Category: Enemies Domestic

Joe’s eyes don’t move or blink in this whole clip and it has to be a deepfake but it’s his official account. Please help me understand.

Those eyes

Are they taping them open?? Is it the Botox??

Is the dude amped up on Adderall???

Also, is he trying to turn cops against Americans for disagreeing with unconstitutional Democrat power grabs and calling it insurrection?

I don’t know… I can’t think about anything other than those eyes.

Thoughts on the Swamp.

Where’s Cato the Elder when you need him?

Around 150 B.C., the grumpy Roman senator took to ending every speech, no matter what the topic (grain allotments for the plebs, plans for a new aqueduct, whatever) with the injunction “Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam”: “And another thing, I think that Carthage ought to be destroyed.”

That refrain has come down to us as a lapidary, three-word imperative: “Carthago delenda est”: “Carthage must be destroyed.”

Daniel Hannan, the British commentator, euroskeptic, and sometime member of the European Parliament, took a page from Cato’s book and for a time ended all his speeches with the formula, “Pactio Olisipiensis censenda est”: “The Lisbon treaty must be put to the vote.”

There’s something to be said for repetition.

In 146 B.C., Rome besieged and then sacked Carthage. According to some accounts, the only thing left standing was a funerary monument. The European Union is still moldering along, but at least the proximate goal of Hannan’s campaign, Britain’s exit from that soul-sucking leviathan, has been accomplished.

With those victories in mind, I’m thinking of concluding all my speeches with the phrase “Palus delenda est”: “The swamp must be destroyed.”

What’s the swamp? The word has a long history, aided by the serendipitous contingency that Washington was actually built on a literal swamp. But the term, like a Chinese virus, underwent a “gain-of-function” makeover in 2015 when Donald Trump first strode onto the center stage of American political life.

“The swamp”: That is the bureaucratic Washington establishment, the alphabet soup of agencies whose personnel, though unelected and largely unaccountable, run our lives right down to the latest permit, regulation, tax, fee, impost, and woke government requirement or interdiction.

But it’s also something more. “The swamp” names an attitude, an assumption, about power, about politics, but also about certain basic human realities. Above all, perhaps, “the swamp” rests and feeds upon the progressive assumption that the mass of citizens is incapable of self-government.

I call that assumption “progressive” because from the time of Woodrow Wilson on down to the latest Davos mandarin, the neo-feudal bifurcation of humanity into elect and (ever the majority) subservient has been the guiding, if unspoken, nutrient.

The litany of Trump’s policy achievements is long and distinguished. It begins with his judicial appointments, some fruits of which we saw last month with the Supreme Court decisions on Roe v. Wade, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Second Amendment, and includes his attention to our southern border, energy, taxes, the Middle East, and a host of other issues.

But more than any particular achievement, Trump was the tocsin that awakened millions of people—those whom Hillary Clinton dismissed as “deplorables”—to the two-tier reality of political life in the United States.

In “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle wrote that “the good life of man” was the “end of the science of politics.” Trump showed us how fond that idea had become. In brief, Trump was the agent of a mass consciousness raising.

It was that spectacle, the prospect of the people suddenly awakened to the reality not only of their bondage, but also to the identity of their putative masters that stood behind the astonishing hatred Trump aroused among the self-appointed elect.

The frenzied machinations of the Jan. 6 committee to destroy anyone and anything touched by the populist spirit Trump aroused show how desperate our rulers and their scribes and Pharisees have become.

They’re terrified lest Trump return to complete the task of (in Steve Bannon’s memorable phrase) “deconstructing the administrative state,” which the former president began in 2016. Trump might not be the person capable of carrying that standard, but he is, despite all his quirks and crotchets, likely to be the most effective.

The fury unleashed against him will probably never end, though the midterm elections will probably deprive the rancid anti-Trump mafia of much of their armament.

The point is that the genie that Trump released won’t be coaxed back into the bottle. Expect the anti-Trump furor to continue and grow in volume and vituperativeness. Expect the population of the Washington gulag to swell with people indicted for “parading” in or around the Capitol. Expect more dawn raids and unannounced arrests of former Trump associates. We might even see the Jan. 6 committee making a criminal referral to the “Department of Injustice.”

The silver lining is that the more hysterical that agents of the regime become, the more stalwart will be the response of the newly awakened populace. A reckoning, that is to say, is coming. It can’t come too soon.

In the meantime, join me in chanting “Palus delenda est.”

BLUF
This new law is a blatant attempt to stop people from challenging California’s oppressive firearms laws. It is likely unconstitutional. But will someone be willing to challenge it in court? And even if so, how long will it take for the legal process to play out?

California’s move may also be a sign of things to come from other deep blue states. Now that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, expect to see many more frenzied efforts to curtail gun rights by any means, fair or foul.

Analysis: Examining the California Gun Litigation Trap Few Have Noticed

California lawmakers just passed a law that will have an extraordinary chilling effect on Second Amendment rights—and it has received hardly any discussion.
The state’s latest move should scare anyone concerned about protecting the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The measure can be found toward the end of SB-1327, which both houses of the California legislature recently passed. It awaits Democratic Governor Gavin Newsome’s signature. The goal? To block court challenges to California’s gun laws.
The dry, legalistic language obscures the significance: “Notwithstanding any other law, any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent [California, local governments, or government officials] from enforcing any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any other type of law that regulates or restricts firearms, or that represents any litigant seeking that relief, is jointly and severally liable to pay the attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party.”
What does this mean in plain English? If you challenge California’s gun-rights restrictions in court and lose any aspect of the lawsuit, you will be held liable for paying all of the government’s legal fees and costs.
This is a huge matter because the First Amendment affirms the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” and for more than 150 years, federal law has allowed plaintiffs to sue any level of government (federal, state, or local) for violations of constitutional rights. That is why so many civil rights protections have arisen from court challenges. Think of landmark cases involving free speech, equal protection, and voting rights.
Second Amendment rights, too. Only last month, the Supreme Court affirmed the individual’s right to carry firearms outside the home, all because the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association challenged New York State’s restrictive gun-carry law in court.
That is exactly the kind of case California is trying to thwart.

Continue reading “”

‘Active Shooter Alert’ Bill, Designed to Scare, Draws in GOP Traitors and Suckers

“H.R. 6538, the Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022, is not a public safety tool, but rather an anti-gun propaganda program intended to further public hysteria by hyper-inflating the authentic number of ‘active shooter’ incidents to expand support for unconstitutional gun control measures,” Gun Owners of America advised members in a mid-July alert. “Under the Active Shooter Alert Act of 2022, justified self-defense shootings, gang violence, drug violence, or accidental shootings will be used to send alerts to the American people about the presence of an ‘active shooter’ to intentionally misguide the public and create mass hysteria.”

I imagine an uninterrupted night’s sleep would be damn near impossible on an average weekend in Chicago.

You’ll note whenever GOA uses the term on its own (as opposed to citing what the bill is named) they put the words “active shooter” in quotation marks. There’s a reason why that’s appropriate, and something gun owners should emulate. Per Firearms Coalition Managing Director and “proud active shooter” Jeff Knox:

“It is inaccurate because it does not include any direct suggestion of criminality, using ‘shooter’ to infer that, and it is insulting because by doing this, it implies that shooting is a criminal activity.”

Rep. Thomas Massie describes the bill more bluntly.

“House Democrats are trying to condition Americans to repeal the Second Amendment,” he warns, and he’s not using hyperbole. Any longtime gun owner who doesn’t recognize by now that yes, the prohibitionists really do want to take your guns, is either an oblivious fool or in the enemy camp. (There are also citizens new to owning guns who have never given the matter much thought to see how they’ve been lied to, who are ripe for manipulation and the subjects of another analysis.)

Two points:

Repealing the Second Amendment would not invalidate the right to keep and bear arms, which the Supreme Court has recognized, first in Cruikshank and later cited in Heller:

“The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”

Massie knows that. He also knows the Democrats want us to believe rights come from them, using the term “bill of rights” to propose government-mandated privileges that are generally dependent on dragooning (that is, enslaving) others to provide the “granted” services. (See “FDR’s ‘Second Bill of Rights’ and UN Declaration Show How ‘Progressives’ View You.”)

The second point is addressed directly to Donald Trump in the (admittedly improbable) hope that someone who knows him will call it to his attention: Don’t you think it’s past time you to publicly apologize to Rep. Massie and admit that he was right for putting the Constitution over GOP Democrat Lite politics?

As for the “Active Shooter” Alert bill, it passed in the House of Representatives with 43 “Republicans” either knowingly signing on with or being suckered in by a confirmed enemy of the Second Amendment, bill sponsor David Cicilline (D-RI). He’s the professional worm tongue who out of one corner of his mouth professes, “We all respect the Second Amendment but…” and out of the other corner snarls, “Spare me the bulls*** about Constitutional rights.”

Continue reading “”

The Biden administration and the new ‘Intolerable Acts’

In 1774, the British imposed the Intolerable Acts on the American colonies.  These acts, also called the Coercive Acts, were punishment for the Americans’ disobedience to the crown, particularly as symbolized by the Boston Tea Party, a rebellion against a (relatively mild) increase in the tax on tea.

My fellow Americans, we have recently been subjected to a second set of Coercive Acts.  Call them the Intolerable Acts 2.0.

These acts have been imposed on American citizens by their own supposedly representative government, the Biden administration, as punishment for disobedience to the Democrat party and the Deep State, as symbolized by the MAGA movement and the election of Donald Trump.

What are the new Intolerable Acts?  I will list a number of them here for you now, many of them a result of executive fiat, not unlike those directed at the colonists by King George III.

– Rescinding the Keystone Pipeline permit, depriving his country’s citizens of vast quantities of oil and canceling countless well-paying jobs at the same time.

– Withdrawing oil and gas leases across the nation and its coastal waters, depriving his country’s citizens of vast quantities of oil and gas and canceling countless well-paying jobs at the same time.

– Dramatically restricting fracking and preventing all new extraction of oil or gas on federal lands, depriving his country’s citizens of vast quantities of oil and canceling countless well-paying jobs at the same time.

–  Proposing and fostering other policies guaranteed to dramatically worsen inflation, adversely affecting all Americans lives, especially those with lower incomes and less leverage and fewer opportunities.

– Refusing to close or even effectively monitor or police our southern border, condemning Americans to suffer significant increases in violent crime, drug overdoses, sex-trafficking, and the proliferation of diseases like COVID-19.

– Treating illegal aliens far better than citizens in fly-over country, in many cases putting them up in hotels and then granting them sanctuary status, driver’s licenses and free education and health care…all paid for by taxpayers, including those dolts in fly-over country.

– Instituting policies guaranteed to worsen crime and supporting groups like Antifa and BLM that routinely burn and loot American cities — and sometimes kill innocent people and police officers.

– Jailing January 6 protesters, nearly all of whom were actually peaceful, in many cases indefinitely and without charging them, because, well, January 6 was, in some ways, the MAGA movement’s Tea Party.

– Sending the FBI and/or DOJ after individual political opponents, raiding their houses in the wee hours with preposterously overwhelming force, dragging them out in their underclothes — and making a spectacle of them for the media.

– Targeting legal firearm owners and attempting to repeal the God-given right to self-defense, a right more important now than ever before…due to the very policies of so-called progressives like those in the Biden administration who want to strip you of this inalienable right.

– Attempting to repeal the First Amendment and strip all of us of our right to free speech, religion, and assembly.  Labeling speech with which they disagree as “hate speech.”

– Telling us that there is no way to definitively ascertain sex at birth…or any other time, for that matter.

– Attempting to force us to take an experimental gene therapy “vaccine” into our bodies, while simultaneously saying everyone should have the right to decide whether or not to kill their unborn babies because it’s “your body, and therefore your choice.”

There were five original Intolerable Acts.  Those acts were the proximate cause of the First Continental Congress…and the American Revolution.

I have listed nearly three times that number of (what should effectively be considered to be) “intolerable Acts” the American government has imposed on its citizens in the past 18 months.

What say you, Americans?

Image via Picryl.

Alleged Lee Zeldin attempted attacker charged with felony, immediately released just as congressman predicted

A man who allegedly attacked Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., with a sharp object at a campaign stop in Perinton, New York, Thursday evening was charged with a felony and released from custody within hours of his arrest, the Monroe County Sheriff’s Department said.

The suspect, identified as David G. Jakubonis, 43 of Fairport, N.Y., was charged with attempted assault in the second degree. He was arraigned in Perinton Town Court and released on his own recognizance, the sheriff’s department said.

Zeldin, who is the Republican candidate for governor in New York, predicted the alleged attacker would be released.

Zeldin was giving a speech about bail reform at a Veterans of Foreign Wars post when the alleged assault happened.

Jakubonis was tackled by AMVETS national Director Joe Chenelly, according to witnesses.

“His right hand came up, I assume out of his pocket, and he had a blade on his hand,” Chenelly told Fox News Digital. “His fingers were like two finger holes in the blade and lunged at the congressman. And Congressman Zeldin blocked the first lunge. And then as he tried to lunge again, I grabbed him from behind and tackled him down to the ground and held him on the ground,” Chenelly said.

Zeldin released a statement after the attack that said: “Thank you to everyone who reached out following tonight’s attack in Fairport. Someone tried to stab me on stage during this evening’s rally, but fortunately, I was able to grab his wrist and stop him for a few moments until others tackled him. I’m ok, and @EspositoforNY, and all other attendees are safe. The attacker is in custody. Grateful for the attendees who stepped up quickly to assist and the law enforcement officers who quickly responded. I’m as resolute as ever to do my part to make NY safe again.”

‘That’s The Point’
Rep. Nadler Admits Bill Will Confiscate Guns In ‘Common Use’

Democratic New York Rep. Jerry Nadler admitted a Democrat-led bill intends to confiscate guns in “common use” during a Wednesday House Judiciary Committee hearing.

Republican North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop asked House Democrats if they dispute the fact that the proposed legislation H.R. 1808, titled “Assault Weapons Ban of 2021,” bans firearms in “common use” throughout the country.

“Would anyone on the other side dispute that this bill would ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today?” Bishop asked.

“That’s the point of the bill,” Nadler replied.

“So, to clarify, Mr. Chairman, you’re saying it is the point of the bill to ban weapons that are in common use in the United States today,” the Republican representative pressed.

“Yes,” Nadler clarified. “The problem is that they’re in common use.”

The bill, introduced by Democratic Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline, would ban a so-called “semi-automatic assault weapon,” including all AK types of weapons and AR-15s. The legislation, if passed, would ban semi-automatic weapons that contain a magazine, a pistol or forward grip and a “folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.” It also intends to ban weapons that can fire more than 10 rounds or contains a threaded barrel or second pistol grip.

The representative then told Cicilline that he has used his advanced legal skills to “obfuscate” the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which deemed a ban on handguns a violation of the Second Amendment. The decision further protected a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms that are in common use.

“What you suggest that this order can possibly comply with what the Supreme Court has held in now three separate cases is absolutely absurd. You defy the Supreme Court of the United States in the same way the Democrats mounted massive resistance to Brown v. Board of Education,” Bishop said. “We’re going to explain that for the American people in the course of this hearing. The Democrats of the 1960s are the Democrats of the 2020s.”

The Court ruled that “self-defense is a basic right recognized by many legal systems” in the case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, which struck down the city of Chicago’s ban on handguns in 2010. The decision further ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states.

He cited the recent Court decision in the case, New York State Rifle Association v. Bruen, that the state implementing “proper cause” to obtain a conceal carry permit violates a citizen’s Fourteenth Amendment right to practice their Second Amendment protection to self-defense.

“This bill bans many types of weapons that are in common use in the United States today,” Bishop said.

Approximately 20 million AR-15 style rifles are in circulation in the United States and continue to be one of the “most popular rifles sold in America,” according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Just remember, she was voted into office by people who are as, or even more, stupid that that liar.

New Documents Reveal Huge Scale of Government Cellphone Tracking of Citizens.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) used mobile location data to track people’s movements on a much larger scale than previously known, according to new documents unearthed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

It’s no secret that U.S. government agencies have been obtaining and using location data collected by Americans’ smartphones. In early 2020, a Wall Street Journal report revealed that both Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) bought access to millions of smartphone users’ location data to track undocumented immigrants and suspected tax dodgers.

However, new documents obtained by the ACLU through an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit now reveal the extent of this warrantless data collection. The 6,000-plus records reviewed by the civil rights organization contained approximately 336,000 location points across North America obtained from people’s phones. They also reveal that in just three days in 2018, CBP obtained records containing around 113,654 location points in the southwestern United States — more than 26 location points per minute.

The bulk of the data that CBP obtained came from its contract with Venntel, a location data broker that aggregates and sells information quietly siphoned from smartphone apps. By purchasing this data from data brokers, officials are sidestepping the legal process government officials would typically need to go through in order to access cell phone data.

Documents also detail the government agencies’ efforts to rationalize their actions. For example, cell phone location data is characterized as containing no personally identifying information (PII) in the records obtained by ACLU, despite enabling officials to track specific individuals or everyone in a particular area. Similarly, the records also claim that this data is “100 percent opt-in” and that cell phone users “voluntarily” share the location information. But many don’t realize that apps installed on their phones are collecting GPS information, let alone share that data with the government.

The ACLU says these documents are further proof that Congress needs to pass the bipartisan Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, proposed by by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rand Paul (R-KY), which would require the government to secure a court order before obtaining Americans’ data, such as location information from our smartphones, from data brokers.

Shreya Tewari, the Brennan Fellow for ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said: “Legislation like the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act would end agencies’ warrantless access to this data and head off their flimsy justifications for obtaining it without judicial oversight in the first place.”

Spokespeople for Venntel and Homeland Security did not immediately comment on the report.

Spoiler Alert: It’s All a Scam
This is war. We need to go on the offensive. It starts by describing the four corners of deceit, exposing them, and actually taking them back. It is late, but never too late.

Here is the hard-discovered truth.

The Left, which now controls all the centers of power and the commanding heights of the world economy, seeks to codify their ideology as science, and thereby make it irrefutable. You can’t disagree with it or you are a kook or insurrectionist. You are outside what Thomas Kuhn, called the “paradigm of normal science.”

Think about it. Everything these authorities tell you is true is, in fact, precisely the opposite of the truth.

Global warming is a hoax.

Universities are about indoctrination, not education.

Government is a form of manipulation with a two-tiered justice system.

The media is fake and journalism died long ago.

The financial system is a Ponzi scheme.

Trump did not collude with Russia.

The border is wide open.

Inflation is not transitory.

Defunding the police increases crime.

The pandemic did not originate in a wet market from pangolins.

Joe Biden is illegitimate.

Crackhead Hunter is not innocent.

Epstein didn’t kill himself.

Black Lives Matter and critical race theory are not about racial justice.

Women are not men and vice versa.

Virtue signaling isn’t about virtue.

Religion is not malevolent.

The late, great Rush Limbaugh was one of the first to visualize and expose the “four corners of deceit” in our culture that altogether combined, suffice to lie to students, citizens, and the American people.

The four corners of deceit are: government, academia, science, and the media. I had a hard time coming to this radical conclusion myself, as I wanted to believe otherwise, was not a conspiracist, and have attained all the laurels on offer from our current system. Just read my memoir, Davos, Aspen & Yale. I have been behind the elite curtain.

Like an Orwell novel, the clock is striking 13 in America. The farm animals on top know it and are so cynical they are laughing all the way to the bank and the voting booth. The populace, like lemmings, just goes along. What else can they do? As in the Thomas Hardy tale, Far From the Madding Crowd, the sheep, listless and unknowing, just fling themselves off the cliff, one after the other.

Continue reading “”

It seems to me that they’re grasping at any straw they believe might have the barest chance of accomplishing anything.
Well, as long as it’s Bloombutt’s money they’re wasting…..

BLUF
The good news is that none of these prior complaints appear to have gone anywhere, and based on the weak sauce Everytown presents as evidence in its complaint against Daniel Defense my guess is that the same will be true here as well.

Everytown files Federal Trade Commission complaint against Daniel Defense

When you’ve got your own in-house law firm funded by your billionaire backer, its easy to waste time and effort on unserious efforts, which helps explain Everytown’s new complaint against Georgia gunmaker Daniel Defense accusing it of “deceptively marketing” firearms to teenagers through its advertising and brand placement in video games and movies. More fundamentally, however, the gun control group’s filing with the Federal Trade Commission is part of a broader strategy aimed at shutting down gun companies, and the complaint against Daniel Defense is only the latest in a string of similar filings against members of the firearms industry in recent months

We’ll get to those prior complaints in a few paragraphs, but first let’s delve into Everytown’s ridiculous assertions.

Daniel Defense has leaned on social media, especially Instagram, which has a young user-base, to promote its weapons, the complaint says, and the company does not restrict access to its accounts to users who are old enough to buy its products.

In one Instagram post, for example, the company featured a picture of Post Malone holding one of its rifles with the caption: “MK18 got me feeling like a rockstar.”

Another post, from the same day as the Uvalde shooting, promoted the DDM4 V7 model rifle — the same one the gunman would later use — with the hashtag “loadout,” a term for the gear a soldier carries into battle that the complaint says is a reference to “Call of Duty,” a game the shooter reportedly played. The company also often uses hashtags such as #callofduty and #cod to make its “Call of Duty” references on social media, the complaint says.

That’s it? Post Malone and Call of Duty?

I’m a soon-to-be 48-year old who listens to Post Malone (ironically after my wife, who’s nine years my senior, turned me on to his music) and played Call of Duty and other first-person shooters for years until fairly recently, and I’m far from alone. In fact, according to data on Call of Duty demographics, only about 1/4 of all players are younger than 25, which makes sense given the game’s “M” rating. Everytown has absolutely no evidence that Daniel Defense is intentionally marketing its firearms to younger teenagers, which frankly would be a terrible business strategy given that you can’t even purchase a rifle until you’re 18-years old. And if Daniel Defense is marketing its products to adults under the age of 21 there shouldn’t be an actionable issue since that age group is able to lawfully purchase and possess a long gun under federal law.

This complaint has less to do with Daniel Defense specifically and much more to do with the gun control lobby’s attack on the firearms industry as a whole.

Continue reading “”

Missouri Attorney General Condemns FBI’s Illegal Attempts to Harvest Concealed Carry Permit Information from Missouri Sheriffs

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Today, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding that they cease their attempts to illegally obtain information from local sheriffs on Missourians who have concealed carry permits. Missouri law specifically prohibits the sharing of information on concealed carry permit holders to any entity – local, state, federal, or otherwise.

“The FBI has absolutely no business poking around in the private information of those who have obtained a concealed carry permit in Missouri,” said Attorney General Schmitt. “The Second Amendment rights of Missourians will absolutely not be infringed on my watch. I will use the full power of my Office to stop the FBI, which has become relentlessly politicized and has virtually no credibility, from illegally prying around in the personal information of Missouri gun owners.”

The Missouri Attorney General’s Office became aware that the FBI is planning to travel to Missouri in August to do “audits” at sheriff departments across the state, which would include harvesting information on those who have legally obtained a concealed carry permit. The letter states, “It has come to my attention that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has informed several Missouri county sheriffs that they will be showing up in August to ‘audit’ CCW permit holder records. The FBI states that, ‘The audit includes an onsite review of your Concealed Carry Weapons Permits…’ Let me be perfectly clear. Allowing federal agents from the FBI to have access to records of Missourians who have a permit to carry a concealed weapon violates Missouri law and infringes on our Second Amendment rights.”

Missouri law states, “Information retained in the concealed carry permit system under this subsection shall not be distributed to any federal, state, or private entities . . . .” § 571.101.9(2), RSMo.

At the end of the letter, Attorney General Schmitt promises to use the full power of his Office to stop the FBI’s attempts to obtain information on Missouri concealed carry weapons permit holders.

The full letter can be found here: https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/2022-7-13-ltr-fbi.pdf?sfvrsn=5fbbdf7_2

Not surprising for demoncrap tyrants

Gavin Newsom’s Weird Idea of ‘Freedom’
Newsom resembles a pathetic owner of a once successful but now run-down, high-priced gas station without clients.

In a run-up to what is likely to be a 2024 presidential bid, California Governor Gavin Newsom hit upon the bizarre idea of boasting in commercials that California is America’s true “free” state.

Part of his ad campaign is to attack Florida—currently run by Newsom’s possible rival, Governor Ron DeSantis.

Yet, with the most burdensome regulations and high tax rates, Newsom’s California is arguably the most unfree state in the union.

In return for these steep costs, the state’s public institutions, infrastructure, and services are among the country’s worst.

Continue reading “”

Not surprising for demoncrap tyrants

Politicians Defy the Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Right To Bear Arms
Several states are retaining subjective criteria for carry permits or imposing new restrictions on gun possession.

After the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms last month, some states promptly complied with the ruling by eliminating subjective requirements for carrying a gun in public. But other states are either dragging their feet or refusing to acknowledge the decision’s implications.

The Court said New York had violated the Second Amendment by requiring “proper cause” to carry handguns for self-defense, a standard that gave local officials wide discretion to reject carry-permit applications. But anti-gun politicians have other tricks up their sleeves, including similarly vague standards and bans on firearm possession in specific locations, that will invite further litigation to vindicate a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

New York responded to the Court’s rebuke with a law that eliminates the “proper cause” requirement but specifies a long list of “sensitive locations” where gun possession is a felony punishable by up to four years in prison. Those restrictions will make it impractical or legally perilous for many permit holders to actually exercise the right recognized by the Court.

In addition to listing myriad places where permit holders may not carry firearms, New York’s law bans guns in all private establishments open to the public unless they post conspicuous signs announcing that they are deviating from the default rule—a step many business owners will be reluctant to take. A bill backed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta takes a similar approach.

New York’s law retains a requirement that permit applicants demonstrate “good moral character,” an assessment that includes perusing their social media posts. Bonta likewise maintains that California’s “good moral character” standard remains constitutional, and he suggests that controversial opinions could be disqualifying.

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment specialist, thinks such a wide-ranging inquiry is “clearly unconstitutional.” Volokh notes that “the government can’t restrict ordinary citizens’ actions—much less their constitutionally protected actions—based on the viewpoints that they express.”

Although Massachusetts dropped its “good reason” criterion for carry permits, it still requires that an applicant be “a suitable person to possess firearms,” a standard that leaves considerable room for subjective judgments. The same vague requirement applies in Connecticut, where Attorney General William Tong has promised to resist any changes to the law.

Delaware requires that a carry-permit applicant demonstrate “good moral character” and “a good reputation for peace and good order.” The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), an industry group, reports that Delaware officials are taking a “wait and see” approach, meaning the law probably won’t be changed without additional litigation.

In Rhode Island, the attorney general “may issue” a carry permit based on “a proper showing of need,” while local licensing authorities “shall issue” a permit “if it appears” that the applicant is “a suitable person to be licensed” and either “has good reason to fear an injury to his or her person or property” or has “any other proper reason” to carry a handgun. Attorney General Peter Neronha seems to think his state’s rules are different enough from New York’s that no reform is necessary.

“This Case Involves a Religious Psychic Trying to Break a Family Curse by ‘Cleaning’ ‘Dirty’ Money”
By contrast, Hawaii Attorney General Holly Shikada last week said a concealed-carry applicant in that state will no longer be required to show he represents “an exceptional case” and has “reason to fear injury” to his “person or property.” Maryland and New Jersey recently dropped similar requirements: “good or substantial reason” in Maryland and “justifiable need” in New Jersey.

Even before the Court’s ruling, the vast majority of states either did not require permits for carrying firearms or had “shall issue” carry-permit laws, meaning applications generally were approved as long as gun owners met objective criteria. Those policies recognize, as the Court did, that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” cannot be treated as a privilege for the lucky few.

Some politicians still seem determined to reject that point. They will not respect their constituents’ rights until new constitutional challenges force them to do so.

George Soros and the EU Parliament condemn the SCOTUS for following the Constitution.

This year on July 4, George Soros penned an editorial piece expressing his concern against the limited government principles of these United States, specifically the idea of state sovereignty as detailed by the Tenth Amendment.  On a day when many Americans celebrate independence from a far-off and unrepresentative government, a foreign-born globalist castigated the supreme law and court of these United States.  In the article, Soros wrote:

From abroad, the US is threatened by repressive regimes led by Xi Jinping in China and Vladimir Putin’s Russia who want to impose an autocratic form of government on the world.

But the threat to the US from the domestic enemies of democracy is even greater. They included the current Supreme Court, which is dominated by far-right extremists, and Donald Trump’s Republican Party, which placed those extremists on the Court.

Recent decisions regarding abortion, the scope of the EPA, and God-given rights to self-defense have apparently struck a nerve.  Soros kicks it off by denouncing Alito’s line of reasoning in the reversal of Roe v. Wade, inferring that “logically,” the Court might regress towards racial inequality — masterfully applying the Alinsky tactic of “rubbing raw the sores of discontent.”  He then gripes about the decision that “denied the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to issue regulations needed to combat climate change” before claiming the SCOTUS is beholden to the gun lobby, rather than the words of the Second Amendment.

Soros wasn’t alone in his indignation or his constitutional illiteracy.  Subsequently, just one week after the publication of Soros’s critique, the Parliament of the European Union took a vote officially condemning the American High Court for returning to responsibly interpreting our supreme governing document.

What don’t these European elites understand?  In America, legislative bodies are tasked with lawmaking, not the Courts and not the Executive.  The Constitution does not explicitly mention abortion, so at the moment, that decision legally belongs to each individual state.  And aside from the obvious fact that the EPA has no right to exist, it certainly has no authority to dictate “regulations” to be followed as though they were federal or state law.  Lastly, the Second Amendment is quite clear when it says “shall not be infringed.”  Interpreting that correctly does not hinge on the financial clout of the “gun lobby.”

It’s no secret that George Soros and the European Union embrace and encourage the erosion of American strength and sovereignty.  This structure of government, founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, is antithetical to global tyranny and oppression, and their disdain for our Constitution cannot be concealed.