The US military has condemned what it said was an “unprovoked attack” in international air space, after Iran shot down a US drone. (Subscribe:

But the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard said the drone was actually in Iranian airspace, and described the incident as a “clear and precise message to America.”

Lindsey Graham warns Iran after U.S. drone shot down: “Get ready for severe pain”



Why all freedom-loving Americans should be concerned

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes a guarantee that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” The U.S. Supreme Court decided by a 7 to 2 vote, announced on Monday, that this double jeopardy clause does not apply to an individual who is prosecuted for the same alleged criminal conduct in the courts of different sovereigns, including federal and state courts. In the case before the Court, the defendant had pleaded guilty to violating a state law against gun possession by someone previously convicted of “a crime of violence.” After his guilty plea to the state offense, federal prosecutors indicted the defendant for the same instance of gun possession under a federal law, presumably to exact a longer sentence than was imposed by the state court for the same thing.
Trump-haters are likely salivating because of this decision. They are relishing the prospect of Trump associates, pardoned in the future by the president for federal crimes, facing criminal trial in state courts for the same underlying criminal conduct, not to mention the increased jeopardy that Mr. Trump himself will face for his own alleged conduct after he leaves office. Even if he resigns before the end of his term so that Vice President Mike Pence can assume the presidency in time to pardon Mr. Trump for any federal criminal violations, he will still be subject to prosecution for state crime violations based on the same alleged conduct for which he was pardoned at the federal level. There are plenty of state prosecutors itching for the chance to put Mr. Trump in jail, egged on by Trump-hating Democrats and the media.
However, whatever impact the Supreme Court double jeopardy decision may have on Mr. Trump and his associates, the longer-term impact of the decision for Americans’ civil liberties should be of significant concern to all freedom-loving Americans. Under the Supreme Court’s reasoning taken to its extreme, an individual could be tried for the same criminal conduct at the federal level and in 49 states where he or she is repeatedly acquitted, but still found guilty in the 50th state so long as it has its own law covering the same conduct.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., reasoned that since the federal and state governments constitute separate sovereigns, each with its own separate law that may cover the same underlying conduct, each sovereign can prosecute for an “offence” against its own law. This is known as the separate-sovereigns doctrine. Justice Alito wrote that there was support for this conclusion from the text of the Fifth Amendment itself, and from the history surrounding the meaning of the word “offence” as it was understood under centuries-old English law and materials that were contemporaneous with the founding of the United States and the drafting of the Constitution. Most importantly, Justice Alito wrote, there was “a chain of precedent linking dozens of cases over 170 years” that have interpreted the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy clause as inapplicable to successive prosecutions for the same conduct at the federal and state levels of government.
The Court’s most liberal justice, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and one of the Court’s most conservative justices, Neil M. Gorsuch, filed dissents. Although Justice Clarence Thomas ultimately decided to side with the majority despite his earlier skepticism regarding the separate-sovereigns doctrine, he warned against giving too much weight to precedents if they were wrongly decided. This is one case in which the majority, including Justice Thomas himself, should have taken Justice Thomas’s advice and overruled the bad precedents rather than perpetuate them.
After noting that the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being “twice put in jeopardy” “for the same offence,” Justice Alito wrote that “same offence” does not mean the same thing as “the same conduct or actions,” quoting from a dissent by the late Justice Scalia. What is more, Justice Alito argued, “the same offence” is a legal term that is “sovereign-specific.” Violations of a federal law and of a state law covering the same underlying criminal conduct are not the same “offence” because there are separate violations of separate sovereigns’ laws.
“As originally understood…an ‘offence’ is defined by a law,” Justice Alito wrote, “and each law is defined by a sovereign. So where there are two sovereigns, there are two laws, and two ‘offences.’” Justice Alito devoted an inordinate amount of space in his opinion to reciting ancient history and Supreme Court precedent in support of this interpretation.  However, Justice Alito has led himself and the majority of the other justices into a classic case of circular reasoning.  Since he starts with the premise that an “offence” is defined as a violation of an individual sovereign’s law and the United States and each state are defined as separate sovereigns, he naturally concludes that successive state and federal prosecutions cannot properly place a defendant in “jeopardy . . . for the same offence.” The problem is that Justice Alito and the precedents on which he relied assume a definition of the single word “offence” as inherently sovereign specific, without any support for that proposition in the text of the Constitution.
Justice Alito could have avoided this circular reasoning and corrected the error of past precedents if he had not quoted the text of the Fifth Amendment referring to “Offences” in isolation. He should have considered it alongside the text of the president’s pardoning power in Article II, Section 2, which states that the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” (Emphasis added) When the framers wanted to use the term “offence” in a sovereign-specific sense, they did so. Thus, the president could only pardon for “Offences against the United States,” not for “offences” against any sovereign state. However, the framers made no distinction in the text of the Fifth Amendment between a sovereign specific federal “offence” and a sovereign-specific state “offence” in the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy clause. 
Justice Alito mistakenly analogized the question of successive federal and state prosecutions for the same underlying conduct to successive prosecutions in the United States and a foreign country. Surely, he argued, the United States should be able to prosecute an individual who killed a U.S. national in another country even if the other country goes after the same killer for committing an act of violence within its territory. “The murder of a U. S. national is an offense to the United States as much as it is to the country where the murder occurred and to which the victim is a stranger,” he wrote.
Justice Alito’s analogy of successive prosecutions by a foreign country and the United States for the same criminal conduct to successive federal and state prosecutions for the same criminal conduct within the United States itself is a bad analogy.  In fact, it is irrelevant. As Justice Ginsburg noted in her dissent, the defendant in the case before the Court “was convicted in both Alabama and the United States, jurisdictions that are not foreign to each other.” The United States and its constituent states, Justice Ginsburg wrote, “compose one people, bound by an overriding Federal Constitution.” Citing Federalist No. 51, Justice Ginsburg added that “the division of authority between the United States and the States was meant to operate as ‘a double security [for] the rights of the people’… The separate-sovereigns doctrine, however, scarcely shores up people’s rights. Instead, it invokes federalism to withhold liberty.” She emphasized that the ultimate source of sovereignty in the United States lies with the people themselves. “Under our Constitution, the federal and state governments are but two expressions of a single and sovereign people,” she wrote.
Justice Gorsuch articulated a simple, common sense observation on the dangerous implications of the majority opinion. “A free society does not allow its government to try the same individual for the same crime until it’s happy with the result,” he wrote. “Unfortunately, the Court today endorses a colossal exception to this ancient rule against double jeopardy. My colleagues say that the federal government and each State are ‘separate sovereigns’ entitled to try the same person for the same crime. So if all the might of one ‘sovereign’ cannot succeed against the presumptively free individual, another may insist on the chance to try again. And if both manage to succeed, so much the better; they can add one punishment on top of the other.” Justice Gorsuch worried about “the capacity of the state to bring charges repeatedly until it wins the result it wants, and what little would be left of human liberty if that power remained unchecked.”
In this case, two justices from the opposite sides of the ideological spectrum reached what should have been the guiding rule for protecting individuals against unchecked multiple prosecutions for the same criminal act. They both sought to shield the Constitution’s protection against double jeopardy from a legalistic distinction without a difference. Unfortunately, the majority of the Supreme Court justices – liberals and conservatives – were not prepared to discard the patently unfair separate-sovereigns doctrine.



Where is Gov. Cuomo’s MVP Award from terrorists?

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
On June 18, 2019 The New York Daily News reported, "Cuomo signs bill granting undocumented immigrants access to New York driver’s licenses despite 11th-hour concerns."
Incredibly, the concerns were not about how this might impact national security, public safety or the immigration crisis on the border, but about how information in the DMV databases might help the federal government to enforce immigration laws and what needs to be done to prevent this from happening!
This is not the first time that the New York State legislature attempted to provide driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, but this time this dangerous and wrong-headed legislation has become the law of the state.
Back in 2007 then-New York State Governor Spitzer pushed for similar legislation that would have provided illegal aliens with driver’s licenses.
I testified before the New York State Senate on October 15, 2007 on that issue, in which I voiced my extreme opposition to the legislation.  
When I addressed the hearing I noted that the preposterous claim made by proponents for issuing driver’s licenses, and an argument that was used during the most recent debate, is that since illegal aliens will drive “anyway” (with or without a license), a license would enable them to get insurance and they would learn to drive more safely. I told them that by this reasoning the State of New York should provide convicted felons with firearms training and carry permits since it is likely that they would also violate the laws and carry guns “anyway.” I then said that with proper training the criminals could improve their accuracy and thus would be less likely to hit innocent bystanders in a gun battle. Further, perhaps through training, they could be convinced to use trigger locks between bank robberies and drive-by shootings. With my tongue firmly embedded in my cheek I suggested that this would improve public safety immeasurably. 
You can imagine their reactions!
The concerns I included in my prepared testimony then are as relevant today as they were then, with one additional critical factor: in the nearly 12 years since that hearing, while there have been no terror attacks carried out by international terrorists that involve the hijacking of airliners, there have been a string of deadly mass casualty terror attacks around the world and in the United States that involved terrorists using motor vehicles as weapons.
On June 14, 2019 the Justice Department announced the sentencing of a citizen of Yemen for his terrorist activities: "New York Man Sentenced to 20 Years in Prison for Attempting to Join ISIS in Yemen."
The press release included this paragraph:
Following his return to the United States in September 2015, Naji continued to express his support for ISIS and violent jihad.  In July 2016, following the ISIS-inspired terrorist truck attack in Nice, France, that killed scores of innocent civilians, Naji told the CS how easy it would be to carry out a similar attack in Times Square, explaining that ISIS “want[s] an operation in Times Square” and stating that an ISIS “reconnaissance group . . . put up scenes of Times Square.” 
 Naji further explained, “if there is a truck, I mean a garbage truck and one drives it there to Times Square and crushes them . . . Times Square day.” 
Terrorists have also used vehicles such cabs and passenger vans to conduct clandestine meetings and as a means of conducting covert surveillance on potential terror targets.
The TSA was created in the aftermath of the terror attacks of 9/11 and funded to the tune of billions of dollars. It currently employs more than 45,000 people and  maintains and uses so-called “No Fly Lists” to help prevent terrorists from gaining access to airliners.
Yet there are no “No Drive Lists” to prevent terrorists from being able to access cars and trucks.
Perhaps the efforts to enhance security in the commercial aviation sector have paid off or, perhaps the terrorists have simply shifted their methodology. In any event the use of motor vehicles as weapons has prompted cities to install numerous physical barriers to protect against such attacks but few barriers exist to prevent terrorists from gaining access to motor vehicles.
On August 20, 2018, CNN provided a synopsis of such attacks in an article, "Terrorist Attacks by Vehicle Fast Facts."
Terrorists who have driver’s licenses don’t pose a risk only to those who live in the state where the license was issued. They can simply rent a car in New York and drive anywhere in the U.S. or travel to any other state and use their New York driver’s license to rent a car there.
Now New York, the state that by far suffered the greatest devastation on September 11, 2001 and has suffered other terror attacks, including one that involved a truck used to run down people on a bicycle path just blocks from the World Trade Center, will enthusiastically provide illegal aliens with driver’s licenses.
My dad taught me to drive. When he handed me the keys to our family car he told me that a car could be more lethal than a gun. And as we have seen all too frequently, that statement is accurate, dead accurate.
Continuing with my dad’s comparison of guns and cars, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is a federal law that prohibits certain individuals from possessing firearms that includes:
(5) who, being an alien- (A) is illegally and unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(26)))
The penalty for violation of this law is a maximum of 10 years in jail.
New York City Penal Code similarly prohibits non U.S. citizens (aliens) from possessing firearms.
Why then should illegal aliens be given the privilege of driving motor vehicles when their very presence in the United States is a violation of law and we may never know their true identities?
Drivers licenses, however, convey more than the authority to drive motor vehicles.
Illegal aliens, criminals, fugitives and terrorists seek to acquire identity documents such as driver’s licenses, particularly under false names to conceal their true identities and their movements and provide them with an illusion of legitimacy to which they are certainly not entitled.
My earlier article, "Immigration And The Unlearned Lessons Of 9/11," included the link to an important New York Times article, "Roosevelt Avenue, a Corridor of Vice," which reported on the nexus between illegal immigration, crime (including human trafficking, prostitution, narcotics), and the use of false identity documents, primarily by illegal aliens.
“Undocumented Immigrants” generally have no authentic and reliable means of identifying themselves. The New York Times article noted how important it was for the NYPD to shut down the fraud document vendors because of the dangers associated with providing such individuals with identity documents. However, for local officials to provide illegal aliens with authentic driver’s licenses directly violates the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission which was behind the creation of the REAL ID Act.
It is all but impossible for state or local officials to properly determine the true identifies of “undocumented” aliens. Thus illegal aliens would be able to easily game the licensing procedures to acquire an actual driver’s license under false identities making the DMV no better than the fake document vendors who ply their trades in communities across the United States as described in the New York Times article I noted above.
It is remarkable that on August 4, 2004, MSNBC published an NBC report, "9/11 report light on ID theft issues," which included this paragraph:
But in the nation's most comprehensive look yet at what went wrong on Sept. 11., and what can be done to prevent the next terrorist attack, identity theft gets scarce mention. Buried deep within the 9/11 commission report — on about 10 pages, starting with page 393 — are suggestions for dealing with the deeply connected problems of terrorism and identity fraud.
Then there was this disconcerting paragraph:
Terrorism and identity theft go hand in hand, experts say.  The al-Qaida training manual includes provisions for trainees to leave camp with five fake personas, says Collins, who uses a copy of the manual to train law enforcement officials. Terrorists are regularly schooled in the art of subsisting off credit card fraud while living in the United States, Collins said.
In the hands of an illegal alien, a driver’s license may well become a license to kill.


In this powerful and informative video, Reid Henrichs discusses the proof of President Donald Trump’s disregard and disdain for the 2nd amendment. He rightfully criticizes both Republicans and Democrats for their disrespect of our founding values.

Get trained HERE:

Get Pistolcraft book HERE:

Support my work via donation HERE:

Trump Doesn’t ‘Like’ Suppressors??? I am not a SHEEP to be Corralled! ~ Rex Reviews RANT


In this episode of Behind the Deep State, Alex Newman exposes the Skull and Bones secret society out of Yale University. This group has included many influential members in U.S. History, including multiple U.S. Presidents, politicians, and members of the media.


Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer is under fire for deciding not to act on data suggesting that the rheumatoid arthritis drug Enbrel may be useful for preventing or treating Alzheimer’s. RT America’s Mollye Barrows joins Scottie Nell Hughes with the details.