Woke Billionaire Transforms Madison’s Montpelier

Thomas Paine: American Philosopher, & Revolutionary

From 1776 through the formation of The Constitution I helped create America. Now I have returned to help save America. American Patriots must join together, speak out in free and open discussion to fight the “woke” anti-American mob, and further the cause of FREEDOM.

A recent article in the New York Post details how a liberal billionaire financed a transformation of James Madison’s homestead, Montpelier, into a 21st century museum of revisionist history, more suited to the “woke” mob of cultural activists than tourists interested in American history.   

A Few Excerpts

“No American flags fly at Montpelier, Madison’s plantation home in rural Virginia, and not a single display focuses on the life and accomplishments of America’s foremost political philosopher . . . “  [1]

One visitor commented:

“The worst part were the gross historical inaccuracies and constant bias exhibited by the tour guide” 

Another said:

“A one hour Critical Race Theory experience disguised as a tour.” 

Later in the article, it is revealed that “In May, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which owns the home, forced the board to accept a slate of left-wing activist members in the name of racial equity.”

The new members aim to transform Montpelier into “a black history and black rights organization that could care less about James Madison and his legacy,” board member Mary Alexander, a documented descendant of Madison’s slave Paul Jennings, told the Orange County Review.  [2]


James Madison, 4th President of the United States (1809-1817), worked with other members of the Virginia delegation, particularly Edmund Randolph and George Mason, at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, to draft and present the Virginia Plan, an outline of our federal Constitution, establishing the three  branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial).  He is widely recognized as The Father of The Constitution.  Along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, he co-wrote The Federalist Papers, some 85 essays in support of the Constitution, of which he authored 29.  He was also the principal architect of the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791.  Madison was one of thee most influential of all our founding fathers. 

Madison inherited the large tobacco plantation known as Montpelier, including his father’s numerous slaves, when he was 50 years old.  It is located in rural Orange County Virginia, not far from Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello.

James Madison did not invent slavery.  He did not purchase Montpelier and slaves to manage it.  He was just one of the prominent founders to have been living in the time when it was prevalent.  In fact, Madison opposed slavery intellectually, arguing against a proposed 20-year delay in ending the foreign slave trade.  But he found it necessary to accept a compromise in order to gain support from southern states to ratify the Constitution.  And he proposed what became known as the Three Fifths Compromise, an agreement reached during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, that accounted for the slave populations of the various states to be counted in determining the number of seats in the House of Representatives.

A Typical Disgrace Created by Woke Activism

Billionaire David M. Rubenstein granted $10 million to Montpelier to transform the homestead into a museum highlighting slavery and racism rather than a story of the respected founding father.  Virtual blasphemy.  It is utterly disgusting to me, having known the man to be one of, if not thee, brightest political philosophers of our time.  To erase a monument to his legacy and replace it with a museum of radical ideology focused on critical race theory and the 1619 Project is cultural warfare propagated by an anti-American activist.



[1]  Linge, Mary Kay & Levine, Jon ;Founding Father James Madison Sidelined by Woke History in His Own Home, New York Post ; July 16, 2022


[2]  ibid.

New York Defies Second Amendment Ruling

Thomas Paine: American Philosopher, & Revolutionary

From 1776 through the formation of The Constitution I helped create America. Now I have returned to help save America. American Patriots must join together, speak out in free and open discussion to fight the “woke” anti-American mob, and further the cause of FREEDOM.

Part 3 of a 3 part series on the 2nd Amendment

New York state legislators hammered out a hastily crafted bill in response to the recent Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen that openly defies the Second Amendment ruling.  (as a “primmer”, I highly recommend you read my last post HERE before proceeding).  The SCOTUS decision was announced on Thursday the 23rd of June.    

New York Democrat Governor Kathy Hochul signed the bill Friday the 1st of July.  It had passed the state Senate earlier in the day by a 43-20 vote along partisan lines, and by the Assembly that evening by a 91-51 vote.  [1] 

The votes are a matter of public record and should be listed on the official state website for reference when you next go to the polls to VOTE THEM ALL OUT.  Why, you may ask ?  Because you have 135 (43+91+1) ANARCHISTS occupying important positions in your state government.

The SCOTUS ruling is clear text language that absolutely guarantees the RIGHT of citizens to carry any weapon “in common use” in public for self-defense.  Justice Thomas’ opinion includes the phrases “all instruments that constitute bearable arms” and “modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense”.  In other words, the ruling is NOT limited to handguns.  I argued in my previous post that AR-15s are extremely popular and could be considered “all instruments”, though not specifically mentioned in the SCOTUS ruling.

An actual quote taken from Justice Thomas’s opinion

The more important distinction is the word “right”.  New York seems to think they are still in charge of licensing privileges, placing the burden on applicants to prove they are of proper “character and conduct” in order to secure a license to carry a handgun.  [2]

Privilege implies that a certain benefit, or favor, has been granted by some authority (the licensing authority).  To legally operate a motor vehicle you need a state-issued driver’s license.  Driving a car is a privilege that can be suspended or revoked for various offenses.  In contrast, you have the constitutional right to practice any religion, to peacefully protest for redress of grievances, and in criminal proceedings, the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury.  The same is true of the Second Amendment.  It is a constitutional RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE. 

The Revised New York State Gun Law

The newly enacted law includes the following provisions:

The bill removes the “proper cause” requirement that previously allowed government officials to deny permits unless the applicant could “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community”.

However, the applicant must still show they are of “good moral character”, whatever that means, and by whatever parameters they may decide.

Paine:  Here the state is presuming the applicant to be guilty of some undefined, morally objectionable behavior and must prove his innocence to qualify for an unnecessary license to exercise his Second Amendment right.  American jurisprudence assumes the accused innocent unless the government can prove guilt.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that there are “sensitive places” that could be restricted as so-called “gun free zones”, such as government buildings, and schools.  New York decided they could expand “gun free zones” to include medical facilities, places of worship, libraries, playgrounds, parks, zoos, summer camps, homeless shelters, addiction clinics, nursing homes, museums, theaters, stadiums, polling places, public transit, places where alcohol or marijuana is consumed, New York City’s Times Square, and private businesses without owner permission.

Paine:  That’s quite a list, and some of those places are not necessarily unreasonable.  But, parks seemingly include state parks where shooting for sport is appropriate; public transit is certainly a dangerous place where assaults occur at an alarming rate; and places where alcohol or marijuana is consumed is virtually everywhere.  In other words, the state wants to be able to prosecute anyone carrying a weapon, just like before. 

Applicants must complete at least 16 hours of “in-person” firearms safety training and at least two hours of training at a firing range, where they must prove their shooting proficiency according to standards to be developed by the state police. 

Paine:  I don’t see any provisions for those who have owned firearms for decades and are already well trained, or veterans who certainly are.  

Applicants must meet for an in-person interview with the licensing officer and provide names and contact information of their spouse or domestic partner, any other adults they live with and say whether children are in their home.  They must provide four character references.

The bill revives a dormant effort to create a state database tracking ammunition sales to license-holders buying certain kinds of ammunition. 

Paine:  How long before they ban the sale of ammunition outright ?

Bottom line: the state of New York, and others surely to follow, don’t want you to carry guns around in public, NO MATTER WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAYS, and there is NOTHING they won’t do to stop you.

So Now Where Are We ?

We know that New York legislators are not ignorant of the SCOTUS ruling.  The Reuters article stated they had enacted this new law after the Supreme Court decision and CNN quoted the New York Governor as saying, “Because of the stroke of a pen, the Supreme Court removed longstanding limitations that we were able to use in the state . . . “.

That leaves just two reactionary possibilities; they either don’t understand the meaning of the ruling, in which case they are too stupid to hold public office; or they do understand the meaning and have chosen to ignore it as the law of the land.  I see no reason to believe the former, because these 205 elected legislators, many of whom are lawyers, can’t all be that stupid.  The only remaining possibility is that they have decided to ignore the Supreme Court ruling and, by extension, the Constitution itself. 

The state of New York has established a state of anarchy, where government officials are openly defying the Supreme Court of the United States.  I’m sure most, if not all, of the other seven states that previously had “may issue” permit programs (California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia) will follow suit and attempt to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling in a show of solidarity.  They can’t possibly expect their new law, and others that follow, to be upheld when challenged.  Perhaps they think they can buy time until they pack the court with liberal judges and reverse the ruling.  

In Marbury v. Madison [3] we learned that “a law repugnant to the Constitution is void”.  I don’t think we can count on the Supreme Court to push back against New York, or any other state, and issue any statements that declare these new “laws” unconstitutional.  We may see a few county Sheriffs say they won’t enforce them, but it will likely be up to individuals prosecuted under these illegitimate “laws” to challenge the state and fight for their Second Amendment right, citing NYSRPA v. Bruen.  Meanwhile, residents in these anarchist stateswill have to conform or move away into a state that is more respectful of your constitutional rights.  If you become victim of harassment by any authority, remember to cite NYSRPA v. Bruen and try to calmly resolve the situation before they make it more difficult (and expensive) for you.

You can ignore it and fight it, but you can’t win in court.


Return to Part 1

Return to Part 2


[1]  del Valle, Lauren & Stracqualursi, Veronica ; New York Democratic Governor Signs Law Limiting Concealed Carry of Firearms in Wake of Supreme Court Ruling, CNN ; July 1, 2022


[2]  Allen, Jonathan ; Factbox: What’s in New York’s New Gun Laws After Supreme Court Ruling?, Reuters ; July 5, 2022


[3]  National Archives ; Marbury v. Madison (1803)


SCOTUS Decides Landmark Second Amendment Case

Thomas Paine: American Philosopher, & Revolutionary

From 1776 through the formation of The Constitution I helped create America. Now I have returned to help save America. Please join my Facebook group American Patriots in a free and open discussion to further the cause of FREEDOM.

Part 2 of a 3 part series on the 2nd Amendment

The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights

It was an eventful week down in D.C., and when I say “down” I mean in the sewer that is our nations’ capitol.  The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled on arguably the most important case ever decided on the Second Amendment and unless you were paying attention on Thursday, the 23rd of June, you may have missed it completely with all the hysteria surrounding their ruling in Roe v. Wade the next day.

I consider it my job to research important matters so that hard-working patriots don’t have to.  The information you are about to see is not politically slanted or misrepresented in any way.  I disseminate facts after carefully examining the relevant particulars of the story, making sure I comprehend the true meaning of the text, the source, and the intention of the original report. 

There are “currently” [1] 43 States that are considered “shall issue” jurisdictions, whereby authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need or suitability.

Only six States and the District of Columbia have “may issue” licensing laws, under which authorities have discretion to deny concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria, usually because the applicant has not demonstrated cause or suitability for the relevant license.  New York is “currently” the most restrictive.  No New York statute defines the term “proper cause”, the standard methodology used by authorities in considering applications, but state courts have held that an applicant shows proper cause “only if he can demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.”  And the “special need” requirement is a formidable barrier.  Living or working in an area with high criminal activity is not considered dangerous enough to warrant a license.

The other states under “may issue” protocols are California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. 

[1]  I used the word currently in quotation marks because it described the conditions existing at the time of the Supreme Court decision.  My understanding is that the SCOTUS decision renders all such licensing requirements obsolete immediately.  Supreme Court decisions are virtually final.  The only way to reverse a Supreme Court decision is by constitutional amendment or a new ruling by the Supreme Court itself. The likelihood of either is slim.

For those who support the 2nd Amendment the case referenced below is a huge victory against the evil forces that are determined to erode our constitutionally protected rights.  Let’s look at the actual case and some details of the opinion.

NYSRPA v. Bruen,  [2]

Supreme Court of the United States Case No. 20-843 ;

Argued November 3, 2021 – Decided June 23, 2022

Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court

Chief Justice Roberts joined. Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined.

Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion.  Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined.

Cite as:597 U. S. ____ (2022)

Opinion of the Court


The petitioners in this case, Brandon Koch and Robert Nash, both members of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., are New York residents.  Both were denied “unrestricted” licenses to carry handguns for self-defense. 

The respondents in this case are the Superintendent of the New York State Police and a New York State Supreme Court Justice who oversees the processing of license applications in the petitioners’ home county.

Petitioners filed suit for violation of their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights.  Their case was dismissed in District Court and upheld by the Court of Appeals, sustaining New York’s “proper cause” standard.

[2]  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

Highlights From the Opinion:

Because this Supreme Court decision is a public record document, not subject to copyright laws, I have quoted many passages verbatim.

The first paragraph of Justice Thomas’ opinion reads: page 7 (pdf)

   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.

Thomas ends his second paragraph by writing, “Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.”

Paine:  It didn’t take long to establish the right of any law-abiding citizen to carry a handgun in public.  Digging deeper into the decision, we can clearly see there are broader freedoms restored to “ordinary” citizens.

“Fortunately, the Founders created a Constitution – and a Second Amendment – intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.”

“Although its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it, the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated.”

“We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to ‘arms’ does not apply ‘only to those arms in existence in the 18th century.”

“Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.  Thus, even though the Second Amendment’s definition of ‘arms’ is fixed according to its historical understanding, that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense.”

Paine:  Right there, I’m tempted to say, “that’s good enough for me”.  Not only does this extremely important ruling expand the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding citizens to carry handguns in public, but it also applies to “modern instruments”, or weapons that are “in common use at the time” for self-defense,

Thomas did acknowledge earlier in his opinion that, “like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited.  From Blackstone through the 19th century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.  For example, we found it fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are ‘in common use at the time.’ ”

Paine:  By my interpretation Thomas was referring to out-of-the-ordinary extremely dangerous weapons, such as flame throwers, bazookas, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, 50 caliber machine guns, shoulder-fired missile launchers, and other military grade weapons. 

Most handguns sold these days are semi-automatic weapons.  Arguably, the popular AR-15 and other models are semi-automatic rifles that could be construed as “in common use at the time”.

Restricting weapons for self-defense based on the length of its barrel is neither rational, nor a logical distinction between “common use” and “dangerous and unusual”.

It is my honest assessment that the popular AR-15 is now considered by the Supreme Court to be “in common use at the time”, and therefore protected by the Second Amendment, not only to possess, but to carry in public.

However, it may be advisable to check with local authorities before open-carrying an AR-15 in public in those aforementioned six states and D.C., or any jurisdiction that does not “currently” allow open-carry.

If my assessment turns out to be accurate, this case is the final “death blow” to the gun control advocates seeking a ban on “assault rifles” and high-capacity magazines.  But don’t hold your breath.

To clarify, the Second Amendment’s operative clause – “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” – guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. 

“As we stated in Heller and repeated in McDonald, individual self-defense is the central component of the Second Amendment right.”

“The definition of ‘bear’ naturally encompasses public carry.  Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner table.”

“To confine the right to ‘bear’ arms to the home would nullify half the Second Amendment’s operative protections.  Moreover, confining the right to ‘bear’ arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is the central component of the Second Amendment right itself.”

“The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively guarantees petitioners Koch and Nash a right to ‘bear’ arms in public for self-defense.”

That right now applies to every citizen everywhere in the United States.

“Post-ratification adoption or acceptance of laws that are inconsistent with the original meaning of the constitutional text obviously cannot overcome or alter that text.”

Sensitive Places

The Supreme Court regularly considers historical traditions in deciding cases.  Those previously encountered situations are the first areas examined.  Apparently, historical records include relatively few 18th and 19th century “sensitive places” where weapons were prohibited (legislative assemblies, courthouses, etc.), and SCOTUS found no disputes regarding the lawfulness of weapons prohibitions. The Court acknowledges that “sensitive places” where arms-carrying could be prohibited is consistent with the Second Amendment and  

Constitutionally permissible.  It is understood that firearms may be restricted in such “sensitive places” as schools and government buildings.

However, the “sensitive places” doctrine does not apply to heavily populated areas such as New York City, simply because it is crowded or protected by a large police force.

Concerns of the Respondents

Thomas addressed the arguments presented by the respondents (Bruen and his legal defense) going back into early English law.  With much scrutiny he wrote how firearms carried in public by English citizens in the decades leading up to ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, there was no evidence that “the mere public carrying of a handgun would terrify people.  In fact, the opposite seems to have been true.  As time went on, domestic gun culture in England softened any ‘terror’ that firearms might once have conveyed.”

Serjeant William Hawkins, in his widely read 1716 treatise, noted that ‘Persons of Quality’ (law-abiding citizens) were ‘in no danger of offending against this Statute (the Statute of Northampton) by wearing common weapons’ because it would be clear that they had no ‘Intention to commit any Act of Violence or Disturbance of the Peace’.

Paine:  The Statute of Northampton was as act to codify the existing common-law offense of bearing arms to terrorize the people.  It is what could be called over-reach by authorities to reduce crime by penalizing law-abiding citizens who pose no threat to society.  The gun control advocates today are attempting to enact unnecessary legislation that doesn’t address the problem.  In fact, it exacerbates the problem of rampant crime by signaling the criminals that there are no good guys with guns.

Further addressing respondents’, Thomas cited numerous cases among the States in the early 19th century and antebellum periods as part of his extensive consideration in terms of the “historical tradition” principle – concluding that “All told, these antebellum state-court decisions evince a consensus view that States could not altogether prohibit the public carry of ‘arms’ protected by the Second Amendment or state analogues.”

The Closing

Thomas concludes his Opinion by writing, “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 that the other Bill of Rights guarantees.  We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.  That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion.  That is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him.  And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.

New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.  We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

  —  It is so ordered.

Do you need a license to carry handguns and AR-15s ?

I’m not a lawyer and I don’t offer legal advice.  I’m simply expressing my opinions based on known facts and my interpretation of the Constitution.  Anyone who seeks specific guidance in legal matters should consult a competent Attorney. 

NYSRAP v. Bruen absolutely guarantees the right to bear arms in public for any weapon that could be deemed “in common use at the time” for self-defense.  It is my best assessment that this ruling nullifies all requirements to obtain permits or licenses to carry said “covered” (common use) weapons.  Requiring a license to exercise a constitutional right inherently undermines that right as it implies that a license could be denied, or revoked, as if it were a privilege.

That doesn’t mean the gun control advocates are going to give up and seek other ways to restrict that right.  Democrats don’t like to lose.  We have seen how they react to events that don’t go their way, advocating anarchy, inciting riots, demanding reforms to well-established norms.  Expect them to attack from different angles. 

You may be constitutionally protected to open-carry an AR-15 in public, but you could be subjected to intense scrutiny by authorities that might include some unpleasant treatment.  It would be wise to fully understand this Supreme Court case and be able to cite some of the provisions to defend yourself against authoritative harassment.  It’s also advisable to not dress in tactical gear while brandishing an AR-15 and act in any obviously threatening manner.  If you choose to open-carry any weapon in public, do it only while sober, act normal and remain civil.  It’s not a “toughest dude” contest.  Remember, the weapon is for self-defense.  Again, it’s best to check with local authorities.

One Last Thing:  Active Shootings   

The gun control advocates politicize every mass shooting before the crime scene is even processed, tugging on the emotional heartstrings of the weak-minded sheeple to support their gun grabbing agenda.  We all know “Gun Free Zones” don’t work.  We all know strict gun control laws don’t work.  Look at Chicago. 

There are numerous stories of good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns and minimizing casualties.  That’s why I support the advocates for armed guards in every public school in America.  The best way to save the children is to offer them armed protection.  Lunatics attack soft targets because they know they can inflict massive damage and notoriety.  The only way to stop it is to set up formidable barriers, i.e., armed security.  

If you happen to be “Johnny-on-the-spot” during a violent nearby crime with no police around, you could be faced with a tough decision.  You could be a hero, saving lives, while risking being mistaken for the perpetrator(s).  Personally, I would always choose courage over cowardice, but think about how you would signal first responders that you are a good guy (hands up, don’t shoot).  We all live in a dangerous world.  Be careful out there and always be situationally aware of your surroundings.  

If you decide to carry a weapon, it is always advisable to train with it and know your capabilities.  It’s better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it, but it won’t do you much good if you can’t access it quickly and prevent an assailant from taking it from you.

Thank you SCOTUS for strengthening 2A.

Be safe.  Be a strong Patriot.  Lock and load. 


See Part 3 of the series HERE

Return to Part 1