Court Rules: Armed Self-Defense a Right NOT a Privilege Needing Permission

Second Amdnment Gun Permision Slip twitter.com/LilSouthernSass/status/1539992520356237312/photo/1

BY ROGER KATZ

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2022/06/court-rules-armed-self-defense-is-a-right-not-a-privilege-needing-permission;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Supreme Court Has Spoken on This and In the Clearest Language yet seen to date.

The long-awaited and highly anticipated Bruen case decision is out! It is better—much better—than we had anticipated.

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the Opinion. Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett joined him. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion. Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett also filed concurring opinions.

Justice Breyer, who filed an extensive dissenting opinion in Heller, filed a dissenting opinion in Bruen. The two other liberal wing Justices, Sotomayor and Kagan, joined him.

So that there would be no mistake, Justice Thomas provided, for the Nation, the Bruen Holding upfront in the first paragraph of the detailed majority opinion. He said,

“In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense.”

“We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”

How Important Is Bruen——

Bruen now joins, in the clearest language possible, the distinguished pantheon of seminal Second Amendment cases that, together, make categorically clear that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It is much more concerning and disconcerting to the Nation’s Destructors than a High Court decision in the Dobbs abortion case—a leaked version of which created a furor among the Nation’s Neo-Marxist and Anarchist malcontents.

Bruen is at the apex of critically important High Court cases defending our Country as a free Constitutional Republic and establishing our people as Sole Sovereign over Government.

Unrestrained exercise of this Fundamental God-Given Right by the people goes to the heart of our Nation’s history, heritage, traditions, ethos, culture, and ethical and legal foundation.

The Nation’s enemies, both inside it and outside it, detest America’s armed citizenry. They hate the Nation’s freedoms and liberties. They disdain the Nation’s belief and faith in Divine Natural Law.

The Bruen decision won’t change the attitudes of the would-be killers of the one, true free Republic on the face of the Earth. The naysayers will become only more hardened, more entrenched. But, in that fact, even the most naïve of Americans must now come to know the danger that the treacherous creatures among us pose to the preservation of a free Republic and to the continued sovereignty of the American people, over their Government.

The abhorrence of this Nation’s Obstructors and Destructors toward our Armed Citizenry isn’t grounded on more than mere aesthetics or even on ethical concerns.

It is based on frustration, rage, and fear. After all, the Bill of Rights prevents America’s domestic and foreign enemies from taking control over the Nation and its people. And, at least one branch of our Government, the U.S. Supreme Court—it is now clear—is intent on defending, rather than denigrating and revoking, our most cherished and sacred Rights and Liberties, without which, a powerful Nation-State and a Sovereign People cannot continue to exist.

An armed citizenry of 100 million people or more can never be vanquished; the Republic can never be undone; the sovereignty of the American people can never be effectively usurped, and the will of the American people can never be undermined. Americans can now gain further encouragement from the fact that the Third Branch of Government has its back.

The fundamental Right of Armed Self-Defense is our Birthright. The Court’s Majority knows that and they asserted that now in no uncertain terms.

Armed Self-Defense As A Fundamental Right Cannot Be Rationally Denied

The fundamental right of Armed Self-Defense is subsumed in the more general natural law right of Self-Survival which is itself subsumed in the supernal Right of one’s Self-hood: The sanctity and inviolability of one’s immortal Soul, Spirit, and Psyche. It is Man’s greatest gift—an eternal gift—bestowed on and in Man by the Divine Creator. It is that gift which the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists deny and abhor and therefore intend to destroy, but which they cannot touch as long as Americans remain armed—and armed to the hilt.

Yet, when speaking of this elemental, immutable, illimitable, and eternal natural law Right, the publishers, editors, reporters, and commentators of the seditious New York Times, cannot even bring themselves to mention the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a Right at all, whether fundamental and unalienable or not.

A Fundamental Right is Not to be Mistaken for Mere Privilege Contrary to What Malefactors and Imbeciles Maintain!

To the Disrupters and Destroyers of a free Republic, the Right of armed self-defense is nothing more than a privilege—a privilege that, from the Times’ perspective, too many Americans cherish and endorse and too many exercise.

In colorful language, The NYTimes explains its frustration, rage, and fear over armed self-defense—frustration, rage, and fear borne of Americans’ insistent adoration for its Bill of Rights, and especially for the fundamental right of armed self-defense.

A few weeks ago, the Times said this about “‘the privilege’ of the people to keep and bear arms”:

“Most Republicans in the Senate represent deeply conservative states where gun ownership is treated as a sacred privilege enshrined in the Constitution, a privilege not to be infringed upon no matter how much blood is spilled in classrooms and school hallways around the country.” ~ from an article in The New York Times, May 26, 2022, by Carl Hulse, Chief D.C. correspondent for the NYTimes.

This substitution of words here is no small thing. It isn’t a careless misuse of words. It isn’t a benign, innocuous, trivial slip-up.

It is no accident at all that the people at the Times would use the word, ‘privilege,’ in lieu of ‘right’ when referencing the language of the Second Amendment. Buts this word choice is one the author of the article, Carl Hulse, didn’t even come up with.

An attorney, Warren Freedman, an outspoken critic of the Second Amendment wrote a reference book titled, “The Privilege to Keep and Bear Arms: The Second Amendment and Its Interpretation,” in 1989, nineteen years before Heller; thirty-three years before the publication of the Times/Hulse article and the Bruen case decision.

A critique of the Freedman book, written by William Walker, appeared as a law review article published by the University of Michigan Law School, in 1990.

The writer of the afore-referenced NYTimes Article, Carl Hulse, must have known this. Yet he never credited Freedman; odd that!

The Framers of the Constitution, no less than, and probably a good deal more astute than Hulse, Freedman, and Walker, were meticulous in their choice of words when drafting the Constitution, especially when drafting the words to the Bill of Rights. Nowhere in the BOR does the term, ‘privilege,’ appear.

Yet the Destroyers of our Nation don’t deign to call gun possession a Basic Right—the most basic of Rights: one grounded on personal survival, be it from a predatory creature, predatory man, or predatory Government. Rather, they prefer to utilize the word, ‘privilege,’ in lieu of ‘right,’ to describe those who seek to exercise it.

Tacit in the word, ‘privilege,’ is the idea of something beneficial that some people obtain by dint of special birth, advantage, or by connection whether made or acquired—and that, by implication, most do not.

The words, ‘right’ and ‘privilege,’ are often conflated. And that is dangerous. For, once the public adopts language that the propagandists intentionally and diabolically propagate through the media, that verbiage becomes a viral meme. As a viral meme, the verbiage lodges in one’s mind. It infuses one’s speech. It suffuses and litters one’s thought processes, embedding itself inextricably in the public’s psyche, replicating itself a million-fold into every corner of one’s being and outward to every individual in the Country.

One must always be vigilant to avoid being misled by terminology utilized by nefarious forces to control one’s thought processes, one’s belief systems, and one’s actions.

Consider the subtle distinction between the two words in a common dictionary definition.

In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, one sees——

“A privilege is a right or advantage gained by birth, social position, effort, or concession.”

Note, in that definition, the word, ‘right’ qua ‘privilege’ denotes a thing with parameters. The term ‘right,’ in the colloquial definition, clearly means something less than a ‘fundamental right.’

A “Right” qua “Fundamental God-Bestowed Right” is something beyond mere “Privilege.” It is a thing intrinsic to a person—derived from natural law and it has no limit or boundary. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy elaborates on this:

  • “To have a right is to have a ‘valid claim.’”
  • “‘In the strictest sense’ all rights are claims.”
  • “A right, in the most important sense, is the conjunction of a [privilege] and a claim-right.”
  • “All rights are essentially property rights.”
  • “Rights are themselves property, things we own.”

A critical distinction in meaning between ‘fundamental right’ and ‘privilege’ rests at the heart of Bruen, whether one knows this or not.

The Bruen case has more impact on the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic than many Americans can appreciate or that the legacy Press and Government will let on.

In its Brief supporting the writ for certiorari, filed on December 17, 2020, the Petitioners presented the issue thus:

“Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”

The issue as stated goes to the heart of the import of the Second Amendment. Do Americans have a fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms, or not? Petitioners meant to bring that salient issue front and center for High Court review.

Heller ruled that a person has the inalienable right to keep and bear arms in defense of hearth and home. But the underlying basis for that ruling and the substructure of it is this—

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Bruen emphatically reasserts this.

This means, by logical implication, that the right doesn’t reside only within the confines of one’s home, stopping at the doorstep once one ventures outside his home. It exists everywhere. Bruen now, correctly interpreting the language of the Second Amendment, explicitly asserts this.

And the tacit implication of that pronouncement is this: the exercise of that right is grounded on natural law, and beyond the power of the State to meddle in it, i.e., the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is God-bestowed, and, therefore, Absolute. The Bruen Court has issued a warning to the First and Second Branches of Government and to the State Governments as well: Don’t meddle with the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.

Roberts And the Liberal Wing Of The Court Had Hoped To Lessen The Impact Of An Expected Strong Ruling In Bruen By Reconfiguring The Issue, But, Fortunately, To No Avail.

To lessen the impact of a ruling expected to favor the Petitioners, the Roberts’ Court limited the issue on review to consideration of the Constitutionality of the NYPD’s procedures for issuing concealed handgun carry licenses. The High Court redrafted the issue on review to this:

“Whether the state of New York’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court attempted, through reconfiguration, to chop the legs of Bruen off at the knee, to reduce the reviewable issue to one merely looking at the propriety of NYPD procedures for issuing concealed handgun carry licenses. The aim was to prevent the Court from reviewing the basic constitutionality of Government licensing of/meddling in the exercise of a fundamental, God-Given Right.

Justices Thomas and Alito would have none of that. They stuck by their guns.

The New York City Gun Transport case fiasco was in their mind.

Rather than be caught on the losing side of one of the most important case decisions in our Nation’s history, which would diminish his influence as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Roberts joined the Court’s majority, however, apparently reluctantly.

Chief Justice Roberts had to accept the majority’s holding and tacit reasoning that the God-Given right of armed self-defense is the most important Right that any human can exercise if he is to retain his sacred and inviolate Right of Selfhood and Free Will against the tyranny of Government.

Thus, despite the drastic whittling down of the Bruen issue for review, the arch concern we originally had, that concern is fortunately laid to rest.

The Bruen case holding isn’t lame and feeble. Justice Thomas and the Court’s majority responded to those lunatics that sought to intimidate them, in the furor made over Dobbs.

The U.S. Supreme Court, unlike the First Two Branches, is not, in its present arrangement will not be intimidated, and that frustrates the Biden Administration and the Democrat Party-Controlled Congress.

Unlike the first Two Branches of Government, the Third Branch is determined to do its duty to defend God, Constitution, the Country, and the Sovereign American People.

How will the Malcontents and Miscreants Respond to the Bruen Decision?

The High Court has thrown down the Gauntlet to the Obstructors and Destructors intent on dismantling our Republic and subjugating our people.

How will the corrupt, seditious legacy media respond? How will New York State Governor Hochul and New York City Mayor Adams respond? How will their counterparts in other affected jurisdictions respond?

Also, how will the corrupt Biden Administration respond? How will the poisonous vipers in the Democrat Party in Congress respond? And last, how will the effete Eunuchs in the Republican Party respond?

We will discuss these questions and issues and analyze Bruen and its impact on Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist influences and responses to Bruen in upcoming Arbalest Quarrel articles.

For the moment, at least, the Nation can breathe a shared sigh of relief, and the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia can smile down upon both our Nation and its people from Heaven above and lay serenely at rest.

Here is the recent court opinion in full for your reading pleasure.

https://www.scribd.com/document/579433922/New-York-State-Rifle-Pistol-Assn-Inc-v-Bruen-Decision#download&from_embed


About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

Arbalest Quarrel

 

Radical Left pushes INSURRECTION: Calls to demolish U.S. Supreme Court after landmark pro-2A decision affirming individual right to self-defense

Image: Radical Left pushes INSURRECTION: Calls to demolish U.S. Supreme Court after landmark pro-2A decision affirming individual right to self-defense

BY ETHAN HUFF

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-06-24-radical-left-pushes-insurrection-demolish-us-supreme-court-landmark-pro2a-decision.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) The Supreme Court has struck down a longtime gun control law that barred most people from carrying a firearm concealed. And MSNBC talking-head Keith Olbermann is enraged.

On Twitter, Olbermann called for an insurrection against the Supreme Court, including its total abolishment. If that does not work, then Olbermann wants people to just ignore the court entirely and pretend as though it does not exist.

“It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States,” Olbermann declared on Twitter with about 2,700 “likes,” as of this writing. “The first step is for a state the ‘court’ has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling.”

In other words, Olbermann wants law enforcement to continue prosecuting anyone in New York who is caught with a concealed firearm, even though the Supreme Court has decided that carrying concealed in New York is fully constitutional and in alignment with the Second Amendment.

“Great. You’re a court? Why and how do you think you can enforce your rulings?” Olbermann further added, along with the hashtag #IgnoreTheCourt.

Olbermann curses every Supreme Court justice who ruled in favor of the Second Amendment

Olbermann did not stop there, though. In two additional tweets, he taunted SCOTUS over the decision, mocking the court’s apparent inability, according to him, to actually enforce the new ruling.

“Hey SCOTUS, send the SCOTUS army here to enforce your ruling, you House of Lords radicals pretending to be a court,” Olbermann jested, unable to see the irony in his own statement.

The irony, in case you missed it too, is that it will be much harder to continue enforcing the concealed carry ban than it will be to just let it go. Perhaps Olbermann is planning to walk around the Big Apple strip-searching people himself in pursuit of hidden guns?

In a third tweet, Olbermann resorted to a foul-mouthed curse on Supreme Court Justices Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, “and the paralegal Coney Barrett” for voting to restore New Yorkers’ Second Amendment rights.

The 6-3 decision will also reportedly allow more people in other states to legally carry guns on the streets, including in larger cities such as Los Angeles and Boston where similar gun control measures were enacted.

“The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” said Justice Thomas about the decision.

Olbermann obviously disagrees and wants a full insurrection on the highest court in the land in order to remedy the situation to his liking. Remember, this is the same guy who repeatedly condemned the “insurrectionists” for entering the Capitol building through the velvet ropes and wide-open doors on Jan. 6, 2021.

“I think it’s time for the dissolution of Keith Olbermann!” joked one commenter.

“This sounds kind of … seditious?” wrote another.

Someone else pointed out that at no point has the Supreme Court decided to “force guns” onto anyone, as Olbermann falsely suggested in his deranged rant.

“Holy howitzers and bazookas, Batman!” this person wrote.

“As for Twitter, it’s revealing about the people who have been thrown off of the platform, including President Trump. But it’s even MORE revealing about those whom Twitter has allowed to remain on it, in good standing.”

Others pointed out the hypocrisy of the Left in simultaneously demanding the “right” to murder unborn and even newborn children while also demanding an end to the Second Amendment because think of the children!

“Look at all the stories with the same bu****it talking point: ‘Supreme Court expands gun rights’ … more like restored a constitutional right,” added another.

More related news coverage about the war on guns can be found at SecondAmendment.news.

Sources for this article include:

CitizenFreePress.com

CitizenFreePress.com

NaturalNews.com

 

Roe Overturned, Battle to Save Babies Begins

The Supreme Court's outrageous Roe v Wade decision purporting to allow the mass slaughter of babies has been overturned, but this is merely a baby step in the right direction, said The New American magazine's Senior Editor Alex Newman in this brief news update. He warned that terror attacks by pro-abortion forces are likely to continue and that advocates for unborn children must now go on offense to stop the slaughter. Alex also discusses the constitutional issues at play here.

West Point cadets being taught Critical Race Theory and anti-whiteness

The Department of Defense did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment
New documents exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital reveal that the U.S. Army is teaching West Point cadets critical race theory (CRT), including addressing "whiteness."

Fox News Digital exclusively obtained the documents from government watchdog group Judicial Watch, which had to sue the military twice under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to get the information.

"Our military is under attack – from within," Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said in the press release. "These documents show racist, anti-American CRT propaganda is being used to try to radicalize our rising generation of Army leadership at West Point."

Woke indoctrination at West Point?

TUCKER CARLSON & TOM FITTON OF JUDICIAL WATCH:

Army cadets participate in Parade Day at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., May 22, 2019. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan) ** FILE **

BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2022/06/west-point-cadets-being-taught-critical-race-theory-and-anti-whiteness;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

What could possibly go wrong with any country teaching its army hatred and shame for its own history and heritage? Under the woke blokes of the American Left, that’s exactly what’s happening, with no recognition of the evolution of the country from black slavery to voting in a black president.

What West Point cadets are now being taught is cringeworthy. It is guaranteed that Western enemies including China, Russia, and Iran are teaching national pride, despite the human rights abuse of each regime governing those countries.

America is being slowly destroyed from within as Critical Race Theory, extreme Green lunacy, and gender madness indoctrinate a whole generation, with too few willing to resist.

“US Army teaching Critical Race Theory to West Point cadets: report,” by David Propper, New York Post, June 20, 2022:

The US Army has introduced Critical Race Theory to West Point cadets, new documents show, according to Fox News Digital.

The “woke” lessons ask cadets about whiteness while encouraging them to apply Critical Race Theory to their answers, according to documents obtained by Judicial Watch and given to Fox News.

The more than 600 documents were only handed over to Judicial Watch after the conservative organization sued the Department of Defense….

According to Fox News, a slide that delved into “Whiteness” states: “In order to understand racial inequality and slavery, it is first necessary to address whiteness” and the “Take-for-grantedness of whiteness.”

The slide also claims whiteness “is a location of structural advantage, of race privilege,” is “a standpoint or place from which white people look at themselves and the rest of society” and “refers to a set of cultural practices that are usually unmarked and unnamed.”

Another slide addresses affirmative action and asks “Do you think Affirmative Action creates an environment for ‘reverse discrimination? Use CRT to support your answer.”

A slide also poses the question “how would you apply a tenant [sic] of CRT to this idea,” referring to the difference between desegregation and integration.

In another slide, under Critical Race Theory, it states, “racism is ordinary” and “White Americans have primarily benefited from civil rights legislation.”…

_________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/20/west-point-cadets-schooled-whiteness-queer-theory-/

AND: https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/06/west-point-teaching-cadets-critical-race-theory-queer-theory-and-whiteness-docs-reveal/

JUDICIAL WATCH DOCUMENTS:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-fights-west-point-stonewall-on-racist-propaganda/

https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/jw-v-dod-west-point-crt-02616-pg-9/

https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/jw-v-dod-west-point-crt-02616-pg-13/

https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/jw-v-dod-west-point-crt-02616-pgs-475-487/

DR. STEVE TURLEY: I’ve HAD IT with Feckless RINOs!!!!

★★★ YOUR PATRIOT PROFESSOR ★★★

We’re going to look at the out-and-out betrayal of Republican voters by 14 feckless RINOs, we’re going to see what patriots are saying about it, and make sure to stick with me to the very end of this video when I’ll reveal what we need to do to finally rid ourselves of these vile Republicans in Name Only once and for all; you are NOT going to want to miss this!

Supreme Court Issues Landmark Ruling Expanding Gun Rights~MANY STATES AFFECTED~New York’s “proper cause” requirement for obtaining a concealed carry license violated the Constitution because it “prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”

US Supreme Court expands gun rights despite plague of mass shootings

Supreme Court CRUSHES Gun Control Across the Nation!!!!

★★★ YOUR PATRIOT PATH TO FREEDOM! ★★★

DR. STEVE TURLEY: A HUGE win for the 2nd Amendment! The Supreme Court rules in favor of constitutional carry and in effect crushes gun control across the nation! We’re going to look at the ruling, we’re going to see how it has all but killed the absurd plans for gun control among Republicans, and stick with me to the very end of this video when we’ll see how this Second Amendment revolution that’s sweeping the nation is also going to sweep these feckless Republicans out of office; you are NOT going to want to miss this!

Huge Win For 2a!!

SCOTUS strikes down NY concealed carry restrictions in gun rights case

Supreme Court Expands Gun Rights, Striking New York Limits

BY PAULA BOLYARD

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/paula-bolyard/2022/06/23/breaking-supreme-court-issues-landmark-ruling-expanding-gun-rights-n1607473;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a 6-3 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, expanding gun rights for the first time in more than a decade.The majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, held that New York’s “proper cause” requirement for obtaining a concealed carry license violated the Constitution because it “prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”New York’s restrictions, enacted more than a hundred years ago, required those who wish to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense to show “proper cause” rather than have a presumption of the right to carry. Similar laws exist in Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, Maryland, and California, where this ruling will have a huge ripple effect.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority, with Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissenting.

“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,'” Thomas wrote in the opinion. “The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”

Related: The Real Reason the Left Won’t Sign Effective Gun Safety Measures

In a footnote, Thomas added that “nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ ‘shall-issue’ licensing regimes, under which ‘a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].'”

“Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry,” he explained. “Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens.'”

Thomas pointed out that “because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”

In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote: “Many states have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence… by passing laws that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds. The Court today severely burdens States’ efforts to do so.” He went on to list pages and pages of statistics on gun violence.

Justice Alito rebuked the court’s liberal justices in his scathing concurrence:

Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?

The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?…

…The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection for the State’s nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live in New York City. Some of these people live in high-crime neighborhoods. Some must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening activities. Some are members of groups whose members feel especially vulnerable. And some of these people reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury.

Alito added, “And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.”

That may be the most common-sense comment on guns we’ve heard in a very long time.

Today is a very good day for the rights of citizens to protect themselves.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen by PJ Media on Scribd

White House Pushing Covid Jabs for Babies and Toddlers Despite Disastrous Data on Safety and Efficacy

White House Pushing Covid Jabs for Babies and Toddlers Despite Disastrous Data on Safety and Efficacy

Kim Iversen: Biden's SHOTS FOR TOTS Rollout FAILS As Parents Don't Show To Sites

Kim Iversen reviews the success of the Biden administration's campaign to vaccinate babies and toddlers against COVID-19.

According to the CDC the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the known and potential risks.

Children who get COVID-19 can get very sick, can require treatment in a hospital, and in rare situations, can even die. After getting COVID-19, children and teens can also experience a wide range of new, returning, or ongoing health problems. Getting eligible children vaccinated can help prevent them from getting really sick even if they do get infected and help prevent serious short- and long-term complications of COVID-19.
Vaccinating children can also keep them in school and daycare and safely participating in sports, playdates, and other group activities.

Emerging evidence indicates that people can get added protection by getting vaccinated after having been infected with COVID-19. So, even if a child has had COVID-19, they should still get vaccinated.
Serious reactions after COVID-19 vaccination in children and teens are rare. When they are reported, serious reactions most frequently occur the day after vaccination.

Rare cases of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the outer lining of the heart) have been reported after children and teens got a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. New studies have shown the rare risk of myocarditis and pericarditis associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccination—mostly among males between the ages of 12 and 39 years—may be further reduced with a longer time between the first and second dose.

In children ages 5 through 11 years, there were 11 confirmed reports of myocarditis out of 8 million doses given of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine between November through December 2021.

In reports of myocarditis following mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination from December 2020 to August 2021external icon, the risk of myocarditis was highest following the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in adolescents and young adult males.

Reporting rates were around 70 cases per million doses in males ages 12 through 15 years and 105 cases per million doses in males ages 16 through 17 years.

Everyone ages 12 years and older should get a COVID-19 booster shot. Currently, a booster shot is not recommended for children younger than 12 years of age.

The CDC says Getting a booster enhances or restores protection against COVID-19, which may have decreased over time. People ages 12 years and older who are moderately or severely immunocompromised should receive 4 total doses of COVID-19 vaccine—a primary series of 3 doses, plus, when eligible, 1 booster dose.

In March of 2022, the CDC expanded eligibility for an additional booster dose for certain individuals who may be at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19. Boosters are safe, and people over the age of 50 can now get an additional booster 4 months after their prior dose to increase their protection further. This is especially important for those 65 and older and those 50 and older with underlying medical conditions that increase their risk for severe disease from COVID-19 as they are the most likely to benefit from receiving an additional booster dose at this time.

The CDC says layered prevention strategies — like staying up to date on vaccines and wearing masks — can help prevent severe illness and reduce the potential for strain on the healthcare system. Everyone ages 2 years and older should properly wear a well-fitting mask indoors in public in areas where the COVID-19 Community Level is high, regardless of vaccination status.

According to Pfizer and the CDC, potential side effects from the vaccine include pain, redness, or swelling at the injection site. Other side effects could include tiredness, headache, muscle pain, fever, chills, and nausea. In rare cases, people have experienced serious health events after the COVID-19 vaccination. Any health problem that happens after vaccination is considered an adverse event. According to the CDC: Although the overall risks are low, if you are pregnant or were recently pregnant, you are more likely to get very sick from COVID-19 compared to people who are not pregnant. CDC recommends COVID-19 vaccines for everyone ages 6 months and older, and boosters for everyone ages 5 years and older if eligible.

COVID-19 vaccines available for children include:
Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines
Moderna COVID-19 vaccines
Everyone should continue to follow all current prevention measures recommended by CDC and based on the latest COVID-19 Community Level data.

BY VERONIKA KYRYLENKO

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/white-house-pushing-covid-jabs-for-babies-and-toddlers-despite-disastrous-data-on-safety-and-efficacy/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

President Joe Biden addressed the nation on Tuesday to mark the day when children as young as six months old could receive experimental gene therapeutics, aka Covid vaccines, and praised the United States for becoming the first country in the world to offer mRNA shots to babies.

Calling the emergency use authorization of Covid shots from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna “a very historic milestone” and a “monumental step forward,” the president said how important it was to offer “lifesaving vaccines” to “nearly every American.”  

Biden went on to describe how his administration “has been planning and preparing” to get the littlest ones jabbed and how accessible Covid shots will be for some 20 million of the youngest of Americans thanks to his administration:

My administration, with the help of the CDC, has been planning and preparing [for] this moment — for this moment for a long time.  Since I took office, we’ve been committed to making sure every parent has the opportunity to protect their children from COVID-19.  We’ve secured enough doses and we’re launching a comprehensive effort with states, local health departments, pediatricians, family doctors, pharmacies, rural health clinics, community health centers, and other trusted messengers and partners to get the word out to get — help to get shots in arms.

(Among other preparations, the White House started ordering Covid vaccines for the youngest children even before they were authorized.)

The president then took a hit at Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who openly opposes vaccination of children against Covid and who on Monday reaffirmed his decision to not preorder shots or offer them at state health departments for the youngest Americans.

“We are not going to have any programs where we’re trying to jab 6-month-old babies with mRNA,” DeSantis said, according to the Orlando Sentinel. “We still have not ordered it. We’re not going to order it.”

Back in March, the Florida Health Department recommended against Covid vaccines for healthy children, arguing that the risks of vaccinating them “may outweigh the benefits.” 

In regard to vaccines for babies, the state’s surgeon general, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, who also serves as the state’s health secretary, expressed his criticism over the federal government allowing for the experimental injections:

Did the COVID-19 vaccine trials for kids <5 show a reduction in severe illness? Did the trials show a benefit for those with a prior COVID-19 infection? Is there a benefit for kids with no pre-existing conditions? Florida puts data over ideology. That’s not going to change.

Biden, apparently, thinks otherwise. He said that the shots were “approved after extensive scientific review” and that “elected officials” should not “make it difficult” for parents to “keep them and those around them safe,” even though it has been a year since the CDC confirmed that the vaccines prevent neither infection nor transmission of Covid.

Speaking with CBS News on Tuesday, White House Chief Covid-19 Response Coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha said that all children should get vaccinated even if they have natural immunity from a previous Covid infection.

Also on Tuesday, the president and First Lady Jill Biden visited a Washington, D.C., vaccine clinic that hosted the first vaccination event for the newly eligible age group.

That was the first day when children under five could receive Covid shots, following the authorization last week by the FDA and the CDC.

The CDC’s own data, however, clearly show that Covid poses no “deadly threat” to children and does not justify an emergency authorization of the shoddily tested vaccines. According to CDC data — for what’s it worth — as of June 2, infants younger than one accounted for 299, and children aged one to four for 143, out of 1,005,236 total deaths associated with Covid in the United States. Not a single child has died since March 5.

Further, Pfizer’s and Moderna’s own data submitted to the FDA’s vaccine advisory panel suggest that the shots are useless for children, at best.

In a four-minute video (below), Dr. Clare Craig, co-chair of the HART group, summarized the clinical trial that was used to justify vaccinating our kids. Because of the irregularities of the clinical trial and its results showing an unacceptable lack of efficacy and adequate safety data, the trial should have been recognized as null and void.

Children’s Health Defense, a prominent health nonprofit, has also analyzed the data presented to the FDA and pointed to the numerous shortcomings and irregularities of the trials.

Perhaps the most surprising data point regarding the shots was their negative efficacy, yet not a single FDA vaccine advisory panelist raised the issue of failure to meet the FDA’s required 50% efficacy.

“Pfizer has a serious problem: Its two-dose data reflected the reality [that] the confidence interval for their estimate of the number of cases prevented by three doses of their vaccine points, if anything, to negative efficacy (-369.1 to 99.6),” reads the analysis.

The report’s author predicts “the entire vaccination program is going to drive COVID-19 numbers up across the board routinely and on a regular, ongoing basis due to antibody-dependent enhancement.”

According to Kaiser Family Foundation polling, only about 18 percent of parents of children under the age of five are eager to get their children vaccinated right away, while a larger share (38 percent) plan to wait a while to see how the vaccine is working for others.

 

Gas Just Ran Out~2A Red Flagged~GUN CONTROL!~Ukraine Losing Badly

In this episode of The Silent War: Zelensky Says Russian Attacks To Intensify During EU Summit As Moscow Claims Kalibr Strike Killed '50 Officers & Generals.'

Bidenomics: East Coast Truckers Are Stalled Out on the Highway Waiting for Gas – The Gas Stations Are Out of Diesel.

After Having His Own Flight Cancelled, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg Finally Decides to do Something About Cancelled Flights.

Protesters chant ‘stop NATO’ at massive rally in heart of EU.

Senate Releases Text Of Gun Bill That Would Mark 'Biggest Change In Decades.'

 

New Metro DC Police Report Confirms Plainclothes “Electronic Surveillance Unit” Operatives Were Embedded in the Crowd on Jan. 6 to Record Protesters – Used Rainbow Color Wristbands to Identify Each Other.

Elon Musk’s teen offspring reveals name & gender change .

Meet the 14 GOP Senators Who Voted to Advance ‘Gun Safety’ Bill

BY CHRIS QUEEN

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/chris-queen/2022/06/22/meet-the-14-gop-senators-who-voted-to-advance-gun-safety-bill-n1607115;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

On Tuesday night, the Senate voted to advance a “gun safety” bill in response to shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, N.Y. (the media has conveniently forgotten the shooting at a church in Laguna Woods, Calif., that took place between the other two shootings but didn’t fit The Narrative™ for the gun-control crowd).

The Hill framed the vote as the moment when the Senate “broke through nearly 30 years of stalemate on gun control legislation.”

I won’t rehash the bill here; instead, I’ll refer to my colleague Stephen Kruiser, who pointed out the worst features of the 80-page legislation:

There are two HUGE problems with this legislation, especially for conservatives: it legitimizes both federal intervention in state matters and “red flag” laws. The latter is particularly problematic because implementation is rife with gray areas, no matter how many stipulations are in place. As I have been fond of saying, once red-flag laws are on the books, we’re on the most slippery of slippery slopes. One day people are raising legitimate concerns, the next we have people reporting the neighbor who just rubs them the wrong way.

Those facts didn’t stop the measure from passing by a vote of 64-34. Every single one of the Democrats voted in favor of advancing the bill, which means that 14 Republicans went along with it. Here they are:

Some of those names are the usual suspects, the ones who are going to “go rogue” and vote with the Dems on other issues too.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the guy whose constituents booed him over his support for compromise legislation, ran point on the negotiations with Democrats at the behest of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

The Hill reports the negotiations in a way that makes them sound just as sinister as compromising with Democrats to violate the Second Amendment should: “McConnell tapped Cornyn to lead the negotiations for Republicans shortly after a bipartisan group of senators met in Murphy’s basement to begin talks in hopes of finding a way to respond to the Buffalo and Uvalde shootings.”

One of the most remarkable things about this list is that, while the usual squishes (Collins, Murkowski, Romney) appear on it, none of them have a low rating with the National Rifle Association. In fact, Collins rates a B with the NRA, while the rest have an A (Portman, Romney, Blunt, Cassidy, Graham, Tillis, Capito, Ernst, Murkowski) or an A+ (Cornyn, McConnell, Burr, Young) rating from the NRA.

Related: How (and Why) the Media Deliberately Inflates the Numbers on School Shootings

Of the “GOP Gun Control 14,” as Off the Press calls them, only Murkowski and Young are facing re-election in 2022. Blunt, Burr, and Portman aren’t running for another term, so the vast majority of these senators have nothing to lose this election cycle.

Gun rights groups aren’t happy, needless to say.

“Once again, so-called ‘conservative’ Senators are making clear they believe that the rights of American citizens can be compromised away,” Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America said in a statement. “Let me be clear, they have NO AUTHORITY to compromise with our rights, and we will not tolerate legislators who are willing to turn gun owners into second-class citizens.”

“We will oppose this gun control legislation because it falls short at every level,” read a statement from the NRA. “It does little to truly address violent crime while opening the door to unnecessary burdens on the exercise of Second Amendment freedom by law-abiding gun owners. This bill leaves too much discretion in the hands of government officials and also contains undefined and overbroad provisions – inviting interference with our constitutional freedoms.”

Stephen Gutowski reports at The Reload:

“Since the shooting, my office has received tens of thousands of calls, letters, and emails with a singular message: Do something,” Senator John Cornyn (R., Texas), a negotiator from the Republican side, said in a floor speech. “Not do nothing. But do something. I think we’ve found some areas where there is some space for compromise”

“Today, we finalized bipartisan, commonsense legislation to protect America’s children, keep our schools safe, and reduce the threat of violence across our country,” Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D., Ariz.), a key coalition member from the Democratic side, said in a statement. “Our legislation will save lives and will not infringe on any law-abiding American’s Second Amendment rights.”

Gutowski also points out that the vote to advance the bill suggests that the votes are there to pass the bill before Congress goes on its Independence Day break.

‘Disinformation’ Police to Silence ALL Non-Government Narratives, Warns Former Fed

The federal government is launching a war on so-called disinformation that is a cover for silencing critics while promoting government-approved disinformation, warned former federal officer Celeste Solum in this interview with The New American magazine Alex Newman for Conversations That Matter. According to Solum, who worked in disinformation and attended government training, all non-government narratives are in the crosshairs of total silencing. Former Homeland Security boss Michael Chertoff is overseeing the latest effort, she added. Patriots and those who love freedom must continue to speak out.

Biden continues to draw down stocks of U.S. weapons and ammo with ongoing ‘military assistance’ to Ukraine

Image: Biden continues to draw down stocks of U.S. weapons and ammo with ongoing ‘military assistance’ to Ukraine

BY J.D. HEYES

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-06-21-biden-continues-draw-down-us-weapons-stocks-military-assistance-ukraine.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) The Biden regime continues to weaken America with a lot of help from Congress as they rush to provide all of the “military assistance” they can to Ukraine, even to the point of draining U.S. military war stocks down to dangerously low levels.

This, at a time when China has built the world’s largest navy, has just launched its third and most advanced aircraft carrier, and is threatening Taiwan more than ever.

Also, it’s not as if Russia doesn’t know what’s going on, as reported by the Kremlin-aligned Russia Today website:

A new weaponry wish list claimed to be sufficient to “throw Russia out of Ukraine,” was unveiled on Monday by Mikhail Podolyak, a top adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky. The new call has effectively pushed Ukraine’s demand for Western-made weapons to the limit, with even the US at risk of running out, multiple media outlets have suggested.

The demand includes 1,000 NATO-standard 155mm howitzers, 300 multiple-launch rocket systems, 500 tanks, 2,000 armored vehicles, and 1,000 drones. It is unclear what types of drones and armored vehicles Kiev needs to repel the ongoing Russian offensive that began in late February.

It’s clear that most European NATO members have nowhere near that kind of weaponry just sitting around collecting dust. So naturally, in order to fulfill even a scaled-back version of the wish list, the bulk of it will have to come from the military-industrial complex within the United States. And already, American taxpayers are the principal suppliers of gear and money to Ukraine.

“Fulfilling the demands would effectively require the US – the top supplier of weapons to Ukrainian troops over the course of the conflict – to disarm its own military, multiple Western media outlets pointed out,” RT.com reported.

For instance, the number of MLRS systems that Ukraine is demanding would consist of half of the Pentagon’s existing supply of such weapons, according to The  Guardian, which cited publicly available figures assembled by the Institute for Strategic Studies. The report said that the U.S. Army has around 363 HIMARS towed rocket artillery pieces and another 225 M270 MLRS tracked launchers; the U.S. Marines have another 47 such systems.

“The demand for 155mm artillery would effectively empty the US of active stock altogether, as it would require the Pentagon to surrender nearly all of its M777 howitzers, according to the article,” RT.com reported. That said, the Pentagon also has thousands of older, towed artillery pieces that are held in reserve and could potentially send many of those to Ukraine — which still is not advisable.

The only demand that the U.S. and NATO could reasonably fulfill without putting too much strain on their respective militaries is Ukraine’s request for tanks. The Marine Corps is in the process of ditching all of its heavy M1A1 Abrams tanks, but the Army has an inventory fleet of around 6,000 of them in storage and currently on active duty, though it’s clear that Ukrainian crews would need to be trained on them, which would take weeks. And that’s only after the tanks arrived in the theater and Russia did not immediately target them (it would be better to fly Ukrainian crews to the U.S. and train them on American soil).

The Financial Times, meanwhile, looked at the Ukrainian request as its sum total of military equipment needed in the fight against Russia, some of which has already been delivered — not a completely new list.

But even if that were the case, the “wish list could only be covered partially with some 270 tanks ‘delivered or pledged’ during the conflict,” RT.com reported.

The fact is, NATO countries have very little spare capacity and much of what they have in storage is antiquated and no match for Russia’s frontline equipment. The wish list will have to be fulfilled by the U.S. and if Biden does it, he is intentionally putting America at risk.

Sources include:

RT.com

FT.com

 

CALIFORNIA SPRECKELS UNION School DISTRICT Secretly TRANSES Little Girl?!

The parents of a 12-year-old girl in the Spreckels Union School District (SUSD) in Salinas, California, claimed school staff indoctrinated their daughter into identifying as “trans fluid” after encouraging her to join a lunchtime “Equality Club.”

Executive director and general counsel to the Center for American Liberty, Mark Trammell joined "In Focus with Addison Smith" to discuss a lawsuit involving a mother and 11-year-old girl versus her school district, who allegedly roped the daughter into an equality club and eventually convinced her to identify as a boy, all while hiding it from the mother.

Dr. Simone Gold sentenced to PRISON for speaking at U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021

Image: Dr. Simone Gold sentenced to PRISON for speaking at U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021

BY ETHAN HUFF

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-06-20-simone-gold-sentenced-prison-speaking-capital-january-6.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) One of the faces of America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) has been sentenced to prison after she pleaded guilty back in March to a class A misdemeanor.

Dr. Simone Gold, we reported back in January of 2021, was arrested after she entered the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021, and delivered a speech via megaphone about the dangers and ineffectiveness of Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines.”

She further discussed viable remedies such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin, urging listeners to protect their natural DNA and immune systems rather than take an experimental injection that could – and likely will in the coming years for everyone who took it – kill them.

For the “crime” of entering the People’s building through the neatly positioned velvet ropes that were placed almost as a guide for those herded inside by law enforcement assets, Gold will now have to serve a two-month prison sentence.

Her guilty plea in March of this year admitted to “entering and remaining in a restricted building.” She clearly would have been better off burning down a small business or a target like Black Lives Matter (BLM) terrorists did without penalty.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, D.C., also sentenced Gold to 12 months of supervised release following her 60-day prison term and ordered her to pay a $9,500 fine.

Judge called it “unseemly” that AFLDS raised money for Gold’s salary by telling supporters her arrest was unfair prosecution

The judge told Gold that her statements about Fauci Flu shots did not factor into her sentencing. According to him, Gold was not a “casual bystander” on January 6, but rather an “insurrectionist.”

Cooper did accuse AFLDS, Gold’s organization, of “misleading” supporters into believing that her prosecution was politically motivated and that it trampled her First Amendment rights.

Cooper went on to call it “unseemly” that AFLDS is using the Capitol “riot” as a means of raising money, including for Gold’s personal salary.

“I think that is a real disservice to the true victims of that day,” he stated.

Gold traveled to the Capitol on Jan. 5, 2021, to speak at Freedom Plaza. Her intent was simply to deliver a medical speech – and when the gates were opened, so to speak, into the Capitol building, she simply brought her message inside.

Gold never committed any acts of violence, just to be clear. She simply spoke through her megaphone about the scam of the plandemic, and for this she was placed on the FBI’s most wanted release.

“I was paid a visit by the FBI in a Roger Stone kind of takedown moment, which is quite uncalled for,” Gold said about her prosecution.

“You know, if anybody wanted to get a hold of me, they could have picked up the phone and called. I’m very easy to find. But there were literally twenty guys with guns blazing, [and they] broke down my door.”

The FBI essentially raided Gold’s home, all because she spoke her mind about the plandemic and the serious crimes against humanity that were, and still are, being committed in the name of “public health.”

“It was dramatic and what I want to say is that I weep for our country,” Gold added about her mistreatment at the hands of the state.

“If you can pull in a person like me … [and] have the FBI break down your door with 20 guns, shackle you [in] handcuffs [and] drag you off, I mean it was really terrible … I’m telling you, America: this can happen to you.”

More related news about Gold’s arrest and sentencing and other acts of government tyranny can be found at Overlords.news.

Sources for this article include:

TheGatewayPundit.com

NaturalNews.com

Kamala Harris Defends Killing Babies in Abortions: It’s About “Freedom, Liberty, and Self-Determination”

NO FREEDOM TO MURDER THE UNBORN AND/OR THE BORN GRANTED BY GOD AND/OR THE CONSTITUTION:

Harris Avoids Mentioning the words God & Abortion At Apostate 'Faith Leaders' Meeting

Rarely at a loss for words, at a June 6 “Roundtable Discussion” on what Kamala Harris and her PR-team call “Reproductive Healthcare,” and with people the VP labels ”Faith Leaders,” Harris found it impossible, or prohibitively inconvenient, to mention the words “God” and “abortion.”

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/harris-avo...

Kamala Harris holds abortion roundtable with religious leaders: 'We need faith'

SEE: https://www.christianpost.com/news/kamala-harris-holds-abortion-roundtable-with-faith-leaders.html

Biden set to announce migration pact with Western Hemisphere leaders ...

BY Micaiah Bilger 

SEE: https://www.lifenews.com/2022/06/14/kamala-harris-defends-killing-babies-in-abortions-its-about-freedom-liberty-and-self-determination/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Kamala Harris held another meeting with abortion activists Tuesday to discuss ways to prepare for the potential end of Roe v. Wade this summer.

Harris welcomed legal and technology experts who support abortion to a roundtable meeting, signaling the Biden administration’s continued commitment to legalized abortion on demand. It is her third meeting with abortion activists since news broke in May about a leaked draft ruling showing the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe and allowing states to protect unborn babies from abortion again.

“I think we all believe and know that our nation was founded on certain principles that we hold dear: principles of freedom, liberty, and self-determination,” Harris said in her opening statement. “And I do believe that all of those principles are at stake when we look at the leaked draft opinion about what this decision may end up being.”

A White House spokesperson told The Hill that the focus of the meeting was the practical impact of overturning Roe on issues like privacy, contraception, and in vitro fertilization (IVF).
Those invited to attend included New York University School of Law professors Peggy Cooper Davis and Melissa Murray, Harvard Law School professor Glenn Cohen, UC Irvine School of Law professor Michele Bratcher Goodwin, University of Michigan Law School professor Leah Litman, leaders with the Brennan Center for Justice, and Ms. Magazine writer Jennifer Weiss-Wolf, according to the report.

A White House official told CNN that the Biden administration wants to build a strong coalition of abortion supporters to work together in response to the likely ruling.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

“What’s important to keep in mind here is that some of the vice president’s goals really have been around ensuring that people in this country have an understanding of what is at stake here,” the official said. “And that does take some work in terms of building out who is the coalition of people that are affected by this, that are interested in having their voices be heard.”

These meetings also appear to be an attempt to draw positive attention to Harris, who is widely unpopular with Americans. According to CNN, “Tuesday’s event, an official told CNN, will draw on Harris’ ability to bring people from wide-ranging backgrounds together to work on specific issues.”

Last week, Harris held a meeting with pro-abortion religious leaders and, in mid-May, with abortion workers to talk about ways to keep abortions legal and available if the Supreme Court allows states to protect unborn babies from abortion again.

Harris said the Biden administration supports “unfettered” abortion – meaning the killing of unborn babies for any reason up to birth, paid for by taxpayers. She also made the baseless claim that overturning Roe would lead to banning same-sex marriage and contraception in the near future.

To Harris, unborn babies’ lives do not matter as much as “self-determination.” Harris also has claimed that aborting an unborn baby is about the “right to live and love.”

Harris’s position on abortion is radical and out of touch with most Americans. A former U.S. senator, she co-sponsored a bill that would have forced states to legalize the killing of unborn babies in abortions for basically any reason up to birth, even if Roe is overturned, and forced taxpayers to pay for them.

Since Roe in 1973, more than 63 million unborn babies and hundreds of mothers have died in supposedly “safe, legal” abortions.

It appears the Supreme Court likely will overturn Roe this summer after a leaked draft shows the justices ruling against the 1973 decision in the Mississippi case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. If that happens, states will be allowed to protect unborn babies again, and experts predict as many as 26 will do so. This would result in hundreds of thousands of unborn babies being saved from abortions every year.

______________________________________________________________

Today, Vice President Kamala Harris held a roundtable in Los Angeles, California with faith leaders to discuss some of the most urgent challenges facing our communities, including protecting reproductive rights and addressing the epidemic of hate that is gripping our nation.
 
Attendees discussed the importance of protecting access to reproductive health care, preserving the right to self-determination for individuals and families, and working together to chart the path forward. The Vice President affirmed the key role faith leaders play in bringing people together to move our country in the direction of justice, and she highlighted the constitutional rights affirmed in Roe, including the right to privacy, which protects the right to use contraception, and the freedom to marry the person you love.
 
Participants underscored the importance of ensuring that health care decisions are made by women without government interference, and the need to work together as a coalition to safeguard this right. The Vice President raised that the Louisiana legislature passed a bill that would ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest, saying the bill illustrates that there is a clear and imminent threat to the shared principle of allowing women to make decisions about their own bodies.
 
During the conversation, the Vice President also raised the issue of gun violence that has been plaguing our nation. The Vice President thanked the faith leaders for the important role they play in working toward healing, hope, and unity in their congregations and communities.
 
The Vice President affirmed that faith leaders are essential partners to the Administration and that she looks forward to continuing to work with them to build coalitions across faiths.

Participants included:

  • Pastor Demetries Edwards, Pastor, 23rd Avenue Church of God (Oakland, CA)
  • Rabbi Dara Frimmer, Senior Rabbi, Temple Isaiah (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Rev. Edgar Boyd, Senior Minister, First AME Church (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Nitasha Kaur Sawhney, Sikh civil rights advocate, and lawyer (La Cañada, CA)
  • Edina Lekovic, UCLA Community Scholar in Residence, Islamic Studies Program (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Claire Lipschultz, VP of Board of Directors, National Council of Jewish Women (Sacramento, CA)
  • Rev. Dr. Amos Brown, Pastor, Third Baptist Church (San Francisco, CA)
  • Jackie Dupont Walker, Director, Social Action Commission, AME Church (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Reverend Dr. Young Lee Hertig, Executive Director, Innovative Space for Asian American Christianity (Los Angeles, CA).
  • Rev. Najuma Smith-Pollard, Assistant Director of Community and Public Engagement, USC Center for Religion and Civic Culture (Los Angeles, CA).

The Vice President was also joined by:

  • Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA)
  • Representative Jimmy Gomez (D-CA-34)
  • Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis
  • Mayor Eric Garcetti

Criminalizing Political Opposition~JANUARY 6TH, 2021 PRISONERS STILL ABUSED BY CAPITOL POLICE, PRISON GUARDS~LEGAL REPRESENTATION

Shocking New Video Released - Raw Footage of Cops Beating Lifeless Roseanne

New York attorney Joe McBride told One America News the January 6th panel's "primetime special" is a purposeful attempt to damage grand jury pools across the country. One America's John Hines has more from Washington.

SEE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0i7WaqOruuNxpMyvxLH1fw/videos

AND: https://www.mcbridelawnyc.com/

Attorney McBride poses questions for members of J6 panel primetime hearing

New York attorney Joe McBride, who has represented several clients before the January 6 Committee, told One America News that the panel has failed to answer several basic key questions about what happened on that day. One America's John Hines has more from Washington.

Jan.6 political prisoner speaks out as hearings begin

SEE: https://www.j6truth.org/

Rosanne Boyland BEATEN While UNCONSCIOUS by DC Metro Police on J6

JAKE LANG'S DOCUMENTARY:

Jan. 6: Capitol Police ‘gassed,’ ‘beat Trump supporter Rosanne Boyland til she died,’ government then cremated her

BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

SEE: https://robertspencer.org/2022/06/jan-6-capitol-police-gassed-beat-trump-supporter-rosanne-boyland-til-she-died-government-then-cremated-her;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Recall the Charlottesville protest that became violent after clashes between the Unite the Right rally and so-called “anti-racism” counter-protesters. James Alex Fields Jr. rammed his car into the crowd and was subsequently found guilty of killing Heather Heyer and injuring dozens. The Left zeroed on the tragedy to the exclusion of all other tragedies — from Black Lives Matter to the ongoing jihad.

During the Black Lives Matter melee, at least 11 Americans were killed, along with another 14 incidents linked to the hooliganism that saw businesses vandalized and burned to the ground, historic statues destroyed, and even children killed in the unrest. Townhall ran an article: Five Black Children Murdered this Month that ‘Black Lives Matter’ will Never Mention.

Yet USA Today ridiculously stated in yet another so-called “Fact Check” article:

Since the nationwide protests following George Floyd’s murder in summer 2020, misinformation about Black Lives Matter has spread online, ranging from misleading claims about the movement’s founder to false assertions about the group’s politics.

The publications by these self-proclaimed fact-checkers and their eagerness to scream “misinformation” have become so biased that every time you see an article preceded by “fact check” or the word “misinformation,” brace yourself for Leftist propaganda.

BLM founder Patrisse Cullors — a self-described trained Marxist — “paid her baby father $970,000 for ‘creative services’, her brother $840,000 for security, a fellow director $2.1m and reimbursed the organization $73,000 for a charter flight.” When Candace Owens confronted Cullors at her home, all she could come up with was to smear right-wingers as “dangerous,” and she lambasted Owens for being a black woman perpetuating a “white agenda.” Black Lives Matter made a fool out of the gullible Left as it swelled its pockets and did nothing for blacks.

The entire Leftist activist media obsession has stayed laser-focused on Charlottesville and then on the manipulated event of January 6. At the latter, Rosanne Boyland was killed. Vanity Fair wrote that she became “radicalized,” and that it was the violent crowds that killed her. CNN ran a “fact check” claiming that she died of an amphetamine overdose.

Now the Gateway Pundit has published the damning report below. It’s disturbing and includes video footage, for which viewer discretion is advised. Police who are sworn to protect and serve are seen as violent brutes, willing to serve the will of dark overlords. The report states that police virtually murdered Rosanne Boyland, in a coverup that is troubling and revealing of the Leftist vision for America.

Socialism inevitably leads to violence, death, and loss of freedoms — all justified as “for the public good.” Its hallmarks are chaos, increased poverty (except for the overlords and media), division, and no respect for human life — from those in the womb to the aged.

“NEVER FORGET: Capitol Police Gassed and Beat Trump Supporter Rosanne Boyland til She Died — Then The Government Cremated Her Body So Her Family Could Not See Her Bloody Wounds,” by Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit, June 9, 2022:

The highly anticipated documentary “The Truth About January 6th” premiered Monday on The Gateway Pundit! This groundbreaking documentary contains never-before-seen footage of and commentary on January 6th.

Watch the film HERE and share to get out the truth about January 6th!

This film is historical in the fact it was co-produced and narrated by January 6th Political Prisoner Jake Lang from solitary confinement. Lang is arguably one of the most persecuted January 6th defendants and political prisoners in America today.

On September 10, 2021, The Gateway Pundit contributor Cara Castronuova was first to expose Officer Lila Morris as the Capitol Hill Police Officer who viciously and repeatedly beat Rosanne Boyland as she lay unconscious on the US Capitol steps.

Morris beat Boyland so hard and so many times that she lost her stick!

Rosanne Boyland was lifeless and Morris continued to put her entire weight into beating Rosanne to death. Rosanne never recovered. The police officers fought off protesters who tried to rescue her. And when she was dragged away she never took another breath. She was dead…..

Biden Pressuring Delaware for Gun Control to Score a Political Victory

BY LEE WILLIAMS

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2022/06/biden-pressuring-delaware-for-gun-control-to-score-a-political-victory;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- In terms of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, Delaware has never been as bad as some of its neighbors, especially New Jersey. Delawareans can own Modern Sporting Rifles with standard-capacity magazines. They can apply for concealed-carry permits, and most are granted even though it’s a may-issue state. Delaware is small – only three counties. Were it not for its most populous and liberal city, Wilmington, Delaware would likely be a red state. Southern Delaware, which is more conservative, has always had a vibrant gun culture and is a haven for hunters, collectors, and target shooters. Unfortunately, all of this may soon change.

The Delaware General Assembly, which like the Governor’s mansion is controlled by the Democrats, is fast-tracking a trio of strict anti-gun bills the likes of which have never been seen before in The First State. The legislation has the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association – the state’s NRA affiliate – scrambling. But it is the origin of the bills and how they’ll impact gun owners in all 50 states that are causing the most concern.

The DSSA has learned of a teleconference that took place just days after the mass murder in Uvalde, Texas. On the call were the leaders of the Delaware House, and Senate as well as Gov. John Carney. “That’s where the scheme was hatched. Almost immediately, we got word that we would see the bills filed at the same time. It was intended to be done as a blitzkrieg,” said John Sigler, a former president of both the DSSA and the National Rifle Association and a current NRA board member.

The DSSA, Sigler said, received leaked copies of the bills that coincided with Biden’s post-Uvalde speeches. They have also learned that Biden will be meeting with Gov. Carney next week. “We suspect it’s for a bill signing. We suspect the whole thing is being run out of the White House to give Biden a victory when he can’t get a victory anywhere else.”

The Bills

The three bills are flying through Delaware’s General Assembly. It’s become apparent the Democrats are under tremendous pressure to get them passed. The bills will likely clear the House this week and the Senate next week. In the House, public comment was limited to one minute per person. A Republican state representative tried to argue that since the bills raise serious constitutional issues, they should be given more time. He was ignored.

HB 450 is an “assault weapon” ban.

According to the legislation: “The Delaware Lethal Firearms Safety Act of 2022 prohibits the manufacture, sale, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, receipt, possession, or transport of assault weapons in Delaware, subject to certain exceptions. One exception is that the Act does not prohibit the possession and transport of firearms that were lawfully possessed or purchased before the effective date of this Act; although for these firearms there are certain restrictions relating to their possession and transport after the effective date of this Act. There are also exceptions for law-enforcement and military personnel in the course of their official duties, and a limited exception for retired law-enforcement personnel. Finally, a person lawfully in possession of an assault weapon prior to the passage of this Act may lawfully transfer the weapon to a member of their family, through inheritance or otherwise. The Act directs the Department of Safety and Homeland Security to develop a procedure for issuance of a voluntary certificate of possession to show lawful possession of an assault weapon prior to the effective date of the Act. A gun owner is not required to apply for the certificate, but a certificate provides a conclusive means of proving lawful possession prior to the passage of this Act. The Department is not permitted to retain copies of issued certificates or identifying information of any applicant. The Act also adds a violation of this Act to the list of predicate crimes for possession of a weapon in a school zone.”

According to Sigler, the bill lists 63 separate firearms by name and includes rifles, pistols, and shotguns. It contains a “voluntary” provision, which would allow anyone who currently owns a restricted firearm to obtain a certificate from the state, which attests that the firearm was owned pre-ban.

“This shifts the burden from the state to a potential defendant to prove they owned it before the ban,” Sigler said. “This shifting of the burden is unconstitutional and flies in the face of case law.”

The bill also criminalizes the sale of restricted firearms, which essentially makes them worthless.

“Let’s assume someone has been collecting firearms and the purpose of their collection is to increase in value as part of their estate planning. If this bill is signed into law, their collection is now worth nothing. One collector who contacted us has a collection valued at $1 million. Now, it will be worthless because the bill prohibits him from selling it.”

The legislation also prohibits anyone from transporting a prohibited firearm through the state.

“There’s a Commerce Clause problem here,” Sigler said. “You can’t get to New York City from Baltimore without going through Delaware. This will impact interstate commerce. This isn’t just Delaware.”

HB 451 prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from purchasing firearms or ammunition. According to the legislation:

“This bill makes a person under the age of 21 prohibited from purchasing, owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm or ammunition of a firearm except under limited circumstances. Those circumstances are if the person is 18 years of age or older and an active member of the Armed Forces, a qualified law-enforcement officer, or has a license to carry a concealed deadly weapon. The Act does not apply to shotguns and shotgun ammunition, muzzle-loading rifles, and deadly weapons other than firearms, thus allowing those persons who are 18 to 21 years of age to purchase, own, control or possess such deadly weapons. Persons under the age of 21 may possess or control a firearm for the purpose of engaging in lawful hunting, instruction, sporting, or recreational activity while under the direct supervision of a person 21 year of age or older. This bill also makes changes to § 1445 of Title 11—Unlawfully dealing with a dangerous weapon to be consistent with the changes made to § 1448 of Title 11. In addition, the bill only criminalizes the control of a weapon which by compressed air or by spring discharges or projects a pellet, slug, or bullet by a person who is not a qualified law enforcement officer if such pellet, slug, or bullet is larger than .177 caliber shot.”

“More than 58,220 Americans were killed in Vietnam. Of that number, more than 61% killed were under 21 years of age,” Sigler pointed out.

SS 1 for SB 6 bans magazines capable of holding more than 17 rounds.

According to the legislation: “This Act creates the Delaware Large Capacity Magazine Prohibition Act of 2021. The Act includes clear definitions for the term “large-capacity magazine,” as an ammunition feeding device with a capacity to accept more than 17 rounds of ammunition. After enactment, possession of large-capacity magazine will be a class B misdemeanor for a first offense and a class E felony for any subsequent offense. Those who possess a prohibited large-capacity magazine when this Act takes effect must, by June 30, 2022, relinquish the large-capacity magazine to a law-enforcement agency in this State. This Act establishes a buyback program for large-capacity magazines, to be overseen by the Department of Safety and Homeland Security.”

There is no grandfather clause in this bill. Anyone who owns a magazine capable of holding more than 17 rounds must surrender it to police for a “buy back” or risk misdemeanor charges for the first offense and felony charges the second time they’re caught with a 17+ magazine.

The DSSA has learned the state will pay the owner $10 per magazine, but they have only allocated $45,000 for the “buy back,” which will only pay for 4,500 magazines.

“This would cover about a quarter of the magazines in one county, and it covers retail, wholesale and private ownership,” Sigler said. “This is an unconstitutional taking as defined by the Fifth Amendment.

National Impact

Magpul, one of the most popular manufacturers of AR-15 magazines and accessories, has a production facility in Georgetown, Delaware. It employs more than 90 workers. A Republican state senator added an amendment to the magazine ban bill that would have allowed Magpul to continue manufacturing standard-capacity magazines at their Delaware facility, even though the magazines would be prohibited in the state. The Democrats rejected the amendment. Another Senator, a Democrat, said he did not want Magpul shipping their magazines to states where people can purchase magazines that are prohibited in Delaware.

“In other words, the Democrats are telling businesses what they are allowed to produce here in Delaware,” Sigler said. “If they don’t like the product, if it doesn’t fit their political agenda, they don’t want them here.”

The DSSA has learned that Magpul will likely move its production facility if the bill is signed into law, which will reduce the number of standard-capacity magazines available nationwide and impact millions of gun owners.

Officials at Magpul did not immediately return calls or emails seeking comment for this story.

The Front Lines

In a press release, Gov. Carney promised to sign the three bills.

“We have an obligation to do everything we can to prevent tragedies like we’ve seen across the country from happening here in Delaware,” Carney said. “This is a historic, meaningful package of legislation and I look forward to seeing these bills on my desk this session.”

The legislation is strongly supported by the Delaware Coalition Against Gun Violence, an affiliate of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun groups.

“Delaware must question what kinds of deadly weapons we allow to be sold, and to whom, in our state. To that end, we applaud the General Assembly for filing both a ban on the sale of assault-style weapons and a bill raising the minimum age for purchase,” said Delaware Coalition Against Gun Violence Executive Director Traci Murphy.

For Sigler and the DSSA, the content of the bills and the speed at which they’re being fast-tracked through the General Assembly is unprecedented.

“This is the most egregious attack on the rights of law-abiding individuals I have ever seen, and I’ve been a Second Amendment Advocate most of my life,” Sigler said. “It is an organized multi-faceted, multi-front attack. It’s an attack by the Democratic party not just on the Second Amendment but on the entire Bill of Rights. This is an organized conspiracy.”

The DSSA has retained counsel, who have already started preparing lawsuits. However, it will be hard-pressed to find the financial means to pay its lawyers. The group is seeking help from all quarters. Click here for the DSSA’s donation page.

“We are going to fight this even if everyone I know has to sell their houses to pay for it,” Sigler said. “If we lose this fight, Delaware will become just another New Jersey, California or New York. In terms of our gun rights, we are not behind enemy lines, not yet, but we are definitely on the front lines.”

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.


About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

Lee Williams

“I’m Not Even Sure We Can Make It To November” Says Wayne Allyn Root

MUST SEE: National Talk Show Host Sir Wayne Allyn Root Joins Ben Armstrong in a discussion about the future of America.

Physicians Sue FDA Over “Crusade” Against Ivermectin

Physicians Sue FDA Over “Crusade” Against Ivermectin

BY RAVEN CLABOUGH

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/physicians-sue-fda-over-crusade-against-ivermectin/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Three physicians have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this month for the agency’s “crusade” against ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19. The lawsuit contends the FDA “unlawfully interfered” with the doctors’ ability to practice medicine by directing the public, health professionals, and patients not to use ivermectin.

The Epoch Times reports that Drs. Robert L. Apter, Mary Talley Bowden, and Paul E. Marik filed the lawsuit with the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division. In addition to the FDA, the suit names the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, and Acting FDA Commissioner Robert Califf. The physicians are represented by Boyden, Gray & Associates, a Washington, D.C.-based law firm.

According to the lawsuit, the FDA acted outside of its authority, which is limited to approving drugs and drug labeling.

“The FDA generally cannot ban particular use of human drugs once they are otherwise approved and admitted to the market, even if such use differs from the labeling — commonly referred to as “off-label” use,” the lawsuit reads. “The FDA also cannot advise whether a patient should take an approved drug for a particular purpose. Those decisions fall within the scope of the doctor-patient relationship. Attempts by the FDA to influence or intervene in the doctor-patient relationship amount to interference with the practice of medicine, the regulation of which is — and always has been — reserved to states.”

The lawsuit specifically cites an FDA publication titled, “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19” and several tweets from the FDA discouraging the use of ivermectin as examples of FDA interference.

One such tweet includes a photo of a doctor with a horse beside an image of a doctor with a patient. The tweet reads, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”

The tweet is intentionally misleading, as ivermectin has, in fact, been approved by the FDA for human use. Newsmax reported that though ivermectin was developed in the 1970s as a treatment for parasitic diseases in livestock, it became hailed as a “wonder drug” and received approval for human use against diseases such as river blindness. The Epoch Times observed it has been used widely since 1987, even earning William Campbell and Satoshi Omura the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their research on the drug.

The plaintiffs contend that the FDA’s unlawful interference in the practice of medicine creates a dangerous precedent that will “metastasize to other circumstances, destroying the carefully constructed statutory wall between federal and state regulatory powers, and between the FDA and the professional judgment of health professionals.”

The plaintiffs have seen first-hand the dangers that this interference can create.

“Doctors are increasingly employees of entities that look to the FDA for guidance and enforce standards accordingly,” the lawsuit argues.

As such, despite the plaintiffs’ extensive academic and professional credentials, all of which are outlined in the lawsuit, they all faced disciplinary action for treating their patients with ivermectin.

Dr. Apter, despite his 99.8-percent success rate in treating Covid-19 patients, was referred to the Washington Medical Commission and Arizona Medical Board for disciplinary proceedings for prescribing ivermectin as part of his Covid treatment, The Epoch Times report.

Apter asserted in a press release that the FDA’s treatment of ivermectin has resulted in disciplinary actions against doctors and inhibited physician freedom to treat patients according to their best judgment, resulting in more deaths and serious disabilities. He adds the FDA’s interference has been so overreaching that even pharmacies have refused to fill ivermectin prescriptions.

Like Apter, plaintiff Dr. Mary Bowden also successfully treated Covid-19 patients with ivermectin before being forced to resign by her employer, Houston Methodist Hospital.

Bowden told The Defender that she initially supported the widespread vaccines for Covid until she noticed the prevalence of breakthrough cases and adverse reactions to the vaccine.

“If I hadn’t seen that firsthand,” she said, referring to the adverse reactions, “I would still think the vaccine was the way to go.”

Prompted by the realization that the vaccines were not the answer to the pandemic, Bowden created her own Covid protocol, which includes ivermectin, vitamins C and D, quercetin, zinc, and black seed oil. She said the results were excellent.

Similarly, Dr. Paul Marik developed a Covid-19 Management Protocol for the Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS) in Norfolk, Virginia, where he worked from 2009 to 2021. Dr. Marik also served as director of the intensive care unit at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital until he was forced out of both positions for promoting the use of ivermectin to treat Covid-19.

Marik contends that the FDA’s attempt to stop the use of ivermectin for Covid has “led to innumerable hospitalizations and deaths, and caused extreme distress for patients, their families, and health professionals.”

The plaintiffs’ successes in treating Covid-19 with ivermectin are not unique to them. Studies continue to show the drug is associated with lower Covid-19 death rates, but ivermectin continues to be demonized by the FDA and the mainstream media.

Despite the evidence that ivermectin is a viable treatment for Covid-19, the plaintiffs contend the lawsuit is not about the drug’s effectiveness, but about “who determines the appropriate treatment for each unique patient and whether the FDA can interfere with that process.”

The lawsuit argues the FDA acted in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which expressly states that nothing in the FDCA “shall be construed to limit or interfere with the authority of a health care practitioner to prescribe or administer any legally marketed device for any condition or disease within a legitimate health care practitioner-patient relationship.”

The plaintiffs are asking the court to hold the FDA’s actions unlawful, issue declaratory relief declaring the Defendants’ actions unlawful, and issue declaratory relief declaring that the FDA cannot interfere with the practice of medicine. The lawsuit also asks for injunctive relief enjoining all defendants from engaging in such actions as to interfere with the practice of medicine and issue statements or directives dictating the off-label use of ivermectin. Plaintiffs are also seeking attorney fees and allowable costs, and any further relief “to which they are justly entitled at law and in equity.”

Disgusting Pro-Abortion Radicals Threaten Supreme Court Justices’ Children

The Truth About 'Ruth Sent Us'

Ruth Sent Us is the name of a new pro-abortion, far-leftist organization, but like all of them; it's not as it seems. It's not a grassroots movement. It's part of the well-funded leftist machine that is trying to undermine our values, and its roots can be traced back to the Communist Party. SARAH CAIN REPORTS:

BY ATHENA THORNE

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/athena-thorne/2022/06/09/disgusting-pro-abortion-radicals-threaten-supreme-court-justices-children-n1604351;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Disgusting radical pro-abortion groups are hard at work, firebombing churches and pro-life centers and threatening Americans who dare to work to protect the lives of the most vulnerable. Hours after a deranged man traveled across the country with the intent of assassinating Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a repugnant activist group calling itself Ruth Sent Us was putting targets on the backs of conservative justices’ children.

Previously, the group publicized the home addresses of conservative justices, whom it refers to them as the “SCOTUS 6,” and it continues to promote illegal protests targeting them. The group has been organizing a weekly march in front of each justice’s home:

On Wednesday, Ruth Sent Us tweeted a smarmy parody of concern for Justice Kavanaugh and rejected taking any responsibility for inspiring the assassination attempt. Then the group went right over the line and brought his wife and children into the conversation. “A special message for Ashley Kavanaugh and your daughters — this billboard was on your school grounds. We feel for you,” tweeted the radicals, along with a picture of a sign at the girls’ school. “@LeaderMcConnell and the GOP aren’t worried for your safety. They worry only about the expensive Supreme Court they rigged, and their own power. #SCOTUS”

A special message for Ashley Kavanaugh and your daughters — this billboard was on your school grounds. We feel for you.@LeaderMcConnell and the GOP aren’t worried for your safety. They worry only for the expensive Supreme Court they rigged, and their own power. #SCOTUS pic.twitter.com/g3n5fgjNZW

— Ruth Sent Us 🪧 (@RuthSentUs) June 8, 2022

In other words, “We know where your kids are, we can get there any time, and no one will protect you.”

And if another deranged maniac just happens to target the children at that school, we’re sure Ruth Sent Us will once again deny any responsibility.

Earlier that day, the despicable activists reminded followers that Justice Amy Coney Barrett has seven children and pointed to the school attended by the kids:

Ruth Sent Us dances along the edges of Twitter’s safety rules. The platform prohibits violent threats, the promotion of terrorism or violent extremism, and inciting harassment or violence. Pointing potentially violent people at a target with a wink and a nod is vile enough, but putting children in the crosshairs is inexcusable.

It’s worth noting that Ruth Sent Us also likes to tweet about school shootings. But I’m sure these activists would never dream of “unintentionally” inspiring the next kook to hit the school attended by the children of their political targets.

Related: Is Chuck Schumer Culpable for the Assassination Attempt Against Justice Kavanaugh?

Watch what happens to an abortion zealot who dared protest at a precious Democrat president’s motorcade in L.A. on Wednesday:

Meanwhile, mobs continue to march in front of conservative Supreme Court justices’ homes — in contradiction of the law.

Since the draft SCOTUS opinion in the Dobbs case was leaked, pro-abortion domestic terror groups have been merrily firebombing and vandalizing churches, pro-life organization offices, and crisis pregnancy centers, leaving scrawled threats behind. Yet there is no media coverage of these acts, outrage from elected officials, or any significant arrest to date.

LifeNews reported on one case:

CompassCare’s CEO, Jim Harden told LifeNews, “This is the pro-abortion ‘Kristallnacht.’ Because of this act of violence, the needs of women facing unplanned pregnancy will go unmet and babies will die.”

Harden said CompassCare and other pro-life service centers have been the target of violence for months both online and in-person.

“Ironically, New York’s Governor not only ignored the violence but instead earmarked $35 million in taxpayer funds to increase security at abortion clinics. Adding insult to injury the New York legislature passed a bill investigating pro-life pregnancy centers precisely because they do not perform abortions,” he added.

“I wonder if Gov. Hochul will veto the Pregnancy Center Investigation Bill? I wonder if Attorney General Letitia James will investigate these cowardly criminals?” he asked.

In 1938, Kristallnacht terrorized German Jews not just because of the violence and destruction, but because it made clear that Nazi authorities would not protect them and would allow the violence to stand. America’s socialist Democrats shouldn’t be emulating lopsided enforcement; it’s never the good guys doing it, and it never turns out well.

1 2 3 81