The DNC War on American Energy

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.

The DNC War on American Energy: A Diabolical Plot 

It’s blatantly obvious that the Obiden regime has been waging a war on American energy since his first day in office when he cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline and placed a moratorium on drill leases on federal lands.  [1]

The entire Democrat party is determined to implement the Green New Deal as quickly as possible, all in the name of “climate change”.  The practicality of transitioning away from fossil fuels “overnight”, relatively speaking, is of no concern whatsoever.  It’s all about virtue signaling how the radical left is morally superior by “saving the planet”.  Don’t even think about questioning their motives.  In fact, don’t even think at all.  They can’t be bothered by anyone interfering with such a noble cause.

On the surface, it might seem as if President Biden is now beholden to U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), (D-NY), her associate “squad” members in Congress, and the Green New Deal (GND) they have proposed in the House, which is backed by 101 Democrat co-sponsors.  But what brought about this resolution ?  Could it be the brainchild of someone a little more intelligent than AOC ?  That’s a distinct possibility, judging from the nonsense of previous comments that can be attributed to her.  And is it simply a coincidence that the GND furthers the “climate change” agenda of Obama ?  These are questions that deserve honest answers.  There seems to be a lot more to it than just the stupid idea of a certain intellectually-challenged Congresswoman.

What we do know for sure is that the “climate change” movement has convinced the leaders of the DNC that the American energy sector must be destroyed and the United States must be weaned off fossil fuels immediately.  The “bonus” for Obama and his army of activists is that doing so will essentially cripple this country’s entire economy, ultimately leading us into communism.  Those who scoff at such a notion, merely need to look at what has happened.  Gas prices have more than doubled since Inauguration Day, inflation has soared out of control as a direct result, and supply chains have been disrupted across many segments for goods and labor needs.  And in case you missed it, the DNC has already perfected the rigging of national elections to ensure they retain permanent power. So, there’s that.

Here’s the 7-point plan: all phases are to be implemented “by any means necessary”

  1. Coordinate election officials in key states to steal the election and seize power
  2. Declare war on fossil fuels
  3. Destroy the U.S. economy through rampant inflation
  4. Disarm the people by hoarding ammunition in case the Second Amendment proves difficult to repeal
  5. Establish electric vehicles while phasing out combustion engines due to lack of affordable fuel
  6. Control and limit the mobility of the people by regulating the power grid
  7. Install a permanent communist regime  

While they are working on Phase 3, Phases 4 and 5 are well underway.  The White House doesn’t give a rat’s ass about this “temporary transition” to EVs.  They say the American people must suffer through some hard times in order to make progress on “climate change”.  It’s the only way to “save the planet”.

But if your plan is to “save the planet”, why are you trying to eliminate the production of oil on American soil and then flying Air Force One to Saudi Arabia to beg them to increase production of their oil ?  American oil and gas are both extracted safer and cleaner than foreign oil.  But it’s somehow fine and dandy as long as that oil and gas are produced on the other side of the same planet.

And now OPEC has announced that they will be cutting production by 2 million barrels per day, a move that will certainly cause further inflation at the pump, and everywhere else.  We are right back to 1973 for dependence on foreign oil.

Oops, you’re not supposed to question the authorities.  There must be other reasons why these matters are better left to the experts.  The American people are too stupid to critically think through such complex problems.

The same can be said about coal.  On the campaign trail at a Town Hall meeting in March 2016, Hillary Clinton said, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”  In her subsequent book What Happened, she supposedly tried to back-peddle by claiming what she meant “was the exact opposite of what came out.”  Yeah, yeah, that’s it.  [2] 

You might recall, she was Obama’s Secretary of State during his first term (2009-2013), resigning on February 1, 2013, presumably to prepare for her own run at the presidency.  But she was clearly Obama’s hand-picked successor, the darling of the media, and the heir apparent to continue installing Obama’s socialist agenda.  Then, along came Trump, and the entire universe of liberalism went berserk.  They literally could not accept the results of the last fair election, so they were determined to get him out of their way as quickly as possible.  After two failed impeachment attempts, based on fabricated falsehoods, they decided to rig election results in several key states to steal the 2020 election, and get away with it by running out the clock.  It was only 64 days from Election Day to January 6th, when the “certified” electoral votes were officially counted by Congress.  All of Trump’s legal maneuvers were denied by the media and ignored by the Supreme Court on December 11th, as they announced the Texas case, brought on behalf of six states “had no basis”.  What ?  “No basis” ?  Are you serious ?

There were over 1,000 independent witnesses who signed sworn Affidavits under penalty of perjury, claiming they had seen “irregularities” within various polling stations.  Ballots were counted in the middle of the night after observers had been removed from the premises.  There were actual videos of impropriety.  All of it was swept under the rug as “Trump’s big lie.”

The DNC assured Biden he didn’t even need to campaign.  He was to just stay in his basement.  They had everything in control to manufacture 81,000,000 votes, or 90,000,000, if needed.  They were going to seize power “by any means necessary.”  And they did.

Who are you going to believe; an association of people who have one central objective and a lot to lose, or 1,000 completely independent witnesses ?

But I digress.  The point is that no later than 2016, it was clear Obama wanted to destroy the American energy sector, as he had Hillary attacking the coal industry.  And don’t forget, he delayed the Keystone XL and then on Nov 7, 2015, 4 months before Hillary’s Town Hall comment, he announced the Keystone pipeline was dead, once and for all, saying, it “would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy”. 

When Trump approved the Keystone XL and pulled the U.S. out of Obama’s Paris Climate Accord (a.k.a. the Paris Agreement), liberal minds exploded.  On the surface, the climate accords seem like a noble gesture.  A coordinated effort to reduce, and eventually eliminate, greenhouse gases in order to minimize the effect of gradually rising temperatures worldwide.  Who wouldn’t support that?  But there is an agenda driving the narrative.

The entire movement is a hoax, designed to control the global economy while establishing the authority of the New World Order, a mysterious organization that deliberately lurks in the shadows to avoid scrutiny.  That’s another subject that screams for investigation.

Keep in mind, the underlying rationale behind the war on energy is “climate change”, formerly known as “global warming”, and factually debunked by John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel. and credentialed meteorologist. [3]

In 2007 Coleman said, “Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics.  It is not a religion.  It is not something you “believe in.”  It is science; the science of meteorology.  This is my field of life-long expertise.  And I am telling you Global Warming are a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam.  I say this knowing you probably won’t believe me . . . “

In 2017 he was quoted saying, “The ‘tons and tons of carbon we are spewing into the atmosphere every day’, as Al Gore puts it, are actually a good thing.  In his rants that the Earth will become uninhabitable, Former Vice President Gore is referring to the carbon dioxide gas being released into the atmosphere as we power our civilization with fossil fuels.  However, it turns out that as the ‘greenhouse gases’ we release combine with nature’s carbon dioxide to make the planet greener and greener.”

Maybe the Green New Deal is a misleading title, similar to the Affordable Care Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.  Perhaps it should be called the Brown New Deal.  But before jumping on board with their agenda, maybe we should find out exactly what the Green New Deal is, and how it would really affect the planet.

What’s In The Green New Deal

What exactly is the Green New Deal ?

We’ve all heard about it and know Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is the poster child of the narrative, but what does it really mean ? 

Well, the common sense approach would be to Google it and look for the most appropriate results, and I selected the House Resolution proposed by AOC herself, which you can review HERE[4]

Screenshot of the summary shown on the government website.

Note the 5th bullet point in the list of goals; “promoting justice and equality”.  What the Hell does that have to do with greenhouse gases and their effect on the temperature of the Earth ?

Note the 2nd bullet point in the 10-year mobilization effort; “upgrading all existing buildings . . . “  So, her plan is to retrofit every building in America to “achieve maximum energy and water efficiency.”  You have to wonder how enormous the budget would need to be to accomplish such a monumental task.  But hey, money is no obstacle to these lunatics.  Not to mention the fact that it would be literally impossible to achieve that stated goal in 10 years, or 50 years for that matter.  These folks live in Fantasyland, as if they can demand a perfect world, and ‘poof’, it just happens with no consequences.

Then there’s the 3rd bullet point; “removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation and agriculture sectors”.  There’s the reason Joe Obiden has attacked the American oil industry and the push for electric vehicles (EVs).  California recently passed a bill that bans the sale of new combustion engine vehicles by 2035.  The same week they announced rolling brownouts because their electric grid is already overburdened.  And this is before everybody in California is trying to charge their cars overnight.  Never mind that little problem.  The message is clear; ‘we will jam this agenda down your throats and we don’t care how difficult it will be to actually implement, or how much the American citizen must suffer along the way’.  I’m not done.  Let’s look at those beautiful $60,000 EVs in the next “chapter”.

The last (6th) bullet point claims they can “provide higher education, high-quality health care, and affordable, safe, and adequate housing to all.”

So, every person from underprivileged communities is entitled to “higher education”, regardless of merit.  Hard work and determination are to be replaced by identity politics, just to show how compassionate Democrats are.  And obviously, their gender studies and political activism courses should be free, paid by the tax payers who actually contribute to society.

All this time, I thought Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act fixed health insurance.

And exactly how does she plan to provide affordable housing for ALL when we already have a huge, growing homeless population, and a massive invasion of illegal immigrants.  They couldn’t even find beds for 50 migrants on Martha’s Vineyard.  Oh wait, it’s only 3.3 miles from the Edgartown docks to Obama’s house.  No wonder those frightening Venezuelans were deported to an onshore military base in less than 2 days.

Now she’s going to spend trillions of tax dollars to “upgrade ALL existing buildings”?  With whose money ?  (Answer: no matter how much the Treasury Dept. prints, the tax payer will feel the pain, for generations to come).  I barely have affordable housing now, and she wants to make it prohibitive.  Maybe the intention, like many other Democrat policies, is to create “equity”, by forcing the middle class out into the street, while providing “affordable” (subsidized by the tax payer) housing previously occupied by those “privileged” tax payers.  If that sounds like an unfair accusation, remember, the 5th bullet point in the list of goals, which she wrote right into the bill, is “promoting justice and equality”. 

I wouldn’t trust her to mow my lawn, let alone dictate national political agendas. 

Getting Back to That Electric Vehicle (EV): Damn Those EV Batteries

Lithium-ion batteries, invented in the late 1970s and prized for their energy density and rechargeability, are integral to two pillars of the Green New Deal: electric vehicles and power storage.

The typical battery for a 2020 model year EV contains 52 Kg of graphite, 29 Kg of nickel, 10 Kg of manganese, 8 Kg of cobalt, and 6 Kg of lithium, and other minerals and metals (let’s call them M & Ms) that total about 185 Kg (407 Lbs.), not including the M & Ms used to manufacture the electrolyte, binder, separator, and battery pack casing. [5]

Break-down of M & Ms contained in typical 2020 Electric Vehicle battery pack. Graphite and Nickel are minerals.  Manganese, Cobalt, and Lithium are metals.

Those batteries can last 10-20 years and cost about $20,000 to replace, but the warranty is typically 8 years.  At that price they should last a while, perhaps for the life expectancy of the vehicle, but what happens to them in terms of disposal?

More batteries in more landfills equals more soil contamination and more hazardous waste runoff into local watersheds.  How many liberals have fallen into line as their leaders professed to be the stewards of pollution ?  They never run short of hypocrisy.

Today, there are an estimated 15 million registered automobiles operating in the state of California alone.

So, by the time they have replaced all those “gas-guzzling” cars, California will need at least 780,000,000 Kg (858,000 tons) of graphite, 435,000,000 Kg (478,500 tons) of nickel, 150,000,000 Kg (165,000 tons) of manganese, 120,000,000 Kg (132,000 tons) of cobalt, and 90,000,000 Kg (99,000 tons) of lithium.

Is the EV Future Really Environmentally Friendly? 

And now, the $64,000 question:

How much energy is expended in producing those EV car batteries?

The answer is virtually incalculable, but here are some facts:

It takes about 400,000 gallons of water to produce 1 ton of lithium.

According to the Institute for Energy Research (IER), “mining and processing of lithium, turns out to be far more environmentally harmful than fracking.  The permanent disfiguring of the earth’s surface as we dig ever deeper for mineral resources is only part of the problem.  Water pollution is a HUGE concern.  Remember, hazardous chemicals found in groundwater will eventually find their way to the oceans too.”  [6]

I guess that’s just science they don’t want you to believe, or even find out about.

Right here in the good old United States, there is a proposed lithium mine at Thacker Pass, Nevada, which lies on Paiute Nation territory, and is public land under the auspices of the United States Bureau of Land Management (the original BLM). [7]  

Thacker Pass would not simply be a giant strip mine, but would also require an “enormous complex to extract lithium from the mined ore for its conversion into a non-volatile carbonate form to be made into batteries.”  Apparently, fracking is evil, but strip mining is fine, as long as it fits the Democrat narrative and furthers their agenda.  Even on American soil.

Geologic studies have estimated that the concentration of lithium at Thacker Pass would yield one ton of lithium for every 500 tons of earth removed.  Projecting that over a year, the mine would involve moving 20 to 30 million tons of earth to produce 60,000 tons of lithium.  And that’s just 2/3rds of the amount to replace the 15 million cars in California alone.  Nationwide, there are about 275 million registered vehicles.

And where does that 24,000,000,000 (24 BILLion) gallons of water come from ?

They would need to capture all of the water that flows over the Horseshoe Falls at Niagara for NINE hours, but that’s a moot point because the last time I looked, Niagara Falls was in New York.

Then of course, it requires machinery to move earth.  Heavy equipment that consumes diesel fuel. There would need to be at least one giant mining excavator and a fleet of rear dump trucks to transport the material to the processing facility, not to mention the energy needed to power the facility itself.

We’re talking about BIG excavators, the largest in the world.  Some examples are the Liebherr R9800 (45 m3 bucket), the Komatsu PC8000 (42 m3 bucket), and the Caterpillar 6060 (34 mbucket).  These behemoths consume about 5,000 gallons of diesel fuel per day, not to mention hydraulic oils and other petroleum products.

Then the number of rear dump trucks needed to keep the excavator busy, would depend on the distance from the excavator to the processing plant and the time required for each truck to complete a cycle.  The world’s two largest trucks are the Belaz 75710 and the Caterpillar 797F.  Each truck would consume about 740 gallons of diesel fuel per day.  

For example; the Caterpillar 797F Rear Dump can haul about 400 tons of material per load and would take about 5 buckets to fill from the Liebherr R9800 Excavator.  The excavator could scoop-swing and dump-swing back into “scoop position” in about 12 seconds, or 5 times per minute.  So each truck could be loaded in a minute.  That means the excavator could load about 60 trucks per hour at 100% efficiency.  If each truck takes 6 minutes to haul a load to the processing facility, dump, and return back into position “under the excavator”, that means the operation requires 7 trucks to keep the excavator busy (without idle time).  HOWEVER, that would be a hypothetical hauling operation on relatively level ground.  Look at the picture of the mine below, and you can see each truck would take much longer than 6 minutes to get out of the mine to the processing facility up top, and realize a mining operation would require many more trucks.  The method would be the same but the calculations are site specific depending on the actual equipment and the “cycle time” of each truck.

Oh, and don’t forget all the other heavy equipment on site to keep the mine operating.  And when the processed lithium carbonate is ready to go, it must be transported by truck, to a manufacturing facility.

Folks, I’m just talking about a single proposed lithium mine in the United States.  Over 50% of the world’s lithium deposits are currently produced in the “Lithium Triangle” of South America in portions of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, within some of the most arid lands in the world.  Their water has been polluted for decades.

And that’s just lithium.  What about those other vital M & Ms ?  Imagine the magnitude of production that would be required world-wide to convert all land based transportation to electricity.  I realize I’ve gotten deeply “into the weeds” here, but somebody has to dig into the real environmental impact of strip mining on such a massive scale; scarification of the earth’s surface, destruction of habitat, water contamination, consumption of enormous quantities of diesel fuel dedicated to extracting the M & Ms, and other undisclosed consequences.

Remember those giant excavators I was just talking about?  Here’s one in the mine just to illustrate the size of the mine itself.
Lithium brine fields in the Atacama Desert, South America

So when they say “saving the planet”, they are either lying to us, or they’re simply dumber than a bag of hammers.

Clearly, they don’t care about the planet.  If they did, they would be protesting against the environmental hazards related to mining all the M & Ms  required to produce the batteries.  They just need to appear to be “saving the planet” by banning drilling for oil and gas on American soil, setting an example for the world, by leading us into a clean energy future.  Riiight.  Pure virtue signaling.  Don’t pay any attention to those enormous mining operations.  The real intention is to destroy the American economy, and it’s working exactly as planned.

How ‘Bout That Power Grid ? 

Let’s not forget about the plan to convert all existing power plants to “renewable” energy, and keep fossil fuels in the ground.  Our nation’s electric grid

According to the U.S. Energy Administration (USEA), “renewable” sources such as wind, hydropower, solar power, biomass, and geothermal generated about 20% of the country’s electricity in 2020.  [8]

Straight from the USEA article are two interesting quotes in successive paragraphs, to wit:

“All-electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles represent an increasing demand for electricity that could cause negative impacts on the grid. Although these new loads are not likely to strain much of our existing generation resources, high coincident peaks of EV charging in concentrated locations could strain nearby distribution equipment.”

“Demand for electricity rises and falls, depending on time of day and time of year. Electricity production, transmission, and distribution capacity must be able to meet demand during times of peak use; but most of the time, the electricity infrastructure is not operating at its full capacity. As a result, EVs are unlikely to require expanded grid capacity.”

So, the USEA admits that “local” distribution facilities, particularly in high population centers, would be “strained”, but assures us that the existing grid capacity is likely sufficient to meet enormously expanded demand.  How does that make sense ?  There is no way the existing insufficient power grid infrastructure can handle a massive increase in demand.

When I went to school, 20% meant that 80% had to come from something else, in this case, fossil fuels, specifically, natural gas and coal.

With the mid-term elections just 32 days away, the latest NPR poll suggests the number one issue concerning American voters is INFLATION [9].

Notice how the liberal NPR emphasizes the importance of abortion in their headline, which is number two overallby asignificant margin, but not viewed as importantly by Republicans and Independents combined (32%).  The chart on the left breaks down the responses by political persuasions, telling the true story (assuming you care to believe 1,236 respondents to an NPR poll).

It’s also noteworthy that Democrats basically don’t care at all about immigration or crime, 1% and 3% respectively, and that Independents join Republicans in their concerns over inflation (another 37%, or 77% combined).

In any case, it’s reasonable to recognize that inflation is a huge issue on the minds of many American voters.  And just to be clear, there is a DIRECT CORRELATION between Obiden’s war on American energy and inflation, because EVERYTHING requires fossil fuels to manufacture and distribute.  Higher fuel prices equal higher prices of ALL things.  The Green New Deal agenda is directly responsible.

At some point, you have to realize the Green New Deal might be the dumbest idea in the history of the world.  And yet, the entire DNC has fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.  They even swallowed the rod and ate the boat.  They are so stupid, they think they are “saving the planet” and feel good about themselves, all while Obama is using it to further his socialist agenda.  These are the morons the liberal left has elected, whether legitimately or by fraud, and trusted to rule us.  They MUST be stopped !

To be blunt, I hate politics and politicians.  I was completely ‘apolitical’ until Obama rose to power.  I only voted twice in my entire life before him.  Then I had to start commenting because he is that terrible for our country.  He was the first, and only, President to organize an army of activists to further his agenda, and that’s exactly what he’s doing right now.  No one could convince me that Joe Obiden is capable of coordinating such a complex master plan to destroy the economy of the United States.  No one other than Obama has the power to influence the upper echelon of the DNC.  And everything you see happening today fits perfectly into his vision of “fundamentally transforming” America into a socialist state, not by coincidence, but by design.  That is why I know, without a shadow of doubt, that Obama is running this country.

If he was doing a good job and improving the lives of American citizens of all races, creeds, and religions, I would be the first to approve of his performance.  But that is not what we are getting, is it ?  It’s going to take a tremendous effort to undo the damage he has already done.  The first step is to totally eliminate his power.  That can only be accomplished by destroying their multi-tiered anti-American platform through awareness by We the People, thoroughly defeating them at the ballot box, and thereby forcing the entire structure of the DNC to be reorganized as a more acceptable political party, if not disbanded completely.




[1]  Newburger, E. ; Biden Suspends Oil and Gas Leasing in Slew of Executive Actions on Climate Change, CNBC ; Jan 27, 2021

[2]  Roberts, D. ; Hillary Clinton’s “Coal Gaffe” is a Microcosm of her Twisted Treatment by the Media, Vox ; Sep 20, 2017

Notice the incredibly misleading headline that claims she was unfairly treated by the media.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

[3] ; John Coleman

[4]  H.Res.332 – Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal

[5]  Bhutada, G. ; The Key Minerals in an EV Battery, Elements Newsletter ; May 2, 2022

[6]  Coburn, K. ; The True Costs of Lithium Extraction: A Grim Reality for EV Owners, ; Dec 2, 2021

[7] Komanoff, C. ; Lithium Mining: The Hidden Environmental Cost of EVs, StreetsblogUSA ; Feb 9, 2021

[8]  U.S. Department of Energy ; Electricity Production and Distribution, Alternative Fuels Data Center,biomass%2C%20wind%2C%20and%20geothermal.

[9]  Montanaro, D. ;  Poll: Abortion and Inflation Collide as Top Issues in Midterm Elections,NPR ; Sep 8, 2022

The Slippery Slope of Socialism

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.

The Democrat party, affectionately revered by older generations, has been hijacked by radical left-wing extremist disciples of Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924), gleefully skiing down the slippery slope of socialism with their horde of lemmings close behind. 

Marx, the German philosopher, held that in the capitalist system of production, there was class conflict between the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, who controlled the means of production, and the working class, the proletariat, who sold their labor for wages.

He believed the tensions between the classes would lead to self-destruction and the society would naturally evolve into socialism.  He even argued that the proletariat should organize revolutions to bring about socioeconomic change. 

SIDEBAR:  I’ll be damned.  Doesn’t that sound exactly like today’s DNC ?

Organized political activists pushing Obama’s agenda to “fundamentally transform” America into a socialist nation.  You don’t honestly think Beijing Joe Biden has the mental capacity to formulate such a master plan, do you ?  He can barely read a sentence off the teleprompter without stumbling.  His orders are coming from a puppet-master, his former boss.  I say that with confidence because there are way too many pieces of connective evidence to simply be debunked as coincidental, or even non-existent.  From the assault on so many constitutional amendments, to overwhelming so many systems and institutions with extreme reform demands, to blatantly lying to the American people and not even caring about backlash, to attacks on American values and cultural norms.  All of that is Obama’s modus operandi.  Oh, and to resume all that, it was imperative that the DNC had to regain power and keep it going by “winning” elections – what a coincidence.  They didn’t even need to send him out on the campaign trail.

Everything you see happening today is being orchestrated by Barack Hussein Obama.  I say it all the time, because it just HAS to be true.

Every thread of the current “woke” movement is part of Obama’s web.  It’s ALL connected.

Most people who herald Obama as some kind of Messiah, have no idea what they are hoping for, and how quickly their “utopian” socialist state could morph into full-blown communism.

Many ”political scientists” attribute the roots of Marxism in America to the Frankfurt School, which was founded in Germany during the Weimar Republic (1918-1933), as a school of social theory and critical philosophy. According to Wikipedia, the Frankfurt School was critical of both capitalism and Marxism-Leninism, yet they apparently adopted much of Marxist theory in terms of his “idealist philosophy” that could be enacted by social change.

Lenin, the Russian revolutionary who led the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) and rose to became the founding head of Soviet Russia (1917-1922), then the Soviet Union (1922-1924), which became a one-party socialist state governed by the Communist Party.

In 1905 Lenin encouraged the Bolsheviks in armed violent insurrection and advocated continual violent confrontation against the government of Tsar Nicholas II. 

From Wikipedia:  “In September 1917, Lenin published Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, which argued that imperialism was a product of monopoly capitalism, as capitalists sought to increase their profits by extending into new territories where wages were lower and raw materials cheaper. He believed that competition and conflict would increase and that war between the imperialist powers would continue until they were overthrown by proletariat revolution and socialism established.”

Less than two months later, Russia was under communist rule.  On November 7, 1917, with Vladimir Lenin leading the way, the Bolsheviks seized power through the “October Revolution” and became the worlds’ first communist government.  The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party didn’t waste any time morphing into the All-Russian Communist Party, renamed as such in 1918.

What is the actual difference between socialism and communism ?  Let’s examine a few definitions.

The Major Forms of Government 

According to Oxford Languages, socialism;

  1. socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.  And,
  2. in Marxist theory, a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

Whereas Merriam Webster defines socialism as,

  1. socialism is any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.  And,
  2. a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b. a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.  And,

3. a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

SIDEBAR:  We can easily see that socialism is a system whereby the government is empowered to control nearly every aspect of societal life, from how goods are produced, to what services are available, to what the people are permitted to acquire.

In contrast, Oxford Languages defines communism as:

A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Whereas Merriam Webster defines communism as;

  1. a: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

b: a theory advocating elimination of private property

2. capitalized                                                                                                  

a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Soviet Union

b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

d: communist systems collectively

SIDEBAR:  In Marxist theory, communism is the stage that follows socialism, and the socialist state is temporary, as the middle class is absorbed by the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat, effectively establishing the “haves” and the “have nots”.  The bureaucracy enjoys the finer things in life, while the peons survive on the scraps of “equity”.  This is where I’ll jab the “woke” morons who incessantly demand “equity”; you don’t even know what you’re talking about.

For the record, ‘democracy’, according to Oxford Languages, is,

a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

And as defined by Merriam Webster, democracy is:

  1.  a: government by the people especially:rule of the majority

  b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

In a direct democracy, the people rule by simple majority, and any representative body must enact the policies desired by that majority.

The key to any indirect democracy is free and fair elections whereby the people choose their representatives.  Theoretically, those elected officials are obligated to represent the majority of their constituencies.

SIDEBAR:  It seems like every 5 minutes we hear Democrats shouting “to save our democracy”, as if they are the ones striving to preserve our system of government.  As George Costanza once said, “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”  Maybe someone should remind them that the United States was formed as a constitutional republic.  It should be taught in schools, in lieu of gender studies and critical race theory.  Even John Dewey (see FOOTNOTE 4) advocated for students to learn how to develop practical solutions to real-world problems in preparation for adulthood.

Democratic socialism, as described by Oxford Reference,

In general, a label for any person or group who advocates the pursuit of socialism by democratic means.  Used especially by parliamentary socialists who put parliamentarianism ahead of socialism, and therefore oppose revolutionary action against democratically elected governments.  Less ambiguous than social democracy, which has had, historically, the opposite meanings of (1) factions of Marxism, and (2) groupings on the right of socialist parties.

Merriam Webster calls it “social democracy”, and defines it as,

  1. : a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means
  2. : a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices

SIDEBAR:  Where does the Democrat party fit in this “arena” of political ideologies ?

Answer: firmly in democratic socialism, but getting closer to actual socialism.  The means of production are gradually shifting from the private sector to state-control.  Right now we are seeing the shift in energy and agriculture.  Obama has already commandeered the health insurance industry.

Senator Bernie Sanders(I-VT) claims to be a “democratic socialist” and perhaps he is the poster boy of that movement.  Of course he also claims to be politically “Independent”, when in fact, he votes in total loyalty to the Democrat party.  In other words, he’ll go along with anything they pass.

A constitutional republic, as defined by, refers to a form of government, where the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and which governs in accordance with existing constitutional law.  It is a government of laws not of men.  Since the governing body is elected and their decisions are subject to judicial review the state is named as republican.

It is an indirect democracy whereby the people have no direct power to govern, but elect eligible candidates to represent them temporarily [1], and both the citizens and the governing officials are bound to adhere to the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.  Whether or not those elected officials truly represent the majority of their constituencies is often a subject of debate.

When they fail to uphold their oaths to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”, it becomes the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”  —  Declaration of Independence

To quote Wikipedia; “In political philosophy, the right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty of a people to “alter or abolish” a government that acts against their common interests or threatens the safety of the people without cause. Stated throughout history in one form or another, the belief in this right has been used to justify various revolutions, including the American Revolution, French Revolution,, the Russian Revolution, and the Iranian Revolution.”  [2]

The present state of the union may have entered the realm of tyranny, in that the administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress is ignoring the Constitution on many fronts.  Although the abovementioned clause in the Declaration is clear, it would be a very drastic action for anyone to attempt to overthrow the government, which is itself a federal crime described by Title 18 U.S. Code § 2385 [3], and I’m not advocating it, or recommending anyone try to overwhelm the U.S. military.

Short of that, we are left to wait for the next opportunity to vote out the representatives who have violated their oaths and are actively attacking the Constitution.  That opportunity is now just 55 days away (as of the date of publication) as the mid-term elections loom.  However, the presidential administration, which holds enormous power, will remain until at least January 20, 2025, and the President seems to be on a roll in shoving Obama’s anti-American agenda down our collective throats with alarming acceleration and extreme prejudice.  Republicans, or as Obiden recently called them, “Ultra MAGA Republicans”, offend liberals by hurting their feelings.  Democrats, and their Praetorian Guard in the media, offend Republicans by hammering them with an iron fist.  They have corrupted the entire government and break laws with impunity while doing it.  THAT must change.  If they are allowed to remain in power through continued fraudulent elections, America is OVER !

What Happened to the Democrat Party ?

The DNC is no longer the party of FDR and JFK.  It is now controlled by former President Barack Obama and it is his agenda driving the country towards socialism at an alarming pace.  The entire power structure of the DNC has fallen into place, in total fealty to their “Messiah” and his master plan.  They march in lock-step and you never hear the voice of dissent coming from their ranks.  As extreme as the Green New Deal is, it would never be driving the entire domestic policy if Obama didn’t want it to accelerate the destruction of the American economy.  The plan is to take down “the great Satan” in order to insert his system of government.

Admittedly, I have not yet figured out how he intends to complete his “fundamental transformation” from a socialist state to one under Islamic rule, but the process is clearly underway.  In order to effect revolution the populace must first be controlled.  Once the majority is firmly in control, then the entire country can be manipulated, particularly when the regime’s “state” police is squashing all resistance. 

Perhaps he is just laying the groundwork for the eventual takeover by future Islamic leaders, knowing time is on his side.  It is one stratagem of jihad to play the “long game”, eroding existing norms by chipping away at the culture little-by-little.  That is why you see the recent attacks and focus on our public education system.  They have implemented radical theories in our elementary schools to brainwash our future leaders.  Muslims begin the indoctrination of their youth at a very early age – hmmmm ?

Yes, it is true that “progressives” began implementing Marxist ideology in our public education system over 100 years ago [4], but the process was too slow for Obama’s liking.  He wanted to accelerate the indoctrination campaign and look at how fast it is moving now. 

Metaphorically, this is a raging wildfire that is threatening to burn the entire country to the ground.

In Case You Missed It, Democrat Socialist Policies In Effect Include:

“Climate Change” activists relentlessly demand conformity to an abstract idea that the planet will become a wasteland within a few years if the United States doesn’t set the gold standard on energy consumption, which the rest of the world is exempted from – Biden (a.k,a. Obama, and his army of socialist activists) cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline and placed a moratorium on drilling leases on federal land on his first day in office.  That one act alone caused out-of-control inflation that is crushing the middle class.  Despite the White House attempt to redefine “recession”, we are in one right now.  Biden inherited an independent energy producer and flew to Saudi Arabia to beg for their oil, which is not produced as cleanly, or safely, as American oil.  Yet somehow, energy produced on the other side of the same planet doesn’t have as much impact on global warming.  Watch for the government to suggest they should be in control of the means of producing “clean” energy wind and solar farms.

The incessant condemnation of corporations, painting their very existence as greedy capitalists – don’t pay any attention to the fact that corporations employ millions of citizens, giving them the ability to purchase goods and services that help other citizens utilize the same dollars in an endless chain, classic “trickle-down” economics, which they claim doesn’t work.  Nonsense !  How does “trickle down” economics not work ?  Never mind that corporations increase wealth for many Americans.  And ignore the hypocrisy that even the most vocal socialists use corporations in their daily lives in a multitude of ways.

ObamaCare, cleverly named the “Affordable Care Act”, to make it sound so appealing, is nothing more than government control of health care and willing disclosure of your personal information – state control of health care is state control of the people.  Notice the misleading name of the Bill, and the same logic applied to Obiden’s naming of the “Inflation Reduction Act”.  The actual effect of the legislation is the opposite of the implied name, but they think you’re too stupid to figure it out, and don’t care if you do.

Control the education of children and condition them from their earliest ages as an indoctrination to socialism – did you notice the uproar from school boards in Virginia when parents attended meetings complaining about the curriculum their children were subjected to ?  They actually had those parents labelled as domestic terrorists, implying they had no right to inquire, or question, the authorities on what their children were being taught in school.

Ultimately, “gun control” is confiscation of private property.  Now they want to ban semi-automatic “assault weapons” (whatever category they think appropriate, subject to whimsical revisions).  That’s just the first step.  The gun grabbers will never stop their unstated goal of disarming the entire country.  The best way to control the people is to make sure they can’t fight back.  The Second Amendment is secured as part of the supreme law of the land and can only be repealed by constitutional amendment, or reversal by the Supreme Court, which recently upheld and strengthened it (see NYSRPA v. Bruen, 2022).  I posted a three-part series on the Second Amendment that you can see HERE.

Islamic Jihad: It’s more than You Think

I studied Islam for 15 years, not to convert, but to understand it as best I could.  I’m quite sure I could have earned a Masters degree in Middle East Studies had I chosen to pursue it.  One of the most important discoveries I made was in 2015 when I saw an article posted by the Islamic Supreme Council that was intended to debunk the way “non-believers” perceived jihad, but in their zealousness to inform the reader what jihad was not, they revealed what jihad was.  By that I mean they told us that jihad was not simply an army of AK-47 wielding terrorists, but also had other “forms” of support. [5]  (at this point, I recommend reading the entire footnote, before coming back to the main article)

If you look at many things Obama said and did, you might realize he has been waging jihad against America from the very beginning, in the form known as “by the tongue”. 

I would also highly recommend a thoroughly revealing publication that explores the background of Muhammad’s twisted “religion”.  [6]

America: Where Are We Now ?  

I’ve reviewed the transcript of Obiden’s 1st of September prime-time speech to the nation, his so-called “Continued Battle for the Soul of the Nation”.  After some introductory remarks on the importance of the city of Philadelphia in the founding of America, his attacks on his political opposition began with the phrase, “But as I stand here tonight, equality and democracy are under assault.”  And shortly thereafter said, “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.”  Then, “And here, in my view, is what is true: MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution.  They do not believe in the rule of law.  They do not recognize the will of the people.”  Followed by, “They promote authoritarian leaders, and they fan the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country”, and citing a federal judge who called MAGA Republicans “a clear and present danger to our democracy.”

Actually, it’s the DNC that is the threat to our constitutional republic, and they are actively destroying it every day.

Projectionism on steroids:  He has perfectly described the Democrat party and his own administration.  Extreme activists who burned and looted cities across the country, assaulted police, firebombed federal buildings, actively supported by Democrat leaders, and then stole a presidential election to secure their power, and he wants you to think Republicans are threatening America.  That’s “rich.” 

Don’t be fooled by the charlatan master of deception, Barack Obama.  We the People are in a battle all right.  But it’s not against MAGA Republicans.  It’s a no-holds-barred conflict against the DNC and their socialist agenda.  The mainstream media (MSM) carries their water and dutifully attacks all political dissent through misrepresentation and outright censorship.  Right now, they are winning by holding across-the-board power, but on November 8th, Judgment Day will be upon them, and they have no legitimate accomplishments to run on.  Their candidates refuse to debate because they have no arguments.  Anyone who still supports the Democrat party at this point, after what they have done in the past 20 months, is a complete moron, PERIOD !  I try not to be rude directly, but that is the beauty of using a pen name.  I can say ANYTHING, and I DO.  In polite company, if the subject of political choice comes up, simply ask, “is your family better off now than it was 2 years ago?”  Then watch closely, as they dodge the question or change the subject.

Take NOTHING for granted and don’t trust ANY polls.  No matter how big a lead any Republican may appear to have, get out there and vote.  It’s not a vote FOR any particular candidate, and many of them are not ideal in every respect.  That doesn’t matter.  It’s a vote AGAINST every Democrat.  It’s not good enough to not vote for the Democrat.  Patriots must vote FOR every Democrat opponent.  America depends on you.



[1]  The Constitution requires term limits.  The entire body of the House of Representatives is up for re-election every two years.  Senators serve six-year terms and 1/3 of the chamber is up for re-election every two years on a rotating basis.  Presidential administrations have been limited to two four-year terms since 1951 by the 22nd Amendment.


(seems to have been partially taken straight from the Declaration of Independence)

[3]  Title 18 U.S. Code § 2385 – Advocating Overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 2, 70 Stat. 623Pub. L. 87–486, June 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 103Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.),years%20next%20following%20his%20conviction.

[4] The progressive movement in America began in the era from 1890-1920, and you could spend countless hours studying the roots of progressivism.  The first “Progressive” School in America was the Lincoln School, founded in 1917 at Columbia Teacher’s College of New York as a political philosophy and reform movement (see Progressivism in the United States, Wikipedia).

Progressivism was a broad term used to describe a movement that was a response to the modernization of American society.  The intentions were originally somewhat noble in an effort to combat corruption and industrial pollution.  The early progressives had no idea what their followers would do to weaponize it against their political opposition.

John Dewey (1859-1952), often regarded as the father of progressivism in education, was a pragmatic philosopher who advocated a transition from classical education to learning that emphasized practical applications to solve problems and critical thinking that prepared students for future experiences.  In general, that seems like a pretty good idea, and it may have been a respected approach that was refined over many decades.  However, like many institutions controlled by the liberal left, “progressive” education has been hi-jacked in recent years by radical activists whose agenda is to indoctrinate our youth to accept a one-party power regime focused on “fundamentally transforming” America into a communist nation.

Remember when Obama initiated Common Core ?  Have you seen a common core math problem ?  It’s literally insane.  But it’s not about the process.  It’s about obedience and conformity.  The “progressive” movement simply must control the populace, by any and all means necessary.  Now we hear about parents complaining of Critical Race Theory (CRT) [4a] at school board meetings, and the FBI labelling those parents as domestic terrorists.  WHAT ?  Elected school board members telling parents they don’t need to know what their children are learning.  The teacher’s unions and the left-wing media completely deny the existence of CRT, and expect you to believe them.  You know, kind of like they do with voter fraud, and the border crisis.  The tired mantra of “there’s nothing to see here, move along”.  “Shut up and obey”.  Ironically, they have radicalized “progressive” education so much, they completely got away from Dewey’s emphasis on critical thinking.  They can’t tolerate critical analysis.  They demand silent obedience.

Have you ever noticed how self-proclaimed progressives act like they possess intellectual superiority over their social circles ?  This sense of elitism that must result from taking a few low-level college courses in sociology seems to elevate their self esteem above the level of their actual intelligence.  It would be amusing if it wasn’t obnoxious.

[4a]  Wikipedia defines Critical race theory (CRT) as,

a cross-disciplinary examination, by social and civil-rights scholars and activists, to explore how laws. social and political movements, and media shapes, and is shaped by, social conceptions of race and ethnicity. Goals include challenging all mainstream and “alternative” views of racism and racial justice, including conservative, liberal and progressive. The word critical in the name is an academic reference to critical thinking, critical theory, and scholarly criticism, rather than criticizing or blaming people.

In other words, everything about our society has been systemically developed through the lens of race and Americans should be ashamed of our country’s history, so it must all be torn down to effect “equity”.

[5]  Islamic Supreme Council ; Jihad: What it is Not (a reasonable facsimile of the original title) ;

The following is a summation from the original article, viewed January 2015:

   Jihad basically means to struggle or strive. There are 5 major forms of Jihad; by the heart, by the tongue, by the pen, by the hand, and by the sword.

By the heart deals with one’s inner struggle between good and evil.  (the media, in general, doesn’t want you to know these are actual jihadis, but if it happens to be discovered, they want you to think jihad is simply a spiritual “struggle” to gain acceptance, and violence is not legitimate jihad).  The Islamic Supreme Council would like you to stop right there, but there is more they tried to conceal later.

By the tongue is defending Islam and spreading Islam by scholarly lectures, speeches and debates. (Imam Choudary comes to mind)                                                    

By the pen involves scholarly research in aiding the spread and defense of Islam. (Example: this very article by the Islamic Supreme Council)

By the hand is action rather than words. (direct support of fighters)

By the sword includes usage of arsenals and engaging in combat. This could be anything from a bunch of freedom fighters to an organized campaign of a large army and is allowed under two conditions.

1. for self defense – when someone attacks you or your nation/state

2. fighting against evil or unjust (this is the form justifying terrorism as we know it because Muhammad proclaimed that ALL Jews and Christians were “unjust”).  They believe they can bring a war to your shores because you are “unjust” in their minds, but see no evil in themselves for taking armed conflict into peaceful societies.  That sounds a LOT like the current strategy being employed by the DNC, i.e., “projectionism”.  They seem to be (wrongly) accusing their political opponents of behavior they themselves are thoroughly engaged in. 

By the way, if you visit the site cited below, you will NOT find what I copied from it in January 2015.  A few months later, I re-visited the site and discovered the administrators had edited the article to obscure the clearly defined “forms” of jihad, as I summarized above.  They broke up the 5-form list and added seemingly unobjectionable language designed to comfort the reader into a more acceptable frame of mind.  Someone had decided the January version was too revealing.  Today that site resembles nothing like it did 7 years ago and their “Archives” menu dates from August 1996 to April 2011. 

From the Archives of January 2010, they have an article titled Jihad: A Misunderstood Concept from Islam that loosely resembles the original article.

On page 3 it says, “<jaahidu>, is used to mean struggle by means of the tongue—preaching and exhortation— . . . “, an excerpt that reveals the form known as “by the tongue”.  On page 10 they have two chapters titled, “What Jihad Is” and “What Jihad Is Not”, which are likely the highly edited sections of the original.

[6]  Winn, Craig ;Prophet of Doom: Islam’s Terrorist Dogma in Muhammad’s Own Words ; Cricketsong Books ; 2004 ; ISBN 0 – 9714481- 2- 4

FBI Raid on Mar-a-Lago

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.

I would be remiss if I did not comment on last Monday’s FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, one of the most egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment in American history.  To form an opinion on the FBI search and seizure at former President Trump’s private residence required a little patience to wait and see some of the facts, at least what the Department of Justice (DOJ) may have been willing to reveal.  After several days of intense scrutiny, Attorney General, Merrick Garland, succumbed to the pressure and held a brief news conference on Thursday the 11th, wherein he announced that DOJ had given Trump and his lawyers an opportunity to object to the release of the Warrant.  Trump waived the option and the Warrant was released to the public on August 12th, the day after Garland’s announcement.

What Does the Warrant Say ?

In reference to the Warrant, DOJ cited three specific federal statutes; 18 U.S. Code § 793, 18 U.S. Code § 2071, and 18 U.S. Code § 1519.  I’ll get to these under a different Header but first I want to focus on Attachment B.

You can read the full 4-page Warrant and 3-page Receipt for Property HERE

If I’m not mistaken, this Warrant seems to be a “dragnet” search for literally anything.  Under “Property to be seized” it says, All physical documents and records . . . “ ; under “a” it says, Any physical documents . . . “ ; under “b” it says, “information, including communications in any form . . . “ ; under “c” it says, “Any government and/or Presidential Records . . . “ ; and under the last item “d” (not shown) it says, in full, “Any evidence of the knowing alteration, destruction, or concealment of any government and/or Presidential Records, or of any documents with classification markings.”  In short, that should cover anything and everything.

Then we look at the Fourth Amendment and see that it says;

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

We could argue whether the search was reasonable, but that is not my point of emphasis here.  I want to highlight two aspects of the Amendment; firstly, the DOJ prepared a “Probable Cause Affidavit”, as required, to present to a federal judge, Magistrate Bruce Reinhart, for issuance of the warrant, but they have refused to release said Affidavit to the public.  What exactly does that Affidavit say that American citizens are not entitled to review ?  Secondly, the above Attachment B clearly states that the FBI was looking for (in “c”), “any government or Presidential Records”, which essentially means they could take anything and everything, whereas the Fourth Amendment stipulates that “things to be seized” must be particularly described.  Attachment B is not “particular” by any stretch of the imagination.

The Cited Federal Statutes

On page 4 of the Warrant under “Property to be seized”, the DOJ lists three federal statutes that constitute potential violations if the government can prove that former President Trump possessed any documents illegally, the key word being “illegally”.

Under Title 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information  [1], with particular interest drawn to section (d), wherein it states, in essence that any person who lawfully possesses documents, photos, maps, notes, etc. related to the national defense, AND believes could be used to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transfer said information to any person not authorized to receive it; or, willfully retains it and fails to deliver it on demand to any officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.

Under section (e) the same language is used verbatim with the distinction of the clause pertaining to unauthorized person(s) who may possess such information, as opposed to one legally in possession.  In a case concerning the President of the United States, he/she obviously held such information legally while in office.  Apparently, the pertinent portion of the statute is the last part, whereby the DOJ (wink,wink: the Biden Administration) considers it illegal for a former President to “retains it and fails to deliver it”, the said documents, after leaving office, despite a long history of Presidents having archival materials hauled away from the White House.  I’ll address the machinations of this procedure under the next Header. 

Previous subpoena requests for documents to be returned to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) were being complied with by Trump, but his cooperation was apparently not enough to prevent this unprecedented FBI raid.

Under Title 18 U.S. Code § 2071 –  Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally  [2], with respect to the assortment of documents removed from Mar-a-Lago, it’s obvious that Trump did not willfully conceal, destroy, or mutilate any of the records.  I suppose the DOJ is resting their case on the fact that Trump had yet to deliver/return some of the materials “removed” and packaged up by the GSA.

Under Title 18 U.S. Code § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy  [3], again it is obvious Trump did not destroy, or alter any of the documents seized at Mar-a-Lago, unlike the 33,000 emails and every trace of them from her illegal private server, destroyed by Hillary Clinton using BleachBit and sledge hammers.  Oh wait, I almost forgot, she’s a prominent Democrat and therefore ABOVE the law.  I suppose by including this statute in the list of potential violations, it could have been relevant IF it was discovered that destruction took place.  Evidently there can be no charge on this statute.

The Presidential Records Act of 1978

All former Presidents before Nixon (Jan 20, 1969-Aug 9, 1974), were entitled to retain their own presidential records as personal property.  Due to Nixon’s Watergate scandal, by which he was forced to resign in disgrace, Congress passed the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, making Nixon’s infamous tape recordings public property.  But that legislation applied only to Nixon’s administration.  [4]

Congress later passed the Presidential Records Act of 1978 (44 U.S. Code §§ 2201-2209) [5], with the intentions of preserving all presidential records as public property under the care and management of the National Archives.  The President is entitled to restrict access for as many as 12 years for certain records such as, executive orders, appointments to federal office, trade secrets, health records, and confidential communications.

44 U.S. Code § 2203, sub-section:(g)(1) “Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President . . . “

Beginning with the Reagan administration, all presidential records, and those of the Vice-President, were to be sent directly to the National Archives and preserved as historical documents open to the American people.  Despite Trump’s claim that Obama hauled away 30 million pages, his archives are in the custody of a NARA office in Chicago.  [2]

However, it is customary for the General Services Administration (GSA) to package up the presidential records and it stands to reason that they would then take custody and deliver them to NARA.  The President isn’t expected to pack his own boxes and it’s unlikely that he would, unless of course, there was something he was trying to hide.  So  questions arise.  Why would the GSA send the boxes to Mar-a-Lago and not directly to the NARA ? And who was in charge of the chain of custody ?

I can think of only four possibilities; either Trump had some boxes sent to Mar-a-Lago in secrecy, either knowingly, or unwittingly; or the GSA did not act properly, either by mistake, or intentionally.

In any case, it was evident that Trump was cooperating in the effort to have those records returned to NARA and the Warrant to have them seized was extreme.


We have likely seen the extent of the DOJ’s comments, and we really won’t know the outcome of their investigation any time soon.  Don’t be surprised if their “investigation” lasts two years, designed to leave Trump under legal scrutiny all the while, before announcing they may have indictable charges in October 2024, just in time to destroy his expected candidacy. 

To me, the way the DOJ described Attachment B was extremely broad, and does not meet the “specificity” requirements of the Fourth Amendment, which leads me to the belief that the raid was a “fishing expedition” whereby they targeted a political opponent and conducted their search and seizure operation gathering everything they could find, in the hopes of finding something they could call illegal. 

Perhaps the PRA of 1978 allows the DOJ to phrase their Warrant so broadly, but the whole episode seems extreme and unnecessary.  American justice is founded in the principle of responding to a crime, conducting a thorough investigation, and identifying the perpetrator.  Targeting a person you hate and then trying to pin a crime on him is immoral, unjust, and corrupt.



[1]  Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School,-U.S.%20Code&text=Shall%20be%20fined%20under%20this,than%20ten%20years%2C%20or%20both.

[2]  Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School

[3]  Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School

[4]  Myre, Greg & Davis, Wynne ; The Reasons Why Presidents Can’t Keep Their White House Records Dates Bck to Nixon, NPR ; August 13, 2022

[5]  Presidential Records Act of 1978

Presidential Records (44 U.S.C. Chapter 22) | National Archives

[6]  Papenfuss, Mary ; National Archives Calls Out Trump’s False Accusation That Obama Snatched Documents, Huffington Post ; August 13, 2022

Obama’s War Against America

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.

The Democrat party (a.k.a. the DNC) is being controlled by former President Barack Obama and their entire power structure acts in total fealty to their master. It is his “War Against America” agenda driving the country towards socialism at an alarming pace. 

A Review of Recent Political History

During the Clinton presidency the country coexisted with some degree of civility. Sure, there were differences in opinion displayed among the vocal party members, tossing political footballs “across the aisle”, but it was generally legitimate debate designed to convince their respective constituencies to support their stance on the issue at hand.  That’s exactly the way Congress was intended to perform.  Overall, the political climate was relatively calm and most of the bickering came from the extreme factions of each party, often viewed as lunacy on both sides.

When George W. Bush was elected in 2000, and for most of his 8 year term, the left expressed their discomfort for his foreign policy, particularly after he declared the “war on terrorism” following 9/11.  That’s when political tensions began to get a little more “heated”, but it was mainly coming from the left while conservatives essentially kept quiet.

Out of nowhere, Barack Obama emerged at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and was elected that November as a first-term Senator from Illinois.  The media was giddy with accolades.  The DNC groomed him to be their darling Messiah, and on February 10, 2007 he declared his intention to run for President.

There were questions raised by right-wing conservative groups about the origin of his birth, commonly known as the “birther movement”, implying he may not qualify to run for President.  The United States Constitution requires all candidates running for President to be “natural born citizens”, at least 35 years of age, and been 14 years a resident within the United States.  Some “birthers” claimed he was born in Kenya, the home of his father, and that his Hawaii Birth Certificate was a forgery.  Obama supporters immediately debunked all such accusations as racist conspiracy theories.  They rest their argument on the 14th Amendment, saying “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . “ , but are they “natural born citizens” ? 

Natural Born Citizenship

The truth of the matter is that it is irrelevant WHERE Obama was born.  You won’t see this in simple Google searches, which offer liberally biased explanations that “muddy the water” to make you think Obama was qualified.  But we can make reasonable assumptions that the Framers were well versed in English legal traditions, and it logically follows that the terms and phrases they used when drafting the Constitution were based on principles established with an English legal background.  To understand these principles is certainly more valuable in assessing the intent of 18th century statutory language, than contemporary dictionaries that have been edited over the intervening centuries. 

For the sake of this discussion, it should be noted that the English term “natural born subject” is essentially synonymous with the American term “natural born citizen”, in that the English “subjects” owe their allegiance to the King in return for protection, whereas American “citizens” owe their allegiance to the nation in return for protection of their civil liberties.

The definitive description of “natural born citizen” can be traced to 18th century schools of thought, the first being English common law.  [1]

Similarly, they would have been well aware of English statutory law, and “law-of-nations” principles, which offer slight variations in the concept of “natural” law of citizenship.

Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), the notable English jurist and judge, wrote Commentaries on the Laws of England.  In his interpretation, a “natural born subject” was closely tied to the place of birth, with a few exceptions.  A subject born within English territory was a “natural” subject because a natural relationship was formed between the person and the monarch, who was to provide protection in return for allegiance.  The principle common law exception was for children of the King’s ambassadors born on foreign land, who were classified as “natural” subjects because the father, though living in foreign territory, owes no allegiance to the local sovereignty and the child is born under the King of England’s allegiance, as the father is representing the King.

Under the principles of English common law, Obama would be considered a natural born citizen.

However, it is established in English common law, that the newborn child is tied to the father, not the mother, and owes his allegiance to the sovereignty unto which his father is bound.  And England had a complicated statutory history regarding the term “natural born”.

Under English statutory law, Parliament could alter, amend, or re-define common law by statute. [2]  In a 1708 Act of Parliament it was determined that “The children of all natural born Subjects born out of the Ligeance [3] of Her Majesty Her Heires and Successors shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be natural born Subjects of this Kingdom to all Intents Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.”  This statute was a complete re-definition of the common law.

In 1731 Parliament passed an Act to clear up the ambiguity of the term “Children of all natural born Subjects”, as defined by the 1708 Act.  It read, “All children born out of the ligenace of the crown of England, or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such ligeance, whose fathers were or shall be natural-born subjects of the crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children respectively, shall and may, by virtue of the said recited clause in the said act of the seventh year of the reign of her said late Majesty (i.e., the 1708 Act) and of this present act be adjudged and taken to be, and all such children are hereby declared to be natural-born subjects of the crown of Great Britain to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever.”

The main point being that the 1731 Act requires that one’s father must be a natural born subject, a departure from late 17th century statutes and a significant alteration of the 1708 Act.  

Here, we don’t look at the case of Barack Obama being born on American soil (assuming his Hawaii birth is true) from the perspective of his citizenship of the United States.  We look at the circumstance of his birth on foreign soil from the perspective of his father’s allegiance.  Barack Obama Sr. was born in Kenya, a natural born subject of Great Britain who owes his allegiance to the monarch of England.  Obama is determined by the 1731 Act to be a natural born subject of Great Britain.  He may have been born “out of the Ligeance” of the crown, but his father was a natural born subject, who was never a U.S. citizen.  And the reason the Founders required natural born citizenship was to prevent the perception, and real possibility, of dual loyalty.

The reasoning behind the statutory expansion of the term “natural born subjects” in the 17th and 18th centuries had to do with the expansion of foreign travel and commerce by English subjects.  Those who were abroad were still under the protection of the monarch and owed allegiance to the crown.  Children born abroad were thus entitled to the same protections as their subject parents.  In light of these developments, traditional common law rules were not sufficient to understand the true nature of the principle of natural born subjectship, thus prompting the expansion to include a broader class of people.

If we examine the writings of the Swiss legal scholar Emer de Vattel (1714-1767), particularly his book The Law of Nations  [4], wherein he wrote, “By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights; the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him . . . “  [5]

Here Vattel is in agreement with the English 1731 Act of Parliament. 

It is incumbent upon those who question, or defend, Obama’s status as a natural born citizen, to understand these principles, for it was certainly the body of knowledge drawn by the framers to form the language in Article II, Section I,  Clause 5 of the Constitution, wherein it states, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; . . . “

In my (almost never) humble opinion, I believe the framers considered the school of thought presented by Parliament in 1708, reiterated in 1731, and the insight provided by Vattel, all 18th century refinements to earlier common law, when they wrote the natural born citizen clause.

Yet no one stepped up to stop Obama’s candidacy on the basis of the constitutional requirement.  He was emboldened from the very beginning, and he adopted an “untouchable” persona that he exploited with increasing regularity.  It is the attitude adopted by the entire DNC hierarchy, probably under his own encouragement, flaunted against the sensibilities of the American people to this day; they believe they can do anything they want, without consequence, and they know the mainstream media will defend them from all angles.  They simply don’t care what anyone says in defiance.  In fact, they will persecute and prosecute their political enemies.

The Communist Agenda

Regardless of his eligibility, this country succumbed to the influence of his communistic agenda and we continue to descend in that direction every day.  Make no mistake, Obama has a communist agenda, that is sugar-coated by the media as “democratic socialism” to soften the impact and garner appeal from the masses of idiots who have fallen under his spell.  Look at his developmental years and some of the people who influenced him, men such as Frank Marshall Davis, and Saul Alinsky.

Davis was living in Hawaii as early as 1956 and died there in 1987.  The young impressionable Obama used to sit and listen to long talks Davis had with his grandfather, Stanley Dunham.  The FBI was tracking Davis in the 1930’s and 40’s.  He was an activist member of the Communist Party USA.  Their case file on Davis purportedly has his Communist Party Identification Number as #47544 (obtained from a “highly confidential source”)  [6].  He took the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions in front of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee in 1956.  Guilty[7]

Alinsky authored the book, Rules for Radicals, a blueprint for transforming a society to socialism.  His philosophy was “the ends justify the means”, whereby a radical can justifiably break from morality to achieve the radical objective.  Alinsky could be called the Father of Community Organizing and formed political activist groups from his base in Chicago with names like Organization for Action, dedicated to attacking the power structure of the white middle class.

In the early 60’s he blamed riots across the country on “white racism” and in 1965 went to Rochester, NY to dismantle the “white power structure” by pressuring Kodak, the city’s largest employer, to hire 1,500 “unemployed blacks with limited skills and little work experience”.  [8]

I typically don’t talk about racial politics, but I only mention this because ever since Obama stepped into the spotlight, the left plays the “race card” as if it “trumps” (no pun intended) every other card in the deck.  “Shut up, you’re racist.”

In 1969 he began training young political activists, asking his students. “Why do you want to organize, goddammit?”, with the correct answer being, “power”.  [9]

Well I’ll be damned, a community organizer from Chicago who has no respect for morality, while implementing social justice through class warfare to gain power.  Sound familiar ?

Remember Obama’s 2008 speech when he said, “We are five days away from the fundamental transformation of the United States”.  No one had any idea what he was talking about.  He just sounded so eloquent.

For a deeper “dive” into the similarities between Alinsky and Obama, see my two-part series HERE 

I could go on and on but the point is, he’s a communist, masquerading as a “democrat socialist”.  His Muslim teachings have convinced him that he has time on his side.  He plays the “long game”, not expecting his “transformation” to be completed during his 8-year term.  That’s why he picked Hillary Clinton to succeed him, and after Trump’s unexpected interruption, his former “dummie”, Joe Biden in 2020.  On his 3rd day in office he formed the Political Action Group Organizing for America (OFA), then rebranded it in 2013 as Organizing for Action, a 30,000-member army of activists to further his agenda that bears a  name nearly identical to Alinsky’s Organization for Action.

Everything you see happening today is being orchestrated by Obama.  Notice how boldly the Democrats wield their power.  They have enacted policies that are literally antithetical to reasonable solutions on the various issues.  But they don’t care how much the American people suffer from the consequences.  We are witnessing Obama’s planned destruction of the America he despises so much.  It’s happening right now and it’s accelerated into “overdrive”.  He knows he’ll never be associated with this unfolding disaster.  He can blame it all on the senile moron occupying the White House.

In the final analysis, Barack Obama will end up as America’s biggest mistake unless patriots unite, rise up, and begin crushing the DNC at every opportunity.

It can be done.  It must be done.  Not that the current cast of Republicans are the greatest politicians of all time, but our mission is to defeat every Democrat, by electing anyone running against them, no matter who they are.  It doesn’t matter whether you love Trump, or hate him, if he’s the 2024 nominee, you have to vote for him.



[1]  Ramsey, Michael D. ; The Original Meaning of Natural Born ; Univ. of Penn. ; December 2017 ; Section “A”, beginning p. 210,born%20abroad%20to%20English%20parents.

[2]  ibid., Section “B”, beginning p. 213

[3]  ligeance refers to natural-born subjects born within the dominions of the crown of England, within the ligeance, or as it is known, the allegiance of the King.  Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the King, in return for the protection that the King affords the subject.

[4]  de Vattel, Emerich ; The Law of Nations: Or Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns ; Publ. 1758

[5]  Ramsey, Michael D. ; The Original Meaning of Natural Born ; Univ. of Penn. ; December 2017 ; Section “C”, p. 225,born%20abroad%20to%20English%20parents.

[6]  Michele Ye Hee Lee ; Frank Marshall Davis: Obama’s ‘Communist Mentor’? ; Washington Post ; March 23, 2015

[7]  ibid.

[8]  Saul Alinsky, InfluenceWatch ; 2022

[9]  ibid.

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.


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

On the 2nd Amendment

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 1 of a 3 part series on the 2nd Amendment

Once again, the Democrats have shamelessly exploited a tragic event to resume their attack on the 2nd Amendment.  Their mantra of “never let a good crisis go to waste” is on full display as they pulled up simmering legislative measures and shout their demands into the nearest cameras.

Just to be clear, here is the actual Second Amendment (full text): 

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

  —  Ratified 15 Dec 1791

The recent Uvalde school shooting has placed “sensible gun control” alongside the January 6th Hearings under the brightest spotlights.  Don’t pay any attention to the myriad of disasters the Biden administration has created in the past 17 months.  The most important issues at the moment are to ban “assault weapons” and indict Trump for something, anything that would prevent him from running in ’24.  They haven’t told us what “assault weapons” are, but they’ll just leave it at that so they can expand the definition at whim.  Rest assured, if there are no firearms at all and a mob picks up pitchforks and pikes, they will be classified as “assault weapons” too, even if law-abiding “citizens” (oops, subjects) need them for other useful purposes.

There are numerous bill proposals in the House pending legislation that include a complete ban on all semi-automatic weapons and magazines that have a capacity over 9 rounds of ammunition.

Democrats can’t wait to get to the podium to express their self-righteous moral superiority and exploit the emotions of their supporters by seizing the moment to further corrode our constitutional rights, which are obstacles for the DNC in “fundamentally transforming” America into their utopian dreamscape.  The undeclared objective is to repeal the Second Amendment, disarm law-abiding citizens, and establish their communist regime permanently.

They camouflage their agenda under the guise of public safety, but the reality is; only criminals will be safer, and your citizenship will be transformed into subjugation.

One of the methods they plan to employ is essentially a repeal of the 4th Amendment that bypasses the individuals’ right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . . “ ; known as “Red Flag” laws.  There are 10 Republican Senators on board with these “Red Flag” laws, which will permit the “authorities” to enter your home and confiscate your legally owned property without due process based on a complaint, whether legitimate or disingenuous.  Anyone who is mad at you, or dislikes your politics, will be able to file a complaint and all of a sudden a search of your home becomes “reasonable”. 

It’s a two for one “sale”; repeal the 2nd Amendment and get rid of the 4th with it. Apparently, these RINOs and their DumboCrat cohorts have no compunction about violating their oaths to “support and defend” the Constitution. It’s difficult to keep up with their relentless attacks on our civil rights, which “coincidently”, is the Obama stratagem of war; overwhelm as many systems as possible, simultaneously, and erode the foundations of American values, its culture, and its institutions.  He is playing the long game.  He never thought of himself as holding power for eight short years.  The torch of his “legacy” is to be carried by many successors.  That’s why he organized a 30,000 member army of activists to further his agenda.  And that’s why I say he is orchestrating everything we see going on today.  If there was one phone the NSA should be eavesdropping, it’s Obama’s

I can’t imagine ANY President being worse, not even Biden.

Madison and Montesquieu

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), a case considered by many to be the most important case in Supreme Court history, Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of “judicial review”, interpreted as the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress that conflicted with the Constitution.  Marshall’s rationale had to do with creating better balance between the three branches of government; Congress had power to create legislation, regulate expenditures, and impeach officials; the Executive branch (The President) had power to restrain Congress and held veto power over their legislation; but the role of the Supreme Court had not been clearly defined in terms of their checks on the other two branches.

Marshall concluded his written opinion by stating,

“Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”  [1]

The principle of separation of powers can be traced to the French philosopher, Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat (1689-1755), who wrote in his The Spirit of Laws that there should be balanced forces acting against each other to prevent tyranny.  He argued that “the separation of state powers should be by its service to the people’s liberty: legislative, executive and judicial.”  [2]

Let’s look at three of the Democrat “arguments”, and my replies to each one.  All  relate to their demands for stricter gun control.  But before I counter their foolishness with logic, let me warn any would-be trolls who think they can outwit me.  I choose my debates wisely.  That’s why I’m undefeated.  If you find yourself in an argument with me, it’s already over.  You just haven’t been able to accept it yet.  You might call it arrogance.  I’m just saying it matter-of-factly.

The Second Amendment is not absolute. 

Nonsense!  The Constitution is defined by its own language as the “supreme law of the land” [3] and is absolutely established as such.  

In the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, it is stated, in part, “RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.: 

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.”  [4]

In other words, it is clear that the intention of Congress was to recognize the Bill of Rights as integral to the Constitution itself.  They were to be considered to be “supreme laws of the land”.  There is no ambiguity.  They are absolute.

Like ALL of the founders, Jefferson was much wiser than ANYone in Washington today.

When Joe Biden assumes the authoritarian’s pulpit and proclaims that the 2nd Amendment isn’t absolute, he is either ignorant or lying.  Webster defines absolute as “1a: free from imperfection ; PERFECT”.  There is zero possibility to improve it.

I’m guessing the left is using the words of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to persuade their gullible followers that the 2nd Amendment isn’t absolute when he wrote the majority opinion in the landmark case, District of Columbia v. Heller [5], wherein he wrote,in part, “the Second Amendment right is not unlimited . . . “

Biden and the rest of his ilk want you to think “unlimited” rights mean they are not “absolute”.  So they all repeat the phrase “Amendments are not absolute”, echoed ad nauseum by their propaganda machine, the mainstream media, expecting the notion to be accepted by the masses of useful idiots.  Goebbels once said, “If you tell a big lie often enough, it will become the truth.”

Stricter gun control laws work.

On the contrary.  Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, yet lead the nation every year in homicide by gun.

Top 10 U.S. Cities – ranked by gun deaths 2020 (in parentheses)  [6]

2021 & 2020 data is total number of homicides in each city – by various sources

Chicago: 2021, 797 – (? by gun); 2020, 772 – (692 by gun); 2019, 498 – (448 by gun)

Chicago Police Superintendent David Brown told reporters the bulk of those homicides were gang related.  [7]  I guess black lives don’t matter there.

Philadelphia: 2021, 562 – (? by gun); 2020, 499 – (417 by gun); 2019, (303 by gun)

Houston: 2021, 479 – (? by gun); 2020, 400 – (357 by gun); 2019, (231 by gun)  

New York: 2021, 485 – (? by gun); 2020, 462 – (307 by gun); 2019, (172 by gun)  

Memphis: 2021, 346 – (? by gun); 2020, 332 – (299 by gun); 2019, (190 by gun)   

Detroit: 2021, 309 – (? by gun); 2020, 324 – (290 by gun); 2019, (222 by gun)   

Baltimore: 2021, 338 – (? by gun); 2020, 335 – (272 by gun); 2019, (319 by gun)   

Los Angeles: 2021, 397 – (? by gun); 2020, 349 – (268 by gun); 2019, (190 by gun)   

Dallas: 2021, 220 – (? by gun); 2020, 254 – (218 by gun); 2019, (167 by gun)  

Washington D.C.: 2021, 227 – (? by gun); 2020, 198 – (187 by gun); 2019, (144 by gun)

In 2020, handguns were involved in 59% of all U.S. gun murders, while rifles, including the category often referred to as “assault weapons”, accounted for just 3% of firearm murders.  [8]

All of the Top 10 cities are controlled by Democratic Mayors and all have restrictive gun control laws.  Some of the most restrictive are New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Chicago.  New York is the worst.  All “assault weapons” (whatever they decide that means) are banned.  Magazines are limited to seven rounds, and you can’t even buy ammunition without a background check.  There isn’t a single gun shop in the city of Chicago, yet police confiscated over 1,200 illegal weapons in 2021 and obviously gun control doesn’t work there.  Following an extensive permit procedure, Baltimore requires all successful applicants to post a newspaper article identifying the license holder.  That sounds like an advertisement for would-be burglars that you own a weapon they might want to steal.  

Gun Free Zones are a joke.  Narrow-minded liberals think posting a sign to advise would-be gun toters to leave their weapons at home is a great idea.  They fail to comprehend their message is a clear sign to evil-minded criminals that the facility is a soft target that offers little, if any resistance, where they can attack without much fear of retaliation.

Common sense controls like background checks, and banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines will save lives.

Here are some survey results cited by gun control advocates:  All are taken from a Britannica article titled, Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?  [9]

A February 2018 Quinnipiac poll found that 97% of American voters and 97% of gun owners support universal background checks, 67% support a nationwide ban on assault weapons, and 83% support mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases.  [155]  It’s a fairly old poll at this point, but we’ll assume the sentiments haven’t changed much.

An NPR survey conducted in February 2019 found that 65% of Americans believed banning high-capacity magazines would reduce gun violence.  [165]

As they often say, “no one needs 30 rounds to hunt deer”.  And they claim that high-capacity magazines transform killings into mass murder. 

True, but their presumption is that deer hunting is the only use for a firearm, as if you’re not allowed to consider your own personal safety. 

During a 1985 debate of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act amending the Gun Control Act of 1968, then Senator Biden is on record saying, “During my 12 1/2 years as a Member of this body, I have never believed that additional gun control or Federal registration of guns would reduce crime. I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, nontraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control. In my opinion a national register or ban of handguns would be impossible to carry out and may not result in reductions in crime.”  He voted against amendments that would have enacted a 14-day waiting period for handgun sales.  [10]

Now he wants you to think banning guns will remove them completely from the population, but hasn’t told us what his plan is to confiscate them from criminals, just law-abiding citizens.  Criminals don’t care about gun laws and if the government bans semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, all law-abiding citizens will be severely restricted in any attempt to defend themselves and their families.  When the bad guy breaks in your house with an AR-15, you don’t want to be fighting him with a BB gun.  Furthermore, when seconds count, the police might be there in five minutes.  But don’t worry, they will process the scene carefully and probably collect enough evidence to identify the killer.  They might even lock him up for a few days.

Both the Heller case and in McDonald v. The City of Chicago, the Supreme Court decided that the Second Amendment acknowledged the right for private citizens to possess handguns in their own homes for personal protection.  These are modern-era cases and the Court obviously considered modern weapons.  Most handguns sold in the U.S. for many years now have been semi-automatic weapons with “high-capacity” magazines, holding 10 or more rounds.  It’s difficult to draw much distinction between a semi-automatic handgun and an AR-15 in terms of effectiveness or firepower at close range (inside the home).  In fact, the handgun is easier to handle and therefore a quicker draw in life-threatening situations.

Therefore, hypothetically, any future litigant fighting for his right to protect himself and his family inside his home with an AR-15, banned or not, could cite Heller and McDonald and have a reasonable expectation to win his case before the Supreme Court.  The same argument could be made for “high-capacity” magazines, as the Supreme Court was well aware of modern-day weaponry.  Seven rounds, ten rounds, 15 rounds – what’s the difference?  It’s just an arbitrary number.

Good spot for my own wisdom

I get it; they just want to limit the ability of a criminal to commit mass murder.  Oh wait, isn’t murder against the law already?  So, we can assume mass murder is illegal too.  Criminals don’t care about laws.  Biden himself said in his ’85 debate, “I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, nontraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control.”

If an evil mind wants to commit a massacre, he’ll find a way, whether it’s a bomb, a vehicle, or an illegal AR-15.  Pretzel logic always comes back to bite you in the ass.  They should call it “boomerang logic”.  If you can’t stop the bad guy, why restrict the good guy’s ability to defend himself, his family, and sometimes others?

Academics and politicians who state that none of the Amendments are “absolute” occupy a ludicrous and indefensible position.  If the supreme law of the land isn’t absolute, why have any laws at all ? 

COMMENTS always welcome

See Part 2 of the series HERE


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

[2]  Wikipedia ; Constitution of the United States, Influences

[3]  The Constitution, Article VI, in part (2nd paragraph):

“The Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

[4]  The Bill of Rights, Preamble

[5]  District of Columbia v. Heller (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES et al v. HELLER ; argued March 18, 2008 – Decided June 26, 2008

Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion and was joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito in a 5-4 decision.  Dissenters were Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer.

HELD: (in part)

1 The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.  Pp 2-53

2  Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.  It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.  Pp 54-56

Two years later, the Supreme Court decided the case McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 SCt 3020 (decided June 28, 2010), in favor of the Plaintiff wherein the Court determined that the Second Amendment rights supersede the laws of state and local governments.  In other words, despite Chicago’s strict gun laws, or any other place in America, it is perfectly LEGAL, and your RIGHT, to own a handgun in your home for protection. 

[6]  Everytown Research & Policy, 2020 vs. 2019 Gun Homicides ; Dec 16, 2021

[7]  A. P. ; 2021 Ends as Chicago’s Deadliest Year in a Quarter Century, U.S. News ; Jan 1, 2022

[8]  Gramlich, John; What the Data Says About Gun Deaths in the U.S. , Pew Research Center, FBI data ; Feb 3, 2022

[9] ; Britannica, Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted? ;

Last updated Aug 7, 2020

[155] Quinnipiac University ; U.S. Support for Gun Control Tops 2-1, Highest Ever ; Feb 20, 2018

[165]  Montanaro, Domenico ;, Americans Largely Support Gun Restrictions to “Do Something” About Gun Violence ; Aug 10, 2019

and the NPR article cited;

National Public Radio (NPR), an extremely biased “news” outlet, didn’t offer any data on the research methodology and the numbers surveyed.  The article did break down some of the questions and the responses by Democrats, Republicans and Independents surveyed.  For example, in the cited 65% composite response; 86% of Dems were in favor; and 59% of Independents, but just 49% of Republicans thought it would make a difference.

[10]  Frank, BrieAnna J. ; Fact Check: Biden Once Said He ‘Never Believed’ Gun Control, Federal Registration Would Reduce Crime, USA Today ; June 14, 2022

Whoa, where is the Disinformation Bureau?  USA Today admits that he said it, quoting the full context, but wants you to think the quote is a falsehood in the headline.  That’s what I call propaganda.  Your mind has been conditioned to believe that “fact check” means the story is going to debunk the claim.  Otherwise, why put “Fact Check” in the headline?

Why the Russians Can’t Win

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.

The American Revolution began on the 19th day of April 1775, when 77 militiamen assembled on the village green at Lexington, Massachusetts to repel some 700 British troops marching westward from Boston, aiming to secure all stores of weapons and capture Patriot leaders Sam Adams and John Hancock.  The skirmish that ensued left 8 Americans dead, 10 others wounded, and a retreat to nearby Concord had the British chasing them into a hornet’s nest.  About 2 hours after the shots ended at Lexington, the British regulars arrived at Concord amidst hundreds of armed Patriots.  They managed to destroy many military supplies but were soon routed by the minutemen and suffered heavy casualties.

Monument engraved in honor of the 76 Minute Men who stood behind Capt. John Parker on the 19th April 1775, Lexington, Massachusetts
Minute Man re-enactor at Concord, Massachusetts

“As the British retraced their 16-mile journey, their lines were constantly beset by Patriot marksmen firing at them from behind trees, rocks, and stone walls.  At Lexington, Captain Parker’s militia had its revenge, killing several British soldiers as the Red Coats hastily marched through his town.  By the time the British finally reached the safety of Boston, nearly 300 British soldiers had been killed, wounded, or were missing in action.  The Patriots suffered fewer than 100 casualties.”  [1] Although the Treaty of Paris wasn’t signed until September 3rd, 1783, officially ending the war, it was at the Yorktown peninsula, Virginia, on the 17th day of October 1781, where Lt. General Lord Charles Cornwallis surrendered his sword to General George Washington, that signaled the final battle.  It took six and a half years to expel the British and effect American independence

How The Ukraine War Resembles the American Revolution

Today we are witnessing a repeat of history, as the Russian military, under the direction of President Vladimir Putin, has invaded the Ukraine, vowing to reclaim the resource rich independent country that broke off from the former Soviet Union, dissolved in 1991.  There are parallels between these two conflicts and in the final analysis, unless Putin goes all-out bonkers leaving the Ukraine as a nuclear wasteland, I’m predicting resolution will be similar to our own 18th century war.

I will reprint a few excerpts from my own writings nearly 250 years ago that could essentially be used today as a rallying cry by Ukrainian Patriots.  You could simply replace the names “America” and England” by substituting “Ukraine” and “Russia”, respectfully, and you might think the paragraph was describing the current situation in Ukraine.

“THOSE who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.  The event of yesterday was one of those kind of alarms which is just sufficient to rouse us to duty, without being of consequence enough to depress our fortitude.  It is not a field of a few acres of ground, but a cause, that we are defending, and whether we defeat the enemy in one battle. Or by degrees, the consequences will be the same.”  [2]

Here Paine is saying that battles lost are not prelude to eventual conquest, but rather a call to action, intensifying the outrage of the warrior routed from the field, and strengthening his resolve.  The cause of freedom will not be so easily won, requiring sacrifice along the way, but freedom will prevail in the end.

“Men who are sincere in defending their freedom; will always feel concern at every circumstance which seems to make against them; it is the natural and honest consequence of all affectionate attachments, and the want of it is a vice.  But the dejection lasts only for a moment; they soon rise out of it with additional vigor; the glow of hope, courage, and fortitude, will in a little time, supply the place of every inferior passion, and kindle the whole heart into heroism.”  [3]

Though the soldier mourns the loss of every brother-in-arms, he will gain the determination to defeat a conquering force and drive them out of his country.

“The soldier, above all others, prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.”

  —  Gen. Douglas MacArthur

“I close this paper with a short address to General Howe.  You, sir, are only lingering out the period that shall bring with it your defeat.  You have yet scarce begun upon the war, and the further you enter, the faster will your troubles thicken.  What you now enjoy is only a respite from ruin; an invitation to destruction; something that will lead on to our deliverance at your expense.  We know the cause which we are engaged in, and though a passionate fondness for it may make us grieve at every injury which threatens it, yet, when the moment of concern is over, the determination to duty returns.”  [4]

Paine tells Howe directly that Britain’s folly in conquering the American people and submitting its’ citizenry to foreign tyranny is doomed.  The flame of freedom cannot be extinguished by mercenaries with no skin in the game.  The Patriot will always regroup from setback, and will never rest until the cause of defending his family and freeing his homeland is achieved.

“If there is a sin superior to every other, it is that of wilful and offensive war.  Most other sins are circumscribed within narrow limits, that is, the power of one man cannot give them a very general extension, and many kinds of sins have only a mental existence from which no affection arises; but he who is the author of a war, lets loose the whole contagion of Hell, that opens a vein and bleeds a nation to death.  We leave it to England and Indians to boast of these honors; we feel no thirst for such savage glory; a nobler flame, a purer spirit animates America.  She has taken up the sword of virtuous defence; she has bravely put herself between Tyranny and Freedom, between a curse and a blessing, determined to expel the one and protect the other.”  [5]

It is Putin who must accept the sin of war.  His invasion was unprovoked.  His objective is to regain territory he believes to be rightfully Russian, to restore the glory of the former Soviet Union.  I’m certain that many of his nationalist countrymen support him.  His methods have been brutal, a scorched earth policy, particularly in the eastern regions of Dunbas, encompassing Mariupol, Donetsk, and the northeast city of Kharkiv, showing no regard for human life, epitomizing a “contagion of Hell” from which civilians have had great difficulty escaping, trapped within the ruins of the cities they once called home.

During the American Revolution, British forces, based in Charleston, burned family homesteads and committed atrocities across the villages and swamplands of South Carolina in an effort to flush out Francis “Swamp Fox” Marion, the guerrilla fighter whose band of militia tormented Cornwallis all the way to Cowpens, where, on the 17th of January 1781, they were defeated by Marion and Continental Regulars under Lt. Col. Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee, his former commanding officer in the French and Indian War.  It was the beginning of the end for Cornwallis.  The Patriot (2000 film) is a pretty accurate depiction of this southern theater of the war.  [6]  

“Go home, sir, and endeavor to save the remains of your ruined country, by a just representation of the madness of her measures.  A few moments, well applied, may yet preserve her from political destruction.  I am not one of those who wish to see Europe in a flame, because I am persuaded that such an event will not shorten the war.  The rupture, at present, is confined between the two powers of America and England.  England finds that she cannot conquer America, and America has no wish to conquer England.  You are fighting for what you can never obtain, and we defending what we never mean to part with.  A few words, therefore, settle the bargain.  Let England mind her own business and we will mind ours.  Govern yourselves and we will govern ourselves.”  [7] 

Putin would be wise to acknowledge the history of the American Revolution, to recognize that his ambition may be larger than the ability of his military superiority to subdue a determined army of dedicated defenders.  Paine would give him the same advice he delivered to Howe; leave us alone and return to your own country before you lose everything.  Let us hope that Putin’s ego doesn’t overrule his sensibilities before this war drags on for years, and the Ukrainian people can get on with their lives.

COMMENTS always welcome


[1] American Revolution Begins at Battle of Lexington ; Hulton Archive,

[2] Paine, Thomas ; The Crisis IV: Those Who Expect to Reap the Blessings of Freedom ; Common Sense, September 12, 1777, the day after the Battle of Brandywine, Chester County, Pennsylvania ; Philadelphia

[3] ibid.

[4] ibid.

[5] Paine, Thomas ; The Crisis V: To General Sir William Howe ; Common Sense, March 21, 1778, Lancaster, Pennsylvania

[6] The Patriot, a 2000 epic historical war film of the American Revolution, directed by Roland Emmerich, starring Mel Gibson in the title role as Benjamin Martin (depicting Francis Marion), Chris Cooper as Brig. Gen. Harry Burwell (depicting Gen. Henry “Lighthorse Harry” Lee), Heath Ledger as Gabriel Martin, and Jason Isaacs a Col. William Tavington (depicting Col. Banastre Tarlton).

In the climactic battle at Cowpens, South Carolina, Martin (Gibson) suggests to Gen. Burwell (Cooper) they employ the tactic of a “feigned retreat” (first known to be used by William the Conqueror at Hastlngs in 1066), whereby his militia skirmishes with the British near the crest of a hill, fakes a retreat over the hill, enticing the British to charge in anticipation of routing the rebels, then as the British break over the hill, they’re confronted by a much larger force of Continental regulars lying in wait.  In classic Hollywood fashion, Gibson avenges the murder of his son, Gabriel (Ledger), by killing Tavington (Isaacs) himself.

The Patriot (2000 film) – Wikipedia

[7] Paine, Thomas ; The Crisis V: To General Sir William Howe ; Common Sense, March 21, 1778, Lancaster, Pennsylvania

Laws Don’t Apply to the Left

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.

There are abundant examples of DNC Corruption in a list that grows with alarming regularity.  This week’s nominee for “most egregious” goes to the recent “demonstrations” in front of the personal residences of conservative Supreme Court justices in the wake of a leak that supposedly warned of the courts’ intention to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Corruption is evident because the activist “demonstrators” were clearly violating federal law, but the Democrat controlled DOJ apparently has no interest in pursuing any action.  As a reminder, we have existing laws that were enacted to discourage anarchy, to wit:  

18 U.S. Code § 1507 – Picketing or parading

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.

(Added Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 31(a), 64 Stat. 1018; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)  [1]

Apparently, the partisan Attorney General and the corrupt DOJ can’t seem to define the word “Whoever”.  They must think it means “Anyone except Democrats”.

Unless you’re an exclusive viewer of CNN or MSDNC, you probably have heard about the recent mobs of “protesters” organized to picket outside the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices, a clear violation of the abovementioned federal crime.  Oh wait!  Let’s not forget, Democrats are above the law.  Laws don’t apply to the “politically correct”.  Woke activists needn’t worry about bothersome legal issues.  They operate with complete impunity.

Don’t forget, Obama organized a 30,000+ member army of activists.  What exactly are these activists doing ?  My guess is they don’t just post social media propaganda from their basements to recruit like-minded ideologues in support of Obama’s agenda.  They almost certainly organize “mostly peaceful protests” and hand out megaphones to their leaders with marching orders to rile up the crowd, which reminds me of another federal crime ;

18 U.S. Code § 2101 – Riots (relevant excerpt)

(a)Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—

(1) to incite a riot; or

(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or

(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or

(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph— Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.  [2]

Seems to me that the DOJ should be ordering some investigations to identify the leaders and directors of anarchist activities.  Instead of protecting the public safety, they are apparently protecting the perpetrators. 

Remember all the unrest in the summer of 2020 following the murder of George Floyd ?  Riots took place in cities across the country but two of the “hottest” powder-kegs were Minneapolis and Seattle.

“Mostly peaceful protesters in front of Minneapolis Police Precinct, May 28, 2020. Photo by Max Nesterak/Minnesota Reformer
Police car burning in downtown Seattle, May 30, 2020. Photo by Cameron Thomsen

We all watched the cities of Minneapolis and Seattle suffer billions in damages caused by Antifa, BLM, and other activists burning, looting, and rioting for over 100 consecutive days in some areas.  What did the authorities do to stop it ?  Not a damn thing.  They were ordered to stand down.  But were those riots organized by a group of basement-dwellers on social media, or was there a central figurehead, leading the efforts ?  What’s the status of that “investigation” ?

According to a company called the Property Claim Services (PCS), which has tracked insurance claims related to civil disorder since 1950, the “mostly peaceful protests” that took place between May 26th and June 8th 2020 across 140 U. S. cities, will result in 1 to 2 billion in claims, becoming the most expensive insurance “catastrophe” in history.  [3]

An article in the Minnesota Reformer gives us some updates from Minneapolis;  of the more than 1,000 buildings burned and damaged in the wake of the George Floyd murder, only 11 criminal charges have been filed.  Nearly 100 people faced felony charges, but a review of the charging documents by the Reformer found that only a few were charged with arson or breaking into buildings.  95% of the 520 (all but 26) misdemeanor citations issued in Hennepin County, which encompasses the city of Minneapolis, have been dismissed.  [4]

The Reformer singles out one man from Texas prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Ivan Harrison Hunter,who allegedly fired 13 rounds from a semi-automatic rifle inside the burning Third Precinct building.  Hunter is a “self-proclaimed member of the anti-government extremist group Boogaloo Bois”, afar-rightpro-gun movement described by Wikipedia as a movement seeking to incite a second Civil War or second American Revolution they call the “boogaloo”.

Assuming all that to be true, it’s interesting that the authorities and the liberal media go after a man who appears to be antithetical to the prevailing make-up of the rioters, seemingly to incite them, but when it comes to Antifa and/or FBI agents inciting protesters on January 6th, they don’t want to hear about such “conspiracy theories”.  Democrats don’t participate in conspiracies is the message they expect you to believe.

The ATF tracked more than 160 fires across the Twin Cities after Floyd’s murder.  At the time of the article, just 11 cases have resulted in charges being filed.

We can see that it’s not only the high-ranking Democrat politicians that are immune from prosecution, but almost all of their activist soldiers as well.

In Seattle, an NBC News journalist discovered that two Seattle Police Officers allegedly planned and executed radio chatter that was designed to be overheard by “mostly peaceful protesters” in order to instill some fear among them.  I only mention this story to show that the media had no qualms about the out-of-control rioting, burning and looting being perpetrated by the mob.  Their agenda involved criticism of how the police tried to disperse the crowd and overt support of the defund-the-police movement.  The Proud Boys, a right-wing group did not enter the fray.  Seattle police had to abandon their East Precinct that day.   [5]

According to the City Attorney’s Office for Seattle, there were 261 arrests made for misdemeanor offenses related to the “protests”.  Of those 110 cases were still under review, but only 8 charges had been filed; and 6 of those were dismissed.  One protestor accepted a plea bargain and the other agreed to a diversion program (think, slap on the wrist).    [6]

Here’s an excerpt from the Washington (Com)Post: “The President unilaterally deploying paramilitary-type forces into American cities should concern all Americans.  His blatant disregard for the constitution – and for the safety and wellbeing of our residents – is textbook despotism.”  –  Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan (D)  [7]

Classic deflection.  Somehow the Seattle riots were Trump’s fault.  Pay no attention to the Mayor’s total failure to control the situation.  She just sat back and watched her city burn, endangering the safety of her own constituency, then comes out to the podium and lectures the country on how Trump should stay out of it.  She assumes the moral high ground and feeds Seattle citizens a bunch of crap about how her leadership will make their lives better after allowing their businesses to be destroyed and jeopardizing their safety to the outrageous anarchy rampaging in her streets.  Then equally disturbing, she expects them to remain dumb enough to re-elect her. 

When will liberal voters figure out their beloved DNC is not JFK’s party anymore ?  Folks, you’re voting for outright communists who think they are entitled to rule this entire country and as long as you keep supporting them, it will get worse.

COMMENTS always welcome


[1] Legal Information Institute (LII) ; Cornell Law School

[2] Legal Information Institute (LII) ; Cornell Law School

[3] Kingson, J. ; Exclusive: $1 billion-plus riot damage is most expensive in insurance history,  Axios ; September 16, 2020

[4] Eischens, R. ; One Year Later, Few Charges for the Arson and Destruction ; Minnesota Reformer ; May 27, 2021

[5] Stello, T. ; Seattle Police Carried Out Improper Proud Boys Misinformation Effort During 2020 Protests, Watchdog Finds, NBC News ; January 6, 2022

[6] Markovich, M. ; City Attorney: Charges Brought in 8 out of 261 Protest Related Arrests in Seattle, KOMO News, December 10, 2020

[7] Davenport, C. & Scruggs, G. ; Protests Explode Across the Country: Police Declare Riots in Seattle, Portland ; Washington Post, July 26, 2020