He must really be handing out the $$ to both sides as I can’t figure out why he hasn’t been taken care of for so long

BLUF: Donald Trump suggested RICO charges against George Soros and his son Alex, a favorite chum of Democrats, for their funding of violent protests in the United States. It certainly seems to be past time for serious investigation into and accountability for Soros’s funding of dangerous Marxist revolution.

Soros Poured $80M Into Pro-Terror Groups, Says Non-Profit Watchdog

Insidious leftist billionaire George Soros donated no less than $80 million to pro-terror groups in less than a decade, according to a new report.

In his 1987 book, The Alchemy of Finance, Soros wrote, “I have always harboured an exaggerated view of my self-importance. To put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes, or, even better, like Einstein.” Unfortunately, he transfers his god complex and massive wealth into trying to reshape our world into a globalist Marxist oligarchy.

Capitol Research Center (CRC), a watchdog of non-profits, released a report Sept. 17 stating that George and Alex Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF) lavished more than $80 million on groups with ties to terrorism or extremist violence since 2016.

The evidence is stark: Open Society has sent millions of dollars into U.S.-based organizations that engage in “direct actions” that the FBI defines as domestic terrorism.

These groups include the Center for Third World Organizing and its militant partner Ruckus Society, which trained activists in property destruction and sabotage during the 2020 riots, and the Sunrise Movement, which endorsed the Antifa-linked Stop Cop City campaign, in which activists currently face over 40 domestic terrorism charges and 60 racketeering indictments.

At the same time, Open Society awarded $18 million to the Movement for Black Lives, a group that co-authored a radical guide that glorifies Hamas’s October 7 massacre and instructs activists in the use of false IDs, blockades, and economic disruption.

Continue reading “”

Antifa Defence Fund Shuts Down After Trump’s Terrorist Designation

Democrats love to scream that Antifa cannot be designated a terrorist organization because it is a noble idea rather than an organized movement. That is bosh, and a fund that raises money for Antifa just tacitly admitted as much.

The International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund has suddenly suspended its operations and indicated that, while it presently operates within the United States, it is going to move operations overseas, asserting the president and his administration are “fascists.” But the great point that ought to be hammered home is that Antifa must be a specific, organized movement with a detailed funding structure, or the fund would not suddenly be in panic over the president’s designation of the group as a terrorist entity.

Below is the current message on the International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund’s website under the “Donate & Support” tab:

In September 2025, United States president Donald Trump issued an edict declaring “antifa” a domestic terrorist organization. As a precaution, we have shut down the donation infrastructure for The International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund to protect our donors and recipients.

We are presently exploring our options for re-establishing the Defence Fund’s infrastructure in a country not currently governed by fascists and we hope to have good news about that shortly. Please stay tuned.

So who funds the International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund? It is an interesting question, and one worthy of further investigation. Donald Trump promised that his administration would be investigating the funding sources for Antifa and other leftist radical organizations. The FBI and Treasury Department are in fact already investigating, and it would certainly be worthwhile to dig deeper into this fund.

Significantly, Marxist, leftist billionaire George Soros has donated at least $80 million to pro-terror groups since 2016. It would hardly be surprising if he and his Democrat-loving son Alex had given money to Antifa.

Speaking of which, what is the International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund? Below is the jargon-laced description from the fund’s website:

We saw a need for a standing fund that could be used to provide immediate support to anti-fascists and anti-racists anywhere in the world, whenever they found themselves in a difficult situation as a result of their stand against hate.

Modelled on the defence fund run by the Anti-Racist Action Network in the late 1990s/early 2000s, The International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund accepts proposals for support from anyone (by contacting Antifa International).

The page vaguely mentioned a “crew of individuals and groups” who have donated above $20 or €20 or £15, who make decisions about where the money goes.

The fund’s homepage currently promotes an individual identified as Big Tex who has been charged in Texas with multiple crimes, including resisting arrest. The fund claims he was targetted because he protected attendees at a drag event from “transphobes.” The homepage also refers to ICE officers as “Gestapo agents” and describes the July 4 ambush on an officer at the Alvarado ICE facility, for which nearly a dozen individuals were charged with attempted murder, as a “poignant” “protest” against a “violent, colonialist tradition.” The organization openly admitted to contributing to the attempted murderers’ defense fund.

All the fund is proving is that Trump was 100% right to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization.

I wish the Trump administration would be more consistent in pro-RKBA moves like this.

DOJ Sues LA Sheriff Over Gun Permit Delays, Says 2A Violation Scope ‘Staggering’

The Department of Justice on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, alleging deliberate foot-dragging by the department in processing applications for California concealed carry licenses.

If this is the first high-profile move fulfilling the mission of the DOJ’s “Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force” announced by Attorney General Pam Bondi in April, it’s a major offensive. The nine-page federal complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, does not mince words.

“The scope of this constitutional violation is staggering,” the complaint says. “Between January 2024 and March 2025, Defendants received 3,982 applications for new concealed carry licenses. Of these, they approved exactly two—a mere 0.05% approval rate that cannot be explained by legitimate disqualifying factors alone. This is not bureaucratic inefficiency; it is systematic obstruction of constitutional rights.”

The complaint, submitted by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, Acting U.S. Attorney Bilal A. Essayli for the Central District of California and other DOJ officials in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles, declares, “The mechanics of this obstruction are equally damning. Defendants force applicants to wait an average of 281 days—over nine months—just to begin processing their applications, with some waiting as long as 1,030 days (nearly three years). The median delay is 372 days. These delays far exceed California’s own statutory requirement that licensing authorities provide initial determinations within 90 days, demonstrating Defendants’ flagrant disregard for both state law and constitutional obligations.”

Named as defendants are the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Robert Luna, in his official capacity. The department did not immediately offer a response.

Continue reading “”

Federal Judge: Biden ATF Rule on Firearms Sales Cannot Be Used Against NRA Members

On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Corey L. Maze “permanently [blocked] federal authorities from enforcing multiple provisions of the ATF’s [‘engaged in the business’ rule],” according to Rocket City Now.

Maze’s ruling applies to two plaintiffs — “Don Butler of Talladega and David Glidewell of Ragland” — and to members of the NRA.

ATF’s engaged in the business rule became final on April 10, 2024. The rule is designed to expand the occurrences of point-of-sale background checks by counting certain private sales as business sales, thereby requiring the transfer to be handled via a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check.

As the rule prepared to be finalized, Breitbart News noted that then-ATF director Steven Dettelbach could not could not define a precise threshold for when private citizens are considered “engaged in the business” of selling guns. The ambiguity put law-abiding gun owners on edge, as they could not ascertain when they might be in violation of the rule and when they might not.

A lawsuit, Butler v. Garland, resulted, later to be augmented to Butler v. Bondi.

In the case, “Plaintiffs argue that Congress requires a person buy or sell multiple firearms before he can be deemed to be engaged the firearms’ business, and ATF exceeded its authority by roping in persons who sell or offer to sell only one firearm.”

Maze agreed with the plaintiffs, noting that the “ATF exceeded its authority when it interpreted the [the Gun Control Act of 1968] to possibly prohibit a single purchase or sale or a single offer to purchase or sell a firearm.”

Maze pointed to case law, summarizing: “Congress decided that a person is not engaged in the business of dealing in firearms unless he deals firearms ‘as a regular course of trade or business’… Regular means repeated or often. So regular business requires more than one firearm transaction involving a single firearm. Because the Final Rule says single transactions involving one firearm may be prohibited in some cases, it exceeds ATF’s statutory authority.”

He continued to examine phrases in the ATF’s final engaged in the business rule, showing again and again how the “ATF exceeded its authority,” ruling: “The court will enter a separate order that PERMANENTLY ENJOINS the Department of Justice, ATF, Acting ATF Director Daniel Driscoll, and Attorney General Pamela Bondi from enforcing these aspects of the ‘Engaged in the Business’ Final Rule against Plaintiffs Don Butler, David Glidewell, and any member of the NRA.”

Coalition Of Gun Rights Groups Challenge Big Banks Over Gun Industry Debanking History.

A group of gun-rights organizations is calling some big banks onto the carpet for their systemic history of debanking and otherwise discriminating against companies in the firearms industry.

According to a report at Foxbusiness.com, the Second Amendment groups are accusing some financial institutions of “revisionist history” in their attempts to whitewash past discrimination against gun and ammo manufacturers and retailers.

The six groups—NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), the American Suppressor Association (ASA), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Gun Owners of America (GOA), National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA)—sent a letter to the heads of JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and the Bank Policy Institute confronting them over their anti-gun history.

“As the unified voice of the Second Amendment community and millions of gun owners across America, we write today to address your ongoing debate about the future of banking,” the letter stated. “As you know, our industry faced relentless attacks and discriminatory treatment for decades. We have been shut out of mainstream financial institutions including by your banks and those your represent. The assault on gun manufacturers, retailers and aligned organizations has been a brazen and ideologically driven campaign to undermine the Constitutionally protected right of all Americans to keep and bear arms.”

Recently, the big banks had “come clean” and stated that they would no longer discriminate against gun industry members. And in August, President Donald Trump signed the Executive Order Guaranteeing Free and Fair Banking for All Americans.

Federal Court Says Post Office Carry Prohibition Unconstitutional
A federal court ruled that prohibitions on carrying firearms in post offices are unconstitutional. This ruling comes out of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On September 30, 2025, Chief United States District Judge Reed O’Connor delivered an opinion on Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, et.al. v. Bondi. FPC is joined by the Second Amendment Foundation and two citizens —  Gavin Pate and George Mandry —  in challenging the federal law.

O’Connor wrote that the law “is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with respect to Plaintiffs’ (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms inside of an ordinary United States Post Office or the surrounding Post Office property.” There’s nothing in the order limiting it to Texas and applies to all members of the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition.

The complaint was originally filed in June 2024 and the named defendant was then-Attorney General Garland. “So if the government seeks to restrict firearms in a particular location as a ‘sensitive place,’ it must prove that its current restriction is sufficiently analogous to a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue,’” the complaint said.

This order in Texas comes at the heels of the Department of Justice dropping a bid for an appeal in a criminal matter involving carriage on U.S. Postal Service property. U.S. v. Ayala in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida involved defendant Ayala’s possession of a firearm on postal grounds. District Court Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle wrote that: “The United States fails to meet its burden of pointing to a historical tradition of firearms regulation justifying Ayala’s indictment under § 930(a).”

In Ayala, the Department of Justice dismissed their motion for an appeal in August. That move allowed Judge Mizelle’s order to stand.

“Millions of people across the country visit the U.S. Post Office as part of their daily routine,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut in a statement. “As we’ve stated throughout this case, there is no historical tradition of banning firearms at post offices, and peaceable Americans all over the country should not be forced to choose between using basic postal services and the exercise of their fundamental rights. Today’s ruling is an encouraging step towards restoring these rights.”

The order applies to “ordinary post offices,” and explains, “Because Plaintiffs have agreed to limit their relief to ordinary post offices not located in restricted areas like military bases or where the Government provides armed security, the Court likewise limits its remedies to ordinary post offices.”

“This is a huge win for SAF and its members,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “There is no historical analogue to justify a ban on carrying a firearm on postal property, and we are pleased the court rightly saw through this thinly veiled attempt at preventing citizens from fully exercising their constitutional rights.”

Named plaintiff FPC observed in their statement that “Judge O’Connor explained, ‘it is hard to envision that the Founders would countenance banning firearms in the post office — particularly because they did not do so themselves. Thus, the Government has not carried its burden’ to justify its ban on carry in and around post offices. The Court thus held that the prohibition is ‘unconstitutional as-applied to carrying firearms’ inside a post office or on post office property.”

Speaking on behalf of FPC, Foundation President Brandon Combs noted that governments can’t ban weapons in “unsecured public spaces.” He further stated that governments also can’t “invent new so-called ‘gun-free zones’ whenever they please.”

“For too long, peaceable people have been threatened with prosecution simply for carrying weapons for self-defense while mailing a package or buying stamps,” Combs said. “That ends here.”

The victory in FPC v. Bondi is another step towards fully repatriating the people with a whole Second Amendment. Rather than turn into contortions of Cirque du Soleil proportions to find an analogue, the federal court found the government failed to meet the appropriate burden of proof — because there isn’t one.

Considering the Department of Justice’s recent withdrawal in the Ayala criminal possession case, it’s not likely they’ll seek an appeal in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. But you never know. We’ll be keeping up with this case and will be reporting back with any future findings.

Something to be aware of for those of us who do carry.

Overturn of Montana Man’s Conviction Illustrates Issue With Gun-Free School Zones

The Bruen decision left the door open on “sensitive places” that can be gun-free zones. Places like courthouses, for example.

For a lot of people, schools should definitely be on that list. I’m not so sure, but I can accept that some people disagree with me. They have a right to be wrong, after all, especially since we know that the gun-free zone thing doesn’t seem to keep bad people from carrying them onto the campus anyway.

But a case in Montana, where a man’s conviction was just overturned, highlights one major issue with gun-free school zones.

See, the issue isn’t just the schools, but a perimeter around the schools, and that’s what got him arrested.

A man who was convicted in federal court of firearms violations after menacing neighbors and an elementary school in Billings by carrying guns and patrolling the neighborhood has had his conviction overturned in a split decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a ruling earlier this week, the panel of three appellate judges said that Gabriel Metcalf’s conviction should be overturned because he offered a plausible interpretation and understanding of federal gun law, even while acknowledging that federal district court judge Susan Watters had a more straightforward and traditional definition of the law.

The majority opinion, written by Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a former Montana Solicitor General, noted that Metcalf appears to be the only person to test whether Montana’s open carry gun law complied with the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. In his appeal, Metcalf also raised concerns that his conviction also violated his Second Amendment rights, but the appellate court stopped short of deciding that issue, ruling instead that Metcalf’s interpretation of the law was plausible, and therefore he could not have known he was violating federal law.

Judge Mary M. Schroeder issued a dissenting opinion in the case, saying that VanDyke and Judge John B. Owens had reached their conclusion “by means of a tortured application” of judicial principles, even while acknowledging that Watters had the better and more traditional interpretation of state and federal law.

At the heart of the issue, at least in the case itself, is that Montana’s permitless carry law basically says that everyone who isn’t expressly forbidden from carrying a gun is considered licensed, and the federal law says people with licenses can carry in the buffer area around a school. The Biden administration argued that no, the licensing had to be explicit–something the law doesn’t seem to actually state, for the record–and so he was in violation of federal law.

Metcalf’s defense is that he literally had no reason to believe any such thing, which is fair.

However, a bigger issue is the existence of this area outside of the school grounds themselves.

See, the federal law doesn’t account for permitless carry as most states have it, nor does it account for things like reciprocity. You have to be licensed in that state in order to just walk past a school on the sidewalk, which is a problem.

This is something most people are going to be unaware of when traveling, for one thing, just as they’re not going to be aware of where all the schools in a given city might be. Just following Google Maps could land you a felony charge, simply because Google didn’t know you needed to be so many feet away from a school because you’re lawfully carrying a firearm.

It’s ridiculous.

If we’re going to insist that schools should be gun-free zones for law-abiding adults, can’t we at least agree that if someone intends anything malicious, stretching that zone out however many feet or isn’t going to actually stop them any better than the sign on the door will? Can’t we also agree that it’s ridiculous that people otherwise obeying the law, going about their day, might end up with a felony charge because they set foot outside of their house with a gun on their person, simply because they live in a constitutional carry state and live too close to a school?

Of course we can’t, because some people are so vehemently hoplophobic that they can’t accept anyone with a gun not being evil.