Poll Shows a Quarter of Americans Believe Civil War May Erupt After the Election

America hasn’t been this divided since the Civil War. But does that mean that if the election doesn’t go the way that either party wants, another civil war will break out?

According to a poll taken by The Times, about a quarter of the U.S. population fears that civil war may break out after the election.

Barbara Walter, a noted Civil War historian, wrote a 2022 bestseller, “How Civil Wars Start and How to Stop Them.” She said that measured against a checklist of the factors that could lead to civil war, “the United States … has entered very dangerous territory.” She added that “we are closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe because of “political extremism, cultural tribalism, the embrace of conspiracy theories, proliferation of guns and militias and the erosion of faith in government and democracy.”

Only the final item on her checklist matters. Neither the right nor the left has faith in our institutions to govern us. The right doesn’t trust the vote-counting process while the left thinks Trump will “destroy democracy” if he wins. It’s an incendiary mix that doesn’t bode well for the post-election period.

Fears that an eruption of violence is very or somewhat likely are shared across the political divide by 27 per cent of American adults, including 30 per cent of women and 24 per cent of men, YouGov found in a survey of 1,266 registered voters on October 18-21.

Twelve per cent of respondents said they knew someone who might take up arms if they thought Donald Trump was cheated out of victory in under two weeks’ time. Five per cent said they knew someone who might do the same if they thought Kamala Harris was cheated.

Does this really point to a “civil war” where there are two identifiable sides fighting for control of the government? If there is going to be violence after the election, it will be in the form of riots more than a military campaign.

Rebellions take planning and organization. The glorified brawl that took place on Jan. 6, 2021, was not a rebellion, no matter how the left wants to describe it. No court has ever said it was a rebellion. No insurrection charges were ever filed against any of the 1,200 defendants.

Whatever happens after the election, any violence will serve only to divide America further.

Concern over Trump’s response to losing again on November 5 was shown elsewhere in The Times-YouGov poll, with 66 per cent of voters saying the former president would not accept a narrow loss, compared with 27 per cent who said the same about Harris.

Among Harris supporters, 5 per cent said she would not accept a narrow loss and 90 per cent said the same about Trump; among Trump supporters, 50 per cent said Harris would not accept a narrow loss and 39 per cent said the same about Trump.

Trump is just as likely to accept the results of the election if he loses as not. Trump has a habit of doing exactly the opposite of what his enemies say he’s going to do, so anything is possible.

What’s not possible is Trump openly calling for armed resistance to the results. And without that, a large-scale revolt is not possible.

Not many respondents believed that Kamala Harris would offer armed resistance if she lost. Far more likely is an avalanche of legal filings challenging the results in several states.

But don’t ever refer to her as an “election denier.”

Israel Hits Iran in Multiple Waves of Targeted Bombing Strikes

Israel said it struck military sites in Iran early on Saturday in retaliation for Tehran’s attacks on Israel earlier this month, the latest attack in the escalating conflict between the heavily armed rivals.
Iranian media reported multiple explosions over several hours in the capital and at nearby military bases, but there were no immediate reports of damage or casualties.

Before dawn, Israel’s public broadcaster said three waves of strikes had been completed and that the operation was over.

The Middle East has been on edge awaiting Israel’s retaliation for a ballistic-missile barrage carried out by Iran on Oct. 1, in which around 200 missiles were fired at Israel and one person was killed in the West Bank.

Continue reading “”

IDF announces Israel carrying out ‘precise strikes’ on military targets in Iran

The IDF confirms launching strikes in Iran.

In a statement, the IDF says it is carrying out “precise strikes” on Iranian military targets, in response to “months of continuous attacks from the regime in Iran against the State of Israel.”

“The regime in Iran and its proxies in the region have been relentlessly attacking Israel since October 7th – on seven fronts – including direct attacks from Iranian soil,” the military says.

“Like every other sovereign country in the world, the State of Israel has the right and the duty to respond,” the statement continues.

The IDF says its “defensive and offensive capabilities are fully mobilized,” and that it “will do whatever necessary to defend the State of Israel and the people of Israel.”

Cynical Publius

I’ve had a number of people ask me what I think happened that caused our senior military leadership to go from being the most respected institution in America to being a bunch of banana republic narcissistic self-serving politicos.

There are so many ways to answer that, but I think the answer lies in some cultural shifts that have taken place over the past 30 years that made officers think they are woke politicians instead of steely-eyed warriors (and what happened to the senior officers drifted into the senior NCO ranks like an infection).

To wit:

1. The promotion of the concept of “interagency.”

After 9/11, a huge amount of emphasis was placed on better coordination between the DoD and other federal departments like State and the CIA. The idea was simply to produce better coordination across domains. But instead of the State Department becoming more like the DoD, the DoD started thinking like the State Department.

Historically (pre-1990s) there was a healthy tension between State and the DoD. Turning our senior officers into wannabe State Department grandees who get invited to Georgetown cocktail parties destroyed that tension and wrecked the warrior ethos of the military. (Although not “high ranking,” Alexander “Chow Thief” Vindman is a stellar example of this phenomenon.)

2. We sent our promising O-5s and O-6s to advanced degree-producing programs at Ivy League universities and made advanced degrees a key promotion criteria.

Think Dave Petraeus. The idea of the “warrior scholar” is nice in the abstract, but in reality what we did was infect our senior leaders with the woke mind virus.

3. The service academies and War Colleges tried to be like Ivy League universities and built a civilian cadre of professors who think and act like a Harvard scholar.

The result is the same as #2, except because the service academies are involved the woke mind virus starts at the very most junior officer levels with cadets at West Point, the Air Force Academy and Annapolis.

——————————————-

How to fix these cultural issues?

Continue reading “”

More Support For Challenges To New Massachusetts Gun Law.

We’ve reported recently how Massachusetts’ sweeping new anti-gun law, launched early by an emergency preamble attached to it by Gov. Maura Healey, is facing a lot of pushback from pro-freedom groups.

Not only have two lawsuits already been filed to challenge the law in court, but an initiative petition to get a question on the 2026 state ballot to repeal the law already has more than the 90,000 signatures needed to put the matter to the vote.

Just two weeks after the measure was signed into law the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) ponied up $100,000 to help fund the court challenge by the Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL). Now, according to a report at masslive.com, others within the firearms industry are joining the efforts to repeal the law or have it declared unconstitutional in court.

Continue reading “”

NYC’s Gun-Detecting Subway Scanners Produced Dozens of False Positives, But Found Zero Guns

When embattled New York Mayor Eric Adams announced the trial rollout of gun-detecting machines at about 20 subway stations across the five boroughs earlier this year, he said he was impressed by the results of previous tests and predicted the use of the machines would soon become “the norm” across the subway system.As it turns out, the machines have been a bust. As ABC News reports, the machines failed to detect a single gun, but they did produce dozens of false positives.

Through nearly 3,000 searches, the scanners turned up more than 118 false positives as well as 12 knives, police said, though they declined to say whether the positive hits referred to illegal blades or tools, such as pocket knives, that are allowed in the transit system.

Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat and tech enthusiast, announced plans to pilot the portable scanners, manufactured by Evolv, at a handful of subway stations this past summer in an effort to deter violence within the subway system.

The announcement drew skepticism from some riders and civil liberties groups, who argued it was neither feasible nor constitutional to scan millions of riders who enter the subway system through hundreds of entrances each day. Violent crime is rare in the system, though the announcement came on the back of two high-profile shooting incidents.

After Adams promised for months to make the results of the test public, the New York Police Department released a four-sentence statement Wednesday night noting it had performed 2,749 scans at 20 stations during the 30-day period. In total, there were 118 false positives — a rate of 4.29%.

It’s entirely possible that none of the nearly 3,000 riders who were subject to a scan were carrying a gun. In fact, given that the subway system is supposed to be a “gun-free zone”, and lawful concealed carry holders are still few and far between in the Big Apple more than two years after the Bruen decision, I’d say that’s actually a likely scenario.

But even if Evolv can detect guns that are being carried (an open question, to be sure), it also produces a significant number of false positives. Adams said earlier this year that he wants the Evolv machines to be used at every subway station, and for every rider. According to the Metropolitan Transit Authority, which oversees the subway system, there are about 3.6 million riders on weekdays. A 4.29% false positive rate would equate to more than 150,000 false positives every day. That’s utterly insane, and completely unworkable.

The bigger issue, of course, is that New York City’s public transportation shouldn’t be “gun-free zones” to begin with. It’s the primary way millions of New Yorkers navigate the city during the course of their daily routine, and preventing lawful concealed carry on buses and trains means countless residents are unable to lawfully exercise their right to bear arms, even if they have a valid carry permit.

Now that NYC’s subway scanners have proved to a bust, it’s the perfect time for the city to revisit its designation of public transit as a “sensitive place”. I know that won’t happen, but if criminals are still bringing weapons onto trains and buses, the growing number of legally armed citizens should at least be able to do the same without fear of a felony charge and several years in prison.

Man who shot, killed teen at weekend high school party will not face charges

FORT WAYNE, Ind. (WPTA) – Police and prosecutors say the man who shot and killed a 17-year-old boy at a high school party over the weekend will not face criminal charges as he was acting in self-defense.

Investigators have learned that the deceased, Willie Ivy III, came to a home in the 4900 block of Manistee Drive for a high school Halloween party being advertised on social media. Partygoers were told to bring their own alcohol and marijuana and were patted down for weapons before entering the home.

Police say the “party quickly got out of hand” and the parent of the household member hosting the party “retreated to her bedroom and locked the door” without notifying police of the situation.
[That, right there, is the sort of parental negligence that, in my opinion, was the proximate cause of this. If the police had been called, it’s probable that none of this would have happened. – Miles]

When Ivy and his friends arrived, police say they went to the back door to avoid being patted down.

Two of the nine other people shot tried to stop the group from entering, but they forced their way into the home, according to a press release from the Fort Wayne Police Department. Ivy then pulled out a handgun and began firing shots as he walked through the back door, kitchen and living room.

Evidence shows that nine of the shooting victims, who ranged in age from 14 to 20 years old, were struck by bullets from Ivy’s gun.

Police say a partygoer, acting in self-defense, then returned fire from his own handgun and fatally shot Ivy, the release says. That man will not face criminal charges “as his actions were justified under established Indiana self-defense law.”

Police say the investigation is ongoing and other criminal charges may be filed at a later date. Fort Wayne Police Captain Jeremy Webb says the department is investigating charges for the homeowner, which the Allen County Prosecutor’s Office will review

Homicide charges in fatal shooting of Bolivar student dismissed on basis of self-defense

The Polk County Prosecutor’s Office is dismissing a homicide case on the basis of self-defense, according to a press release.

Corey Keith Nielsen, 34, was charged with second-degree murder, armed criminal action and unlawful use of a weapon following the fatal shooting of a 17-year-old Bolivar High School student on July 27. All charges have been dismissed.

According to the initial report, the 17-year-old was driving a pickup truck with nine people on the road near the Morrisville property where Nielsen, his wife and four children were staying. Someone in the bed of the truck ignited an “aerial type firework” and threw it into Nielsen’s yard. Nielsen fired multiple rounds from a semi-automatic rifle at the pickup, striking the truck multiple times. Later investigations showed that the 17-year-old was struck once in his torso.

A review of the finalized investigation and a deliberation by a panel of local community members culminated in the decision that Nielsen acted in defense of others under Missouri law. The prosecutor’s office also consulted with other county prosecutors.

The panel indicated that Nielsen was likely justified in his actions under Missouri’s self-defense laws: “The fireworks were large enough to have presented a significant risk to the lives and safety of the family, and under Missouri law, such a threat may warrant a defensive response. It does not matter what the intent of the group was; even if they did not intend to cause physical harm, Mr. Nielsen would be judged on what dangers he reasonably perceived in the situation.”

After reviewing the case, the panel was provided the same jury instructions a trial jury would receive, and the “vast majority” of the panel said they would rule that Nielsen acted in self-defense.

“The Polk County Prosecutor’s Office has therefore dismissed the charges against Mr. Corey Nielsen, as this office feels there to be no likelihood that a jury unanimously find Mr. Nielsen guilty of a crime,” the Polk County Prosecutor’s Office said in the press release.

CCL holder shoots carjacking suspect in Gresham

CHICAGO (WLS) — A 16-year-old suspect was shot after trying to hijack a man on the city’s South Side, according to Chicago police.

The crime happened at about 5:20 a.m. near 82nd Street and Ashland Avenue in the Gresham neighborhood.

A 47-year-old man was inside his Toyota Camry when a group of four people jumped him and demanded his car.

Police said someone “discharging a chemical agent” on the victim. Police did not specify what the chemical was.

The victim, who has a valid FOID and CCL, shot at the suspects.

One of the suspects, 16, was shot in the left knee and his left arm was grazed by a bullet. He was taken to the hospital and is expected to be okay.

The other suspects fled in the victim’s Toyota Camry and headed eastbound.

The victim was treated on the scene. No other injuries have been reported.

No charged have been announced. Chicago police are investigating.

Retired police officer shoots suspected vehicle thief on West Side

CHICAGO (WLS) — A man suspected of trying to break into a car on the West Side was shot by the car’s owner Thursday morning, Chicago police said.

The incident occurred at about 2:26 a.m. in the 300 block of North Mayfield Avenue.

Police said a 53-year-old man was trying to break into a vehicle when he was confronted by the owner.

Some sort of a struggle ensued and the owner, who sources said is a retired police officer, shot at the suspect.

The suspect was hit in the right shoulder and taken to Mt. Sinai, where he is listed in good condition.

Area Four detectives are investigating.”

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.
— Suzanna Gratia Hupp

Well, that didn’t take them long, did it?
And the Supreme Court again displays its cowardice concerning the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Second Circuit’s Second Opinion on NY Carry Laws Same As the First

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its second opinion in the multiple challenges to New York’s post-Bruen carry restrictions, but the court ended up making no changes to its initial ruling that was issued almost a year ago.

Instead of granting cert to Antonyuk v. James and hearing the appeal themselves, the justices on the Supreme Court granted cert but vacated the Second Circuit’s first ruling and remanded the case back to the appellate court after SCOTUS released its decision in Rahimi back in June. If the justices were hoping that Rahimi would guide the Second Circuit in a different direction they, like Second Amendment advocates, must be disappointed by today’s ruling.

Essentially, the only portions of New York’s post-Bruen laws the Second Circuit takes issue with are the requirement that concealed carry applicants disclose their social media accounts to licensing authorities and the state’s “vampire rule”, which prohibits concealed carry on all private property in the state unless signage specifically allowing concealed carry is conspicuously posted.

Virtually all of the other “sensitive places” defined by the deceptively named Concealed Carry Improvement Act were upheld by the Second Circuit on Thursday, including houses of worship, public parks and zoos, public transportation, establishments where alcohol is served, theaters, conferences, business centers, and “gatherings of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble.”

As Chuck Michel said, the entire decision is more than 200 pages long, so while you can read it in its entirety here, we’ll be focusing on just a couple of aspects of today’s decision in this post.

Just like the Second Circuit’s original ruling in Antonyuk, the panel makes a few staggering leaps of faith that aren’t supported by what the Supreme Court has said about the right to keep and bear arms. The Court has held, for instance, that modern gun control statutes must fit within the national tradition of gun ownership, and doubted “that just three colonial regulations could suffice” to prove a national tradition of restricting concealed carry to those that have demonstrated a justifiable need.

But the Second Circuit says that even if there are no “distinctly similar historical regulation[s]” to point to in defense of a current gun law, that may not matter.

Legislatures past and present have not generally legislated to their constitutional limits. Reasoning from historical silence is thus risky; it is not necessarily the case that, if no positive legislation from a particular time or place is in the record, it must be because the legislators then or there deemed such a regulation inconsistent with the right to bear arms.

No, but it definitely proves that those legislators didn’t create certain laws restricting the rights of lawful gun owners in response to concerns about violent crime or public safety, and that is telling… or at least it should be. The Supreme Court’s “text, history, and tradition” test is relatively straightforward, but it’s been squarely rejected by the Second Circuit in favor of a more “nuanced” approach that, conveniently enough, allowed the panel to conclude that even where there are no historical analogues in place, modern restrictions on the right to carry are permissible.

The Second Circuit also continues to place a lot of reliance on gun laws that were in place around 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, not just 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified. In theory, that makes some sense, given that the Fourteenth Amendment was meant in part to prevent states from intruding on those freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights. But in the aftermath of the Civil War, many states, particularly in the former Confederacy, instituted laws that were designed to stop freedmen from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. In some case those laws were facially about depriving former slaves and freedmen from possessing or carrying a gun, but others were couched in racially-neutral terms but were enforced primarily or solely against groups.

The Second Circuit’s decision upholding most of New York’s newest restrictions on the right to carry relies largely on rewriting the Bruen test and an over-dependence on a handful of mid-19th century statutes. Again, even the absence of any historical analogues is no barrier for the Second Circuit, which is utterly ridiculous.

Antonyuk and the other related cases have yet to go to trial on the merits. So far, all of the legal wrangling has been about preliminary injunctions issued by the district courts, and the Second Circuit has now remanded these cases back to the lowest level of the federal judiciary to start the process all over again. Given the hostility the Second Circuit has historically displayed towards the Second Amendment (it originally upheld New York’s “may issue” law, for instance), today’s decision isn’t exactly surprising. But that doesn’t make it any less frustrating for those New Yorkers who’ve seen their right to carry become even more limited in scope and practice in the two years since the Supreme Court declared that right is just as fundamentally important as the right to keep a gun in the home.

Actor-Author-Believer Chuck Norris – ‘Calling All Gun Owners to Vote!’
Actor-Author-Believer Chuck Norris makes the case for gun owners, believers, and all others to be informed and vote wisely this election.

Millions may recall Chuck Norris for his starring roles in over 20 movies plus his role in the television series: “Walker, Texas Ranger.” From the WND News Center to MHProNews, and now, for the Patch readers is the following as Norris walks through Democratic presidential hopeful candidate Kamala Harris (D) history of remarks on gun confiscation and 2nd Amendment and other Constitutional rights related topics.

Calling all gun owners to vote!

‘The fact is: Kamala is an existential threat to the Second Amendment’

By Chuck Norris | October 21, 2024

Outside of our First Amendment rights of free speech and religious choice, nothing means more to me (and my wife, Gena) than our Second Amendment rights.

Its 27 words are clear and concise, needing no further commentary or regulation: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Could it get any clearer? Please read it again, even slower.

There are no two greater amendments to protect with our vote than the first and second amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The first is backed with bullets of the second.

The truth is: Our Second Amendment rights have never been in more jeopardy than they are right now, and especially through this Nov. 5 election.

Vice president and Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris has touted that she’s a Glock gun owner who boasted: “If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot.”

She talks like a Texas Ranger but, in reality, has the gun policies and past record of a Cruella De Vil or the Grinch.

In 2008, Harris was the district attorney of San Francisco.

The same year, a brief that she signed 1) argued that a total handgun ban was constitutional, and 2) strongly suggested that the Second Amendment doesn’t secure an individual right.

The National Rifle Association added, “In this capacity, Harris endorsed an amicus curiae brief of district attorneys in support of the District of Columbia and its handgun ban in the Heller case.

“In February 2008, months prior to the Heller decision, Gallup asked, ‘Do you believe the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns, or do you believe it only guarantees members of state militias such as National Guard units the right to own guns?’

“Seventy-three percent of those surveyed responded that the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to own guns, with a mere 20 percent endorsing the militia interpretation.”

It’s very simple: the Bill of Rights are there to protect American citizens not the state.

But Kamala’s record clearly shows that she does not believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms at all.

The Washington Times recently noted, “Ms. Harris has championed gun control for years. As San Francisco district attorney, she said, ‘Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible.’

“It seems Ms. Harris believes that gun ownership voids privacy rights and eliminates the need for consent to searches,” a clear abandonment of Americans’ Fourth Amendment constitutional rights.

As a presidential candidate, she now says that she won’t confiscate people’s guns, but her past record tells otherwise.

Harris has repeatedly called for government confiscation of some of America’s modern sporting rifles.

We need to remember: Once one type of personal firearm is confiscated, it’s a very slippery slope to confiscate a host of others.

The NRA further explained, “On the September 16, 2019, edition of the ‘The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,’ Harris reiterated her support for gun confiscation.

“During a question-and-answer session, an audience member asked Harris, ‘Do you believe in the mandatory buyback of quote-unquote assault weapons and whether or not you do, how does that idea not go against fundamentally the Second Amendment?’

“The candidate responded, ‘I do believe that we need to do buybacks.’

“Making clear that she believes Americans’ Second Amendment rights are for sale, Harris added, ‘A buyback program is a good idea. Now we need to do it the right way. And part of that has to be, you know, buy back and give people their value, the financial value.’

“Further demonstrating Harris’s commitment to gun confiscation, the candidate called for a ‘mandatory buyback program’ during an Oct. 3, 2019, MSNBC gun control forum and again during a November 2019 interview with NBC Nightly News.

“Harris appears to have carried this position into the vice president’s office.

“During an Oct. 26, 2023, state luncheon with Australia Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Harris lauded Australia’s gun control measures. Referencing violence perpetrated with firearms, Harris remarked, ‘And let us be clear, it does not have to be this way, as our friends in Australia have demonstrated’ (emphasis added).”

Tragically, on top of gun control, Kamala repeatedly advocated for defunding the police before changing her position as a presidential candidate.

Moreover, in the last three years, together with Mr. Biden, she let into our country hundreds of thousands of criminals through their open-door immigration policy at the U.S. southern border.

She has also enacted further firearm regulation control as Biden’s gun czar over the newly established so-called Office of Gun Violence Protection.

The Harris-Biden administration is proof that more gun regulations and criminal liberality don’t reduce violent crimes (a 4.5% increase under Harris-Biden), but only cripple law-abiding citizens’ right and ability to defend themselves.

And to boot, their increased gun-free zones further enable criminals to know where innocent Americans abide for indefensible open-warfare. (Ninety percent of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones.)

Despite what Kamala pledges as a presidential candidate, her record is clear. She’s flip-flopped on a dozen critical issues in just a few short years, including on free speech and bearing arms.

The fact is: Kamala is an existential threat to the Second Amendment and Americans’ personal life, security and safety.

Harris might own a gun, but she doesn’t want you to. I guarantee you: she’ll NEVER advocate for it.

On the other hand, Trump doesn’t have a single empty-cartridge campaign promise when it comes to the Second Amendment. His record is very clear: he was a strong pro-Second Amendment president for the four years he was in office (2016-2020), and he will be as the next president. That is why the NRA and many other pro-Second Amendment groups endorsed him for president in 2024.

And just for the record, J.D. Vance, Trump’s vice-presidential running mate and a veteran Marine, has described shooting guns from an early age. The NRA and pro-gun group Gun Owners of America praised Vance for his “perfect voting record” on protecting the Second Amendment.

Again, the fact is: God and guns are what our country was founded upon. Any new student of American history and the Revolutionary period quickly learns that. They are what keep us strong, or what should keep us strong. Like our great military, and men and women in blue, they are there for our defense, too.

With crime, licentiousness and lawlessness running amok in our cities, and a desperate need for more law and order, now is the do-or-die time to stand strong for the Second Amendment by voting on Nov. 5, before progressives further suffocate our rights to bear arms by strangulating the barrels of our guns through further legislation and restrictions.

I urge you, fellow Americans, to pause what you are doing today and take three immediate actions:

  • Please share this article with everyone you know to inform and encourage them to “Save our Second Amendment.”
  • WRITE & FIGHT the White House and Washington elite today about their goals to reduce Americans’ right to bear arms.
  • Most of all, on Nov. 5, VOTE and encourage others to VOTE in this presidential election. If you’re not registered, register here. It’s free and only takes a few minutes. You can find where to vote in your state here.

I’m calling all gun owners and Second Amendment-loving Americans to vote!

You know where Gena and I stand by the picture and plaque on the front door of my ranch house: “We don’t dial 911.”

Friends and fellow Americans, let’s make America SAFE and SECURE again!

For more insight into the status of America and this upcoming presidential election, please read the recent excellent and insightful Special Edition of the Whistleblower, “Kamala’s America.” Order a copy, or download it today for free! ##

Chuck Norris