Biden’s DOJ Asks SCOTUS to Gut the 2nd Amendment in 67-Page Brief

Biden’s DOJ Asks SCOTUS to Gut the 2nd Amendment in 67-Page Brief

SEE:;Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith, a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar, breaks down the recent DOJ Brief regarding the USA v. Rahimi. Follow Mark as we do on YouTube at The Four Boxes Diner.

In a notable development, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has submitted a significant brief (67+ pages, embedded below) to the United States Supreme Court in the case of the United States of America vs. Zaki Rahimi. The focus of this case is the constitutionality of 18 USC 922 G8, which pertains to domestic violence restraining orders and their alignment with the Second Amendment.

Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, suggests that the DOJ, representing the Biden Administration, is arguing for extensive interpretation measures. The contention seems to be that the Second Amendment allows Congress and other legislative bodies the power to disarm individuals [aka “infringe”] deemed not “Law-abiding” or “responsible.” The criteria for such judgments, as outlined in the brief, could range from minor infractions like jaywalking to more serious criminal activities.

The broad implications of such an interpretation might leave a vast number of citizens without the right to keep and bear arms.

Central to the case is Zaki Rahimi’s incident from December 2019, where he allegedly assaulted his girlfriend and threatened a witness with a firearm. The event resulted in a restraining order against Rahimi in February 2020 after he ostensibly admitted to the accusations.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously held that the federal law in question in Zaki Rahimi’s case was in violation of the Second Amendment. Still, the DOJ’s arguments seem to lean heavily on connecting firearms with domestic violence, potentially setting a precedent for justifying ‘red flag’ laws. Their position leans on the Heller case from 2008, which identified the rights of “law-abiding and responsible” individuals to bear arms.

The DOJ attempts to spin its argument based on three main talking points, all taken out of legal and historical context:

  1. Previous court precedents distinguished between law-abiding citizens and those deemed otherwise.
  2. Historical precedents allowed for disarmament during the founding era, citing laws that existed during the period.
  3. Arguing that the majority of American states have similar domestic restraining orders suggests a national consensus.

Critics rightfully argue that simply because many states have implemented certain rules doesn’t automatically affirm their constitutionality.

This shocking 67-page brief from the DOJ would be a significant shift in interpreting the Second Amendment. Whether this unconstitutional human rights grab prevails will be determined by the Supreme Court in its upcoming deliberations.

Read Related: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Rahimi Restraining Order Second Amendment Case

Biden DOJ Legal Brief to SCOTUS in U.S. v. Rahimi

By Fred Riehl and AI tools. Note: Research behind this article was generated using AI technology and may contain some automated content aggregation and analysis.

Left Now Pushing Biden to Ignore Supreme Court Decisions

Left Now Pushing Biden to Ignore Supreme Court Decisions He Disagrees With

Left Now Pushing Biden to Ignore Supreme Court Decisions He Disagrees With



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Two radical left “scholars” have crawled from underneath the rocks where they were hiding and are now openly advocating the end of “judicial review.” That’s the theory that the Supreme Court has the last word on constitutional issues and that all must obey their decisions—including, and especially, presidents.

The doctrine dates back to the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision, where Chief Justice John Marshall decided the ultimate question of power: is an act of Congress or the Constitution the supreme law of the land?

But now, Harvard law Prof. Mark Tushnet and political scientist Aaron Belkin are advocating for something they’re calling “Popular Constitutionalism” to give Joe Biden the dubious authority to ignore or disobey Supreme Court decisions.

Professor Tushnet suggested in “An Open Letter to the Biden Administration on Popular Constitutionalism” that sometimes a radical-left nincompoop has to do what a radical-left nincompoop has to do.

“We urge President Biden to restrain MAGA justices immediately by announcing that if and when they issue rulings that are based on gravely mistaken interpretations of the Constitution that undermine our most fundamental commitments, the Administration will be guided by its own constitutional interpretations.”

If you think about this for more than two seconds, you’ll realize the incredible power Tushnet and Belkin want to place in the hands of the chief executive. Executive power plus the ability to interpret the Constitution as he/she sees fit? If the radical left could only dream of having such power.

Related: Supreme Court Stymies the Left’s Radical Agenda — and the American People Love It
Popular Constitutionalism would make the Supreme Court just another federal court. And premier constitutional scholar Ilya Somin points out some serious flaws in the concept.

In any event, the flaws in Tushnet and Belkin’s argument go far beyond their take on this particular ruling. The course of action they advocate would effectively destroy judicial review. While they urge Biden to disobey Supreme Court decisions only when it comes to  “high-stakes rulings that are based on gravely mistaken constitutional interpretations,” political partisans will predictably make such claims about every decision they strongly disapprove of. And if one president successfully gets away with defying court decisions, he and his successors are likely to use this tactic whenever they think it politically advantageous to do so. The net effect will be the gutting of judicial review, at least on issues important to the party in power.

Even if you trust Biden to scrupulously differentiate “high-stakes” cases from ordinary ones, and “grave” errors from normal mistakes, I suspect you do not have similar confidence in Donald Trump, or whoever the next GOP president might be.

Another flaw in Tushnet’s theory is that it would give a president the power to overrule any decision — not just “extreme” decisions.

The Tushnet-Belkin theory, therefore, is not confined to distinctively MAGA rulings. It implies that presidents should be able to ignore a wide range of right-of-center judicial decisions, including those rooted in longstanding mainstream constitutional theories. And, obviously, presidents with a right-wing ideological orientation can use similar reasoning to justify defying even the most mainstream left-wing judicial decisions.

As NRO’s Jeffrey Blehar points out, Tushnet is a leader of the “critical legal studies” movement (CLS). If that movement sounds suspiciously familiar, you would be correct. CLS birthed the “critical race theory,” which is now firmly entrenched in American schools, despite efforts to dislodge it.

The Harvard professor proved in 2016 to have radical Stalinist tendencies. What he wanted to do with Hillary Clinton’s “enemies” could hardly be considered anything else, as he explained in an article he wrote that appeared on the blog Balkanization after Hillary Clinton’s unexpected loss:

The culture wars are over; they lost, we won. Remember, they were the ones who characterized constitutional disputes as culture wars. [. . .] For liberals, the question now is how to deal with the losers in the culture wars. That’s mostly a question of tactics. My own judgment is that taking a hard line (“You lost, live with it”) is better than trying to accommodate the losers, who – remember – defended, and are defending, positions that liberals regard as having no normative pull at all. Trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War, nor after Brown. (And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.)

For those who don’t think there’s a choice in 2024, these are the kinds of people who have Joe Biden’s ear. We can’t say we weren’t warned.

Biden’s Biology And the lie that abortion is only about the woman’s body.



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

When President Joe Biden issued a proclamation on the last day of February in honor of Women’s History Month, which was then about to commence, he made abortion one of its central themes.

In doing so, he employed a misleading euphemism that has become a common cliche used by pro-abortion politicians: “their own bodies.”

“Last year,” said Biden, “the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, stripping away a constitutional right from the American people and the ability of millions of women to make decisions about their own bodies, putting their health and lives at risk.”

This was not the first time Biden used the term “their own bodies” while advocating for abortion.

Last August, for example, Biden issued a proclamation on Women’s Equality Day, expressing a “commitment” to “protecting women’s rights.”

“This commitment is more important than ever in the wake of the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and eliminate a woman’s constitutional right to choose,” Biden said.

“As states across the country strip women of their ability to make decisions about their own bodies, families, and futures, my Administration remains dedicated to protecting access to critical reproductive health care, regardless of gender, race, zip code, or income,” he said.

In May 2022, the Senate took up the Women’s Health Protection Act. “This bill,” said its summary, “prohibits governmental restrictions on the provision of, and access to, abortion services.”

All 50 Senate Republicans and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin voted against ending debate on this bill and thus killed it.

“Republicans in Congress — not one of whom voted for this bill — have chosen to stand in the way of Americans’ rights to make the most personal decisions about their own bodies, families and lives,” Biden said in his response to the vote.

When the Senate was debating the bill, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer echoed Biden’s rhetoric.

“Senate Republicans will face a choice: Either vote to protect the rights of women to exercise freedom over their own bodies or stand with the Supreme Court as 50 years of women’s rights are reduced to rubble before our very eyes,” he said.

Vice President Kamala Harris has also frequently used this same euphemism when discussing the killing of an unborn child.

In May, Harris spoke at a gala for EMILY’s List. On its website, this group says: “We elect Democratic pro-choice women to office.”

“You know, it seems like yesterday, but it was actually a year ago this month when we were all together at this dinner and the Dobbs decision had just been leaked,” Harris said that night. “And there were three words on my mind that night: How dare they.

“How dare they attack our healthcare system,” said Harris. “How dare they attack our fundamental rights. How dare they attack the freedom of the women of America to make decisions about their own bodies.”

Last October, Harris spoke at a Democratic Party event in Texas, where she attacked pro-life political leaders.

“And now, many of these extremist so-called leaders are calling for an abortion ban nationwide. Nationwide,” she said. “They believe government, not women, should make decisions about their own bodies. Well, we do not.”

In September 2021, Harris spoke at a White House “reproductive rights roundtable.” “The president and I are unequivocal in our support of Roe v. Wade and the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade, and the right of women to make decisions for themselves with whomever they choose — about their own bodies,” said Harris. “And, needless to say, the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is not negotiable. The right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is their decision; it is their body.”

But is it only “their body” that is affected by an abortion?

No. An abortion aborts a human life.

Yes, this human life is carried within the body of the mother, but it is not her own body. It is a separate and unique human being.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has collected a set of statements made in scientific publications indicating that human life begins at the moment of fertilization. One of these comes from Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia, published in 1976.

“At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun,” says this scientific encyclopedia.

“Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization,” says the 2003 edition of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e. embryo).”

Do Biden, Harris, Schumer and other pro-abortion politicians not understand this basic biological fact? Or do they seek to hide it because recognizing it would destroy any argument they could make for legalized abortion — which kills an innocent human life?

Biden himself has made contradictory claims on when human life begins, while maintaining his pro-abortion position. In a 2012 debate with Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan (as this column has noted before), Biden attributed his then-belief that life begins at conception to the Catholic Church — not biological science. “With regard to abortion,” he said, “I accept my church’s position on abortion as what we call a de fide doctrine. Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.”

He then said: “I just refuse to impose it on others, unlike my friend here.”

In September 2021, as president, Biden (as Newsweek has reported) expressed the opposite view.

“I respect them — they — those who believe life begins at the moment of conception and all,” Biden said. “I respect that. Don’t agree, but I respect that. I’m not going to impose that on people.”

By constantly shining a light on the irrefutable fact that human life does begin at conception, pro-life political leaders can fully restore this nation’s legal respect for the right to life.

White Ethnic Flight from America’s Cities; What Moynihan understood that Sotomayor doesn’t.



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

In 1965, then undersecretary of labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan foresaw a problem that was about to undo the promise of Martin Luther King’s 1963 “I have a dream” speech, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and his boss Lyndon Jonson’s 1965 launch of the “Great Society.”

In reading her dissenting opinion last week on the affirmative action case before the Supreme Court, I got the distinct impression that Justice Sonia Sotomayor never read Moynihan’s The Negro Family: The Case for National Action, likely never heard of it, and certainly had no idea of how prescient it would prove to be.

Despite the “full recognition of their civil rights,” argued Moynihan, black Americans were growing increasingly discontent. They were expecting that equal opportunities would “produce roughly equal results, as compared with other groups,” but, added Moynihan, “This is not going to happen.” Nor did he think it ever would happen “unless a new and special effort is made.”

Nearly sixty years later Moynihan’s warning seems all the more prophetic. Herculean efforts have been made over the years to  achieve “equal results,” but none has addressed the core issue. Wrote Moynihan:

The fundamental problem, in which this is most clearly the case, is that of family structure. The evidence— not final, but powerfully persuasive—is that the Negro family in the urban ghettos is crumbling. A middle class group has managed to save itself, but for vast numbers of the unskilled, poorly educated city working class the fabric of conventional social relationships has all but disintegrated.

In a Father’s Day speech in 2008 then candidate Barack Obama affirmed Moynihan’s worst fears. “Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important,” Obama told the congregation at a Chicago church.

Here, Obama spoke with a candor not heard since Lyndon Johnson threw Moynihan under the bus. “But if we are honest with ourselves,” he continued, “we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing—missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.”

Obama started chipping away at the very idea of systemic racism as the cause of Black failure. “We know that more than half of all Black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled—doubled—since we were children. We know the statistics—that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison.”

Like Moynihan, Obama came in for a spanking of his own. A hot mic at a Fox News studio picked up Jesse Jackson saying to another Black guest, “See, Barack been, um, talking down to Black people on this faith-based—I wanna cut his nuts out.” Here Jackson made a cutting motion with his hands and added additional commentary that I dare not repeat. Obama got the message. He never spoke forcefully on this subject again.

If nothing else, Jesse Jackson affirmed Moynihan’s prediction:

“The principal challenge of the next phase of the Negro revolution is to make certain that equality of results will now follow. If we do not, there will be no social peace in the United States for generations.”

In her contentious and confused dissenting opinion on the affirmative action case before the Supreme Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor proved there is no social peace even in the highest court of the land.

“The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection,” Sotomayor scolds her colleagues, “by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society.”

Where to begin?  For starters, in my new book, Untenable: The True Story of White Ethnic Flight from America’s Cities, I show the futility of any quest to achieve equity among ethnic groups either economically or academically.

Starting with no more “privilege” than any other ethnic group in my native Newark, New Jersey, Jewish students consistently outperformed all others. By mid-twentieth century, Blacks were narrowing the gap between themselves and the city’s two other dominant ethnic groups, Irish and Italian, but none of these groups would ever outperform Jews. Due to the family dissolution of which Moynihan warned, Blacks would fall further behind the other three.

Later in the century, two other ethnic groups emerged in Newark as political blocs, Portuguese and Puerto Rican. The Portuguese had an advantage: they arrived in Newark free from the tentacles of the welfare state. With strong families and minimal public assistance, they created jobs and a harmonious neighborhood that has proved an attractive destination for outsiders. The Puerto Ricans did not.

In her dissent Sotomayor speaks of a society “where opportunity is dispensed along racial lines.” The Puerto Rican Sotomayor was, of course, righter than she knew. Fifty years ago, she was accepted at Princeton despite her admittedly below par test scores. “I am the perfect affirmative action baby,” she has conceded. Her “racial” line was what got her in the front door although, in truth, “Puerto Rican” is no more a race than Mexican or American.

Sotomayor attributes the “achievement gaps” in standardized test scores to “entrenched racial inequality in K–12 education.” Sotomayor, however, attended excellent Catholic schools in New York City K-12. That she would get an affirmative action bump while the Portuguese would not is attributable solely to the political clout of the much larger “Latino” bloc. It has nothing to do with justice.

Fifty years after Sotomayor’s admission to Princeton, Puerto Ricans remain among the “underrepresented groups.” The reason why they are underrepresented, she contends, is that, “for far too long [they] were denied admission through the force of law.” This is nonsense. With logic like this, it was no wonder she tested poorly.

Even if Puerto Ricans as a cultural group were as achievement oriented as Jews and many Asian groups, their rates of fatherlessness would subvert their ambitions. In Puerto Rico, 49 percent of children live in single parent households. For Puerto Ricans in the U.S. the number is likely comparable. This would be two times higher than the rate among blacks that triggered Moynihan’s report.

Writ large, some 42 percent of “Latino” children live in single parent households today. This compares to 24 percent among non-Hispanic whites and 16 percent among Asians. For Black children, the number is 64 percent.

Given the odds at the starting gate, “equity’ will only be achieved if President Biden appoints the equivalent of what satirist Kurt Vonnegut called a “handicapper general.” In his 1961 short story “Harrison Bergeron,” Vonnegut imagined an official with the power to assure that everyone would be “equal every which way” and no one would be “smarter than anybody else.”

Sonia Sotomayor, I think, has just the right amount of imagination to do that job well.

Jack Cashill’s new book, Untenable: The True Story of White Ethnic Flight from America’s Cities, is now widely available.

Clarence Thomas Flexes All Over SCOTUS Diversity Hire Ketanji Brown Jackson in Affirmative Action Opinion

The Morning Briefing: Clarence Thomas Flexes All Over SCOTUS Diversity Hire Ketanji Brown Jackson in Affirmative Action Opinion



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Top O’ the Briefing

Happy Friday, dear Kruiser Morning Briefing friends, Shawna never failed to please the quilting bee with her Spam snacks.

The thoroughly racist policy known as affirmative action was finally given a groin kick by the Supreme Court of the United States. Once again, thank you, President Trump.

Predictably, the lefties lost their tiny minds over this. They quiver themselves into fits when their racism isn’t protected by law. They have to keep minority voters in lockstep place, after all.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (I still want to type “Jackson Brown” because I’m a kid from the ’70s) wrote a dissenting opinion that proved why she should not be on the Court. She is part of President LOLEightyonemillion’s ongoing promise to give black women high-profile jobs. For any lefties out there who want to scream, “RAAAAAACISMMMM!” I will say this: The United States of America is blessed with millions upon millions of brilliant black women. The Democrats just don’t seem to know any of them.

Joe Biden managed to do something that most thought was impossible: he nominated a woman to the Supreme Court who is dumber than Sonia Sotomayor. Props, Big Guy, that was quite the task.

Justice Brown Jackson’s dissenting opinion was absolutely torn apart by one of the greatest Americans in history: Justice Clarence Thomas. Matt wrote the story for us:

“Accordingly, JUSTICE JACKSON’s race-infused world view falls flat at each step. Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments,” Thomas wrote. “What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything—good or bad—that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.”

Oh, but he wasn’t done yet.

“JUSTICE JACKSON then builds from her faulty premise to call for action, arguing that courts should defer to ‘experts’ and allow institutions to discriminate on the basis of race,” Thomas continued. “Make no mistake: Her dissent is not a vanguard of the innocent and helpless. It is instead a call to empower privileged elites, who will ‘tell us [what] is required to level the playing field’ among castes and classifications that they alone can divine. […] Then, after siloing us all into racial castes and pitting those castes against each other, the dissent somehow believes that we will be able—at some undefined point—to “march forward together” into some utopian vision.”


Clarence Thomas made his way to where he is solely on merit. Black American conservatives are routinely smeared by racist Democrats as “Uncle Toms” (which is completely wrong because none of them have ever read the book) and disparaged as being “race traitors.”

Don’t wander away and do whatever you want to, Minority Voter, or we’ll do everything we can to ruin you.

I don’t have much faith in our institutions anymore, but the fact that Clarence Thomas is still on the Supreme Court gives me a little hope.


Clarence Thomas SCORCHES Ketanji Brown Jackson in Concurring Opinion



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

In a long-awaited decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court declared that affirmative action policies are unconstitutional because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As you can expect, The court was split on ideological lines. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Joe Biden’s affirmative action pick for the Supreme Court, blasted the majority opinion in her dissenting opinion.

“With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces “colorblindness for all” by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life,” she claimed. “And having so detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that UNC and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems.”

“No one benefits from ignorance,” she continued. “Although formal race-linked legal barriers are gone, race still matters to the lived experiences of all Americans in innumerable ways, and today’s ruling makes things worse, not better. The best that can be said of the majority’s perspective is that it proceeds (ostrich-like) from the hope that preventing consideration of race will end racism.”

Jackson obviously has no problem advancing through life based on the color of her skin rather than on merit. Joe Biden promised to appoint a black female justice to the Supreme Court and followed through. He may have picked someone who doesn’t know what a female is, but he picked her nonetheless. As one could have easily assumed, she’s no different that the usual race hustlers of the radical left, and she got called out on it by none other than Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion.

“Accordingly, JUSTICE JACKSON’s race-infused worldview falls flat at each step. Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments,” Thomas wrote. “What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything—good or bad—that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic worldview based on individuals’ skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.”

Oh, but she wasn’t done yet.

“JUSTICE JACKSON then builds from her faulty premise to call for action, arguing that courts should defer to ‘experts’ and allow institutions to discriminate on the basis of race,” Thomas continued. “Make no mistake: Her dissent is not a vanguard of the innocent and helpless. It is instead a call to empower privileged elites, who will ‘tell us [what] is required to level the playing field’ among castes and classifications that they alone can divine. […] Then, after siloing us all into racial castes and pitting those castes against each other, the dissent somehow believes that we will be able—at some undefined point—to “march forward together” into some utopian vision.”

Thomas went on to accuse Jackson of using race-based stereotypes in her dissent and never seemed to pull a punch to shred her dissent to pieces.

Though JUSTICE JACKSON seems to think that her race- based theory can somehow benefit everyone, it is an immutable fact that “every time the government uses racial criteria to ‘bring the races together,’ someone gets excluded, and the person excluded suffers an injury solely because of his or her race.” […] Indeed, JUSTICE JACKSON seems to have no response—no explanation at all—for the people who will shoulder that burden. How, for example, would JUSTICE JACKSON explain the need for race-based preferences to the Chinese student who has worked hard his whole life, only to be denied college admission in part because of his skin color? If such a burden would seem difficult to impose on a bright-eyed young person, that’s because it should be. History has taught us to abhor theories that call for elites to pick racial winners and losers in the name of sociological experimentation.

“This vision of meeting social racism with government-imposed racism is thus self-defeating, resulting in a never-ending cycle of victimization,” his response to Jackson concluded. “There is no reason to continue down that path. In the wake of the Civil War, the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment charted a way out: a colorblind Constitution that requires the government to, at long last, put aside its citizens’ skin color and focus on their individual achievements.”

Drop that mic, Justice Thomas; you nailed it.

NJ is Playing a Game of Chicken with Supreme Court & 2nd Amendment

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a legal challenge of New Jersey’s “sensitive places” concealed carry statute have filed a response to the state’s motion for a stay in the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is now known as Koons v. Platkin.

Second Amendment Foundation is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, and four private citizens.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb granted a preliminary injunction, and the state filed a motion to stay the order pending appeal.

Second Amendment Foundation opposes the stay, arguing the state “did not meet its burden before the district court, and it cannot meet it in this Court. Thus a stay pending appeal should be denied.”

“The state is struggling with all its might,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “in a stubborn effort to retain a literal stranglehold on the rights of New Jersey citizens. We’re challenging the ban on legal carry in parks, on beaches, and at recreation facilities, publicly owned museums and libraries, bars and restaurants where alcohol is served, entertainment facilities, airports (before TSA security), public transportation hubs, and the presumptive ban on private property.

“There is no established historical tradition that could justify the restrictions included in the new law. New Jersey simply cannot criminalize licensed concealed carry virtually everywhere in the state by designating everything as a ‘sensitive area,’ nor should it be allowed to continue enforcing these restrictions pending appeal.”

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said the state is playing a game of chicken with the Supreme Court and the Second Amendment.

“The state is burdened with showing the carry restrictions are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation, and we don’t see how that is possible,” Kraut said. “The state has not provided any evidence of Founding era restrictions like it wants to enforce today, and is essentially trying to stall the inevitable for as long as possible.”

The Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing, and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Second Amendment Foundation



Liberal Supreme Court Justice Caught in Scandal

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Caught in Scandal



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

In recent weeks, Democrats have ramped up criticism of conservative Supreme Court justices like Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, alleging corruption and using that as a pretext for congressional oversight of the court.

However, these accusations are baseless and lack legal or ethical standing. Justice Thomas was accused of not reporting free travel expenses received from a friend that he was not even required to report and a minor technical error in income reporting. Justice Gorsuch was accused of selling land to an executive of a law firm that had business before the Supreme Court, but he actually sold the property just after being confirmed, and the buyer had no business before the court at the time.

While these incidents were much ado about nothing, the same Democrats who were calling for DOJ investigations and impeachments will no doubt sing a different tune over the revelation that liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor took $3.6 million from Penguin Random House publishing when the company did have business before the court, and declined to recuse herself.

For our VIP Members: The Never-ending High-Tech Lynching of Clarence Thomas

In addition to the $3.6 million advance (which Penguin Random House lost money on), the Daily Wire found that Sotomayor received payments from the company annually from 2017 to 2021, totaling over $500,000. In 2013, she voted in a decision regarding a case involving Random House despite then-fellow Justice Stephen Breyer recusing himself after receiving money from the publisher. In 2020, Sotomayor received a $10,586 check from Penguin Random House on the same day a lawsuit against the publisher appeared before the Supreme Court. The Court voted not to hear the case in February 2020, and Sotomayor received her largest-ever payment from the publisher in May of that year.

While the media has been busy attacking conservative justices for supposed financial misconduct, including failure to disclose free travel, it turns out that Justice Sotomayor herself failed to disclose six trips funded by outside groups in 2016—without being targeted by the media or enduring the wrath of outraged Democrats.

If Democrats want to prove their attacks on Thomas and Gorsuch are sincere, and that the need for congressional oversight of the Supreme Court is genuine, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y) should be calling for the impeachment of Sotomayor, as she did for Thomas. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) should be calling for the Department of Justice to investigate Sotomayor, as he did for Thomas.

But you know as well as I do that they won’t. The attacks on Thomas and Gorsuch had nothing to do with ethics or corruption, but politics. They’re angry that the court doesn’t vote how they want, and they’re trying to force conservative justices out.

Guess who’s never afraid to call out the mainstream media’s hypocrisy? That’s right, PJ Media! And you can help us expose the left and its ridiculousness by becoming a PJ Media VIP member.

These days, so many media outlets rely on big-name corporate donors, but we’re independent, which means we’re beholden to no one. And that means that your support means the world to us.
PJ Media VIPs get deeper dives into important issues as well as podcasts and an ad-free experience. VIPs also have a heck of a lot of fun.

VIP Gold gives you even more of the good stuff, like access to all of the Townhall family of sites, including Hot Air, Twitchy, Townhall, Bearing Arms, and RedState, along with live chats.

PJ Media VIP membership is a tremendous value on its own, but you can use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off! What are you waiting for? Sign up today! (edited) 

‘Ivermectin Case in Supreme Court’ with Dr. Peterson Pierre with Dr. Peterson Pierre presents Daily Dose: 'Ivermectin Case in Supreme Court’ (Ep. 2184- 2.3.2023). The Real Story of Good Health ~ in 120 Seconds or Less.



‘IMAGE OF THE BEAST’: Satanic Horned Statue Honoring Abortion and RGB Invades the Streets Of NYC!



Civic Center, Manhattan, NYC

Ruth Bader Ginsburg released from hospital after cancer surgery

Words cannot adequately describe the shock and horror of witnessing a demonic, horned beast statue erected at a New York City courthouse in honor of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and abortion. This disturbing image is a testament to the lengths some will go to defend these practices, no matter what common decency dictates. While opinions may vary on the morality of abortion and Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s legacy, many are left speechless at such an overt display of support for them both. No doubt this eerie monument will be the source of much conversation for years to come.

Shahzia Sikander has stirred controversy among citizens in New York City with the recent unveiling of her sculpture, “NOW”. The statue atop the courthouse features a horned, demonic figure – interpreted as a celebration of abortion and homage to former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg by the artist – which is notably reminiscent of pagan gods Nefertem, Vishnu and Brahma, as well as Hindu goddess of destruction Shiva outside the CERN facility in Geneva. At the neckline hangs Justice Ginsburg’s distinctive trademark collar of lace, prompting an eruption of debates among political figures and religious groups. With her iconic piece provoking vastly different reactions in its audiences, the underlying message behind Sikander’s art remains ambiguous.

The Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade was a monumental event, one that undoubtedly saved countless unborn children from being terminated. After the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the chances of the decision being overturned seemed increasingly likely, and this became reality in July 2020. Surprisingly, conservative commentators have had to point out that overturning Roe does not mean that abortion has been outlawed everywhere– indeed, it merely means that the decision will revert back to individual states to decide for themselves whether or not abortion should be permitted there. As noted by Breitbart in a report on Sikander’s words, though, it is clear that any overturn would be seen as a setback for women and those fighting for equality; thus the battle will continue against anti-abortion forces across the nation.

Pagan imagery can be seen in multiple locations, both worldwide and domestically. Within the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) facility lies a statue of Shiva the Hindu goddess of destruction.

In the United States, an infamous satanic figure of Baphomet was unveiled in Detroit in 2015 and later made an appearance at the Arkansas Capitol building. The iconographic representation of Baphomet included a prominent pentagram and two young children standing near it.

A similar unveiling caused controversy in Detroit in 2015.

These instances demonstrate a shift away from traditional Christian religious symbols towards paganism artifacts that have gained traction in recent years.

In recent days and weeks, we have seen a stark visual display showing just how far some will go to defend abortion as a “right.” In many cases, this includes utilization of pagan imagery, taking us away from traditional religious symbols in favor of an often-demonized source. The surprise horned statue located at a NYC courthouse for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is certainly not an isolated incident – it serves as a reminder that people are increasingly likely to use potentially offensive visual representations to further a cause. This is truly stunning, and serves as an important reminder just how far America has fallen away from God which further emboldens us to stand our ground for The Faith..


George Soros Doubles Funding to Group Working to Make the Supreme Court an Arm of the Leftist Establishment



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

The hard Left controls the Executive Branch and the Senate, and after the Kevin McCarthy imbroglio, it may end up controlling the House as well, either by means of a Democrat speaker or, if McCarthy succeeds after all, a pliant, controlled opposition establishment Republican speaker. But the Judicial Branch is a big wrench in the works, as it’s full of Donald Trump appointees and others who simply won’t go along with the Left’s authoritarian, pro-abortion, internationalist, socialist agenda. George Soros, however, is intent on changing all that.

The Washington Free Beacon reported Wednesday that “progressive megadonor George Soros has ramped up donations to a group dedicated to packing the Supreme Court, signaling progressives’ determination to reshape the judiciary even after a string of defeats.” Soros’ Open Society Foundations have poured no less than $4.5 million into Demand Justice in order to “support policy advocacy on court reform.” According to the Free Beacon, “that’s nearly double the $2.5 million Soros gave the group in 2018 when it formed to oppose Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation.”

Demand Justice actively supports the violent intimidation of Supreme Court Justices: “In the wake of the leaked 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, Demand Justice executive director Brian Fallon called for the removal of protective fencing around the Court to help protesters provide ‘more accountability’ of justices.”

Soros’ support for Defend Justice is just one part of a much larger agenda. In light of the money, Soros has sunk into the Legislative Branch, this $4.5 million looks like a drop in the bucket. He gave $128,485,971 to Democrat candidates in the 2022 midterm elections, which no doubt played a considerable role in the outcome. And it isn’t as if we weren’t warned. As far back as 2004, then-Senator Hillary Clinton (D-Election Denial) declared, “We need people like George Soros, who is fearless and willing to step up when it counts.” Soros himself then came to the podium and said, “It is the first time that I feel that I need to stand up and do something, really, uh, imp—, uh, and become really engaged, um, in the electoral process in, in this country.” Oh, he’s engaged in the electoral process, all right.

One indication of the difference Soros made was that he gave, according to Politico, “$1 million for the Georgia runoff, which Sen. Raphael Warnock won…, giving Democrats a 51-seat majority in the Senate.” Soros is also working for the long term. Politico added that “last January, Soros seeded Democracy PAC with $125 million, a ‘long-term investment’ in his political priorities. The group was formed to support pro-democracy ‘causes and candidates, regardless of party, and to invest in ‘strengthening the infrastructure of American democracy: voting rights and civic participation, civil rights and liberties, and the rule of law,’ Soros said in a statement at the time.”

This statement was, of course, a steaming pile of deception. Soros claims to support “pro-democracy” causes and candidates, regardless of party but gives only to Democrats. His concern for “the infrastructure of American democracy” quite clearly refers not to our actual republic, but to “our democracy” that the Left is constantly claiming to protect, by which term they actually mean their own hegemony.

Soros has an eye for detail as well. The Capital Research Center (CRC) reported Friday that his “influence on left-wing DA candidates is often wildly underestimated. Since 2016, when Soros first began to back the campaigns of district attorneys (presumably as part of the ‘Resistance’ to the Trump administration), CRC researchers have tracked more than $29 million in funding from Soros through a personal network of political action committees (PACs) formed specifically to back left-wing DA candidates. In total, Soros cash has generously supported over 20 individual candidates, many of whom won their elections and remain in office today.” The result? “Skyrocketing violent crime, countless murders, little to no accountability, limited prosecutorial experience, a proclivity for scandal, and a tendency to unfairly prosecute political adversaries.” George Soros, CRC added, “certainly has a type.”

Related: The Mystery of Evil

So what’s it all about? What is George Soros trying to do? The man himself shed some light on this question back in June 1993, when he told the UK’s Independent: “It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.”

He has apparently inexhaustible amounts of money and an unshakeable dedication to backing candidates and causes that have the effect of weakening America and making it more squalid, poorer, and more dangerous than it was before he began showering Leftists with his largesse. If Soros is a god — or more precisely, if he thinks of himself as one — he is a god of vengeance and destruction, visiting harm upon the United States of America for evils real or imagined, and imperiling its very continued existence as a free society in the process. The $4.5 million to destabilize the Supreme Court is just a small part of a sinister whole.

2022 Closes with A Nation On the Precipice of Ruination

America Burning Civil Disobedience iStock-ohnnyfrs 511386474



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

New York – -( As one more year draws rapidly to a close in these first three decades of the 21st Century, the United States stands precariously at the edge of an abyss.

One Branch of the Federal Government, the U.S. Supreme Court, at least recognizes the danger and has prevented the Country from falling over the precipice.

After a century of sidestepping the issue, the U.S. Supreme Court established, in three precedential case law decisions, what had been visibly plain in the language of the Second Amendment itself all along if one would only look.

All three cases were handed down in the first three decades of the 21st Century. They include:

District of Columbia vs. Heller in 2008, McDonald vs. City of Chicago in 2010, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen in 2022.

These three cases, together, stand for the following propositions, now black letter law:

  • The right of armed self-defense is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia
  • The right of armed self-defense is a universal right, applicable to both the States and the Federal Government.
  • The right of armed self-defense applies wherever a person is, inside the home or outside it.

These three legal axioms are, together, the singular Law of the Land.

But for this Law, the Republic would have fallen into ruin, this Century.

There would be nothing to rein in a rogue Congress, a rogue Biden Administration, or rogue jurisdictions like those around the Country: New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California, Washington State, Washington D.C., Oregon, Hawaii, and several others.

The rot from those State jurisdictions and from the Federal Government would eventually infect many other states.

Forces inside the Government and outside it, both here and abroad—wealthy and powerful, malevolent and malignant—constantly machinate to destroy the right to armed self-defense. These forces will not tolerate an armed citizenry. The existence of an armed citizenry contradicts their end goal of a neo-feudalistic world government. The armed citizenry precept deviates from their plan of world conquest.

Their goal for the 21st Century is a return to the political, social, and economic feudalistic construct operating in the world of the 5th through 15th Centuries—the Middle Ages.

These ruthless elements have declared——

  • The United States can no longer continue as a free Constitutional Republic;
  • The American people must be subjugated; and
  • Any thought of an armed citizenry must be erased from the collective memory of the American people.

The ashes of a once powerful, respected, sovereign, independent United States are to be commingled with the ashes of other western nations.

The EU and the British Commonwealth Nations are a step in the direction of that world empire.

The neoliberal democratic world order is conceived as——

  • One devoid of defined geographical borders,
  • One absent national government; and
  • One bereft of any defining history, heritage, culture, ethos, or Judeo-Christian ethic by which the people of one nation may easily distinguish themselves from any other.
Bill of Rights
Bill of Rights

Will the U.S. fall victim to totalitarianism as have the nations of the EU and British Commonwealth, as have India and China, and as have most all countries in the Middle East? Let us hope not.

The U.S. need not fall victim.

The U.S. has something all other nations lack: a true Bill of Rights.

Our Bill of Rights consists of a set of natural laws: fundamental, unalienable, unmodifiable, immutable, illimitable, and eternal.

Within this Country’s Bill of Rights rests a Cardinal Truth. And, of this Truth——

  • The Founders were aware of it.
  • The Republic they founded is grounded on it.
  • The strength and power of our Country and the staying power of our Constitution is a testament to it.

All Americans should imprint this Truth on their collective memory:

“What isn’t created by man cannot lawfully be taken from man by other men, nor by any temporal artifice of man: Government, for the sanctity, inviolability of man’s Selfhood, his Soul, and his Spirit do not belong to the Government; they cannot be bestowed on man by Government; and they cannot be severed from man by Government.”

Government is a dangerous enterprise.

Our Federal Government is no longer reliable. It is entirely rogue. It has forgotten the people whose interests it was created to serve. It serves only its own interests, those special interests that fund the campaign coffers, and foreign, secretive agencies of whom the public has no inkling.

  • With this Federal Government, the American people have got “a tiger by the tail.” It is difficult to hold onto, but one daren’t let it go lest it bites the people. Best to destroy it if we can no longer hold onto it.
  • That “Tiger,” our Federal Government, is a creation of the American people and exists only to serve the people—the true and sole sovereign over the Federal Government.
  • The presence of an armed citizenry serves as both evidence of its sovereignty over the Government and the mechanism by which it may lawfully constrain it, contain it, or curtail it if the Government loses its way and turns against the people.
  • The Right to Armed Self-Defense is Natural Law, a God-given right bestowed on man by the Divine Creator.
  • Government cannot lawfully modify Natural Law, Ignore it, Rescind it, or formally Repeal it.
  • Since armed self-defense is a Natural Law Right, the U.S. Supreme Court—in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen—didn’t make new law. The rulings of the three seminal High Court cases simply make explicit what is tacit in the language of the Second Amendment.

Unfortunately, many jurisdictions have failed to recognize, or otherwise have failed to acknowledge and accept, the strictures of the Second Amendment.

That necessitated the intervention of the High Court. In one Second Amendment case after another—from Heller to McDonald and then to Bruen—the Court has ordered States to uphold the strictures of the Second Amendment. Yet, many refuse to do so.

Indeed, many jurisdictions reject Heller, McDonald, and Bruen outright. But no jurisdiction does so more emphatically, contemptuously, and openly than New York. And a recent ruling of the Second Circuit is disheartening and unnerving.

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:

Arbalest Quarrel


Supreme Court Urged to Corral ‘Unelected, Unaccountable Bureaucrats’ Weaponizing Federal Law Against Christians



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Supreme Court justices are urged in a new amicus brief to take a case that provides them an opportunity to rein in “unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats [who] are weaponizing federal laws to violate Americans’ most fundamental rights.”

The brief was filed by attorneys representing the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and represents the Christian Employers Alliance (CEA). The case is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.

“As we explain in our brief, federal agency officials frequently disrespect American citizens and businesses’ most cherished principles — including religious freedom and the sanctity of life — by imposing personal political agendas that Congress has not authorized,” the brief argues.

“We urge the Supreme Court to take this case, overrule Chevon v. Natural Resources Defense Council, and affirm that courts should not defer to federal agencies when they overstep their executive authority and violate Americans’ First Amendment rights,” the brief continued.

“When left to their own devices — or to the political calculations of the White House— agencies stretch and strain their authority to impose on the everyday lives of American citizens in ways Congress never prescribed. As one justice of this Court recently put it, federal agencies now regularly ‘write ever more ambitious rules on the strength of ever thinner statutory terms.’”

The brief then lays out in systematic fashion examples of how President Joe Biden’s political appointees and career federal bureaucrats take advantage of their positions and power to fashion oppressive regulations and procedures with no regard for the guarantees of the First Amendment for freedom of religious practice and expression of every individual American.

Related: The Future of the First Amendment Hinges on the 303 Creative SCOTUS Case

On abortion, the brief describes how the Biden administration has defied the high court’s Dobbs decision overruling Roe v. Wade “by issuing a raft of abortion mandates — even though the statutes that the agencies cite contain no such authorizations.”

To that end, “agencies launched huge new programs forcing states and private citizens to perform abortions and spend taxpayer money to perform and pay for abortions. In each case, agency officials used their positions to brush aside the absence of federal authority and to claim primacy over state laws to which this Court deferred in Dobbs as a matter of federalism.”

Similarly, the Biden administration, through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has directed hospital administrators, doctors, and nurses to convert their facilities into on-demand abortion clinics.

“As part of its anti-Dobbs campaign, HHS told all hospitals receiving Medicare funds that have emergency rooms, that regardless of state laws protecting the unborn they must perform abortions under HHS’s novel interpretation of the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA),” the brief explained.

The HHS reading of the law that President Ronald Reagan signed in 1986 is outrageous because EMTALA doesn’t even mention abortion. Not once since its enactment has EMTALA ever been read to mandate abortion services. Until now, that is.

In addition, officials at HHS, acting under the direction of the Biden administration, ordered all of the nation’s pharmacies to stock over-the-counter first-trimester abortion drugs. They cited a section of the Obamacare legislation as their authority for doing so, even though that section deals only with prohibitions on sex and disability discrimination.

“Like the EMTALA abortion mandate, the agency officials did not subject that mandate to the notice-and-comment process, and they claimed that they were merely informing regulated entities of obligations that already existed under statutory law,” according to the brief. This is called rewriting the law to suit a political agenda, which is, by definition, illegal.

Then there is the Biden administration’s effort to turn Veterans Administration (VA) facilities into abortion clinics, as described by the brief:

“In response to Dobbs, the VA began performing abortions in veterans’ hospitals—on demand through all nine months of pregnancy—no matter what pro-life state laws say. Just as with HHS, the VA seized on the flimsiest of statutory reeds to support its new assertion of power. In the VA’s underlying statute, Congress explicitly banned the performance of abortions in the VA system.”

And there are new efforts by federal departments and agencies to use federal funds appropriated for other purposes to pay transportation expenses for employees who must travel to a different state to obtain an abortion:

“Federal agencies are also claiming newfound authority to redirect enormous sums of taxpayer money into the hands of abortion clinics — dollars appropriated to provide healthcare for the poor and funding meant to support our military. HHS announced that it would begin spending Medicaid funds to pay for patients to travel to obtain abortions, despite over 40 years of explicit congressional language in the Hyde Amendment … insisting that no HHS funds ‘shall be expended for any abortion’ or ‘for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.’”

As horrendous as these abuses of law to further abortion are, the brief also details multiple additional ways in which federal officials are weaponizing statutes and regulations in other fields and turning them into wrecking balls against constitutional liberties:

“Federal agencies … are weaponizing federal civil rights laws to impose radical gender ideology, thereby threatening religious liberty, free speech, parental rights, and the basic recognition of biological differences between men and women.

“On taking office, President Biden ordered every federal agency to enforce every sex discrimination law as though it covers sexual orientation and gender identity —with no regard for religious freedom, free speech, the rights of women and girls, and parental rights.

“Every federal agency involved in civil rights enforcement has thus been weaponizing [Bostock v. Clayton County, 2020]  to impose far-reaching mandates. These agency actions have no clear authorization from their underlying statutes — which simply prohibit sex discrimination — and in many cases explicitly rely on rather than reject the biological binary between men and women.”

There is more, much more, sadly, described in this brief that exposes what appears to be the most comprehensive assault on First Amendment freedoms ever mounted by federal officials. This brief should be required reading for every American citizen.

Kari Lake Promises to Take Lawsuit ‘All the Way to the Supreme Court’



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Arizona Secretary of State Hobbs certified her tainted victory over Kari Lake on Monday, but Lake continues to challenge the results of the election, which she says was marred by systemic voter suppression and vowed to take her lawsuit “take it all the way to the Supreme Court” if necessary.

“We’re ready to go with what we believe to be an exceptional lawsuit. And we believe we will be victorious in that lawsuit,” Lake told Steve Bannon on Monday on his podcast. “We’ll take it all the way to the Supreme Court if we have to. We will not stop fighting,”

Last week, Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge John Tuchi sanctioned Lake and her lawyers for filing what he claimed was a frivolous, partisan lawsuit, prompting a harsh rebuke from Lake.

“This case is not about money or gain. It was essentially a public interest lawsuit seeking electoral integrity. It is very rare to sanction a party in public interest suits,” Lake spokesman Ross Trumble said in a statement. “There were five experts called by the plaintiff. One cannot be in ‘bad faith’ with that many experts supporting your theory. They could be wrong. But not bad faith.”

Related: ‘Voter Suppression Reared Its Ugly Head’ in Maricopa County, Says Arizona GOP

The previous two elections in Maricopa County, Ariz., have been controversial for how poorly they were conducted. Last year, a forensic audit of the presidential election found thousands of discrepancies in the county. On Election Day this year, many Republicans were expected to vote for Kari Lake. But in the districts where most Republican voters were expected to vote, there were a lot of technical problems that prevented thousands of GOP voters from voting.


Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene rants about being targeted in a "swatting" incident at her home and how close she could have come to being killed, reacts to people going over the top for disagreeing with her politics, and how President Biden is ruining the economy with student loan forgiveness - via. "American Agenda" on Newsmax.

They Want Her Dead: Marjorie Taylor Greene Swatted for Second Night in a Row



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

For the second night in a row, police showed up at the home of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) in the early hours of Thursday morning, responding to a fake 911 call. Once again, it appears that someone on the Left is hoping to get Greene into a situation in which she or others in her home could be killed.

Two police officers rushed to Greene’s home in Rome, Ga., in response to a call they received at 2:53 a.m. The call, according to the Rome Police Department, was about “a male possibly shooting his family members and then himself.”

MSN reported that “the suspect, who called through an internet chat that appeared to be a suicide crisis line, falsely told police responders that a man ‘came out as trans-gender and claimed they shot the family’ at Greene’s address, the report said.” The caller gave his name as Wayne Greene and told police on the call: “If anyone tried to stop me from shooting myself, I will shoot them.” He also warned cops that “they would be waiting for us.”

At the house, there was, of course, no Wayne Greene. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene once again met the police officers at the front door, as she did in the early hours of Wednesday morning. They told her about the call and, according to the Rome Police Department, “confirmed this was a second false report.” The report added that the call can’t be traced, “due to the person(s) using a VPN.”

As Greene stated Wednesday, “This is how they get people killed… it’s like political terrorism.” Police responding to what they have been led to believe is a crisis situation could all too easily respond mistakenly but lethally to innocuous behavior, resulting in Greene’s death or the death of someone else at the house.

As Stephen Green reported Wednesday, the first caller told cops that someone had been shot inside Greene’s home. The Rome News-Tribune said that the call led cops to think “a man who had been shot multiple times was in the bathtub at Greene’s home. The caller also stated there was a woman inside the home and possibly children with her. When officers arrived, Greene assured them there was no issue at the home.”

For that call, we know the motive. The Rome Police Department stated: “After we cleared the call and went back in service, Rome-Floyd 911 received a call from the suspect, claiming responsibility for the incident and explaining his/her motives. It was a computer-generated voice. They explained they were upset about Ms. Greene’s stance on ‘trans-gender youth’s rights,’ and stated they were trying to ‘swat’ her. The report also stated that the caller claimed they are connected to a website that police said supports cyberstalking and gave the police their user name on the site.”

This makes it clear yet again: radical Leftists are totalitarians. They want their opponents silenced. They want their opponents dead. They will brook no dissent.

Related: UPDATE: Marjorie Taylor Greene Swatted; 911 Caller Was ‘Upset’ Over MTG’s Stance on ‘Transgender Youth Rights’

Greene’s spokesman Nick Dyer said: “Right now, Congresswoman Greene’s safety is our number one concern. Late last night, she was a victim of a political attack on her family and home. Whoever committed this violent crime will face the full extent of the law.” To that, MSN sneered that “a statement from Greene’s office… described the calls as ‘violent crimes’ even though no violence occurred.”

It’s only conservative speech that is violent, you see. Leftists actively trying to fool cops into committing an act of violence and kill a sitting congresswoman? That’s not violence. Violence is only something the other side engages in.

Greene herself was having none of it and said: “Those media companies, they’re responsible for trying to get me killed by those horrific headlines. The disgusting left, MSNBCs and the NBCs, putting headlines up there that I’m targeting trans kids, that is the biggest lie, and I should sue them for saying such things.”

That would be refreshing, particularly if her suits were victorious, but the more immediate question at hand is: will this persistent swatter be caught? If he or she is caught, will there be any serious prosecution? Or will a Leftist judge who holds the same view of Marjorie Taylor Greene as that of the swatter himself dismiss these crimes as an innocuous exercise in political protest and release the offender with a slap on the wrist, if that? The larger question is: can a committed conservative, a genuine and effective dissident from the line of the political and media elites, get justice in America today?

“Summer of rage” leak: Biden ignored systemic attacks on religious orgs after Roe v. Wade



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

“Dozens of acts of violence, destruction, and harassment aimed at intimidating anti-abortion Christians and conservatives” represent a serious breach of the rule of law, not to mention outright persecution. But what concern does the Biden administration have for America’s foundations, constitution and law? The invasion of the Southern border points to the answer.

“Summer of Rage, Part VI: Biden Administration Ignores Systematic Attack on Religious Communities in Wake of Dobbs Leak,” by Alexander Marlow, Breitbart, August 20, 2022:

Since the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case that eventually led to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, America has endured a “Summer of Rage.” The wave of demonstrations saw protesters going far beyond simply donning “Handmaid’s Tale” bonnets and gathering around the Supreme Court. There have been dozens of acts of violence, destruction, and harassment aimed at intimidating anti-abortion Christians and conservatives. In this series of articles, we identify key players, organizations, and locations in this radical movement. We will also explain elements of the interconnected system that provides organizational and/or financial support for this radical agenda.

According to a list maintained by the Family Research Council (FRC), there have been 87 attacks on churches or pregnancy centers since the Dobbs decision was leaked on May 2, 2022. Of those attacks, there have been 34 on churches, 53 attacks on pregnancy centers, and 23 “other incidents,” including attacks on government buildings, based on the FRC data.

This procession of hate crimes has been ongoing throughout the publication of the Summer of Rage exposé, which is now in its sixth installment. Just this week, we saw what appears to be yet another example. Vandals scrawled the threat “if abortions aren’t safe, neither are you,” as well as the words “Jane’s Revenge,” in red paint at the Bethlehem House pregnancy care center in Easthamptom, Massachusetts. Jane’s Revenge is the name of one of the amorphous groups of radical leftists that has been the subject of this series.

Pro-life pregnancy centers provide resources for families and encourage them to choose life for their unborn children. Bethlehem House is run by volunteers and provides wipes, car seats, strollers, blankets, clothing, and other essentials for young children.

They also give away blessed rosaries, which The Atlantic recently likened to “assault weapons.”

On June 25, 2022 alone, the day after Roe v. Wade was overturned, there were attacks on eight churches, eight pregnancy centers, and a government building.

These attacks have generated minimal acknowledgement, much less a response, from the Biden administration and federal law enforcement, who steadfastly track—and prosecute—incidents targeting abortion providers….

Delaware “Assault Weapons” Ban Unconstitutional, Declares New Lawsuit

Delaware “Assault Weapons” Ban Unconstitutional, Declares New Lawsuit



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

Following the Uvalde, Texas, mass shooting, Delaware’s Democratic Party — which controls the offices of governor, secretary of state, attorney general, and both chambers of the state’s legislature — rushed through nine gun-control bills in response. They largely ignored not only protections guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but also broader protections guaranteed by Article 1, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution: “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.”   

And they largely ignored as well the recent ruling by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Following that ruling, the high court remanded (returned) pending lawsuits impacted by that ruling to the states to comply accordingly.

On Wednesday, the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association and several other groups and individuals sued Delaware state officials charged with enforcing the new law, asking the U.S. District Court of Delaware to render the law unenforceable.

The Delaware law makes it illegal to make, sell, purchase, or possess so-called assault weapons, including semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles such as the immensely popular AR-15 platform. It also bans possession of “large capacity” magazines, arbitrarily defined as containing more than 17 rounds of ammunition.

The law provides a long list of the newly-prohibited handguns and rifles and then, to make sure that if any were not included in the list they would also be banned, defined “assault” rifles as having detachable magazines and pistol grips, a flash suppressor, having a barrel shroud, and — unbelievably — the capability of launching grenades as well.

The lawsuit declares that “the State of Delaware recently enacted in law [a bill] which flouts the fundamental civil rights of Delawareans … by making them criminals — felons — for exercising one of their most exacted rights enshrined in both the Delaware Constitution and the United States Constitution.”

House Bill 450 and its companion Senate Bill 68 were signed into law on June 30 (the Uvalde shooting occurred on May 24) by Democrat Governor John Carney, who said at the time that “we have an obligation to do everything we can to prevent tragedies like we’ve seen around the country from happening here in Delaware.”

He said nothing about how similar bans have failed to prevent such shootings, nor did he say anything about the mental states of the shooters. It was all about inanimate objects and punishing their innocent owners in order to make a political statement.

From the lawsuit:

When House Bill 450 was signed into law on June 30, 2022, the State of Delaware criminalized possession, transportation and sale of common firearms used by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes — mislabeling them as “assault weapons” — making it a felony for law-abiding citizens to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear such arms.

The plaintiffs

seek declaratory and injunctive relief not only on the basis that the Regulatory Scheme violates their rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, but also on the fact that the Regulatory Scheme violates their rights under Delaware Constitution, Article I Section 20; their rights to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Delaware Constitution; their right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit referred to the Bruen decision coupled with the Heller decision (District of Columbia v. Heller, decided by the Supreme Court in 2008) which “assert that the Second Amendment protects the carrying of weapons that are those ‘in common use’ at the time.”

It derided Delaware officials who passed the law, using the phrase “assault weapons” in the text:

The banned semiautomatic firearms deemed as “assault weapons” under the Regulatory Scheme, like all other semiautomatic firearms, fire only one round for each pull of the trigger.

They are not machine guns.

What is more, the designation “assault weapons” is a complete misnomer, “developed by anti-gun publicists” in their crusade against lawful firearm ownership.

Further, banning such “assault weapons” has historically had almost no impact on mass shootings:

According to a widely cited 2004 study, these arms “are used in a small fraction of gun crimes.” See Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control [for] evidence [that] indicates that “well under 1% of [crime guns] are ‘assault rifles.’”

More recent data confirms Kleck’s 2004 conclusions. FBI crime statistics found that of the average of 14,556 homicides committed annually for the past decade, rifles typically account for just 314 of them. And in 2019, the latest year for which records are available, Delaware suffered 48 homicides, with none of them attributed to a rifle.

Of the five judges currently sitting on the U.S. District Court of Delaware, two were appointed by President Donald Trump, one was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, and the other two were appointed by Presidents Obama and Biden.

The New American will keep its readers advised of developments in the case.

WATCH: AOC and Other House Dems Fake Being Handcuffed at SCOTUS Protest



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

If you’ve always wanted to see AOC (pretend to) do the perp walk, now’s your chance. Axios is reporting that at least 17 Democrat members of the House have been arrested for participating in the Marxist protest tactic of blocking traffic on a public road.

U.S. Capitol Police began arresting the representatives after they ignored three warnings to stop blocking traffic on a street in Washington, D.C., near the Supreme Court.

Jennifer Shutt, Washington senior reporter at States Newsroom, posted about the incident on Twitter:

“Members of Congress and abortion rights advocates being taken away by Capitol Police aren’t being handcuffed or zip tied. They’re being taken to a shady area to be processed” — sounds rough!

One of the arrestees, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), told Axios, “There is no democracy if women do not have control over their own bodies and decisions about their own health, including reproductive care.”

Axios is listing the arrested politicians as:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.),
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.)
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.)
Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.)
Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.)
Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.)
Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.)
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.)
Rep. Andy Levin (D-Mich.)
Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.)
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.)
Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas)
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)

In this entertaining video from the Daily Signal’s Douglas Blair, you can watch drama queen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pretend to be handcuffed as she tosses her hair and smiles bravely for the cameras, perp-posing in a pair of less-than-practical-but-also-gorgeous tan heels. No Doc Martins for this fashionista! (What’s with the jacket, though? It’s D.C., in the summer, during a heatwave.)

Ilhan Omar’s stab at heroics was even more ludicrous as she live-acted the old saying, “She couldn’t get arrested in that town.” The clown music playing in the background is especially apropos:

Related: AOC Still Hasn’t Paid 2017 State Taxes Owed From Her Failed Business

Axios reporter Andrew Solender has posted a thread of videos on Twitter, the first of which is embedded below. Enjoy watching some of Washington’s most irritating celebrity nags making their way to the holding pen, which is in the shade and stocked with water bottles. Because they are Democrats, they will no doubt be released momentarily and face little or no consequence.

Multiple members of Congress, including @AOC, being arrested by Capitol Police for blocking traffic outside the Supreme Court in abortion rights demonstration:

— Andrew Solender (@AndrewSolender) July 19, 2022

1 2 3 8