Our Constitution is our rule of law, and the first 10 amendments of that venerable document contain our Bill of Rights. Those First Amendment rights, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom to assemble, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievance, do not come with any requirement to obtain a permit.
– Allen West

Anti-Gunner Hacks Use Martin Luther King Jr. to Push for Gun Control, but There’s a Problem

While America is honoring the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., some on the left are using his birthday to push for stripping Americans of their Second Amendment rights.

Giffords, one of the nation’s leading anti-gunner organizations, wrote a post on X in which it noted that King “dreamed of a world rooted in justice and peace,” but his “life was cut short by gun violence.”

The organization is honoring King “by continuing the fight for safer communities for all.”

The Stop Gun Violence PAC noted that King “taught us that every person has the right to live free from fear,” but “gun violence steals that freedom from our families every day.”

Here’s something the anti-gunners won’t tell you about King. He applied for a concealed carry permit in 1956 after his home in Montgomery, Alabama, was firebombed.

Back then, the police were responsible for determining who would be allowed to have a permit. They denied his application as they had with most other Black applicants.

King wished to carry a firearm to protect himself and his family against the KKK and others. Yet, the sheriff deemed him “unsuitable.”

The civil rights leader was known for his nonviolent approach to fighting for equality. Yet, most don’t know that he still approved of the use of firearms for self-defense in one’s home.

Continue reading “”

With anti-ICE fury, Democrats are playing with fire.

Democrats are playing with fire, but it’s the whole country that’s likely to get burned.

For a democratic republic to function, you need certain key elements.

First, elections must be generally regarded as honest.

Second, candidates and their supporters have to abide by the results of those elections when they occur.

Third, winners of elections must not behave in a way that makes losing the contest a matter of life and death (or lifetime imprisonment).

Democrats are undermining — or just outright wrecking — all three.

On the electoral trustworthiness front, Democrats are standing united against measures to ensure that only legitimate voters can cast votes, and that the votes cast are counted honestly and transparently.

When it comes to abiding by elections, the Democrats have treated President Donald Trump’s victories in both 2016 and 2024 as illegitimate. (In fairness, he did the same in 2020 — but accepted Joe Biden’s presidency after Inauguration Day.)

In Trump’s first term, Democrats formed a “resistance” movement — as if the administration of a duly elected president was analogous to a German occupation government in World War II — and pushed the patently false claim that his victory was a “hacked election” or the product of (nonexistent) “Russian collusion.” 

In his second term the “resistance” is expanding, with suggestions that Trump is ruling as a “king” — and now with the often violent protests aiming to block the legitimate enforcement of duly enacted immigration laws.

Democratic governors and mayors in Minnesota, Oregon and Illinois have gone so far as to actively enable the chaos by withdrawing police protection.

Finally, winners of elections must not pose an existential threat to the losers; they can’t carry out, or even hint at, mass imprisonment or blanket prosecution.

Take a lesson from history: Julius Caesar led his army across the Rubicon to seize power in Rome because his political enemies were plotting to subject him to political prosecutions that could have led to his death or exile.

Caesar saved himself (for a while) — but his action, and the behavior of his opponents that triggered it, killed off the Roman Republic.

Historically in American politics, electoral losers have accepted the results, however grudgingly, and concentrated on winning the next election.

This new trend of treating Republican electoral victories as inherently illegitimate is a departure — and very dangerous.

It’s made more dangerous by widespread threats from important Democratic figures to prosecute not only Trump and his administration, but lower-level officials — and now, even federal law-enforcement agents.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has been raising this specter for months, and other prominent leftists are following his lead.

In September, Jeffries said that Democrats would prosecute members of Trump’s Justice Department once they regain power: “Donald Trump and this toxic administration will be long gone, but there will still be accountability to be had.”

In December, he issued a message on X to “all these GOP extremists and [Trump] sycophants . . . the statute of limitations is 5 years! It will be well beyond the end of the Trump admin.”

We’ve heard similar statements from Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett, Democratic consultant James Carville and ex-CNN gadfly Jim Acosta.

This month, the drumbeat got louder amid stepped-up immigration-enforcement operations in Minneapolis, Minn.

Leftist commentator Jennifer Welch recently used her podcast to push “relentless” prosecutions of Trump, Elon Musk, Stephen Miller and other Republicans if Democrats regain power, arguing it would be necessary for “true national reconciliation.”

And just last week Jeffries was back warning rank-and-file ICE officers to expect a Democratic administration to prosecute them for any crimes it could discover (or perhaps, given the history of efforts to prosecute Trump in the past, invent).

“Every single one of these people who we see brutalizing the American people, they’re gonna be held accountable,” Jeffries said of ICE agents. “And the statute of limitations . . . is five years.”

As Caesar’s experience demonstrates, you can’t have a democratic republic if every election is an existential struggle in which the loser risks extinction.

People don’t want to be rendered extinct, and they can be expected to take steps to prevent it.

If Democrats keep up this thuggery, Republicans will be all but forced to respond in their own defense — and any action they may take could destabilize the nation even further.

The last time such a breach happened in the United States was in 1860, where pro-slavery Democrats seceded from the country rather than abide by the results of a presidential election.

That resulted in a Civil War that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans and devastated much of the nation — a war driven by Southern “fire-eater” rhetoric that’s not unlike what we’re hearing from some Democrats today.

It needs to stop, or the consequences might be much worse this time around.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds

Minnesota’s Muslim AG to Christians: Church Ambushes Are ‘Just Something You’ve Gotta Live With’

Somewhere out there in the great cosmos, Saul Alinsky is cackling with glee over the way Democrats are providing top cover for the commie radicals running roughshod over the rule of law in Minnesota.

The latest elected official to earn Alinsky’s approval, while also making a mockery of law and order, is Minnesota’s Attorney General himself, Democrat Keith Ellison. Ellison, who is Muslim and the top law enforcement officer in the state, appeared Monday on Don Lemon’s livestream to discuss the Sunday ambush of services at Cities Church in St. Paul by a horde of anti-ICE agitators.

Lemon, it should be noted, could be in a great deal of legal trouble himself over the disgraceful incident, having possibly colluded ahead of time with the agitators who stormed the church. As Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Harmeet Dhillon, revealed Monday, Lemon could face federal charges, saying, “He went into the facility, and then he began ‘committing journalism.’ As if that is a shield from being an embedded part of a criminal conspiracy. It isn’t.”

During his conversation with Lemon about Sunday’s ambush, Ellison remarked, “None of us are immune from the voice of the public.”

Here’s exactly what Ellison told Lemon:

“The protest is fundamental to American society. This country started in a protest. It’s freedom of expression. People have a right to lift up their voices and make their peace. And none of us are immune from the voice of the public. So I, quite honestly, I think that you’ve got the First Amendment freedom of religion and First Amendment freedom of expression – and I think it’s just something you’ve just gotta live with in a society.”

Harmeet Dhillon likely sees things very differently from Ellison. Dhillon noted Monday that both the FACE Act and the Ku Klux Klan Act could be used to prosecute those who “threaten[ed], hurt, or intimidate[d] people to prevent them from exercising their God-given rights.”

Keith Ellison knows full well that the ambushers had no right to enter the private property of the church and stop the faithful from worshipping. He’ll happily turn a blind eye to it, of course, as long as the brown shirts for whom he provides cover continue to create chaos. Chaos, of course, is Ellison’s justification for seizing more power.

Continue reading “”

Anti-ICE Protest Leader Who Invaded Minnesota Church Just Did the Dumbest Thing Imaginable

As RedState reported, a group of anti-ICE protesters crossed a redline on Sunday, storming a church in Minnesota and occupying it. Supposed journalist Don Lemon was part of the chaos, with claims that one of the pastors works for ICE being used as justification for the attack.

The scene was part of an ever-escalating war against ICE, which has increased operations in Minneapolis and the surrounding areas due to a complete lack of cooperation by state and local authorities. Despite largely targeting illegal immigrants who have allegedly committed heinous crimes, including sex crimes against children, left-wing activists have taken to the streets to obstruct, impede, and assault federal agents.

A church isn’t the streets, though. It’s a privately-owned house of worship, and activists do not have a right to invade and occupy one, no matter how deranged their motivation is. But while Minnesota authorities are unlikely to take any serious action, the federal government is a different story. DOJ civil rights division head Harmeet Dhillon has already stated that they will use the FACE Act to go after these agitators.

Don’t get me wrong, the FACE Act is garbage, and has previously been used to go after pro-life activists for simply standing outside abortion clinics, but it is currently the law. Unless the Supreme Court one day changes that, the Trump administration should use all tools at its disposal.

That’s what makes protest leader Nekima Levy Armstrong’s move after the assault on the church so incredible, and not in a good way for her. Instead of maintaining some deniability, she actually posted all the participants of the attack on Facebook and admitted why they invaded it.

One of those listed is Don Lemon, along with multiple Black Lives Matter organizations, the Racial Justice Network, and numerous individual names. It’s basically a confession wrapped neatly with a bow for the DOJ to move forward with. It’s ill-advised, but hey, let her cook.

You can understand why these people would act without fear of any consequences and flaunt their alleged crimes. For years, Minnesota has allowed these activists to run amok, violating the law and terrorizing normal people, with the George Floyd riots of 2020 being the most striking example. Perhaps Armstrong and her cohorts believed they wouldn’t be subject to any federal investigation or possible charges. She thought wrong, though.

The DOJ shouldn’t wait for Minnesota officials to keep dithering in the face of these almost certainly illegal aggressions. Go after these activists with the full force of the law while there’s still a chance.

U.S. Forces Kill Al-Qaeda Affiliate Leader Linked to ISIS Ambush on Americans in Syria

USCENTCOM

January 17, 2026
Release Number 20260117-01
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TAMPA, Fla. — U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) conducted a strike in northwest Syria on Jan. 16, that resulted in the death of a leader affiliated with Al-Qaeda who had direct ties to an ISIS terrorist responsible for an ambush which killed two U.S. service members and an American interpreter on Dec. 13, 2025.

Bilal Hasan al-Jasim was an experienced terrorist leader who plotted attacks and was directly connected with the ISIS gunman who killed and injured American and Syrian personnel last month in Palmyra, Syria.

“The death of a terrorist operative linked the death of three Americans demonstrates our resolve in pursuing terrorists who attack our forces,” said Adm. Brad Cooper, CENTCOM commander. “There is no safe place for those who conduct, plot, or inspire attacks on American citizens and our warfighters. We will find you.”

CENTCOM launched large-scale strikes in Syria in response to the Dec. 13 attack. The operation, dubbed Hawkeye Strike, resulted in U.S. and partner forces hitting more than 100 ISIS infrastructure and weapons site targets with over 200 precision munitions.

Additionally, U.S. and partner forces have captured more than 300 ISIS operatives and killed over 20 across Syria during the past year, removing terrorists who posed a direct threat to the United States and regional security.

Personal Defense Tip: The Castle Doctrine Isn’t Absolute.

As part of January’s general grab-bag of weirdness, a Texas man is being charged with murder after he shot an armed home intruder. I know what you’re thinking: What about the castle doctrine? Not to mention it’s Texas. So what’s going on?

The comment section on the rather vague news reports are filled with opinionated social media experts claiming this guy will be out in no time and that he should totally sue local law enforcement for wrongful imprisonment. So, what’s the truth?

The truth is the castle doctrine isn’t absolute. That means you can’t do whatever the heck you feel like in your own home. Rules, people…there are rules.

Disclaimer: As always, please remember that I’m not an attorney and this isn’t legal advice. It’s simply information (and a dose of supposition) based on experience.

Continue reading “”