Know your islamist enemy

 

Joe Biden Tries to Give a Massive Gift to Hamas, Israel Tells Him to Pound Sand

When conservatives were telling Democrats to “back the blue,” I’m pretty sure they didn’t mean like this. According to a new report, the Biden administration is demanding that Israel stop targeting the Hamas-controlled police forces in Gaza.

That comes as Israel continues its push into the southern part of the territory where the remnants of Hamas remain. It also comes amidst reports (including video evidence) of these “police forces” shooting civilians to facilitate the stealing of aid for the terrorists holed up there.

The Biden administration asked Israel to stop targeting members of the Hamas-run civilian police force who escort aid trucks in Gaza, warning that a “total breakdown of law and order” is significantly exacerbating the humanitarian crisis in the enclave, three U.S. and Israeli officials told Axios.

Why it matters: U.S. officials say they are increasingly concerned “that Gaza is turning into Mogadishu” as a security vacuum and desperation have opened the door for armed gangs to attack and loot aid trucks, putting even more pressure on the Strip’s already strained humanitarian system.

In late December, a video emerged of a Hamas police officer shooting and killing a young boy for trying to take food from one of the aid trucks. Since then, numerous reports have emerged of civilians being shot while the trucks are escorted through starving crowds. Little if no international condemnation has followed the incidents, and apparently, Joe Biden is just fine with it.

This is akin to the Allied Powers in World War II being commanded to not kill members of the Gestapo to ensure they can “maintain order.” There is no actual “civilian police force” in Gaza. They are all supportive of Hamas. They all commit and/or allow atrocities against innocent people, and they are all facilitating the theft of aid that is only prolonging the war.

So naturally, Biden is all for doing what it takes to knee-cap Israel and help keep that status quo in place. We are talking about the worst foreign policy mind in American political history when considering the breadth of time his penchant for failure has presided over. If there’s a bad decision to be made, Biden is going to be there to make it.

Frankly, I’m a little tired of hearing about the “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza sans any context, as if it gets solved by leaving Hamas in power. This can all end tomorrow if the terrorist government simply agrees to go into exile and lets some kind of coalition demilitarize the territory. That’s the way to help the people in Rafah right now. The way to not help them is to preserve the “police force” that is helping exacerbate their situation.

Smartly, Israel told Biden to pound sand.

But Israel rebuffed the request because one of its goals in the war is to ensure that Hamas no longer runs Gaza, two Israeli officials said.

Israel is also looking to cooperate with those in Gaza who oppose Hamas to facilitate aid instead of relying on the very terrorists they are fighting to deliver it. That would seem like a common sense approach given the entire point of the war is to depose Hamas. Perhaps that’s too complicated for the Biden administration to understand.

Any “solution” to the war in Gaza that doesn’t include the complete removal of Hamas as a governing force is not a solution. It’s simply a massive gift to terrorists who will inevitably strike again, leading to yet another war and yet more death and destruction. The United States, Europe, and the dictators at the UN can either figure that out or get out of the way.

Judge Declares Fargo’s Ban on Home-Based Gun Businesses Goes Too Far

For several years the city of Fargo, North Dakota has prohibited FFL’s from operating out of their homes, but the state legislature took aim at that restriction last year and passed a law that bans localities from establishing zoning ordinances that specifically include firearms and ammunition based businesses.

The city almost immediately filed suit challenging the law, but this week state District Judge Cherie Clark ruled against Fargo; tossing out the city’s lawsuit and rejecting its argument that the zoning preemption law violates the state constitution and the home rule powers granted to local authorities.

“While the Court agrees that (the North Dakota Constitution) intends for ‘maximum local self-government,’ the law is not settled that this language alone provides home rule cities the right to legislate on topics the state legislature has limited,” the judge wrote.

But she also expressed concerns about the Legislature’s actions: “If the legislature continues to pare home rule powers, home rule cities lack the discretion to address important issues impacting their respective and unique communities.”

What, exactly, is so unique about Fargo that federal firearms licensees shouldn’t be allowed to operate a home-based business? The city has never offered a good explanation, instead blithely asserting that it “does not want its residents to utilize their homes in residential areas as gun stores.”

Well, tough. There’s no prohibition in either state or federal law that precludes home-based FFLs, and it doesn’t appear that any other locality in the state has tried to erect any similar barriers, so why should FFLs in Fargo be punished or forced to spend money on a brick-and-mortar location, especially if they’re selling guns on a part-time basis?

This is actually the second law that the state legislature has adopted to deal with Fargo’s restrictions, but the city was successful in defending its ordinance in 2021, which led lawmakers to try again last year.

Bill sponsor and Republican state Rep. Ben Koppelman told a state Senate panel in April that the issue came to greater attention in 2016 when, because of the ordinance, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives refused to renew the federal firearms licenses of Fargo dealers who sold out of their homes.

“What is at issue is whether we want local governments creating gun control or whether we want gun regulations to remain a state-controlled issue,” Koppelman said in April. “Without this bill and in light of the (2021) court opinion, I think local political subdivisions could propose all sorts of local gun control, and based on the anti-gun track record of the City of Fargo Commission, I think we could expect it.”

Both sides in the lawsuit agree that the issue at hand goes beyond the zoning laws in question, and instead touches on the ability of home-rule localities to pass their own laws in any number of areas. But even though the North Dakota Constitution compelled the state legislature to come up with a home-rule statute and lawmakers granted home-rule communities the authority to adopt ordinances, resolutions, and regulations that provide for public health, safety, morals, and welfare, it’s still within the state’s authority to declare certain subjects off-limits to local control.

Three years ago the legislature adopted a preemption law stating:

1. A political subdivision, including home rule cities or counties, may not enact a zoning ordinance or any other ordinance relating to the purchase, sale, ownership, possession,transfer of ownership, registration, or licensure of firearms and ammunition which is more restrictive than state law. All such existing ordinances are void.

A state judge ruled that Fargo’s home-based FFL zoning prohibition could still be enforced because the state had no regulations concerning commercial firearms sales. While most of us would conclude that any zoning ordinance would be more restrictive than a state law that doesn’t exist, District Judge Stephannie Nicole Stiel sided with Fargo’s argument that the ordinance in question wasn’t more restrictive than state law because state statutes were silent on commercial gun sales sales.

That’s not the case these days, thanks to the legislature’s response last year, and Judge Clark made the right call, even though her editorializing on the legislature’s actions was completely unnecessary. Fargo officials could still appeal Clark’s decision, but the odds of success are pretty long, and it would be a waste of time and taxpayer money to try to keep this needless ordinance in place instead of accepting home-based FFLs and the tax revenue they generate.

The Honorable Judge Benitez strikes again.

The state court mistakenly did not regard the pistol or the billy to be the sorts of arms protected by the Second Amendment. Instead, only weapons of war were covered by the Constitution, according to Workman. As to other kinds of arms, Workman incorrectly observed,

in regard to the kind of arms referred to in the [Second] amendment, it must be held to refer to the weapons of warfare to be used by the militia, such as swords, guns, rifles, and muskets,—arms to be used in defending the State and civil liberty,—and not to pistols, bowie-knife, brass knuckles, billies, and such other weapons . . . .

In short, Workman held that weapons of war are protected by the Second Amendment but found weapons like the billy are not weapons of war, and therefore are not protected.

Workman was wrong in concluding the Second Amendment does not cover arms like the pistol and the billy.…

The Second Amendment protects a citizen’s right to defend one’s self with dangerous and lethal firearms. But not everybody wants to carry a firearm for self defense. Some prefer less-lethal weapons. A billy is a less-lethal weapon that may be used for self-defense.

It is a simple weapon that most anybody between the ages of eight and eighty can fashion from a wooden stick, or a clothes pole, or a dowel rod. One can easily imagine countless citizens carrying these weapons on daily walks and hikes to defend themselves against attacks by humans or animals. To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms like the billy for lawful purposes.

gov.uscourts.casd.644922.86.0

America Has a State-Approved Domestic Terrorism Problem

During my internet perusing, I came across a post from comedian Kurt Metzger who had one of his shows canceled, alongside a few other comedians, at a comedy venue called “Capitol Hill” in Seattle. Why?

Because these comedians didn’t have the same “progressive” values as the surrounding community. Metzger notes that this comedy club is in the same district where the failed “CHAZ” encampment was created. You may recall that CHAZ was an attempt at creating an independent country with America based on the communist system that ended up being a place of murder, destruction, and flat-out idiocy.

These were communists, after all, but I digress.

Metzger posted the email he received about the cancelation of his show in full. Give it a read, and as you read it, try to notice the tone of it.

The letter isn’t rude or condescending, or at least it doesn’t come off that way. After reading it a few times, it comes off more as being written out of fear.

Notice the language being used in it. Emphasis mine.

“…we’ve received significant feedback expressing concerns about the alignment of these upcoming shows with the neighborhood’s ethos.”

“Given the feedback and to avoid any potential negative impact on both our club and the artists involved, as well as to maintain harmony within our community…”

“…we want to ensure it does not reflect on your talent and the quality of your work but is instead a reflection of our commitment to our community’s values.”

This reads like a letter that the writer, Jes Anderson, didn’t want to write. It’s incredibly complimentary to the comedians and it’s clear that they do not want to close the door on them forever, but there’s repeated language that reads like appeasement and assurances that they’re on the same side of the community in question.

This is a letter that they knew would be read by multiple groups, not just the comedians and the ticket holders. Looking at it closely, this letter looks more like someone trying to avert the very literal destruction of their club and harm of their employees, patrons, and talent than it does anything else.

If this was a city where the politicians and local law enforcement didn’t tolerate crime and violence, guarantee this letter wouldn’t have been written. Sadly, this is Seattle, where a hostile takeover of a city block is nicknamed the “Summer of Love” by the city’s mayor.

What this has created is nothing short of state-approved domestic terrorism. This is what this comedy club is trying to avoid. Since it knows these lunatics will continue to haunt and hound the venue to no end, vandalizing and destroying what it can, it’s left to capitulation and knee-bending.

And this is a problem happening in many blue cities.

In today’s America, domestic terrorism is alive and well. Many citizens live in fear of it and even many corporations have decided to pack up and leave blue cities where crime has gotten so out of control that it’s effectively ruled by criminals.

This problem is only going to get worse as criminal elements continue to flow freely into the country. I don’t think I need to emphasize the importance of voting accordingly for leaders that will come stock with a zero-tolerance policy in the coming years.

Cities like Seattle and Portland are just examples of what could happen to any city if it doesn’t begin practicing a heavy crackdown on crime now, but as for cities like these, I’m not sure what can save them except for a complete and total cultural overhaul that focuses on the residents and communities truly becoming intolerant to the criminal element among them.

But hopefully, that will happen soon. These kinds of people don’t stay contained in the cities they start in. They travel and they become everyone else’s problem as they do.

They might be safe in Smurf-blue cities like Seattle, but the moment they step foot into a territory where that level of thuggery isn’t tolerated, politicians and law enforcement need to come down hard. At the very least, they need to be taught they can’t do it outside their “safe” cities.

‘Do states matter?’: Missouri attorney general says this Second Amendment case could boost states’ rights

EXCLUSIVE — Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said Friday that a Biden administration challenge to a gun rights law in his state has the potential to breathe new life into the 10th Amendment rights reserved for state governments and the people.

Fresh out of arguing in defense of a Second Amendment law before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, Bailey spoke with the Washington Examiner about the impact it could have on state sovereignty.

“The Second Amendment Preservation Act is about protecting our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, but it’s also a codification of the anti-commandeering doctrine from the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” he said. “The federal government may not use state law enforcement, or the apparatus of the state, or its political subdivisions to enforce unconstitutional statutes and rules.”

The state law bars Missouri officers from enforcing federal gun laws that are at odds with Missouri statutes, and would impose a $50,000 fine for officers who knowingly do so.

Bailey said that if the issue were to reach the U.S. Supreme Court on the merits and justices provided a favorable ruling, it could increase state authority in a way past courts have not been willing to do and reshape precedent on 10th Amendment jurisprudence. The 10th Amendment reserves for the states powers that the Constitution does not reserve for the federal government.

Bailey called the Missouri gun case the “perfect vehicle” for allowing states to codify the anti-commandeering doctrine.

The Biden administration mounted a challenge to the Missouri law in 2022, claiming the law violated the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution, which gives the federal government precedent over state authority where conflicting statutes exist.

“Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves,” Bailey said, noting that the Constitution was intended to protect the people from the government, and the “Founding Fathers would have understood that states are guarantors of individual liberties.”

“Biden’s Department of Justice rejects that text, history, and tradition of the United States Constitution,” he said.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes, an appointee of Barack Obama, invalidated the Missouri statute on the basis that it violated the supremacy clause, writing that it “exposes citizens to greater harm by interfering with the federal government’s ability to enforce lawfully enacted firearms regulations designed by Congress for the purpose of protecting citizens.”

Bailey requested an emergency review from the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate the law, which the high court declined in October, sending the case to the 8th Circuit. At the time, Justice Clarence Thomas indicated he would have reinstated the law.

The root issue for Bailey, however, is the authority of states to enact their own laws without the approval of the federal government — and whether the federal government has the power to nullify state laws it simply does not like.

Before the Second Amendment and 10th Amendment issues are resolved on merit, however, the issue of the Department of Justice’s standing to sue — the legal capacity of a party to bring a lawsuit — would need to be decided first.

Bailey is challenging the standing of the department because he says there is no injury that gives it the basis to file a lawsuit. He said the department is simply suing on the basis of potential future conflict between state and federal firearms law — something that would not meet the standing requirement.

Judges James B. Loken, a George H.W. Bush appointee, Steven M. Colloton, a George W. Bush appointee, and Jane L. Kelly, an Obama appointee, presided over the case in a three-judge panel.

Bailey said the judges focused in on the standing issues surrounding the Department of Justice challenge to the state law, as the supremacy clause does not create an independent cause of action to challenge statutes without actual injury. The attorney general said his perception of the judges’ lines of questioning led him to believe they are skeptical of the department’s authority to sue.

It is unclear what the Biden administration would do in the event of an unfavorable ruling, and they would have the opportunity to request it be heard by an en banc panel of the full 8th Circuit, or appeal to the nation’s high court.

If Missouri receives an unfavorable ruling, Bailey said he has the constitutional duty to appeal the case because he said he is required by law to uphold rights protected in the state constitution.

“I have a sacred duty under our state constitution to continue to fight to defend Missourians right to keep and bear arms, and I will happily discharge that duty,” he concluded.

NRA Loses Corruption Case, LaPierre Liable for Millions

Manhattan, New York — The National Rifle Association failed to safeguard its donor’s funds while Wayne LaPierre diverted millions toward lavish personal expenses.

That’s the finding a six-person jury handed down on Friday after a week of deliberations. They sided with New York Attorney General Letitia James (D.) against the NRA and its leadership. In addition to the group and its former CEO Lapierre, the jury also ruled against former Treasurer Woody Phillips and General Counsel John Frazer.

The six-member jury in the civil case found LaPierre did $5.4 million worth of harm to the NRA by using its charitable funds to pay for things like private jet travel. They determined he’d already paid back about a million dollars of that harm, but also that there was enough evidence to bar him from being the group’s CEO in the future.

They found Phillips had violated his duty to work in good faith for the NRA, and that his briefly-lived post-employment contract was an unauthorized related-party transaction. However, they found it didn’t do any monetary harm to the organization. Similarly, the jurors found Frazer had violated his duty to the group and authorized “materially false” statements the NRA made on a government disclosure about related party transactions, but they also found his actions didn’t cause the group monetary harm and there wasn’t cause to remove him.

The jury also found a series of payments made to board members or people related to NRA employees were not properly approved ahead of time, but all but two–hair and makeup for Wayne LaPierre’s wife and speaking fees for former NRA president David Keene–were properly approved after the fact. However, they also found the NRA did not have a proper whistle-blower policy for years and did nothing to prevent retaliation against eight whistle-blowers identified in the case.

Judge Joel Cohen is now tasked with deciding what remedies are appropriate for the damages the jury has identified. What he decides will determine the future of the nation’s largest gun-rights group. In addition to barring LaPierre from working with the NRA or other non-profits, he could force the former CEO to pay the organization back for expenses the jury found were unlawful. But he could also appoint a monitor to oversee the NRA’s operations, which might completely transform the group’s leadership and internal operations.

A significant overhaul of the most prominent gun group in America will have a substantial impact on gun politics throughout the nation, especially since it’s far from clear the group can recover.

Of course, the corruption allegations and legal ordeal have already made a tremendous mark on the NRA. Since news of the illicit spending broke in 2018, the group has experienced an unprecedented exodus of members. Millions of people have abandoned the organization, with nobody quite sure how many remain. That’s led directly to a funding shortfall that has forced the group to slash spending on key programs, such as gun safety training and political campaigns, while pouring an unprecedented amount into controversial legal bills.

The group has continued to see declines in fundraising and will likely only be a shadow of its former self in the upcoming 2024 presidential election.

LaPierre, who resigned in the middle of the trial, and the NRA have argued that downfall was AG James’s goal from the beginning. They noted she had promised to investigate the group during her campaign, which she said wasn’t a charity but a “terrorist organization.” Her initial complaint sought the total shutdown of the NRA.

“The fact is, Letitia James set out to destroy the NRA, and the best way to do that was to destroy Wayne LaPierre,” P. Kent Correll, who represents the former CEO, said in closing arguments.

However, Judge Cohen and an appellate court rejected the argument that the case was solely a political attack when the NRA sought to have it dismissed. However, Judge Cohen also removed dissolution as a potential remedy because he argued it would be detrimental to NRA members–the people James is tasked with protecting in the suit.

“In short, the Complaint does not allege the type of public harm that is the legal linchpin for imposing the ‘corporate death penalty,’” he wrote in his opinion. “Moreover, dissolving the NRA could impinge, at least indirectly, on the free speech and assembly rights of its millions of members.”

But he let the case proceed because the allegations “tell a grim story of greed, self-dealing, and lax financial oversight at the highest levels of the National Rifle Association.”

In addition to the argument about James’s political motivations, the NRA focused much of its defense on the claim it had already instituted enough reforms to self-correct. It argued that many of the illicit expenses at issue in the case did happen, but the NRA had since fired some of those involved and established internal controls to address the problems. It also attacked as unreliable former insiders, including board members and executives, who testified against those claims in court.

“The NRA Board of Directors, which is the seat of the NRA’s corporate governance, acted in good faith and with ordinary care,” the NRA’s lawyer argued.

“Ladies and gentlemen, when you’re caught in the act, saying you’re sorry now, saying that you’ll do better, doesn’t mean you didn’t take the cookie,” the AG’s lawyer responded.

As has been the case with some current NRA insiders, the group’s current leadership failed to convince the jury they resolved the issues.

Neither the NRA nor the AG responded to requests for comment.

Judge Cohen will now schedule the next trial phase, where he will be responsible for determining the final settlement of the case.

Jury finds NRA and ex-CEO Wayne LaPierre liable in civil corruption trial

The jurors determined there was cause to remove LaPierre and that he owes the organization nearly $4 million.

Former National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre has been ordered to pay nearly $4 million to the nonprofit after a jury on Friday found him liable in a civil corruption trial brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The defendants, which included the NRA itself, the organization’s general counsel and corporate secretary John Frazer and former treasurer and chief financial officer Wilson “Woody” Phillips, were accused of using the nonprofit as a “personal piggy bank” in a civil lawsuit filed by James in 2020. James alleged that they violated nonprofit laws and misused tens of millions in NRA funds for personal gain.

After a week of deliberation, the jury agreed that the attorney general had proved her case, finding each of the defendants liable for violating their statutory obligations. The jury determined that LaPierre cost the organization more than $5 million but had already repaid $1.4 million. Phillips was held to have harmed the group to the tune of $2 million; the jury did not put a dollar amount on Frazer’s violation.

In their argument, attorneys for the NRA had sought to distance the organization from LaPierre, who announced his resignation as CEO just days before the trial began in January, after more than 30 years at the helm. Sarah Rogers, representing the organization, said in opening arguments that LaPierre, though a “valuable and visionary leader, was “not always a meticulous corporate executive” and questioned why the NRA was even a defendant in the case.

LaPierre’s attorneys, however, maintained that he used private jets not for personal gain, but to raise funds for the organization and for gun rights causes — even as LaPierre himself testified that he improperly expensed private flights and failed to disclose accepting luxury vacations from vendors.

“He was a visionary,” his lawyer P. Kent Correll said in closing arguments on Thursday. “He was a genius.”