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
AFLDS.org 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.
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..
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.”
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.
Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.
New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- 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 unconnectedwith 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
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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-Tribunesaid 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.
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?
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….
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.
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. pic.twitter.com/zANyUKmVRf
“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:
In this clip, Ilhan Omar appears to be wearing fake handcuffs and walking away alone with her hands behind her back.
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: pic.twitter.com/fysQN1oBAw
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh dropped by Morton’s Steakhouse in downtown Washington, D.C., for dinner Wednesday night, but it didn’t turn out to be a pleasant evening: Kavanaugh was spotted, Leftist protesters appeared, and the justice had to leave through the back door. A Morton’s representative then issued a statement saying that politics shouldn’t intrude on one’s “right to eat dinner,” and for Leftist Twitter, it was off to the races. “The right to eat dinner”? Why, that isn’t in the Constitution, and therefore does not exist!
Politico was likewise cheered at the prospect of Leftist thugs forcing Kavanaugh to flee Morton’s, heading its notice of the incident “Happy Friday” and adding:“Thanks for reading Playbook. Drop us a line with your best constitutional argument for the right to eat dinner.” Politico then provided email addresses for three of its “journalists”: Rachael Bade, Eugene Daniels, and Ryan Lizza.
The “constitutional argument for the right to eat dinner” business comes from Morton’s response to the incident, which began, Politico said, when “D.C. protesters targeting the conservative Supreme Court justices who signed onto the Dobbs decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion got a tip that Justice Brett Kavanaugh was dining at Morton’s downtown D.C. location. Protesters soon showed up out front, called the manager to tell him to kick Kavanaugh out, and later tweeted that the justice was forced to exit through the rear of the restaurant.” Note the manipulative wording: Politico assumes that there is a “constitutional right to abortion” that was overturned when there never actually was such a right, and the claim that there was never had any justification in the Constitution at all. This is how the Leftist media attempts to control the narrative.
Politico went farther than that, sneering at Kavanaugh despite the fact that he was the victim of the incident. If Sonia Sotomayor had been the Justice who was thus harassed, would Politico’s coverage have been different? Like night and day. But in this case, Politico continued, “Daniel Lippman looked into the incident for us and confirmed that account. While the court had no official commenton Kavanaugh’s behalf and a person familiar with the situation said he did not hear or see the protesters and ate a full meal but left before dessert, Morton’s was outraged about the incident.” And here is where the real fun began: “A rep for the chain steakhouse sent Lippman this statement: ‘Honorable Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh and all of our other patrons at the restaurant were unduly harassed by unruly protestors while eating dinner at our Morton’s restaurant. Politics, regardless of your side or views, should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner. There is a time and place for everything. Disturbing the dinner of all of our customers was an act of selfishness and void of decency.”
Was the Morton’s rep making a statement about constitutional rights? Of course not. He or she was making a statement about common decency, a virtue that is in alarmingly short supply among Leftists. But in using the word “right” in connection with Kavanaugh’s natural right to enjoy a meal in peace, Morton’s rep gave Leftist commentators what they thought was an opening. MSNBC’s Katie S. Phang tweeted: “‘The right to eat dinner.’ Sounds like a privacy right not identified or listed in the Constitution so therefore, it doesn’t exist.” Another Leftist “journalist,” Judd Legum, tweeted an implicit call for boycotts of restaurants that had the temerity to let conservatives eat: “.@Mortons is owned by billionaire @TilmanJFertitta Fertitta also owns @RainForest_Cafe, @McandSchmicks, @BubbaGumpCo, and numerous other chains.” If such boycotts materialize, that would be just fine with the fascists of ShutDownDC, who tweeted: “We hear Kavanaugh snuck out the back with his security detail. @mortons should be ashamed for welcoming a man who so clearly hates women.”
The reactions from Politico and the Leftist journalists, and numerous other Leftists on Twitter, show that the Left is embracing totalitarianism at a rapid clip and that all too many Leftists are just fine with the idea that if you hold political opinions that they deem unacceptable, you should be harassed and hounded anywhere and everywhere, presumably until you’re simply too exhausted to continue to dissent from their agenda. “Inside every progressive,” ex-progressive David Horowitz has said, “is a totalitarian screaming to get out.” They’re out, they’re out.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Paul Watson is back with another stellar video slamming leftist insanity. This time he shreds the feminist rage directed at the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v Wade.
GOP MORMON CANDIDATE FOR U.S. SENATE MAY ALLOW FOR ABORTIONS?
"Productive. Inclusive. Proactive."
BUT NOT NECESSARILY "PRO-LIFE" AS PER MORMON RULES
"Race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and other factors should not limit opportunities or access to education, employment, housing, and healthcare."
"Lawmaker & Principled Conservative. Becky is a proven and effective lawmaker with a strong policy record for addressing the issues that matter to her constituents with efficient, forward-thinking, and innovative ideas that build a better future."
"Becky is a proud 29-year resident of Davis County in Northern Utah. She is married to John Edwards and has four children and 11 grandchildren. She recently served in Samoa with her husband as a humanitarian missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from May 2019–January 2021."
BREAKING: Republican U.S. Senate Candidate Becky Edwards Tells Undercover Journalist She is Utah’s ‘Best Bet’ to ‘Stand Up’ For Abortion if Roe v. Wade is Overturned; “Deeply Concerned” with ‘Trigger Laws ’ • Project Veritas Action published undercover footage of U.S. Senate Candidate, Becky Edwards (R-Utah), who is seen expressing her willingness to “stand up” for abortion.
• In the footage, Edwards is approached by a Project Veritas Action Undercover Reporter who initiated a conversation about support for abortion and Edwards says, “I can absolutely guarantee you, I’m your best bet and the only candidate who has even said anything other than, ‘joyful, happy, yay, answer to prayer,’ on what we’re seeing on [overturning] Roe.”
• Edwards then says, “I’m going to stand up” in reference to abortion. She goes on to expresses her concern for Utah’s trigger law: “…and we have like trigger laws here in Utah that basically is going to make things really - I’m deeply concerned.”
• Edwards is a Utah state representative running to unseat incumbent U.S. Senator, Mike Lee (R-Utah). Edwards has not yet responded to a request for comment.
[SALT LAKE CITY– June 23, 2022] Project Veritas Action has published undercover footage of U.S. Senate Candidate, Becky Edwards (R-Utah), speaking candidly about her intention to “stand up” for abortion.
In the video, Edwards is approached by a Project Veritas Action undercover reporter who expressed support for abortion. Edwards described her concern for Utah’s abortion trigger law which would set a new policy framework on the matter in the event Roe v. Wade is overturned.
“I can absolutely guarantee you, I’m your best bet,” Edwards said. “And the only candidate who has even said anything other than, ‘joyful, happy, yay, answer to prayer,’ on what we’re seeing on [overturning] Roe,” Edwards added.
Edwards then said, “I’m going to stand up,” and repeats that when the undercover journalist says, “for abortion.”
In the footage, Edwards makes comments critical of states with similar laws planned to take effect. “No, no! Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma, what the heck? Idaho even!”
Edwards is running to unseat incumbent Senator, Mike Lee. At the time of this writing, Edwards has not responded to a request for comment.
Becky Edwards on Voting Against The Down syndrome Abortion Ban
Mike Lee primary challenger Becky Edwards makes excuses for her NO-vote on a Down syndrome abortion ban.
Mormons now look liberal on abortion — by not changing
The GOP has swung so far to the right that Mormons’ nuanced abortion stance, once commonly accepted by fellow conservatives, now looks liberal by comparison.
"That may shed light on why the church has added a new twist to its stance on abortion. Within hours of the June 24 Supreme Court decision, it updated its abortion policy with a new final paragraph:
“The Church’s position on this matter remains unchanged. As states work to enact laws related to abortion, Church members may appropriately choose to participate in efforts to protect life and to preserve religious liberty.”
To preserve religious liberty. The church here connected its long-standing position on abortion with the concept of religious freedom — exactly when the Supreme Court decision undermined LDS members’ right to follow their own handbook instructions on this issue. Though the church has always opposed abortion in the abstract and regarded it as a sin, it has also, for example, consistently sided with protecting maternal health if a mother’s life was endangered by pregnancy. Now that Roe is no more and individual states are free to enact laws without those three provisions, it’s not inconceivable that LDS women in those states who experience medical emergencies related to pregnancy may die. Two of my own friends who are LDS mothers experienced complications with their pregnancies, and one might have died without a medically induced abortion. This is no longer an abstract or theoretical possibility.
Given that, it’s not entirely clear that the new codicil about church members being encouraged to protect life and preserve religious liberty is actually instructing them to oppose all abortions. The vague wording leaves room for activism on the other side. For example, church members who are interested in protecting religious freedom for all may wish to side with Jews who want to abide by Jewish law — law that not only permits but requires abortion in certain circumstances. Mormons who stand for religious freedom will want Jews to be able to live their religion."
“The Biden Admin Just Made It Easier for Terrorists To Enter the United States,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, June 29, 2022:
The Biden administration altered federal law to make it easier for individuals who have worked with designated terrorist groups to legally enter the United States.
The State and Homeland Security Departments last week amended federal immigration laws to allow foreigners who provided “insignificant material support” to designated terror groups to receive “immigration benefits or other status,” according to the policy published in the Federal Register but not formally announced by the administration. Examples of individuals who would fall into the new category, according to the announcement, include individuals who provided “humanitarian assistance” or “routine commercial transactions” to terror groups.
The policy shift is fueling concerns that the Biden administration wants to make it easier for individuals who work with or for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), the country’s paramilitary fighting force that has killed hundreds of Americans, to enter the country. Notice of the change came several days before the Biden administration and hardline Iranian government resumed talks aimed at securing a revamped version of the 2015 nuclear deal.
A State Department spokesman said the law was amended to help vulnerable Afghans, who might have inadvertently worked with terror groups, gain refuge in the United States following the Biden administration’s bungled withdrawal that left the Taliban in power. Lawmakers and former U.S. officials, however, say the new regulations are so broadly written that they would apply to organizations like al Qaeda and the IRGC. The policy change is also raising red flags as U.S. officials, including former secretary of state Mike Pompeo, face credible death threats from Iran.
The rule does not specifically mention Afghanistan but is written to cover all U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations, such as the IRGC and al Qaeda, experts told the Free Beacon. The Taliban is not designated as a foreign terrorist organization, leaving lawmakers and former U.S. officials concerned the changes extend far beyond vulnerable Afghans and cover those tied to some of the globe’s most violent terror groups.
Gabriel Noronha, a State Department special adviser for Iran during the Trump administration, said that “the Biden administration is claiming this regulation is all about Afghanistan, but they didn’t even mention Afghanistan once in their action, and have made no serious attempt to limit the scope to the situation there.”
“Instead,” said Noronha, who is a fellow with the Jewish Institute for National Security of America think tank, “this looks like a massive watering down of our immigration restrictions against members of terrorist organizations.”
The State Department says the changes are limited to Afghanistan, but would not say why the country is not mentioned once in the new order….
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
(Natural News) We have received word that the Pentagon (Pentagram) will not be allowing any new abortion laws as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to stand.
Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III issued a statement in response to the SCOTUS decision basically stating that abortion will remain legal, regardless of what the highest court in the land thinks about it.
“Nothing is more important to me or to this Department than the health and well-being of our Service members, the civilian workforce, and DoD families,” Austin said.
“I am committed to taking care of our people and ensuring the readiness and resilience of our Force,” he added.
“The Department is examining this decision closely and evaluating our policies to ensure we continue to provide seamless access to reproductive health care as permitted by federal law.”
According to Politico, the Department of Defense (DoD) does not yet have any policy to announce that would accommodate female service members who want to murder their babies but currently live in states where the gruesome practice is now illegal.
“Female troops seeking the procedure already face steep hurdles to getting the care they need: They cannot get abortions at military medical facilities, and federal law also prevents troops from using their Tricare health insurance to cover the cost of the procedures at private facilities, unless the life of the mother is at risk due to the Hyde Amendment,” Politico reported.
ANARCHY: America’s most powerful institutions are planning to ignore the SCOTUS ruling
Austin’s use of the word “continue” to describe the seamless access to abortion he says will remain in the military points to the fact that large factions of American institutions are planning to flat-out disobey and rebel against the court ruling.
Both the aforementioned ruling and the overturning of Roe v. Wade represent a major blow to the baby murder industry, which Leftist women rely on as a key component of their identity.
The assumption, based on the DoD and the Pentagon statement is that “reproductive health care,” as they are erroneously calling it, will continue to be provided in violation of the Supreme Court rulings.
Someone on Twitter asked if any of this is actually legal, to which the simple answer is: no, it is not legal. But disregarding the law no longer seems to come with any consequences, at least not for Leftists who want to continue living in utter sin and depravity without consequences.
“The feds don’t have to acknowledge state laws,” suggested another. “Federal offices and such operate under federal jurisdiction, not state jurisdiction. State governments can’t go after federal employees and such operating on federal land.”
Another called this an insurrection against SCOTUS, which is exactly what it is – and it is being sanctioned by the very same Biden regime that claims the Jan. 6, 2021, incident was the worst thing to ever happen in America.
“So then what’s the point of the Supreme Court?” asked another – great question.
Perhaps it is time to just shut the government down completely until we can get to the bottom of this, said someone else, perhaps partially tongue-in-cheek but also making a great point about how this so-called government causes more harm than good, much like the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines.”
“The military is ruling over the Supreme Court?” asked another. “What does the Pentagon have to do with the rule of law?”
Someone else echoed this by pointing out that the Pentagon has no say whatsoever over the law and is stepping completely outside the bounds of its jurisdiction.
The latest news about the Left’s love affair with murdering babies can be found at
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued several momentous decisions in the past week. One of the rulings struck down Maine's state tuition subsidy program as a violation of the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religious beliefs. Another ruling struck down New York’s law strictly limiting the carrying of concealed guns for self-defense outside of the home as a violation of the Second Amendment. On June 24th, the Supreme Court overturned the fifty-year Roe v. Wade precedent that had created a constitutional “right” to an abortion out of whole cloth.
Looking at these decisions in a broader context, they evidence a consistent strict constructionist approach to interpreting the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority looks to what is actually written in the Constitution’s text and its history, where relevant, rather than trying to impose the justices' own policy views on what they think the Constitution should say. The religious freedom and gun rights decisions are rooted in the explicit provisions of the First Amendment and the Second Amendment, respectively. Roe v. Wade, on the other hand, grafted a manufactured “right” onto the Constitution without any clear textual or relevant historical foundation.
This article will focus on the Supreme Court’s religious freedom decision in Carson v. Makin. The decision reinforced the enumerated constitutional right to the free exercise of religious beliefs, which is explicitly set forth in the text of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court ruled on June 21st that Maine’s tuition subsidy program for students in school districts that neither operate a secondary public school of their own nor contract with a particular school in another district is unconstitutional. By a 6-3 vote, the conservative majority held that the program violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The program denies parents who send their children living in these districts to private religious schools the same financial benefits that parents who send their children to private secular schools are entitled to receive.
In short, the state of Maine stacked the deck against families of faith.
“The State pays tuition for certain students at private schools—so long as the schools are not religious,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion. “That is discrimination against religion.”
Chief Justice Roberts concluded his opinion by writing that “Maine’s ‘nonsectarian’ requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described, the program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.”
The Supreme Court majority decision dismissed the notion that honoring parental school choice in the use of Maine’s tuition funding to pay the cost of sending their children to private religious schools violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote that “a neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause.”
The three liberal justices - Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan – not surprisingly dissented.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Breyer disagreed with how the majority interpreted the application of the Establishment Clause to this case.
According to Justice Breyer, “state neutrality in respect to the teaching of the practice of religion lies at the heart” of the Establishment Clause. “The Establishment Clause was intended to keep the State out of this area,” he wrote.
Justice Breyer objected to the majority’s reliance on the Free Exercise Clause to strike down Maine’s decision to deny state funding to those parents who want to send their children to private religious schools, not private secular schools.
“Nothing in our Free Exercise Clause cases compels Maine to give tuition aid to private schools that will use the funds to provide a religious education,” Justice Breyer wrote.
Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion that “it is irrational for this Court to hold that the Free Exercise Clause bars Maine from giving money to parents to fund the only type of education the State may provide consistent with the Establishment Clause: a religiously neutral one.”
The dissenters have it wrong. While the Establishment Clause prohibits governments from compelling or endorsing a religious belief, preferring one religion over another, or entangling themselves unduly in religious matters, the Establishment Clause does not mandate that governments be hostile to people of faith in the public domain.
If parents can choose whether to send their children to a public school in their own school district or to a private school, the parents should bear the financial consequences of choosing a private school. That would be true whether the private school provides religious instruction or not.
This case is different, however. Maine’s government officials have deprived parents of the opportunity to send their children to public schools in certain districts where they live because, as a result of governmental decisions, there are no suitable public schools in those districts. Maine tried to solve this problem with a workaround – a tuition taxpayer-funded subsidy program that pays the tuition of the private school chosen by the parents for their children.
The constitutional problem with Maine’s tuition program is that it was not neutral either in its design or implementation. Not all parents needing financial help to send their children to private schools as a result of the failure of Maine’s government officials to build any age-appropriate public schools in the children’s districts have been treated the same. Maine’s tuition program discriminated against parents of faith by precluding them from receiving any public subsidies altogether if they chose a private religious school for their children’s education instead of a private secular school.
As Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “there is nothing neutral about Maine’s program.” Quoting from a prior Supreme Court opinion, he explained that “a state need not subsidize private education” but “once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”
With her usual hyperbole, Justice Sotomayor wrote that the Court’s majority “continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build.”
President Thomas Jefferson is often quoted by those who want to build an impenetrable wall between church and state. He wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists dated January 1, 1802, in which he said, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
The expression “building a wall of separation between Church & State” appears nowhere in the Constitution itself. To use it for the purpose of interpreting the Establishment Clause, the expression needs to be examined in its historical context to understand what President Jefferson was talking about.
The Danbury Baptists had written to President Jefferson expressing their concern that “religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.”
The Congregational Church was the established church in Connecticut at the time. Other denominations, including the Baptists, could only set up their own churches with the approval of a justice of the peace. The Congregational Church basically ran Connecticut’s educational system.
President Jefferson sought to assure the Danbury Baptists that he would not do anything as president to impose his will on how the Danbury Baptists or any other religious sect decided to practice their religious beliefs. That was the purpose of his letter.
In an earlier draft of the letter, President Jefferson was even more explicit as to his intentions. He first wrote that "confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine.” After reflection, he wrote in the final version of the letter simply that he would adhere to the “expression of the supreme will of the nation on behalf of the rights of conscience…”
In short, Thomas Jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state was meant to prevent government control of religious beliefs or religious control of governments' decisions and actions. It was not meant to be used as a pretext for governmental hostility to all religions and people of faith in administering what are supposed to be generally available government benefit programs.
The Constitution’s text and historical underpinnings are what matters when interpreting the Constitution, not what a justice would like it to say based on the justice’s own personal value preferences and desired public policy outcomes. Today’s Supreme Court majority is adhering to this fundamental principle.
CALL FOR CIVIL WAR? Pelosi Calls on Abortion Supporters to 'RISE UP,' Make Republicans 'REGRET what they’ve done'
“Or we can RISE UP, meet this ONCE-IN-A-GENERATION moment, and marshal a response so HISTORIC that we make every last anti-choice Republican REGRET what they’ve done.”
DAY THREE OF PROTESTS AT SUPREME COURT AND MANY OTHER STATE CAPITOLS
Jun 26, 2022'The Big Sunday Show' panelists weigh in on the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and discuss the impact it has on the pro-choice and pro-life movements.
AOC calls for impeachment of SCOTUS justices over Roe v Wade decision
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
The Dobbs v. Jackson decision doesn’t make abortion illegal; it just sends the decision as to whether or not to outlaw it back to the states. But that isn’t good enough for the totalitarian Left, which has to be able to sacrifice children to Moloch everywhere, without any hindrance, or all the fun goes out of the whole thing. And so Leftists are reacting to the decision with their predictable rage and hysteria; Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Space Cadet) demanded that pro-abortionists go “into the streets,” and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Rage) declared, “The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them!” And now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Stolichnaya) has, with all of the Left’s characteristic unapologetic gaucherie, used the decision as the basis for a fundraising appeal, during which she called upon her followers to “rise up.” Insurrection? Count on it.
Pelosi’s crass fundraising email stated: “Trump’s Supreme Court just ruled to rip reproductive rights away from every single woman in this country.” The choice of words here was unfortunate, to put it mildly, in light of the fact that Pelosi was raising money for the cause of maintaining the legality of ripping children limb from limb in their mother’s womb, but the message only got worse from there. “I don’t say this lightly,” Pelosi’s fundraising writer continued with all the portentous solemnity he or she could muster: “How we act TODAY will decide the future of reproductive rights.”
Yeah, sure. Pelosi has earned millions upon millions while acting as a servant of the people, but she still has the lack of self-awareness and no-holds-barred gall to ask her Leftist followers, who are no doubt struggling to make ends meet on their latest welfare check or government subsidy, to kick in a few bucks to help her ensure that no one, but no one, is prevented from killing a baby should he or she or xe choose to do so. It all depends on the Leftist little guy. Pelosi’s email warns, “We can either sit back and admit defeat to these far-right extremists…,” and then comes the red type in bold and underlined:
“Or we can RISE UP, meet this ONCE-IN-A-GENERATION moment, and marshal a response so HISTORIC that we make every last anti-choice Republican REGRET what they’ve done.”
What an interesting choice of words, Madame Speaker! What exactly do you mean by making pro-lifers “regret” what they’ve done? To be sure, Pelosi’s fundraising wonk could simply mean that the Republicans should be made to suffer a defeat at the ballot box that is so resounding and catastrophic that their miserable, beaten remnant will never dare to oppose abortion again. Or the email could mean that Republicans should be brutalized and subjected to violence until they are too frightened to oppose abortion.
Pelosi couldn’t possibly mean that, could she? The door is definitely left open to that idea in the email, which continues: “Please, [name], I’ve never needed your support more than today. Can you chip in $15 so we can WIN these midterms and finally codify reproductive rights into law?” Ah, so it is all about the elections, and working peacefully and legally for change. But read on: “[Name], this isn’t a normal fundraising email. And a normal response won’t suffice.”
Now, wait a minute. A normal response won’t suffice? If Pelosi’s hapless mark duly kicks in fifteen bucks for the murder of children, wouldn’t that be a normal response to a fundraising email? But a normal response won’t suffice. Pelosi’s email here, with its “RISE UP” and “REGRET what they’ve done” and “a normal response won’t suffice,” definitely leaves the door open to being read as a call for violence. Although the boss frequently appears to be alcohol-addled, Pelosi’s office isn’t stupid and likely meant it to be capable of being read in this way. Even if they didn’t, imagine if a conservative Republican representative sent out the identical email: there would be furious calls for his or her resignation and dark warnings about elected officials encouraging “white supremacist violence.”
What’s more, it’s not in the least farfetched that Pelosi would be calling for violence. In 2018, speaking about the separation of migrant children from their putative parents at the Southern border, Pelosi said, “I just don’t even know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country. And maybe there will be when people realize that this is a policy that they defend.”
Maybe she’ll get her uprisings now. But Pelosi, because she is part of the Leftist elite that is above the law in America today, will face no consequences for this email. Consequences, my friend, are for conservatives.
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.
Ruth Sent Us is the name of a new pro-abortion, far-leftist organization, but like all of them; it's not as it seems. It's not a grassroots movement. It's part of the well-funded leftist machine that is trying to undermine our values, and its roots can be traced back to the Communist Party. SARAH CAIN REPORTS:
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Disgusting radical pro-abortion groups are hard at work, firebombing churches and pro-life centers and threatening Americans who dare to work to protect the lives of the most vulnerable. Hours after a deranged man traveled across the country with the intent of assassinating Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a repugnant activist group calling itself Ruth Sent Us was putting targets on the backs of conservative justices’ children.
Previously, the group publicized the home addresses of conservative justices, whom it refers to them as the “SCOTUS 6,” and it continues to promote illegal protests targeting them. The group has been organizing a weekly march in front of each justice’s home:
On Wednesday, Ruth Sent Us tweeted a smarmy parody of concern for Justice Kavanaugh and rejected taking any responsibility for inspiring the assassination attempt. Then the group went right over the line and brought his wife and children into the conversation. “A special message for Ashley Kavanaugh and your daughters — this billboard was on your school grounds. We feel for you,” tweeted the radicals, along with a picture of a sign at the girls’ school. “@LeaderMcConnell and the GOP aren’t worried for your safety. They worry only about the expensive Supreme Court they rigged, and their own power. #SCOTUS”
A special message for Ashley Kavanaugh and your daughters — this billboard was on your school grounds. We feel for you.@LeaderMcConnell and the GOP aren’t worried for your safety. They worry only for the expensive Supreme Court they rigged, and their own power. #SCOTUSpic.twitter.com/g3n5fgjNZW
In other words, “We know where your kids are, we can get there any time, and no one will protect you.”
And if another deranged maniac just happens to target the children at that school, we’re sure Ruth Sent Us will once again deny any responsibility.
Earlier that day, the despicable activists reminded followers that Justice Amy Coney Barrett has seven children and pointed to the school attended by the kids:
If you’re in the DC metro area, join us. Our protests at Barrett’s home moved the needle to this coverage.
Falls Church is a People of Praise stronghold. She sends her seven kids to a People of Praise school that she sat on the Board of Directors for. She attends church DAILY. pic.twitter.com/keHxXp4TPQ
Ruth Sent Us dances along the edges of Twitter’s safety rules. The platform prohibits violent threats, the promotion of terrorism or violent extremism, and inciting harassment or violence. Pointing potentially violent people at a target with a wink and a nod is vile enough, but putting children in the crosshairs is inexcusable.
It’s worth noting that Ruth Sent Us also likes to tweet about school shootings. But I’m sure these activists would never dream of “unintentionally” inspiring the next kook to hit the school attended by the children of their political targets.
Since the draft SCOTUS opinion in the Dobbs case was leaked, pro-abortion domestic terror groups have been merrily firebombing and vandalizing churches, pro-life organization offices, and crisis pregnancy centers, leaving scrawled threats behind. Yet there is no media coverage of these acts, outrage from elected officials, or any significant arrest to date.
CompassCare’s CEO, Jim Harden told LifeNews, “This is the pro-abortion ‘Kristallnacht.’ Because of this act of violence, the needs of women facing unplanned pregnancy will go unmet and babies will die.”
Harden said CompassCare and other pro-life service centers have been the target of violence for months both online and in-person.
“Ironically, New York’s Governor not only ignored the violence but instead earmarked $35 million in taxpayer funds to increase security at abortion clinics. Adding insult to injury the New York legislature passed a bill investigating pro-life pregnancy centers precisely because they do not perform abortions,” he added.
“I wonder if Gov. Hochul will veto the Pregnancy Center Investigation Bill? I wonder if Attorney General Letitia James will investigate these cowardly criminals?” he asked.
In 1938, Kristallnacht terrorized German Jews not just because of the violence and destruction, but because it made clear that Nazi authorities would not protect them and would allow the violence to stand. America’s socialist Democrats shouldn’t be emulating lopsided enforcement; it’s never the good guys doing it, and it never turns out well.
