Category: Enemies Domestic

A “compromise” from the gun prohibitionists – you can’t own one, but maybe you can borrow one

Earlier today we reported on the first few hours of the supposed-to-be massive protest outside the Colorado state capitol in Denver, where the group Here 4 The Kids is holding a sit-in to pressure Gov. Jared Polis into signing an executive order banning gun sales and possession in the state. While organizer Saira Rao predicted 25,000 or more would be on hand early Monday morning, the Colorado Sun reports the number was closer to 250 people, and though a few folks have trickled onto the capitol grounds since then there’s nowhere near 25,000 in attendance.

The Sun did manage to speak with a few supporters of the flagrantly unconstitutional executive order proposed by Rao, and it’s fascinating to see how deep the delusion runs with some of these folks, starting with Rao herself.

“Yes, it is in violation of the Second Amendment, and what we are saying is, as a decent human being, at some point, you have to decide that the right to life and our children’s’ right to life must trump anybody’s right to bear arms,” Here 4 The Kids co-founder Saira Rao said Friday.

“The people who have been elected to office have to choose if they will choose children’s lives over guns,” said Rao, a former lawyer who unsuccessfully challenged U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette in the 2018 Democratic primary and then moved to Virginia. “That’s the fundamental choice. And if he’s saying he will not, he is making a choice that will put him on the wrong side of history.”

Change doesn’t happen without major shifts, she said. Americans had to amend the Constitution to abolish slavery, which was considered radical and unthinkable to many in 1865, at a time when slavery was the foundation of the American economy, she said.

“Imagine if people were just like, ‘We can’t do it.’ Indeed, they can, and they did, and now we have the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery,” Rao said.

Rao’s not trying to amend the Constitution. She’s trying to get Polis and other Democrat governors to ignore it, which isn’t going to go well. As we’ve seen from states like New York and California, anti-gun Democrats would prefer to pay lip service to the Second Amendment while violating the fundamental right to keep and bear arms rather than explicitly rejecting the right altogether, which would cause even courts that have been traditionally hostile to our Second Amendment rights to step in put a halt to their attempt at prohibition.

Continue reading “”

Gun Controllers’ Real Goal Revealed

Though gun controllers often hide behind the ever-shifting goalposts of what they claim are “common-sense solutions,” sometimes their true goals slip right out into the open.

Such a case occurred when former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), in a recent interview with Time, made the true goal of the gun-control group Giffords clear when she said, “No more guns.”

An aide tried to clarify that the former congresswoman means “no more gun violence. But Giffords interjects with, “No, no, no. Lord, no,” pauses for half a minute, then continues with, “Guns, guns, guns. No more guns. Gone.”

An aide then tries to clarify that Giffords was referring to Australia, “where gun sales were outlawed,,,and existing weapons were purchased by the government.” But even that is not even remotely accurate, While the civilian possession of semi-automatic firearms in Australia was largely banned in 1996, the country did not ban all firearms. Furthermore, the bans that were enacted have had trouble being enforced and, beyond that, they have also had little to no effect on violent crime.

“Several reports from the early 2000s estimate that only 20% or so of the banned firearms had been confiscated,” Amy Swearer wrote of Australia’s gun-control efforts for America’s 1st Freedom. “Moreover, while firearm suicides dropped in Australia after the confiscation effort, there was little meaningful effect on the overall suicide rate. Another evaluation found no effect on homicides or accidental deaths, despite claims to the contrary.

Despite the overwhelming evidence of its ineffectiveness, Australia’s gun-control efforts are still often praised by anti-Second Amendment advocates. This is not to mention that such bans would certainly be unconstitutional stateside.

In response to Giffords’ remarks, John Lott, president and CEO of the Crime Prevention Research Center, wrote, “Gun control advocates usually don’t call for banning all guns even though that has been obvious to everyone else, but at least they aren’t hiding what they want anymore.”

“The fact that they are pointing to Australia as an example where guns have been banned is depressing because they really believe that a gun ban reduces crime when all gun and handgun bans are associated with increased murder rates and Australia never banned all guns,” added Lott.

Lott also recently sat down with America’s 1st Freedom Editor in Chief Frank Miniter for a pair of videos that can be viewed here and here.

Prof: ‘Nothing wrong with’ murder of Trump supporter from a ‘moral perspective.’

University of Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis appeared to defend the murder of Aaron “Jay” Danielson, the member of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer, during recent social unrest in Portland, Oregon.

In 2012, Loomis came under scrutiny after he called for NRA executive Wayne LaPierre’s “head on a stick” following the shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. Just weeks later, in January 2013, Loomis said, “I know the central mission of the Republican Party is to have a membership made up entirely of old rural white people.”

Now, Loomis is once again under fire after publishing a blog post titled “Why was Michael Reinoehl killed?” Reinoehl is the man suspected of fatally shooting Danielson. Reinoehl was killed as federal authorities tried to arrest him.

“Michael Reinoehl is the guy who killed the fascist in Portland last week. He admitted it and said he was scared the cops would kill him. Well, now the cops have killed him,” Loomis wrote in the September 4 blog post.

 

“I am extremely anti-conspiracy theory. But it’s not a conspiracy theory at this point in time to wonder if the cops simply murdered him. The police is [sic] shot through with fascists from stem to stern. They were openly working with the fascists in Portland, as they were in Kenosha which led to dead protestors,” Loomis continued.

In the comment section of the blog post, one reader challenged Loomis by writing, “Erik, he shot and killed a guy,” referring to Reinoehl.

Loomis responded by saying, “He killed a fascist. I see nothing wrong with it, at least from a moral perspective.” He further added that “tactically, that’s a different story. But you could say the same thing about John Brown.”

Loomis furthered compared Reinoehl to Brown who in the 1800s used violence as a means of fighting slavery.

One reader then asked, “What’s so great about assassinating a rando fascist? And in the absence of a sound affirmative justification, it should be easy to envision the drawbacks.”

Loomis was quick to reply with, “What’s so great about assassinating random slaveholders, said liberals to John Brown.”

In a separate comment, Loomis wrote, “the problem with violence is that it usually, though not always, is a bad idea. That I agree with.”

Loomis said in another comment, “Yes, sometimes violence is necessary, say to avoid greater physical harm, i.e. self-defense, or to defeat a literal army of fascists who are trying to kill people. But, ideologically, I think the idea that violence is good if it’s against our political enemies is a core part of fascism, and so the ideological opposition to that idea should be its opposite – that violence as a general rule is bad, unless the specific context of that situation requires a violent response.”

Loomis made headlines Tuesday for another comment he made on Twitter. In response to MSNBC host Chris Hayes tweeting, “Trump is objectively pro-Covid,” Loomis tweeted “yeah, I mean, once Republicans figured out COVID was going to affect people of color and the poor disproportionately, they stopped caring about doing anything about it.”

They’re waging war against those they’re most afraid of, their own citizens

HOW DHS WENT FROM FIGHTING JIHADISTS TO TARGETING YOUR TWEETS.

On May 11, I found myself in the unlikely position of testifying before a congressional committee on a topic that most Americans would likely assume was totally irrelevant to that committee, and largely concerning the actions of a sub-agency under that committee’s jurisdiction that most Americans have likely never heard of.

“What,” they might ask, “does censorship have to do with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)?”

“And what in the world is the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and what does it have to do with any of it?”

Indeed, in saner times a hearing of the House Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability on “Censorship Laundering: How the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Enables the Silencing of Dissent,” and specifically on CISA’s role in said laundering, would not only be unnecessary, but unthinkable.

But these are not sane times. Remarkably, and perversely, as the analysis I presented to the subcommittee demonstrates, DHS, led by CISA, has become a linchpin of the mass public-private censorship regime discussed in these digital pages previously.

This regime, linking federal agencies, top White House officials, and lawmakers to Big Tech companies and supportive “private” but often state-supported or like-minded entities – namely counter-disinformation academic and research organizations, and media outlets, ironically some of the greatest beneficiaries of our free speech principles – has used its collective power to silence speech contrary to the regime’s favored narratives in service of its power and privilege.

The regime has led arguably the most widespread censorship system in the history of mankind.

Continue reading “”

The gun grabbers actually don’t like any of the rights the Bill of Rights protected from goobermint.

GUN CONTROL LOOKS TO DRY UP LEGAL TALENT FOR GUN INDUSTRY

Gun control groups are foisting gun control on the American public by taking to university campuses to convince law students to pledge to never represent the firearm industry, or its interests, in court.

Gun control groups are big Shakespeare fans, apparently. They’re taking a page from the famed Elizabethan-era bard’s Henry VI as the next play on foisting gun control on the American public.

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” Shakespeare wrote in the play.

Two gun control groups are putting a 21st Century twist on the line and taking to university campuses to convince law students to pledge to never represent the firearm industry, or its interests, in court.

Call it the long game. Gun control isn’t satisfied with attacking Second Amendment rights, or even First Amendment rights. Now, they’re targeting Sixth Amendment rights too. That’s the amendment that guarantees the right to be represented by legal counsel.

Giffords Courage to Fight Gun Violence and March for Our Lives, gun control groups headed by former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords and antigun billionaire Michael Bloomberg, respectively, are canvassing campuses to convince law students to sign a pledge they won’t represent the firearm industry or firearm owners when it comes to protecting and preserving Second Amendment rights. The gun control groups’ pledge peddles verifiably false claims to convince the aspiring lawyers that the firearm industry is responsible for violent crime in America.

Not criminals. Not gang violence. Not the illicit drug trade. They’re blaming the industry for crimes committed by violent offenders and ignoring basic legal foundations to sway law students to deny legal services to companies and individuals that follow the law.

Continue reading “”

No one NO ONE, who has attained this high status is this naïve. So, he’s a stooge, nothing more than a Godless communist in disguise who is pushing the disarmament agenda. So, the following applies:

BLUF:
“The voluntary self-restraint that I am calling for will not solve the problem of gun violence all by itself, but it can help us change our culture from one that is obsessively focused on individuals’ rights to a society dedicated to ensuring the common good,”

Newark cardinal asks Americans to voluntarily forgo right to guns

NEW YORK – Amid a mounting debate in America over the constitutionality of gun control, Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark has entered the fray with a different argument: That people should voluntarily forgo their Second Amendment rights for the betterment of society.

“I honestly believe it is the best thing we can do to change the culture of violence that threatens us today,” Tobin said.

“Let’s voluntarily set aside our rights in order to witness the truth that only peace and never violence, is the way to build a free society that is lived concretely in our homes, our neighborhoods, our communities, our nation and our world,” he said.

Tobin made the plea in a recent letter, “Pray for an end to all instances of violence,” where he calls on community leaders and Catholic bishops, himself included, to call for a “synodal effort” to actively resist gun violence. He proposed a threefold process that includes prayer and work, advocacy, and voluntary self-restraint from the Second Amendment.

The letter, published May 26, is the latest call to action amid a spate of mass shootings in recent months. May 30 marked the 150th day of 2023, over which time there have been 263 mass shootings – incidents with four or more people shot – that have led to 327 deaths.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
My hat is off to the commies. They found a weak portion of the nation and convinced them that submission is strength and not cowardice. Your blue-haired, trans-pansexual sister-in-law will proudly move into a pod she shares with an “undocumented” Honduran serial rapist while calling you a bigot for not complying.

The Democrats’ Greatest Achievement: Convincing Idiots That Tyranny Is Virtue

I have to give it to the progressives Marxists–they sure know how to play the long game.

The far lefties have spent decades demonizing conservatives, Republicans, and white Christians as hateful, racist, terrorists, hell-bent on oppressing minorities, and, lately, guilty of taking down our American democracy, while at the same time assuring their minions they are morally superior to these same liberty-embracing crowd.

OPINION-O-RAMA! Many leftists are self-hating cowards who need to feel supreme over a group of people, and those people would be you and I. But what do I know? I’m just a former self-hating coward leftist who used to look down on people like you until a friend — whom I’ll call a true son of liberty — shook the stupid out of me.

Leftists, desperate to feed their cowardice — rather than starve it to death and replace it with courage — eat up their phantom supremacy by swallowing whatever self-righteous balderdash their Democrats masters throw at them, even if that means slowly stripping away their own freedoms.

Those at the top of the Democrat hate pyramid have learned they can thrust tyranny on their myrmidons if they just thinly disguise it with a bogus sense of virtue. The weak are easy prey.

Die-hard leftists will trip over themselves in a desperate attempt to out-virtue signal their Bolshie friends, and if that means cutting off their noses to spite our Constitution-loving faces, so be it.

Continue reading “”

Comer Says Biden Linked to $5 Million Bribe While VP, But FBI Is Obstructing Investigation.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), has claimed that an informant file he is seeking from the FBI connects President Biden to a $5 million bribery scheme during his time as vice president.

In a letter addressed to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Comer disclosed the amount of the alleged bribe for the first time on Wednesday. He warned that if the FBI fails to share the file in response to a subpoena issued on May 3, he will initiate contempt proceedings.

According to Comer’s letter, the informant tip is dated June 30, 2020, providing an additional clue to the story. The allegation has generated speculation due to the extensive consulting work undertaken by the Biden family in countries where Joe Biden held significant influence as the vice president.

Coincidentally, 17 days prior to the tip-off, Ukrainian officials held a press conference in Kyiv where they presented $5 million in cash purportedly offered as a bribe to halt an investigation into the founder of the natural gas company Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky.

Hunter Biden had a cushy board position at Burisma from 2014 to 2019 despite having no experience in the energy sector, earning more than $1 million a year. During this time, an executive from Burisma had a meeting with then-Vice President Biden at a dinner in Washington on April 16, 2015. In 2020, Ukrainian officials seized a large amount of cash in American $100 bills, which reportedly matches the amount Joe Biden allegedly received years earlier. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine arrested three Kyiv bureaucrats, including a former and current tax official, and an additional $1 million was allegedly offered as a bribe via a middleman.

A Ukrainian anti-corruption prosecutor, Nazar Kholodnytsky, claimed that neither Hunter Biden nor Joe Biden were implicated in that specific case, but, according to Comer, two and a half weeks later, an FBI document accusing Joe Biden of bribery was either “created or modified.”

The Oversight Committee has not confirmed the country where Biden allegedly accepted the bribe as vice president, but a source told The New York Post that it is not believed to be a deal with China—likely meaning it involves either Russia or Ukraine.

The FBI has so far refused to provide the informant file linking Joe Biden to the $5 million bribe, despite the document being subpoenaed by Comer.

“As previously stated, the whistleblower disclosures indicated that the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) are in possession of an FD-1023 form describing an alleged criminal scheme involving then-Vice President Biden and a foreign national relating to the exchange of money for policy decisions,” Comer wrote to FBI Director Wray. “The FBI’s refusal to produce this single document is obstructionist. Nevertheless, to narrow the breadth of the subpoena, we are providing additional terms based on unclassified and legally protected whistleblower disclosures that may be referenced in the FD-1023 form: ‘June 30, 2020’ and ‘five million,’” he added.

The FBI has until May 30, 2023, to respond; otherwise, contempt proceedings will be initiated.

 

US Senator Tries to Undermine Branch of Government Intended as a Check on HIS Branch of Government

As anyone who has an elementary school level education understands, our Founders established our federal government to have three branches—the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary—each designed with their own duties, and also designed to act as a check on the others from trying to assert too much power.

In a fairly simplistic breakdown, Congress determines what laws should be in place, the President makes sure the laws are put into place and enforced, and the Supreme Court determines if the laws comport with the US Constitution.

Sadly, some politicians simply ignore this dynamic, and hate being less powerful than they believe they should be.

Case in point: US Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).

Murphy has long been a staunch advocate of diminishing the Second Amendment. He has supported virtually every anti-gun proposal that has come before him for consideration, including banning guns. But, thus far, he has failed to achieve much success in imposing the Draconian restrictions on law-abiding gun owners he would like to see passed at the federal level.

There are, however, a handful of states that are under the political control of anti-gun zealots; states such as California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York. These states have, as our readers know, passed laws that infringe on our rights protected under the Second Amendment; ranging from annoying bureaucratic impediments to exercising the right to arms to actual bans on some of the most popular firearms people choose for self-defense.

That said, while our Founders may have given deference to the states to manage their own affairs, it has been long established that there are certain things that are sacrosanct—like individual rights—and states can be limited as to their authority on establishing laws in certain areas.

So, after a trio of Second Amendment-affirming decisions handed down by the US Supreme Court based on challenges to laws at the state and city level—in the cases of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen—the days of anti-gun states and localities being able to violate Second Amendment rights with no accountability may be numbered.

This seems to terrify Sen. Murphy, and so much so that he has taken up the tactic of making thinly-veiled threats towards the US Supreme Court and questioning our nation’s very foundations of government.

Continue reading “”

Frankly, no one that isn’t in the military — this is a weapon of war — or a trained police department, in my view, no one in America who isn’t in one of those two situations should own an automatic weapon. There is no reason to own one of those.
New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (demoncrap)

Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA. Ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.
― German Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler (NAZI)

 

The real collusion to rig the 2016 election was between the Clinton campaign, the Obama White House, and the FBI.
If you don’t think they didn’t try it again in 2020, well…………..

Biden was briefed on Clinton involvement in Trump-Russia hoax.

Special Counsel John Durham on Monday published a 300+ page report on the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation, representing the end of a years-long investigation.

Included in the report are the details of a White House briefing on Aug. 3, 2016, during which then-CIA Director John Brennan met with President Barack Obama, then-Vice President Biden, FBI Director James Comey, and other senior administration officials to discuss Russian efforts to interfere in the election.

The report further highlights that Brennan specifically informed the group of then-candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan to paint Trump as being in league with Moscow.

“According to Brennan’s handwritten notes and his recollections from the meeting, he briefed on relevant intelligence known to date on Russian election interference, including the Clinton Plan intelligence,” Durham wrote. “Specifically, Director Brennan’s declassified handwritten notes reflect that he briefed the meeting’s participants regarding the ‘alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on 26 July of a proposal from one of her [campaign] advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services.

 

The Ominous Reason Why Biden Keeps Repeating His False Claim About a White Supremacist Threat

As Ben Bartee noted Saturday, Old Joe Biden’s commencement speech at Howard University “included a hearty condemnation of the alleged scourge of White Supremacy™ in America.” In fact, the alleged president called white supremacy “the most dangerous terrorist threat to our homeland.” Then on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary and failed Disinformation Governance Board overlord Alejandro Mayorkas agreed with Old Joe, emphasizing that “domestic violent extremism is our greatest threat right now.” Many other Biden regime officials have said the same thing in the nearly two and a half years now that they have been inflicting themselves upon us. The reason why they keep making this false claim is clear and ominous.

At Howard, Biden first repeated his oft-stated lie that Donald Trump had called Nazis “fine people.” Then he said: “But on the best days, enough of us have the guts and the hearts to st — to stand up for the best in us. To choose love over hate, unity over disunion, progress over retreat. To stand up against the poison of white supremacy, as I did in my Inaugural Address — to single it out as the most dangerous terrorist threat to our homeland is white supremacy. And I’m not saying this because I’m at a black HBCU. I say it wherever I go.”

A “black HBCU”? As opposed to all the white historically black colleges and universities, Joe? But anyway, Old Joe’s lie about white supremacists being the nation’s biggest terror threat has also been repeated by Gestapo chief Merrick Garland and the FBI. In November 2021, FBI and Homeland Security Department officials increased investigations of “domestic extremists,” reiterating the claim that they are today’s foremost terror threat.

Yet no matter how often Biden and his henchmen repeat this, actual white supremacist terrorists in any significant numbers have been conspicuously lacking. Yet on MSNBC (of course) Sunday, “journalist” Jonathan Capehart perpetuated the myth, asking Mayorkas: “The president, yesterday at his commencement address for Howard University graduates, called white supremacy the major domestic terrorist threat in this country. Is that correct?”

Mayorkas, of course, answered in the affirmative: “It tragically is. And the terrorism context, domestic violent extremism is our greatest threat right now. Individuals are driven to violence because of ideologies of hate, anti-government sentiment, false narratives, personal grievances. Regrettably, we have seen a rise in white supremacy. The principle underlying our work is that when one community is targeted, Jonathan, when one community is targeted, we as a country are targeted.”

Note how Mayorkas related “anti-government sentiment” to “white supremacy.” Old Joe revealed the game that is being played here last September when he said in his ominous red and black speech that “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.”

This regime aims to criminalize political dissent, and that will require demonizing and stigmatizing fully half of the electorate. It is increasingly clear that when Biden claims that white supremacists are the biggest terror threat the nation faces, he means ordinary Americans who have never broken any law but who oppose his agenda. If everyone who opposes him is a white supremacist terrorist, then the nation has over a hundred million of them. Arrests and prosecutions on false pretenses will follow. That’s the threat that was contained in his words at Howard.

And ever so conveniently for Old Joe, no sooner had he uttered this false claim again at Howard on Saturday than a couple of hundred actual white supremacist terrorists miraculously materialized in Washington. All were young, physically fit men; not a single fat Nazi in the bunch. All wore the same blue shirt and khaki pants uniform, all with their faces covered, and once again, the feds showed no curiosity about who they are and made no attempt to determine where they came from or where they went.

This clumsy false-flag operation was widely exposed and ridiculed on Twitter, but conservative writer Chris Brunet pointed out: “What’s sad about this clip is that everyone here on my side of Twitter instantly knows this is a glowie/fed operation… pure theatre. But it is actually a really effective psyop, they keep doing it, because it works. Ask any normal person on the street, ask your mom, ask your sister, and they will be terrified of this clip and fall for it hook-line-and-sinker.”

Indeed they will. They still have no idea what game is being played. But as Old Joe’s henchmen continue to move to make it possible for only their point of view to be enunciated in the public square, their objectives will become obvious to everyone.

It’s only a “Bombshell!”™ if you’ve lived under a rock for the past six years

BOMBSHELL: Obama Admin Had No ‘Actual Evidence’ Of Collusion By Trump When It Launched Crossfire Hurricane Investigation.

The Obama administration possessed no real evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump colluded with Russian government officials when it launched its investigation into the Trump campaign leading up to the 2016 election, according to a new bombshell report.

On Monday, Special Counsel John Durham released the findings of his years-long investigation into the origins of the FBI’s surveillance of the Trump campaign in the months before, during, and after the 2016 presidential contest. Despite the agency’s claims that the inquiry — commonly referred to as Crossfire Hurricane — was predicated on the belief that Trump’s campaign was colluding with Russian officials leading up to the election, Durham’s report found the FBI had no evidence to warrant such an investigation.

“Indeed, based on the evidence gathered in the multiple exhaustive and costly federal investigations of these matters, including the instant investigation, neither the U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane Investigation,” the report reads.

The baseless investigation into the Trump campaign started after Australian intelligence notified the FBI about “concerning comments” from George Papadopoulos, an unpaid foreign policy advisor for the Trump team, about the Russians purportedly having dirt on Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In his report, Durham details the recklessness with which leading FBI officials, such as then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and then-Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, launched Crossfire Hurricane and further revealed that the FBI did not possess evidence of Trump-Russia collusion as late as March 2017.

Continue reading “”

Question O’ The Day
BLUF
However, what this REALLY is, is a national security issue. Again, we should be glad that at least ONE more terrorist was nabbed at our border. Yet the question remains, what about those who have slipped through??

Afghan On Terrorist Watch List Caught At Border.

National security? WHAT national security? Joe Biden and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas keep insisting our border is safe and secure. So I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that an Afghan national on the terrorist watch list was caught in San Diego last week?

It’s been confirmed that an Afghan national on the U.S. terror watch list was apprehended while illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in California on Wednesday, one day before Title 42 officially expired on May 11 at 11:59 p.m. ET time. The arrest was confirmed to Fox News by several sources in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), who did not reveal the identity of the individual on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) terror watch list.

Ok, so it’s good news that this guy, a known or suspected terrorist (KSTs) decided to show up at the border and get caught. However, I have many questions about this. MANY. 

In fiscal 2022, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Field Operations agents apprehended 67 KSTs at ports of entry and 98 between ports of entry at the southern border, totaling 165. At northern border ports of entry, they apprehended 313. Combined, CBP OFO agents apprehended 478 KSTs in fiscal 2022.

Fiscal year to date, OFO agents have apprehended 45 KSTs at ports of entry and 80 between ports of entry at the southern border, totaling 125. At the northern border, the numbers are still higher: 205 at ports of entry and two between ports of entry. So far, that’s 332 this fiscal year who’ve been apprehended trying to enter the U.S.

Question number one: How many have we missed?? Because, reality check here, you can darned well bet others decided to cross the border illegally and are numbered among those 1.5 million or more who’ve slipped through CBP fingers because resources are so thin on the ground.

Yet Mayorkas went on the Sunday talk shows yesterday and bragged about the “successes” at the border. Fewer people are crossing! Well, there’s a reason for that.

Yes indeed. It isn’t because of Mayorkas that the CBP has seen fewer crossings since last Friday. Nope, it’s because Mexico stepped up their enforcement and Governor Abbott deployed TX National Guard to the border. Also, with more people showing up at the port of entries, those facilities are totally overcrowded.

Continue reading “”

Daydreaming the Guns Away

We find ourselves living in a highly consequential time for the legal clarification of the 2nd Amendment. Extremely aggressive, wide-ranging bans of semi-automatic firearms have been enacted in various parts of the country, drawing legal challenges. While the ultimate resolution of these challenges is unknowable, many observers believe the Supreme Court will eventually arrive at a decision prohibiting the wholesale banning of semi-automatic firearms. Those who dream of eliminating all private gun ownership in the United States face the prospect of a devastating legal defeat.

One can imagine their looming disappointment. They have failed to appoint Supreme Court justices who would effectively redefine the 2nd Amendment out of existence, and they are about to bear the consequences of that failure. But from their perspective, there is comfort to be had in the prospect of eventually stripping the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution altogether, no matter how long it may take.

Such is the hope that animates aspiring intergenerational social reformer Allan Goldstein, who, in his “Let’s get serious and repeal the Second Amendment” has stepped forward to boldly launch a 50-plus year plan to eradicate all privately owned firearms in the United States.

Perhaps the piece might have been better entitled “Let’s Get Hysterical.” How galling it must be to be deprived of so obvious a good — a gun-free society — on account of something as frivolous as an obsolete, suicidally-construed constitutional amendment. On Goldstein’s account “[t]he Supreme Court has decided that ‘a well-regulated militia’ includes gang bangers and wild-eyed loners with a grudge.” What a shame Goldstein did not bother to provide a citation to the Supreme Court decision in which this is asserted.

Continue reading “”

To these types, the court become ‘illegitimate’ when it rules opposite to what they want. That’s childish ‘stampy footing’ as most proggies do when they don’t get their way. The court, by definition, isn’t illegitimate, but if you don’t like how they rule, you either follow the methods provided in the Constitution, or get yourself classed as domestic enemy of the same.

Democrat Senator Says People Will ‘Revolt’ If Supreme Court Blocks Gun Control.

Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) claimed over the weekend that the American people would “revolt” if the United States Supreme Court continued to block new gun control laws.

Murphy made the comments to NBC’s Chuck Todd during Sunday morning’s broadcast of “Meet the Press” — after which he dug in even further, going on to attack the credibility and legitimacy of the current court.

Murphy referenced a 2022 Supreme Court decision — authored by Clarence Thomas in the 6-3 majority — that struck down New York’s restrictions on concealed carry, along with the more recent decision from Virginia District Court Judge Robert Payne. Payne ruled that a ban on gun sales for 18-20-year-olds would effectively impose restrictions on certain citizens that “do not exist with other constitutional guarantees.”

Complaining that the courts had often halted any progress toward stricter gun control measures by interfering in anything legislators were able to get done, Murphy said, “If the Supreme Court eventually says that states or the Congress can’t pass universal background checks or can’t take these assault weapons off the streets, I think there’s going to be a popular revolt over that policy.”

The Connecticut Senator then turned his attack on the Supreme Court directly, adding, “A court that’s already pretty illegitimate, is going to be in full crisis mode.” He went on to promise that legislators would continue to “regulate who owns weapons and what kind of weapons are owned” — with or without pushback from the courts.