporarily conceal what is in a bill—such is why Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) once famously (as it was an honest disclosure) gaffed when she referred to Obamacare: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Also, with certain types of legislation, riders and earmarks can be attached at the last minute that might have nothing to do with what that legislation is supposed to do.

Still, this gun-control caucus will have a hard time secretly moving any of its agenda items forward, as the American process of writing, debating and passing major legislation through both chambers of Congress invites a lot of attention and discussion—and some of the people watching are your NRA-ILA lobbyists.

With all of that said, why did these anti-Second Amendment senators form a gun-control caucus?

Politics. Such a caucus allows them to gather for the cameras as they virtue-signal about their stated desire to “reduce gun violence,” as if guns are violent critters that need to be neutered or outright disposed of. These gun-control-caucus members know that much of the mainstream media will further their narratives without questioning the specifics. They also know they can use talking points related to such proposed legislation to fundraise and to make the claim to their voters that they’re trying to do something—and they can then add that the NRA, yes, your freedom-loving association, just won’t let them push it over on the American people.

Such is also why much of the proposed legislation on this gun-control caucus’ list have disingenuous titles. And it’s why all of these legislative ideas are worded with misleading explanations.

This caucus’ ideas include the Age 21 Act (legislation that would strip away the constitutional rights of law-abiding, legal adults), a new Assault Weapons Ban (an idea that blames guns instead of criminals for crimes), the Crime Gun Tracing Modernization Act (an act that would create a national gun-owner database), Ethan’s Law (legislation to empower federal agents to go into citizens’ homes to enforce gun-storage mandates), the Protecting Kids from Gun Marketing Act (legislation to empower the Federal Trade Commission to censor advertising from firearms companies and groups) and much more.

Also, as this was going to print, this gun-control caucus said they planned to introduce the 3D Printed Gun Safety Act, the Accountability for Online Firearms Marketplaces Act, the Background Check Completion Act, the Federal Firearm Licensing Act, the Gun Violence Prevention Through Financial Intelligence Act, the Keeping Gun Dealers Honest Act and much more. Explanations of what these bills would contain are thin, but, given the past positions of these caucus members, it isn’t hard to fill in the gun-control details.

Now, for a moment, imagine if a Second Amendment-supporting caucus in the U.S. Senate were to come up with its own list. They could have The Individual Freedom Act (a national reciprocity bill), the Civil-Rights Act for Self-Preservation (a bill to ensure the disenfranchised get their Second Amendment freedom, too), the Right to Stop Evildoers Act (an end to “gun-free” zones) … well okay, all of those ideas aren’t deceptive in the least; they are honest, so the comparison to the gun-control legislation really doesn’t hold up.

The point is, these senators have created a gun-control caucus to provide fuel for even more agenda-driven gun-control coverage from mainstream-news outlets. Instead of targeting the actual problem—the criminals who use guns to harm others—this gun-control caucus is yet another political tool designed to blame America’s 100-million-plus gun owners for the actions of criminals.

This, then, is not a “Gun Violence Prevention Caucus,” as they call themselves, as that would be a caucus focused on legislation that goes after violent criminals; this is, rather, a gun-control caucus focused solely on disempowering average Americans.

 

 

I wouldn’t say it’s a ‘victory’. A judge on the Appeals Court simply stayed enforcement of an injunction to stop the law from taking effect.

NJ scores victory in federal court over concealed carry gun legislation

A federal court issued an order in favor of the state on Tuesday as the latest development in the legal battle over gun reform legislation.

The order, a stay requested by the state last month, will make it so that enforcement of limits on where concealed weapons can be carried in New Jersey is not restricted.

The motion filed by the state’s Attorney General’s Office said that not allowing enforcement of the restrictions “threatens public safety by allowing loaded guns in crowded theaters, bars, protests, and Fourth of July celebrations in parks, as well as zoos and libraries where children gather — just to name a few.”

Continue reading “”

“Even during when it was passed, you couldn’t own a cannon. You can’t own a machine gun.”

Can’t own a machinegun? Hmmm(Looking at the machineguns in my safe)
What a load of crap-for brains
And as for ‘taking on government? I’ll leave you to consider this from the late Mike Vanderboegh:
“Direct military operations” are precisely what the 4GW insurgent seeks to avoid. His target is the mind and the will of the political leadership of his enemy — to be specific, the few inches between their ears which are filled with brains to be influenced or, if not, popped like a grape with an unanswerable rifle shot from distance as an example to the others.”

Biden mocks Second Amendment supporters, says you ‘need an F-16’ to take on government
Biden has repeatedly mocked the Second Amendment, claiming it ‘doesn’t say that you can own any weapon you want’

President Biden took another swipe at Second Amendment supporters Tuesday evening, reminding them that they would “need an F-16” to challenge the U.S. government.

Biden’s remarks at a fundraising event in a private residence in California came as he discussed gun violence in America and stressed the notion that Americans do not need AR-15s.

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

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

Biden also suggested that the popularity of AR-15s among gun makers stems from its cheap production and high profit margins.

“You know one of the reasons why the AR-15 is so strongly supported by so many folks in that — in that industry? Number one, it’s the cheapest weapon to make and it’s the highest profit motive they have for any weapon that is made. It makes more money to sell an AR-15 than any other weapon you can buy,” he said.

The comments from Biden on Tuesday are similar to those he made earlier this year, when he told those gathered at the National Action Network’s annual Martin Luther King Jr. breakfast in Washington that those who support the use of AR-15s will need a much bigger arsenal to stand a chance against the government.

“I love my right-wing friends who talk about the tree of liberty is water of the blood of patriots,” Biden said in January. “If you need to work about taking on the federal government, you need some F-15s. You don’t need an AR-15.”

The quote Biden refers to dates back to Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in a letter: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.” Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and America’s third president.

Biden’s claims that there have always been limits on the Second Amendment have been analyzed and found to be false when he has made them repeatedly over the past few years.

The Second Amendment, as written, does not limit who can “keep and bear arms” or what kind of arms people can keep and bear. Federal gun regulation didn’t come until 1934, decades after the Second Amendment was introduced.

The Constitution does, however, give Congress the power to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” which were government licenses that allowed civilians to attack and detain vessels of countries at war with the U.S., The Washington Post pointed out in 2021.

“Individuals who were given these waivers and owned warships obviously also obtained cannons for use in battle,” the Post reported at the time.

Since taking office, Biden has urged Congress to pass gun control measures. In June 2022, after it was passed by both the Democrat-controlled House and Senate, Biden signed into law the most significant gun control bill in nearly 30 years.

Is the international Counterterrorism Law Enforcement Forum a work-around of Americans’ rights?

The Second Annual Counterterrorism Law Enforcement Forum occurred on Tuesday June 6th, 2023, which the United States co-hosted. Last year was the inaugural event in Berlin, Germany and the 2023 forum took place in Oslo, Norway. The idea of multiple law enforcement agencies getting together to think tank their way around some of the world’s problems with terrorism, or any crime for that matter, is not that radical. Where things get concerning are when we read between the lines. The DOJ release masqueraded the forum as a meeting of the minds on combating acts of terror, however remarks from the U.S. Assistant Attorney General show a clear focus on “domestic” terrorism.

The Justice Department’s Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training (OPDAT) and the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Counterterrorism (State CT) co-hosted the second annual meeting of the Counterterrorism Law Enforcement Forum (CTLEF) with the Government of Norway in Oslo from June 6 to 7.

The CTLEF, which focuses on countering the global threat of racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism (REMVE), brought together law enforcement, prosecutors, and other criminal justice practitioners from Europe and North and South America, as well as specialists from INTERPOL, Europol, the International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law and other multilateral organizations to discuss how to effectively address and counter REMVE threats.

Drilling down on what REMVEs there are, our Assistant Attorney General, Matthew G. Olsen, did not hold back on discussing his ideas when he delivered the opening remarks for the forum.

Last May, we gathered in Berlin, for our inaugural meeting. I departed the forum daunted by the scale of the problem, but heartened to see the partnership of so many likeminded countries.

I returned to D.C. from Berlin on a Thursday. Two days later, on Saturday afternoon, I received the first alerts from the FBI that there was an active shooter in Buffalo, New York. What we would come to learn over the next hours and days was that an individual espousing white supremacist ideology took a semiautomatic weapon into a grocery store and murdered 10 people.

This tragedy in Buffalo – just over one year ago – is part of an alarming trend.

What’s the alarming trend that Olsen is really talking about? What were some of the threats that Olsen identified in his speech? “In particular, we face an increasing threat from racially and ethnically motivated violent extremist groups, including white supremacists and anti-government groups,” Olsen said. Who are classified as “anti-government groups”? Would people that are critical of the United States Government, in particular overreaching agencies, be considered anti-government?

Doubling down Olsen identified obstacles to being able to effectively police these groups of individuals.

The simple truth is that the ability of violent extremists to acquire military-grade weapons in our country contributes to their ability to kill and inflict harm on a massive scale. A recent article in The Washington Post noted that about a shocking number of Americans – one in 20 adults, or roughly 16 million people – own at least one AR-15 assault rifle.
…
It is important to be clear, the Department of Justice investigates violent extremists for their criminal acts and not for their beliefs or based on their associations, and regardless of ideology. In the United States, upholding our core values means respecting First Amendment rights and safeguarding the exercise of protected speech, peaceful protests, and political activity. We hold those rights sacred.

Olsen had no problem pairing the roughly 16 million law-abiding citizens with violent extremists, lumping them into the same category of hateful and murderous actors. The numbers should be staggering to Olsen that we do have 16+ million alleged owners of AR variant – not “assault” – rifles, and have such an incredibly small amount of issues with those arms.

The other obstacle naturally is the First Amendment. It’s grand that Olsen says that the DOJ et.al. respects and holds “those rights sacred,” but he really means that for only some people. It’s clear that if there’s an individual or group that does not align with the ideologies of the current swamp, they become an enemy of the state. When there’s “mostly peaceful” acts of extremism, that’s alright as long as it’s the correct flavor of extremism.

Whatever may stand in the way between the government and combating domestic terrorism, Olsen has the solution.

We have to be united in confronting domestic extremism within our countries. Collaboration and information sharing is essential to understanding and countering the threats that terrorist and violent extremist groups pose.

International partnerships are especially important where we observe transnational linkages in domestic violent extremism. We have seen some U.S.-based supporters of domestic terrorism attempt to establish links with likeminded foreign individuals and organizations. In some cases, U.S.-based domestic terrorists have traveled overseas to link up with counterparts who espouse the same beliefs.

These trends are one reason why international forums like this are so valuable. This is an opportunity to hear from foreign partners about the violent extremist groups and networks that are most concerning; where transnational linkages exist; how these actors are raising and moving funds; how groups are recruiting and training new members; how they are communicating and spreading their messages and propaganda; and the sources and drivers of radicalization to violence.

The Assistant Attorney General of the United States stated that in order to combat domestic extremism it’s important to “establish links with,” collaborate with, and find out how groups are “raising and moving funds; how groups are recruiting and training new members; how they are communicating and spreading their messages and propaganda,” from foreign governments. In short, Olsen wants foreign countries to do what our CIA can’t do; spy on Americans. There are no Fourth Amendment protections for American citizens when it’s a foreign entity doing the infringing.

Who all could this reference though? Bad guys, right? Those “anti-government” types. Olsen brought up the events that transpired on January 6th. Regardless of one’s view on what happened during January 6th, what occurred was not as bad as it’s been purported by mainstream media, nor were the actions completely benign.

Olsen spoke extensively about all the arrests and charges that sprung up in the wake of that day, “The January 6 investigation is the largest in the history of the Justice Department. We have arrested and charged more than 1,000 individuals who took part in the Capitol assault. Nearly 500 people have pled guilty or been convicted at trial.”

Olsen further observed concerning January 6th:

We have brought serious charges, including seditious conspiracy against numerous defendants – members of extremist groups who plotted to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power in our country.
…
We believe our success in this case serves as a stark warning to those who would seek to violently attack our government and our democracy. It makes clear our determination that the rule of law will prevail.

Not that we needed any confirmation that the DOJ would aggressively go after those that don’t help serve the bigger picture of what’s desired of the Biden-Harris administration, but this is the Assistant Attorney General saying as much in black and white. The “members of extremist groups who plotted to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power in our country” includes a whole lot of people that got arrested, charged and in some cases convicted, for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The issues involving anything January 6th are so multi-faceted, to even bring the date up is flirting with disaster. Do what we say or you’ll end up like them.

On a small scale, Olsen found it problematic that 16+ million people have access to semi-automatic rifles. He clearly pegged that as an obstacle to being able to do the proper police work needed to fight “extremism” or those who are “anti-government.” Olsen further opined that our civil liberties are an issue, as there’s nothing they can do about people expressing their opinions, which the government “respects.” But alas, they found their solution in the form of partnerships with other countries, id.est., having other nations do the spying on the American people.

These events and little get-togethers that American officials attend sure seem like they’re “for the better good.” Really, no one wants extremism or terrorism, domestic or otherwise. However, if we read between the lines, eh, I’m going to say that maybe these trips on the taxpayers’ dime are not in the best interest of the people. Could this be a misread? Sure. But they kind of make it clear that they’ve adopted a Conan approach; “crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.” But, clearly it’s the AR’s that are the problems…

The Department of Justice is corrupt. No one should trust it.

‘TWO-TIERED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE:’ GOP Presidential Candidates React To Hunter Biden’s DOJ Deal.

Several Republican 2024 presidential challengers weighed in Tuesday on the deal between President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) on federal gun and tax charges.

Hunter Biden will plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors and enter a probation agreement with the DOJ for a felony gun possession charge; Biden has been under investigation in the Federal District of Delaware since 2018 over allegedly failing to pay taxes and lying on a federal firearm application. Many of the 2024 GOP contenders criticized the deal as letting Hunter Biden off easy, as the younger Biden was able to avoid jail time, contrasting the legal treatment with that of former President Donald Trump.

“Today proves there is a clear two-tiered system of justice—one for Democrats and one against President Trump,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung told the DCNF. “As President Trump predicted earlier this month, Hunter was given a sweetheart deal that sweeps his crimes under the rug in a blatant attempt to interfere with the 2024 election. All the while, Joe Biden continues to be given a pass by his weak special counsel for his classified documents strewn all across his garage and in his Chinatown office building. The Biden Crime Family continues to show they are willing to sell out America to dangerous foreign actors in order to line their pockets with millions and millions of dollars.”

“Looks like Hunter received a sweetheart deal and is not facing any charges on the massive corruption allegations,” DeSantis wrote in a tweet. “If Hunter was not connected to the elite DC class he would have been put in jail a long time ago.”

Continue reading “”

3 years ago, this would have gotten one smeared as a racist science denier.

It’s becoming undeniable: COVID came from a Chinese lab.

Evidence that COVID came from a Chinese lab mounted toward a conclusive level last week: “Multiple government sources” say the very first people infected by the bug were Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers, a new report reveals.

More, they were allegedly modifying a close relative of the virus with a key feature unique to it.

The report — by Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi and Alex Gutentag, posted on the outlet Public — names Ben Hu, Yu Ping and Yan Zhu as WIV scientists who developed COVID symptoms as early as November 2019, a month before the world even heard of the outbreak, and who now appear to be “patients zero.”

A source said officials were “100%” certain these three were the ones who developed the symptoms.

It’s “a game changer if it can be proven that Hu got sick with COVID-19 before anyone else,” marvels World Health Organization expert Jamie Metzl. “That would be the ‘smoking gun.’ Hu was the lead hands-on researcher” in the WIV lab.

Add in all the other evidence — especially the scientists’ gain-of-function work using a close relative of the COVID bug — and it’s now impossible to ignore the extreme likelihood that a leak from the lab sparked the global pandemic behind nearly 7 million deaths and untold economic harm.

It also points a damning finger at China for having waged the greatest coverup in history of the world — abetted by Westerners from Dr. Anthony Fauci to Big Tech to countless liberals and left-leaning media voices who misled the public by pooh-poohing the lab-leak theory early on, and actively suppressing those who pointed to evidence backing the theory.

Continue reading “”

While the clueless losers chant “RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA!” , our goobermint has allowed Chinese commies to run amok in the U.S.

Chinese Intel Arm Quietly Operates ‘Service Centers’ In 7 US Cities

A Chinese intelligence agency quietly operates “service centers” in seven American cities, all of which have had contact with Beijing’s national police authority, according to state media reports and government records reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) United Front Work Department (UFWD) — which at least one U.S. government commission has characterized as a “Chinese intelligence service” — operates so-called “Overseas Chinese Service Centers” (OCSCs) that are housed within various U.S.-based nonprofits. OCSCs were ostensibly set up to promote Chinese culture and assist Chinese citizens living abroad, according to Chinese government records.

State media reports, Chinese government records and social media posts show that during a 2018 trip to China, U.S.-based OCSC representatives met with Ministry of Public Security (MPS) officials. During the meeting, state security officials demonstrated how they’re leveraging new technology to conduct “cross-border remote justice services” overseas.

MPS is China’s national police authority and has been referred to as “China’s FBI” by China experts. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) says MPS also conducts covert “intelligence and national security operations far beyond China’s borders,” including “illicit, transnational repression schemes” on U.S. soil.

Continue reading “”

PROJECTION, BIDEN STYLE

The New York Post reports on President Biden musing to the press before he boarded the plane to hit the campaign trail in Philadelphia yesterday. The White House has helped us along with a transcript. Here we have a pure case of projection, Biden style:

President Biden kicked off his first day of campaigning for re-election by making excuses for communist China — saying that President Xi Jinping never meant to fly a spy balloon over sensitive American military sites earlier this year.

“I don’t think the leadership knew where it was, and knew what was in it, and knew what was going on,” Biden told reporters Saturday as he headed to Philadelphia for his first campaign rally of the 2024 election. “I think it was more embarrassing than it was intentional.”

Biden does everything thing but thank the Chinese Communists for taking an interest in our military installations. What do they have on him? I should like to think that no one can be this stupid without motivation.

As I noted in “Lost horizon” and again in “The Biden two-step,” the CCP regime goes out of its way to show its disrespect of Biden. “Contempt” is probably more like it. Gordon Chang shows how in the 1945 column: “Secretary Blinken’s Visit To China Is One Giant Mistake.”

Who on earth could have seen this coming?

Hateful Gun Banner Sent to Prison for Threatening Congresswoman Boebert

U.S.A. — A 39-year-old South Florida man who is an ardent anti-gunner was sentenced last week to 15 months in federal prison and one year of probation for threatening U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colorado, in a series of social media posts that targeted the Congresswoman for her strong Second Amendment support.

In 2021, Matthew Lee Comiskey sent five threatening tweets to Boebert that mentioned firearms and encouraged readers to do her harm. Comiskey originally faced five counts of making an interstate threat but pleaded guilty last year to one count.

His tweets show that Comiskey is violently anti-gun:

  • “Someone needs to put Lauren down like a sick dog. She is a true waste of life! Someone exercise their second amendment right to her face! Since the CIA is a failure and FBI is incompetent at charging her for being a terrorist it’s time to do it ourselves! Pew pew Lauren,” Comiskey wrote in September 2021.
  • “Don’t come to Florida us libs have big guns here and we stand (our) ground. Take you down like Trayvon,” Comiskey wrote a month later.
  • “Don’t worry Lauren, someone is coming soon to show your face the 2nd amendment in practice with a copper jacket. Enjoy,” Comiskey wrote.

Boebert’s pro-gun credentials are well known.

Before the 36-year-old conservative was elected to Congress in 2020, she owned Shooter’s Grill, a Western-themed restaurant in her hometown of Rifle, Colorado, where staff openly carried firearms.

Boebert has earned A-ratings from Gun Owners of America, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and the National Rifle Association. In Congress, she is a member of the Freedom Caucus and the Second Amendment Caucus.

During his sentencing last week at the Paul G. Rogers federal courthouse in West Palm Beach, Florida, Comiskey told the court he let his “personal emotions get in the way of my common sense.”

His mother told the court that her son’s actions were “out of character.” Yeah right….
U.S. District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg rejected Comiskey’s requests for a shorter prison sentence or home confinement.

Self-serving or not, Newsom’s 28th Amendment is a threat to the rights of all

Last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom garnered national attention by proposing his vision for a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Unsurprising given Newsom’s policy goals for the Golden State, the proposed amendment would advance Newsom’s gun control dreams nationwide. While it’s unlikely Newsom can gather the support necessary to make his dream a reality in the near-term, that doesn’t mean we should ignore the dangers of his narrative.

On June 8, Newsom issued a press release outlining his specific vision for a new constitutional amendment that he describes as “common sense gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and gun owners overwhelmingly support.” The proposed amendment would write four key tenets of Newsom’s gun control religion into our federal system of government: (1) raising the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21; (2) mandating (so-called) “universal background checks”; (3) instituting a waiting period for all gun purchases; and (4) barring “civilian purchase of assault weapons.”

It would be exceedingly challenging today for Newsom to actually achieve his goal. Article V of the U.S. Constitution sets forth the procedure necessary to amend the Constitution. First, two-thirds of Congress or two-thirds of the states have to propose an amendment (with agreed upon language). Then, three fourths of states have to ratify that amendment for it to become effective. Given only 10 states and Washington D.C. have any form of ban on so-called “assault weapons” or any form of waiting period, while 27 states have enacted some iteration of free/constitutional/permitless carry, it is clear that there isn’t currently much appetite for Newsom’s particular brand of gun control across the country.

Setting that aside, Newsom’s rhetoric is still dangerous for a couple reasons. First, while Newsom’s campaign is, at face value, a poorly disguised political stunt and fundraising effort for his political ambitions, it continues to paint gun control as “popular” and those standing in its way as responsible for violence. Newsom quite literally called those opposing his proposed amendment “Merchants of Death.” This rhetoric continues to push gun control activists’ twisting of language to psychologically manipulate the public and advance the activists’ cause. It aims to shift public perception until enough people will assent to the authoritarian regulation of all individual’s natural rights.

Second, and to that point, Newsom’s proposed amendment carries with it the implication that, if enough people agree, the government should have the power to infringe on the People’s natural right to self-defense and to possess the tools necessary to effectuate that defense. The idea that the People’s rights can be put up to a decision of a popular vote is offensive and immoral. The entire purpose of our system of government was to protect the rights of the few from the many. Yet, today, we’ve strayed far from that original vision. Newsom’s proposed amendment is evidence of just that.

Not only is Newsom’s proposal an admission that he is losing his battle for civilian disarmament, and that he knows the Constitution and the Second Amendment stand in the way of his authoritarian utopia, but it also reveals just how far our Nation has strayed from its aspirations of individual liberty, choosing instead to grow the leviathan that is government.

Natural rights are not mere political talking points, nor are those who cherish them second class citizens, subject to the whimsy of polling results or political fads. The People should never weaken in their resolve to protect those rights that once one generation loses, future generations may never know.

Whether Newsom’s proposed amendment is likely or not in the immediate future, one thing remains constant—all those who cherish individual rights must treat each trespass exactly for what it is, a bridge to the next trespass.

Cody J. Wisniewski (@TheWizardofLawz) is a senior attorney for constitutional litigation with FPC Action Foundation where he regularly represents Firearms Policy Coalition.

The Bidens ‘Coerced’ Burisma To Pay $10 Million In Bribes, Says Credible FBI Source

Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky wasn’t far from the mark when he said it would take 10 years to unravel the complex payment path that led to Joe Biden

The Bidens allegedly “coerced” a foreign national to pay them $10 million in bribes, according to individuals familiar with the investigation into the FBI’s handling of the FD-1023 confidential human source report. What, if anything, agents did to investigate these explosive claims remains unknown, however, with sources telling The Federalist the FBI continues to stonewall.

On Monday, Sen. Chuck Grassley revealed a foreign national — identified by individuals with knowledge of the matter as Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky — allegedly possessed 17 recordings implicating the Bidens in a pay-to-play scandal. While 15 of the audio recordings consisted of phone calls between Zlochevsky and Hunter Biden, two were of calls the Ukrainian had with then-Vice President Joe Biden, according to the FD-1023.

The Federalist has now learned the FD-1023 reported the CHS saying the Bidens “coerced” Zlochevsky to pay the bribes. Sources familiar with the investigation also explained the context of Zlochevsky’s statements, and that context further bolsters the CHS’s reporting.

In the FD-1023 from June 30, 2020, the confidential human source summarized earlier meetings he had with Zlochevsky. According to the CHS, in the 2015-2016 timeframe, the CHS, who was providing advice to Zlochevsky, told the Burisma owner to stay away from the Bidens. Then, after Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential contest, the CHS asked Zlochevsky if he was upset Trump won.

Zlochevsky allegedly told the CHS he was dismayed by Trump’s victory, fearing an investigation would reveal his payments to the Biden family, which included a $5 million payment to Hunter Biden and a $5 million payment to Joe Biden. According to the CHS, the Burisma executive bemoaned the situation, claiming the Bidens had “coerced” him into paying the bribes.

The CHS responded that he hoped Zlochevsky had taken precautions to protect himself. Zlochevsky then allegedly detailed the steps he had taken to avoid detection, stressing he had never paid the “Big Guy” directly and that it would take some 10 years to unravel the various money trails. It was only then that Zlochevsky mentioned the audio recordings he had made of the conversations he had with Hunter and Joe Biden, according to the CHS.

The broader context of this conversation adds to the plausibility of Zlochevsky’s claims that he possessed recordings implicating the Bidens. And we already know from Grassley and House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer that the FBI considered the CHS, who relayed Zlochevsky’s claims to the FBI, a “highly credible” source.

Further, according to individuals familiar with the investigation, the FBI admitted the CHS’s intel was unrelated to the information Rudy Giuliani had provided the Western District of Pennsylvania’s U.S. attorney’s office — the office then-Attorney General William Barr had tasked with reviewing any new information related to Ukraine.

Sources told The Federalist that investigators out of the Pittsburgh office, in addition to reviewing Giuliani’s information, searched internal FBI databases and came across an earlier FD-1023 related to the CHS. That earlier FD-1023 then led to agents questioning the CHS on June 30, 2020, uncovering the details concerning Burisma’s alleged bribery of the Bidens.

What the FBI did to investigate the allegations is unknown, with sources telling The Federalist the bureau refused to either confirm or deny that the DOJ under Barr sent the FD-1023 to Delaware for further investigation. On the contrary, the FBI allowed Rep. Jamie Raskin, ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, to falsely represent to Americans that Barr and Pittsburgh U.S. Attorney Scott Brady had closed the investigation. Raskin’s deceit, tolerated by the FBI, forced Barr to publicly correct the record.

The FBI is also refusing to provide any information on what, if any, steps it took to investigate the detailed claims contained in the FD-1023. But sources familiar with investigative procedures maintain there was insufficient time between the June 30, 2020, interview of the CHS and the FBI headquarters’ closing of an assessment related to the FD-1023 in August 2020 to properly probe the matter. “They couldn’t have done much,” one source said.

There is also no independent confirmation from Delaware indicating any investigative steps were taken regarding the FD-1023. Agents in Delaware “could have sat on it,” according to one individual familiar with the investigation.

While the FBI’s efforts to unwind the pay-to-play scheme seem to have been nonexistent, banking records released in May by the House Oversight Committee show congressional investigators are unraveling the complex web behind the Biden family business. Those records provide concrete evidence of a pattern of public corruption involving foreign nationals, with Joe Biden at the helm. There are still more banking records to review, along with the many details recently discovered when the whistleblower came forward with the FD-1023.

Apparently, Zlochevsky wasn’t far from the mark when he said it would take 10 years to unravel the complex payment path that led to Joe Biden.

Committee approves proposal to regulate Marion County firearms, but state law has to change first

Proposal to control access to guns in Marion County

On Wednesday, the City-County Council’s Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee approved a proposal that would regulate gun access in Marion County. Nine council members voted in favor of the measure, and four against.

The proposal’s first provision would create a ban on the sale of assault-style weapons such as AR-15s. A second would increase the minimum age to purchase a weapon from 18 to 21. The third would end permitless carry of handguns.

Last month, Hogsett announced that one of his office’s top priorities during the next legislative session would be convincing the General Assembly to change state law surrounding gun regulation.

Currently, individuals do not need a permit to carry a firearm in Indiana. Indiana has a preemption statute that prevents local governments from regulating firearms.

Multiple council members said Wednesday that Indianapolis should be able to enforce its own laws on firearms.

“I implore our state legislature to remove this ban and allow our city to rule for the benefit of our people,” said Democratic council member Dan Boots.

Republican council members like Joshua Bain voted against the proposal.

”We’re going to continue to blame guns, other tools like that, for what is ultimately a spiritual issue that’s affecting our society,” he said.

But IMPD Chief Randal Taylor, who supports the measure, said more concrete solutions are needed.

“I’ve always said that I would much rather someone decide not to shoot someone, work on someone’s heart, and not do these crimes in the first place,” Taylor said at the meeting. “And I’m still all for that. However, we don’t seem to be winning that battle right now.”

Arkansas man says he’ll sue after town denies permit for gun store

While we may like to think of infringements to our right to keep and bear arms largely as a blue-state problem, the truth is that even in conservative states like Arkansas you can find anti-gunners intent on enacting their own prohibitions. At least four of them sit on the city council in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, because they voted this week to keep the town gun-store free.
Keeling Grubb has been trying to sell firearms at his pawn shop for several months now, but as we recently reported, he’s run into opposition from many of his fellow residents in the tourist town, and the Eureka Springs Planning Commission deadlocked on his request for a conditional use permit that would allow him to do so. Grubb appealed that decision to the full city council, but this week they shot down his request by a vote of 4-2.

Eureka Springs is a tolerant town, the first in Arkansas to allow same-sex marriage. But gun shops are another matter.

The City Council voted 4-2 on Monday to reject a permit application for Eureka Gun & Pawn, which would have been the only gun or pawn shop in town. The owner, Keeling Grubb, said he’ll sue.

The council’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious” because city code indicates gun and pawn shops are legal in the tourist town, Will Kellstrom, Grubb’s attorney, told the council.

As of right now, Grubb says Eureka Gun and Pawn will remain open, though it won’t be selling firearms or accepting items for pawn, which also requires that conditional use permit. The NIMBYs have spoken (along with Grubb’s supporters), and the city council is siding with those who claim a gun store and pawn shop would ruin the small-town charm of the tourist destination.

Mayor Robert “Butch” Berry said guns are a “very emotional issue” for the people of Eureka Springs. Pat Matsukis told the council a lot of people move to Eureka Springs for a few years, then move away.

“But then there’s the rest of us that chose to be here because every morning is a blessing,” she said. “When I wake up in the morning and I open the door and I hear the birds singing, that’s a miracle. That’s what I want to hear. I don’t want to hear guns.”

Steve Killebrew told the council he moved to Eureka Springs from Texas, where he’d had guns pulled on him.

“I moved here because I do feel safe,” he said. “I don’t want to feel unsafe. I don’t want to have to pack my gun again like I did in Texas.”

I don’t know if either Matsukis or Killebrew are aware, but Arkansas is constitutional carry state, and I have no doubt that there are plenty of gun owners in Eureka Springs even without a local gun shop to serve them. The presence of a gun shop isn’t going to more crime or shots fired, and the absence of a gun store doesn’t mean that the city will be crime-free. Just look at San Francisco, where there are also no gun stores or ranges open to the public, and yet there are mass shootings and other acts of violence involving firearms happening on a regular basis.

If Eureka Springs is a nice quiet place it’s because the people who live and visit are generally nice people, though many of them are certainly not as tolerant as they’d like to think they are.

Alderman David Avanzino had a speech prepared for Monday’s meeting.

“I’m going to stand before you today and voice my strong opposition to the establishment of this pawn and gun shop within our town,” he said, while remaining seated. “Eureka Springs, with its tight-knit community and modest population of roughly 2,300, has long been a haven of tranquility and harmony. Allowing such a store to open its doors here would not only disrupt our way of life but also impose significant risk to the well-being and safety of our residents.”

I doubt that very much, but not allowing the store to open poses a significant risk to the financial bottom line of the town’s budget, given that Grubb plans to file suit over the denial. Comments like Avanzino’s make it clear that the objections aren’t to a particular location, but gun stores in general. That would appear to run afoul of the state’s firearm preemption law, which states that “A local unit of government shall not enact any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner, the ownership, transfer, transportation, carrying, or possession of firearms, ammunition for firearms, or components of firearms, except as otherwise provided in state or federal law.”

The requirement for a special use permit for Grubb to facilitate the transfer and ownership of firearms is problematic enough, but when you add in the comments from city council members and the mayor, it’s clear that the zoning ordinance is being used to keep any and all gun stores from operating inside the city limits.

I hope that Grubb does pursue litigation here, and in the meantime I suggest that gun owners keep themselves and their tourism dollars away from Eureka Springs. There are plenty of other quaint small towns in northern Arkansas and southern Missouri to visit for a weekend getaway that aren’t trying to infringe on the rights of residents and would-be gun sellers like Grubb, and your money is much better spent in those communities than the intolerant and hoplophobic town of Eureka Springs.

Progressive Judge Says Commerce Clause Overrides the Bill of Rights

U.S.A. — At least one judge in the Third Circuit believes the Commerce Clause overrides the Bill of Rights. In a recent decision of The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in the case Range v Lombardo, on June 6, 2023, the en banc court ruled some felony convictions are not sufficient to restrict Second Amendment rights, based on the historical record. Eleven of 15 judges concurred with the majority opinion. Four judges dissented.

Judge Roth makes a strong case, based on Progressive philosophy, the Commerce Clause overrides the Bill of Rights. She gives the usual litany of Progressive “arguments”: Things have changed since the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The federal government has to have more power than the Bill of Rights allows. That was then. This is now. Here is part of the dissent from Judge Roth of the Third Circuit P. 96 of 107 :

In Bruen, the Supreme Court considered whether a regulation issued by a state government was a facially constitutional exercise of its traditional police power.

Range presents a distinguishable question: Whether a federal statute, which the Supreme Court has upheld as a valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, 2 is constitutional as applied to him.

The parties and the Majority conflate these spheres of authority and fail to address binding precedents affirming Congress’s power to regulate the possession of firearms in interstate commerce. Because Range lacks standing under the applicable Commerce Clause jurisprudence, I respectfully dissent.

Judge Roth explicitly states the modern expansion of the commerce clause, to include virtually all activity that has any effect on commerce, overrides the Bill of Rights because the scope of modern commerce is far greater than commerce at the founding.

This case involves the Second Amendment. Roth’s logic as easily applies to the First Amendment and others. Virtually all First Amendment usage involves items that have a connection to interstate commerce – printing presses, telephones, computers, satellites, fiber optic cables, etc. Church pews are made of wood shipped across state lines, paid for by credit cards recognized by interstate banks. Nearly all homes affect interstate commerce. Under the expansive interpretation, the federal government could regulate all use and sale of homes and inspect them at any time, in spite of the Fourth Amendment. Under the expansive, Progressive interpretation, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are swallowed up. Virtually all of life is encompassed by the absurd extension of the Commerce Clause created by Progressive judges.

Most of what Judge Roth writes about modern times applied to commerce at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

Continue reading “”

Gavin Newsom’s campaign to repeal the Second Amendment

Whatever else Gov. Gavin Newsom ’s (D-CA) campaign for a 28th Amendment gets wrong about guns, at least it implicitly admits that the Democratic Party’s gun control wish list is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment .

After all, why propose an amendment if the Constitution doesn’t forbid what you want to accomplish?

Leaving Newsom’s admission aside, however, his 28th Amendment would accomplish nothing, at least nothing good. At worst, it would lay the legal groundwork for confiscating every gun in the United States.

Newsom has offered no text for his amendment, only four “principles” he wants written into it. This allows him to propose “barring civilian purchase of assault weapons” without ever having to define exactly what an “assault weapon” is.

Define it too narrowly and gun manufacturers will create new models that skirt the definition. Define it too broadly by saying it is “any semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine,” for example, and you outlaw almost half the handguns in the nation. If the text of Newsom’s 28th Amendment is ever written, he’ll have to choose. The first option renders his amendment useless; the second would mean it never gets the votes to become law.

Not all of Newsom’s principles are so vague. Raising the legal age to buy a firearm from 18 to 21 is an easy bright line to enforce, but there isn’t any evidence that it would reduce gun crimes at all. But how can we raise the age to 21 when people may vote when three years younger than that?

Newsom’s third principle calls for a “reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases.” What is “reasonable” is not defined. We know from existing state waiting periods that they reduce gun suicides for those over 55, but they have no effect on gun homicide rates overall.

Finally, Newsom calls for “universal background checks” for gun purchases. But all commercial gun purchases are subject to universal background checks already. What Newsom is really calling for here is background checks for all private firearm transfers. Anytime anyone transfers gun ownership, from father to son, for example, or from neighbor to neighbor, Newsom wants the federal government to know about it.

Some states have tried this, and compliance is nonexistent. It is estimated that only 3.5% of private transfers in Oregon, for example, complied with that state’s universal background check law. The only way to achieve anything approaching effective compliance would be for the federal government to create a national gun registry and force all owners to register their firearms with the feds. That is the Democrats’ real goal with a universal background check system: a new government database that knows who owns every gun in the country and where they live.

Newsom’s gun grabbing pitch is predicated on the suggestion that mass shootings are a rational security threat and that the public, after “another few dozen of these in the next year or two,” will accept repealing the Second Amendment.

But mass shootings make up just 1% of all gun deaths each year. If Newsom wants to do something about gun violence, he should attack the George Soros district attorneys in his state and across the country who refuse to prosecute minorities charged with gun possession crimes. Democrats need to focus on enforcing existing gun laws before they try to create new ones.