A WordPress Blog-THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse. ALL CONTENT FROM HTTPS://RATHEREXPOSETHEM.BLOGSPOT.COM MOVED TO THIS NEW BLOG, MAY 2020
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.
— Southern With Sass (@LilSouthernSass) June 23, 2022
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.”
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.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
(Natural News) The Biden regime’s Department of Justice (DoJ) is perhaps better described as the Department of Injustice, based on the selective way in which political cases are investigated and prosecuted.
Attorney General Merrick Garland just threw the book at the Proud Boys, a conservative movement, charging them with “sedition” for protesting in the capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Black Lives Matter (BLM) terrorists, meanwhile, were just let off easy with a plea agreement.
According to reports, two lawyers who took part in BLM domestic terrorism faced the possibility of 30 years in prison for their crimes. Instead, the Biden regime basically lets them off scot-free with a maximum of just a couple of years of jail time.
“These two defendants were participating in an effort that could have burned (police) officers alive as a form of protest,” tweeted Jonathan Turley about the two BLM domestic terrorists.
“They will now be given sentences closer to tax fraud than terrorism.”
Right as this all happened, the DoJ went for maximum blood against the Proud Boys, calling them “rioters” who deserve to be charged “on any level” for their involvement in the events of January 6.
The illegitimate Biden regime is an authoritarian dictatorship
The two BLM domestic terrorists threw a Molotov cocktail into a police vehicle in New York and ended up with only one count of possessing and making an explosive device, which in itself carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.
“Now, however, they will be allowed to withdraw the earlier plea and instead plead guilty to conspiring to assemble the Molotov cocktail and damage the New York Police Department patrol car,” Turley explains.
“That is a nosebleed of a drop in the severity and punishment for this violent attack.”
Beyond that, one of the two attorneys was caught on video throwing a firebomb before fleeing the scene. The other supposedly had a store of firebombs in his vehicle that he was handing out to other rioters to maximize the violent impact.
The one who threw the firebomb later stated unapologetically that “the only way they hear us is through violence,” suggesting that if given the chance he would do the same thing all over again.
“That does not seem the type of the suspects who would ordinarily garner deep sympathy from prosecutors,” Turley further writes.
“Yet, the Biden Administration walked back the charges, unraveled the earlier plea to a lesser offense, and told that court that the earlier charges would have resulted in ‘excessive sentencing’ for the attorneys. Instead, they are supporting a maximum sentence of five years with a recommendation of between 18 to 24 months imprisonment.”
Conversely, the Proud Boys have been charged with “seditious conspiracy,” which carries with it a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. One of them was not even in Washington, D.C., on the day of the “insurrection,” and yet he, too, is being pursued for maximum punishment (Related: This so-called “insurrection” was actually just an FBI false flag plot).
One Proud Boys member committed suicide after pleading guilty to a host of charges because he believed that he would not be given a fair trial by the Biden regime. Others were tortured in prison or locked in solitary confinement.
“This is naked political persecution,” writes Chris Menahan for Information Liberation. “It can’t get any more transparent.”
“The GOP establishment should be screaming bloody murder about this vindictive political persecution, but instead they’re busy working with Democrats on new gun control proposals to disarm their own constituents.”
More related news about the Biden regime can be found at Corruption.news.
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.
Groomer month is going strong in Los Angeles, CA. Drag queens infiltrated the streets for the “fAmIlY fRiEnDlY” LA Pride Parade to sexualize young children & Drew Hernandez has all the footage. Stay tuned for an exposing & explosive show of FRONTLINES with Drew Hernandez!
Dan Ball With Drew Hernandez: L.A. Pride Events Get Out Of Hand With Children, 6/15/22
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.
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
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.
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…..
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Under Democrat influence, America is weakening daily, increasingly resembling the lawless and poverty-stricken countries that drove immigrants to its borders in the first place. With open borders, America creeps toward a Marxist globalist vision of an imaginary utopia, as its progressive socialist Biden government cronies appoint and hire those committed to doing its bidding. The forces working toward America’s demise are deep.
George Soros has exercised enormous influence under the radar, in every sector of American society. Two years ago, the Washington Times reported that “George Soros is 89 years old, but by gosh, before he dies, he’s going to see to the internal destruction of America.”
Soros has been pouring money into campaigns to help elect lenient social justice district attorneys for quite some time. It isn’t that Soros or the progressive movement genuinely cares about the welfare of minorities, particularly blacks in the inner cities and those who have been escorted in under open-door immigration policies. His funding has to do with usurping America’s democracy and capitalist system and replacing it with socialism, a system of government that has never worked for the people throughout history. Instead, it led to the creation of abusive regimes that eventually saw multitudes murdered for daring to oppose its tenets.
Even Politico did a piece in 2016 about Soros quietly overhauling the American justice system from within by “zeroing in” on American prosecutors and working toward criminal justice reform. It led to its desired effect: a crime surge, but was sold to the American public as noble social justice to help minorities.
Although progressives have succeeded in transforming the landscape, the adverse consequences are becoming ever more obvious. The globalist project is a stark failure, and people are waking up to the truth about the dark Democratic money machine. For instance:
San Francisco residents voted to recall Chesa Boudin, a progressive district attorney who sought to reform the criminal-justice system but met fierce opposition from critics who painted him as too lenient on crime.
But the political structure is hierarchical, so the battle for the soul of America continues. San Francisco Mayor London Breed is a Democrat, so it’s expected that she will appoint another progressive district attorney. It all depends on how far Left, and on the influences behind the scene. According to John Hamasaki, a former San Francisco police commissioner, “shifting who’s in that office will likely have little impact on the way cases are prosecuted.” But it’s a start. Breed raised eyebrows among her more radical cohorts when she vowed in December to “take steps to be more aggressive with law enforcement” against criminals “and less tolerant of all the bull— that has destroyed our city.”
In the meantime, the Soros puppetmaster continues to shower the Democrat machine with unlimited funds.
“Soros spent $40 million to elect 75 ‘social justice’ prosecutors: Report,” by Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner, June 6, 2022:
Sky-high campaign donations from liberal anti-police billionaire George Soros and his groups have helped to elect 75 “social justice” prosecutors in whose cities jailings have plummeted and crime has surged, according to a new report provided to Secrets.
In a 17-page report compiled by the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, a decade of spending has put Soros prosecutors in enough big cities that they represent 1 in 5 people, or about 72 million. That includes about half of America’s 50 most populous cities and counties where 40% of U.S. homicides occur.
Soros is a well-known proponent of social justice prosecution, which calls for lighter sentences, especially of minorities. The movement, however, has led to higher crime in some cities and has been decried by pro-law-and-order conservatives.
Police have led the charge against liberal prosecutors who have been refusing to file charges that lead to long prison sentences.
In a statement to Secrets, LELDF President Jason Johnson hit the Soros funding.
“Soros is using that campaign money and the hundreds of millions more for supporting organizations to quietly transform the criminal justice system for the worse, promoting dangerous policies and anti-police narratives to advance his radical agenda,” said Johnson.
He added, “Over the past decade, George Soros has spent $40 million to elect 75 of his chosen prosecutors. In campaigns from Houston and Los Angeles to Philadelphia and Orlando, Soros was the campaign’s biggest spender by far — as much as 90% of the dollars spent in some races. Soros isn’t done yet — he’s already spent another million so far this year on his hand-picked district attorneys.”
Soros is well known in liberal donor circles as a supporter of the most liberal causes, including for groups advocating gun bans and defunding the police. That has made him a prime target of law enforcement groups.
The report found that many new district attorneys had little experience but the support of liberal donors such as Soros. What’s more, it said that as the social justice movement has grown, so has funding of district attorney political campaigns.
“Traditionally, elections for district attorney have been quiet affairs. Candidates spent very little on their campaigns, instead jockeying for local endorsements and burnishing their legal qualifications for the top job. That changed recently as millions of campaign dollars have flowed into these down ballot contests. The bulk of that lavish spending on advertising and consultants has been done by (or on behalf of) ‘social justice’ candidates,” said the report.
“In most of these free spending contests, progressive forces proved victorious by either defeating incumbent Democrats or crushing a field of primary contenders. Strikingly, most of these prosecutors were political neophytes and had zero prosecutorial experience — previously an assumed prerequisite for office. Many have no previous criminal case experience,” it added.
The report listed many of the groups that have used Soros’s funding to elect prosecutors. And it lists the biggest winners of that money, including Chicago’s Kim Foxx, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and Loudoun County, Virginia, Commonwealth Attorney Buta Biberaj………
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 Timesreports 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.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
WASHINGTON, D.C.-(Ammoland.com)- Obama advisor Rahm Emanuel once said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” And gun-grabbing politicians have latched on to his words.
Since the senseless acts of violence in Buffalo, NY, and Uvalde, TX, Democrats have smelled fresh blood in the water and have pounced. They are exploiting the tragedies to attempt to pass a dream list of gun control packages through Congress. Moreover, some Republicans are on board with some of these proposed draconian laws.
The Democrats believe that they can get legislation passed that we as a community have successfully prevented from becoming law in the past by exploiting the actions of two madmen. This article will break down anti-gun bills that I envision coming down the pipeline. I will give some background on each proposal and discuss how likely they are to pass in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Red or Yellow (it's all the same) Flag Gun Confiscation
The most likely item to pass both chambers of Congress is a bill on red flag laws or extreme risk protection orders (ERPO). Sidney Blumenthal and Lindsey Graham have been working on a proposal in the background. The proposal ranges from so-called yellow flag laws to grants to states to enact red flag laws. They might call it a yellow flag law, but it will still be a red flag gun confiscation bill.
The threat of some kind of red flag legislation reaching the President’s desk is extremely high. These laws violate an individual’s right to due process as guaranteed under the US Constitution. The extreme risk protection order (ERPO) target doesn’t have the opportunity to defend themselves in court before their door is kicked down by the police and their property is stripped from their possession. Sell-out Republican Senator Susan Collins supports this type of bill.
21 to Buy Guns
Raising the age to buy a semi-automatic rifle to 21 is also likely to pass out of the House, although it will not be a slam dunk in the Senate. The bill has some support from weak-kneed RINO Republicans in Congress. Overcoming the filibuster will be hard, although Democrats might be willing to drop other legislation as a “compromise” to get this bill passed.
Unenforceable Safe Storage Laws
Safe storage laws are another measure that has some out-of-touch Republicans' support. I wouldn’t call it a sure thing for a bill to be passed, but I see some type of safe storage law making it out of the House only to be blocked in the Senate. But there will be immense pressure put on Republicans by Democrats in the Senate and special interest groups to back this bill.
Bump Stock Ban Redo
A bump stock ban is also in the works. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has already banned the controversial item by changing the definition of a machine gun, but that is on shaky ground legally. If the Supreme Court takes up the case brought by Gun Owners of America (GOA) out of the Sixth Circuit of Appeals, that ban could be knocked down.
Rob Olson, Chief Legal Counsel for GOA, claims that the ATF abused Chevron deference when changing the definition of a machine gun. Some Justices on the high court have shown skepticism that Chevron can apply to a criminal statute. Many gun rights activists believe GOA will get a victory if it is taken up by SCOTUS, and apparently, so do the anti-gunners in Congress. Any proposed law like this will fight a tough uphill battle because the language will likely include expanding the ban past just bump stocks to other types of trigger devices such as binary triggers. Are belt loops next!?
Serialize Everything
Another proposal on the table would require serializing all unfinished firearm frames and 3D printed guns. These are known colloquially as 80% frame and receivers. A bill will probably pass the House in some form, but I believe this will be stopped in the Senate. Once again, there will be a lot of pressure to pass something. Even if a bill does pass, it will be unenforceable.
Now let’s get to the proposal that Democrats will almost assuredly introduce, but I believe it does not have a great chance of passing out of Congress. Although you never know since most Republicans in Congress seem not to have a backbone.
Standard Magazine Ban
A magazine ban has been batted around that would ban magazines holding more than ten rounds. I don’t believe that a proposal like this can make it through the Senate and might be a sacrificial lamb to pass other less extreme bills. Republicans tend to play defense and are happy just not to give up everything. Democrats, ask for the world, then settle for half.
Assault Weapons Ban… the Sequel
The second sacrificial lamb proposal is a 1994-style “assault weapons ban.” The original ban did not affect the crime rate. This piece of legislation has been a wet dream of Democrats for years. Dianne Feinstein has introduced this bill multiple times, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has also thrown weight behind a ban. Biden wants this legislation on his desk, but I don’t see Republicans letting a bill pass in the Senate. I see this as a negotiation piece of legislation. But you never know if the anti-gun politicians will be able to dig up the votes to pass a bill.
Everything Gets a Background Check
The final piece of legislation I can see being introduced is universal background checks. This proposed law has been a goal of Democrats for a very long time. The anti-gun side will be sure to bring this proposed law up, but the chances of it passing in the Senate is slim, although it could pass the House.
We need to pressure our legislators not to bend a knee to the anti-freedom coalition. Here are a few names we need to put extra pressure on to keep the line on gun rights. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, and Senator Susan Collins of Maine are the weakest links on the Republican’s side. We need to let ALL members of Congress know where we stand.
I sign off all my YouTube videos by saying, “Stay ever vigilant; stay ever free.” What I mean by that is that freedom requires constant vigilance. If you are vigilant, you can take action to prevent our freedoms from being stripped. Our political apathy has led to many of our rights being stripped away. It is time that all gun owners wake up and get at least as politically involved as the anti-gun side.
All gun owners should voice their concerns about overall gun control measures to their Senators. Senator’s offices can be reached through the Senate switchboard at 202-224-3121 or online here.
Here are links to some of the worst of these anti-freedom bills:
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
In March, a group of concerned parents led by Chelle Brown raised concerns about explicit sexual content in books available in Georgia’s Cherokee County School District (CCSD) libraries. A school board member attempted to silence Brown. Patsy Jordan ironically stated that the content Brown was reading from a book found in a CCSD library was inappropriate if children were listening. The video of Brown’s speech went viral. However, what happened to another mother during and after the March meeting is just becoming public.
Brenda Danielle Reprieto entered the March CCSD meeting as the mother of a student and substitute teacher in the district. Within days of making a brief out-of-order comment while CCSD Board Chairwoman Kyla Cromer spoke, Reprieto was fired from her teaching position and barred from all school district property.
While Cromer was defending keeping the explicit content in the library, Reprieto stated from the audience, “You should be arrested.” In response, Cromer threatened, “You could be removed.” In the chairwoman’s two and half minute speech, the exchange lasts approximately 10 seconds, beginning at 1:53 in the video:
While Cromer continues to speak, Clark Menard, the member second in from the left, gestures and points out in the audience. According to Reprieto and Chelle Brown, who was sitting next to Reprieto, the board member was motioning to officers present at the meeting and pointing toward them. After a few minutes, three officers approached Reprieto.
According to Brown, the officers told Reprieto that the board wanted her to leave. She asserted she had a right to be there and asked them if they understood the discussion at the meeting. The officers said it was not their call. She tried to reason with them and assert she had a right to be there. As the discussion continued, Brown encouraged Reprieto to go with the officers.
When Reprieto exited into the vestibule, she asked officers where she could wait for the other attendees. They told her she could be charged with criminal trespass if she did not leave the property. They added that she broke the board’s rules.
After Reprieto left, Menard lectured parents for a full minute about disrupting meetings. “We will not continue to allow you to disrupt and create scenes,” he warned. Menard then asked how exchanges, like the one about sexualized content, were beneficial to students. The tone is pretty amazing.
The next day, Reprieto was teaching at Cherokee High School. She was removed from her assigned classroom, told all of her future assignments were canceled, and she found out she was locked out of the system used to claim days. A few days later she received a warning letter via certified mail banning her from all CCSD property. This included her daughter’s school and future board meetings. Reprieto also votes at a CCSD school as her assigned precinct. The letter reads:
In compliance with Georgia Code 16-7-21(b)(3) and 20-2-1180, you are hereby put on notice that you are not to enter onto the property or premises of all Cherokee County School District Board of Education Properties. The property and/or premise belongs to Cheorkee County School System and this notice is being given to you by an authorized representative/agent of the Cherokee County School System.
In the future, if you enter/remain on the property or premise, without written permission, after receiving this notice you may be arrested for the offense of Criminal trespass or any other offenses that may be applicable.
There is no hearing in court and no appeals process as there would be with a typical restraining order in the state of Georgia. The school board through the assigned school police force from the city police is able to ban a mother and taxpayer from all school district property for speaking out of turn at a board meeting with no due process.
Reprieto’s attorney, David Oles, called it revenge. “This was naked retaliation for Brenda asserting that board members should be arrested for allowing pornographic content to be available in school libraries without restriction to impressionable children,” he said.
When I requested a comment from Board Chairwoman Cromer, the CCSD chief communications officer, Barbara Jacoby, responded. Jacoby stated:
A woman was escorted from the March 17, 2022 School Board meeting after refusing repeatedly to heed CCSD school police officers’ orders to stop disrupting the meeting. She did not speak during public participation – she was shouting from the audience and disrupting the meeting.
After the woman repeatedly disrupted the meeting, police officers were in the audience with her for more than 10 minutes as she continued to be disruptive and would not heed their orders. She continued to argue with police officers in the lobby and also in the parking lot. The police officers decided not to charge her, but instead issued a criminal trespass order.
District personnel responding to inquiries for the board that is supposed to oversee them seems kind of like the State Department press secretary answering questions for members of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.
A full video of the meeting is no longer available online. I asked if the district wished to provide videos to support the allegations in Jacoby’s e-mail and the account of events in the meeting minutes. Jacoby quoted a cost of $55 to provide the video to bolster her claims, which are not in evidence on the attendee videos.
The complete video of Reprieto’s interaction with police while in the audience is less than three minutes while the meeting carried on without interruption. The viral video of Brown’s speech to the board also demonstrates that Reprieto was not the only attendee adding color commentary at the meeting. She was the only one officers approached that evening and the only one to be barred from attending future meetings.
Jacoby also stated that Reprieto’s employment was at will and that the criminal trespass order prevented her from continuing to work as a substitute teacher. She added, “She [Reprieto] has been given permission to attend all events at her child’s school that are open to parents.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
50 years after the end of the Tuskegee Experiments, the Biden administration brought back racism into medicine with a rule providing financial incentives to doctors embedding the horrifying racist ideas of Ibram X. Kendi into their practices.
The form of racism misleadingly described as “anti-racism” believes that all white people are evil and that any medical problems are the result of identity politics, not individual choices.
The racist Biden Medicare rule falsely claims that “systemic racism is the root cause for differences in health outcomes between socially defined racial groups” while demanding that “practice guidelines ” be “aligned with a commitment to anti-racism”.
Do No Harm, an organization formed to oppose the injection of critical race theory in medicine, filed a suit to oppose, what Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm, calls a “discriminatory and illegal policy advocated by the likes of Ibram X. Kendi being imposed on our health care system.”’
This move is the latest effort by conservatives and traditional liberals to push back against the destructive incursion of critical race theory into medicine which harms patients, imposes political tests on medical professionals, and raises costs while lowering the quality of care.
And kills patients.
The Biden Medicare critical race theory rule unleashes more costs and a further expansion of the massive health care bureaucracy by demanding that “a certified health IT product must be able to express both detailed races and ethnicities using any of the 900 plus concepts in the ‘Race & Ethnicity—CDC code system.’”
900 plus concepts.
Medical professionals and staff will have to take time away from patient care to delve into anti-racism plans and apart from coping with the already insane morass of insurance categories, will also contend with the “900 plus concepts in the ‘Race & Ethnicity—CDC code system.”
Beyond the Biden administration, however, critical race theory is being embedded into medicine through the AMA and leading medical schools. Last year the AMA demanded that hospitals and medical practices indoctrinate and impose political tests on “systemic racism” and “implicit bias” on employees. The latter assumes that all white people are racist and in denial about it.
A new report from CriticalRace.org, a project of William A. Jacobson’s Legal Insurrection Foundation, found that of the 50 top medical schools as rated by US News and World Report, “39 institutions have some form of mandatory student training or coursework” and “28 institutions have some form of mandatory faculty/staff training” involving racialist indoctrination.
Harvard Medical School is developing “classes for master’s and Ph.D. students to acknowledge the ways in which racism is embedded in science and scientific culture” while USC’s Keck School of Medicine has an Anti-Racism Task Force that “will monitor all lecture and group content to ‘ensure that any discussion of race is framed in contemporary anti-racist thought.’”
Johns Hopkins warns that“all faculty, students, trainees, postdocs and fellows will be required to complete a virtual training session in unconscious bias” and Emory University’s School of Medicine expects all faculty and students to “actively promote an antiracist environment of authentic engagement, advocacy, and leadership both within the School of Medicine”.
The consequences of embedding racist doctrines within medical schools go even beyond the impact on faculty, future doctors, competence, and general quality of care.
By redefining health as a social ill created by racism, rather than genetics and individual decisions, critical race theory within medicine robs minorities of the agency. Much as the social services state got people hooked on dependency and learned helplessness, critical race theory within medicine tells unhealthy people who happen to be minorities that they’re the victims.
And that there’s nothing that they can personally do to change their lives except vote Democrat.
The AMA is rolling out “new diversity, equity, and inclusion standards aimed at teaching doctors, among other things, about respectful treatment of people diagnosed as overweight or obese.”
Anti-racism falsely blames “systemic racism in medicine” for higher death rates among minorities.
As Dr. Goldfarb noted in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, “At the heart of this is the claim that healthcare is systemically racist—that most physicians are biased and deliver worse care to minorities.”
The false accusations of racism are being used to terrorize medical professionals into adopting racist concepts and ideas.
“Physicians are being pushed to discriminate,” Dr. Goldfarb of Do No Harm charged. “To fight their supposed bias, physicians are being bribed into discriminating by race.”
“Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston (Harvard’s teaching hospital) is moving toward ‘preferential care based on race’ across the board,” he points out.
Many Americans were introduced to the concept of “preferential care based on race” when the CDC, NIH, and some states focused on providing vaccines based on race, but it’s a reality far beyond the emergency scenarios where it’s increasingly becoming automatic.
Nearly every major medical organization is pursuing some sort of equity agenda.
For example, the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations has a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force. Anecdotally, new doctors are being taught to triage patients by race.
An ER doctor described hearing about situations where woke medical professionals say, “I’m not going to go treat that white guy, I’m going to treat the person of color instead because whatever happened to the white guy, he probably deserves it.”
Critical race theory has already killed people during the Black Lives Matter riots, but embedding critical race theory systemic racism into medicine has the potential to take far more lives.
Last year, the Boston Review published a proposal for an “antiracist agenda for medicine” in which doctors looking through the “field of critical race theory” called for reparations by, among other things, “preferentially admitting patients” based on identity politics.
That meant “a preferential admission option for Black and Latinx heart failure patients to our specialty cardiology service” since they allege that health care systems “already unfairly preference people who are white”.
Killing white people becomes “reparations” for the big lie of “systemic racism”.
This is what woke medicine looks like. It’s what critical race theory and anti-racism’s brutal hateful logic applied to deciding who lives or dies becomes. Anti-racist doctors want you dead and they will use whatever algorithms and biased studies to justify the necessity for your death.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
And it could easily be used to persecute ordinary, law-abiding Americans who dissent from the establishment agenda.
“Connecticut’s Blumenthal and Murphy Urge Passage of Bill That Some Say Would Shield Islamists from Anti-Terrorism Efforts,” by Bradley Vasoli, Connecticut Star, :
Connecticut’s two U.S. senators, both Democrats, are urging passage of a bill that they say will help prevent incidents similar to the recent Buffalo mass shooting, though it actually narrows rather than expands federal anti-terrorism concerns.
At a press conference on Friday, senior Sen. Richard Blumenthal called the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2022 a “chance to take a stand and an opportunity to send a message to the hate mongers that enough is enough.”…
Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives first proposed the legislation in January 2021. In so doing, they purported to aim for heightened focus on the threat of white supremacism to Americans’ safety. But the measure actually addresses “domestic terrorism” in a way that critics worry would shield Islamist terrorists and other violent extremists from proper federal scrutiny.
The current legal definition of domestic terrorism refers to actions that endanger human life, violate U.S. criminal laws and are apparently meant to either “intimidate or coerce a civilian population,” “influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion” or “affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.” Such activities must “occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
No exceptions, ideological or otherwise, apply regarding this definition. The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, however, focuses exclusively on “the domestic terrorism threat posed by White supremacists and neo-Nazis…” and neglects anti-police organizations like Antifa as well as violent Islamists.
U.S. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA-01), a moderate Republican and erstwhile sponsor of the bill, said he cannot support its current version because it would give the Justice Department “too much leeway in picking and choosing what it considers to constitute domestic terrorism.”…
Another of the bill’s Republican cosponsors, Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), said in a statement that he reversed his original support because the current version of the legislation would authorize “use of funds from the National Intelligence Program to ‘monitor’ and surveil American citizens, including our police, servicemembers, and parents.” He said “literally hundreds of constituents” told him they believe the Biden administration would misuse the bill to surveil Americans who are not members of violent organizations.
NextNewsNetwork.com reports, During a fundraiser for Scott Kaspar, a candidate for Illinois’ 6th congressional district, Former Trump attorney and New York Mayor, Rudy Giuliani got up and spoke and ripped into Hunter Biden and the Democrats during his 30-minute speech.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
(Natural News) In the wake of the mass shooting yesterday in Uvalde, Texas, we must remember that on the very same day, over 2,700 human babies were murdered in America via abortion factories, according to reliable abortion estimates.
The same Leftists who demand abolishing the Second Amendment by falsely claiming it will stop shootings also celebrate the mass slaughter of human babies as they’re being born… or even after they’re born, via “post-birth abortions” that the Left celebrates. (See Abortions.news for full coverage.)
Don’t pretend for a second that the Left cares about the lives of children.
What they care about is stripping armed Americans of their last remaining line of defense against tyranny: The Second Amendment. Left-wing Marxists and tyrants know that if they can successfully take away firearms from the American people, they can then run whatever totalitarian scenarios they want, including rounding up conservatives and throwing them into concentration camps under the cover of an “outbreak.”
If Americans give up their guns, the radical left-wing fascists will treat the American people in the same way Australia’s government treats their citizens: Like prisoners in a giant prison camp.
Australia has just announced two years in prison for anyone breaking covid rules.
South Australia Labor Covid Madness Fines of up to 70k and 2 years jail for any individuals breaking Covid Rules…Welcome to Covid1984 pic.twitter.com/Le3lQe6zho
Firearms in the possession of citizens give pause to tyrants. This is the entire point of the Second Amendment — the idea that if the government becomes too tyrannical and dangerous, armed citizens might put a stop to the government terrorism being carried out against the people. That’s why the Founders included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Never give up your guns. Not under any circumstances. To do so is to surrender to a murderous regime of criminals and tyrants.
The REAL cause of mass killings and murderous rage
The real cause behind mass killings in America is abundantly evident: Programming of kids through pop culture (media, Hollywood, music, violent, graphic video games), indoctrinating them with themes of satanism, self-mutilation (transgenderism), baby-killing via abortion, and invoking emotional rage against others. And if a child or teen begins to wake up and think outside the box, they get dosed with psychiatric drugs to keep them in line.
These are all things that are taught by the political Left in America today. The message to children and teens is crystal clear: Your life doesn’t matter at all. (This stands in contrast to the conservative, pro-Christian message which is that “Every life matters, including yours.”)
So if murder and self-mutilation is the message being pounded into the heads of children and teens, should we really be surprised when this twisted, demonic culture produces mass murderers who recognize no value in the lives of the innocent?
Our own government values no life at all. They invest in bombs and weapons of war. They set up false flag operations to murder innocent children in order to score political points (Oklahoma City bombing, anyone?). The FDA harvests the organs of murdered babies to use in medical experiments, all funded by your taxpayer dollars. Don’t pretend for a second that the government values life and wants to protect the innocent. They murder the innocent on a routine basis in order to enrich and empower themselves.
Get full details on all this and more in today’s uncensored, sometimes outrageous Situation Update podcast via Brighteon.com:
Dr. Richard Fleming ofhttps://flemingmethod.com joins The Alex Jones Show in-studio to break down the case currently being examined by multiple state attorneys general to indict Fauci, Gates, and those involved in engineering a pandemic.
Hillary is exposed in the Durham trial and Nancy Pelosi is excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church! We’re going to look at both of these, shall we say, judgments, we’re going to see the latest on Hillary, and we’re going to see how the Archbishop of San Francisco is modeling how religious leaders can indeed hold our permanent political class morally accountable; you are NOT going to want to miss this!
Tipping Point - The Power of Christ Compels You, Nancy
Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone Speaks Out About Letter Regarding Nancy Pelosi
(WE DO NOT CONDONE AND/OR PROMOTE CATHOLIC DOGMA & DOCTRINES)
READ ABOUT IT: https://www.westernjournal.com/red-al... STOP BOOKERS PLAN: https://www.beatbookersbill.com Cory Booker is up to his old schemes again, this time bringing down the gun control hammer hard to require a federal license for every firearm purchase you make.These licenses would require training classes and secure storage, can be denied for any reason, and would be limited, all at the discretion of the Attorney General.
Trio of Democrats unveil federal gun licensing bill
A gun control proposal by Sens. Cory Booker, Richard Blumenthal, and Robert Menendez would require all gun owners to be licensed by the federal government, and that's just the start of the unconstitutional infringements on our 2A rights contained within the newly introduced legislation.
The school did not report the 15-year-old girl’s assault to the police, choosing instead to handle the case in-house because the assault was one of two committed by a “gender-fluid” boy wearing a skirt. When the victim’s father confronted the school, he was arrested.
Upon taking office, Gov. Glenn Youngkin and Attorney General Jason Miyares ordered a grand jury investigation into multiple allegations against Loudoun County Public Schools, and now the school board is desperately trying to stop it.
According to a local report, the Loudoun County School Board is seeking a temporary injunction to halt the special grand jury, claiming Youngkin exceeded his power by ordering it.
This move by the school board is curious, considering they previously agreed to cooperate with the investigation.
“Loudoun County Public Schools stated publicly they would cooperate with the special grand jury,” Miyares spokeswoman Victoria LaCivita said in an email to WTOP News. “Asking for an injunction is just the latest in a series of efforts to prevent the citizens of Loudoun from learning the truth about conditions existing in Loudoun County public schools that promote criminal activity, proving this investigation is warranted and necessary. This injunction is a waste of taxpayer money and the investigation will continue.”
It seems obvious that Loudoun County Public Schools is still aggressively trying to cover up its own misconduct because protecting itself is a much higher priority than protecting its students.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
MERIDIAN, IDAHO — Kleiner Park is an all-American, family-friendly gathering place west of Boise with 60 acres of greenery, trails, ponds, outdoor performance facilities, picnic shelters, and children’s swings and slides. Two weeks ago, I enjoyed a visit there with several hundred freedom activists gathered to support GOP Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin’s gubernatorial bid. The sun shone brightly. Toddlers romped on the lawn. A sea of unmasked faces roared the Pledge of Allegiance in joyful unison.
But all is not and never will be back to “normal” in America. Never forget that citizens across this country still face tyrannical persecution and prosecution for defying COVID-19 tyranny just two short years ago. At the publicly-owned Kleiner Park, I met and embraced a mom of four Sara Brady, whom I recognized instantly from the worldwide viral video of her arrest in April 2020. “Whatever happened to your case?” I asked. This un-American nightmare, it turns out, has yet to end.
On April 21, 2020, Sara and other families had been enjoying fresh air and sunshine (God’s natural immunity and mental health boosters) amid a statewide shutdown of schools. She and other moms opposed a city order that playground equipment in a public park be wrapped in what amounted to crime tape. (That apocalyptic scene had been replicated all over this nation, including in my own neighborhood park.) Sara simply questioned aloud the junk-science rationale for punishing healthy children — while cops and park officials violated their own social-distancing rules and mask protocols.
For her crimes of constitutionally protected peaceable assembly, petition for a redress of grievances, and lawful dissent, Sara was shackled, placed in a patrol car, booked into Ada County jail, and charged with misdemeanor trespassing by a grandstanding Republican state attorney general.
“I’m a mother of four children and married to a (Boise) police officer,” Sara told me this week. “Our lives are so busy and chaotic simply trying to manage a household of six, let alone attempting to defend myself against the State of Idaho for literally taking my kids to a play date. It’s very daunting. I didn’t go back to ‘normal’ after that day.”
Indeed, more than two years later, after dozens of online status hearings, two suspended trial dates, four different attorneys and nearly $30,000 in legal fees, Sara now awaits a May 31 hearing on her motion to dismiss the single criminal misdemeanor charge on constitutional grounds. Sara’s attorney, Jeremy Litster, argues in his filing this week that the trespass law is unconstitutionally vague; the arresting officer exercised “unbridled authority” to “arbitrarily persecute dissenters” while others who breached the playground equipment went free; and Sara’s “expressive conduct” in the playground area of a public park “was content-based (and viewpoint-based) speech” in a “traditional public forum” that is “protected by the First Amendment.”
Since that revolutionary maternal act in 2020 on behalf of her children and other families, Sara has been an ongoing target of both prosecution and persecution. “I had people track me down, take videos, and post them in a hate group (this group still exists, but Facebook won’t take it down). I was reported to CPS multiple times. I’ve had letters and mail come that I’ve been scared to open.… Many days, I’ve wondered if I could keep going. It’s affected my mental state. There isn’t a day that goes by that I’m not dealing with it to some degree.”
But Sara has no regrets about that fateful day in Kleiner Park. In fact, she told me, “I’m hoping that I can blaze a trail and others here in Idaho can use the legal briefs I’ve paid for to stop the state from doing the same thing to them.” (You can contribute to her crowdfund campaign at https://www.givesendgo.com/supportsarabrady.) She and her family have paid another high price — doxxing by left-wing vigilantes, threats, and harassment, and smears by character assassins in the media who are allergic to sovereignty-defending mothers. Buzzfeed, for example, attacked Sara for challenging her son’s school over unlawful vaccine exemption documentation. The school backed down.
The silver lining of this entire ordeal, Sara reflects, is that her viral moment helped “wake up” countless parents who had been sleeping and galvanized her own activism. “It’s really appalling how the government came in to ‘save’ everyone and then made such a huge mess, and now everyone is acting like it never happened — except for those of us that are being so harshly punished for daring to push back. I’ve learned how corrupt our government is and how fragile our freedoms are. I feel like I’ve been ‘awake’ to things going on for several years now, but these last two years have really shown me the evil we have in our country.”
Sara’s courageous battle is a light in the darkness. “Being an example to your child to stand up against tyranny is one of the most powerful messages you can give,” she told me. “Freedom is the most important gift given to us. I would rather be handcuffed and taken away from you than bow down to the state.”
Michelle Malkin’s email address is [email protected] To find out more about Michelle Malkin and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
A student at Union College was unenrolled and forced to leave the campus in upstate New York after she refused to take a COVID-19 booster shot. The pre-med biology and Spanish language student suffered severe adverse reactions after receiving the first series of Pfizer/BioNTech COVID shots in the fall.1
Sophomore Ellie Puentes is a first-generation student who attended Union College on an academic scholarship. Puentes received the first set of COVID vaccines when the college required the shots in order to attend school. Immediately afterward, Puentes suffered from sharp adnominal pain landing her in a hospital emergency room for hours. She still suffers from constant nausea, vomiting, chest pains, and shortness of breath.2
Puentes said:
Just the other day I wake up randomly just puking and I don’t know what the cause of that is, and then on top of that, I have shortness of breath. I can’t work out like I used to. I’m getting chest pains where this never happened prior to the vaccine. And I don’t know what’s going on! “The puking happens more often than I would say the diarrhea and the shortness of breath. … I get these sharp pains in my chest and even my immune system, I believe, has just gone down. I’ve been more sick than I’ve ever been.3
College Rejects Medical Exemption to COVID Booster
When the college recently announced that boosters would be mandatory, Puentes e-mailed the school explaining her situation and the severe adverse reactions she had to the first series of COVID shots and asked to speak to the administrative staff in person about this issue. That request was denied, and Puentes was expelled from school and ordered to leave campus via e-mail. [4] The school refused a letter from Puentes's long-time doctor who stated the COVID vaccine booster shot was “ill-advised”5 as well as the paperwork she received from the hospital after her visit post-COVID vaccination.6
The letter Puentes’ doctor sent to the college read in part…
Ms. Puentes is a 20-year-old who has had severe, prolonged symptoms since receiving her COVID vaccines…She missed one week of school after the shot…it is my opinion that Ms. Puentes be granted an exception from receiving the booster COVID vaccine. She currently is in an unfavorable state of health, presumably caused by the vaccine itself and getting the vaccine is ill advised.7
Despite Union College purportedly allowing exemptions to vaccination for approved medical and religious reasons, the doctor’s letter was ignored by college officials.8
Both Puentes’ doctor and the doctors in the emergency room diagnosed her with gastritis. However, Union College denied that gastritis could be an adverse reaction to the shot. The school nurse told her to just get Moderna’s Spikevax COVID biologic this time, which uses the same messenger RNA (mRNA) technology as Pfizer/BioNtech Comirnaty COVID biologic if she was concerned about the reactions she had to Comirnaty.9
Pfizer/BioNTech Confirms Reaction Was Likely from COVID Shot
Undeterred, Puentes reached out to Pfizer to inquire whether her severe symptoms could be due to the vaccines she was forced to get to attend college. Puentes said Pfizer confirmed her fears stating, “They confirmed that the symptoms I’m having could be or are related to the vaccine because they have seen others with the same reactions.”10
Union College officials discounted the vaccine manufacturer’s confirmation that other people were diagnosed with gastritis like Puentes and that her symptoms were likely from the Comirnaty vaccine. Puentes was denied a medical exemption to the COVID vaccine requirement and she was expelled from school.11
The school’s actions are not supported by government policy as the federal health officials consider individuals, who have received the initial two-dose series of COVID shots, to be fully vaccinated and they have not changed the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include booster doses. However, despite the federal government's stance, Union College is not alone in demanding receipt of COVID booster doses. A number of private businesses and schools are mandating the COVID booster shot as proof a person is “fully vaccinated.” New York University, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, the University of Notre Dame, the University of Michigan, and Northwestern are among the other universities that require a COVID booster for attendance.1213
Puentes’ friends started a GoFundMe account to help her pay for the remaining weeks she had on campus and to raise money for a lawyer.14 GoFundMe, an online fundraising platform, shut Puentes’ account down silencing her friends’ efforts to help the young college student.15>
