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


[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


[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.

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

Highlights From the Opinion:

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

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

   In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 u. S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense.  In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense.  We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sensitive Places

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

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

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

Concerns of the Respondents

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

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

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

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

The Closing

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

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

  —  It is so ordered.

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

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

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

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

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

One Last Thing:  Active Shootings   

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

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

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

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

Thank you SCOTUS for strengthening 2A.

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


See Part 3 of the series HERE

Return to Part 1

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]  ProCon.org ; 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 ; npr.org, 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, history.com


[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 https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/25/seattle-police-declare-riot-renewed-black-lives-matter-protests/

Biden Launches Dystopian Disinformation Governance Bureau

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.  

Less than 48 hours after Elon Musk acquired Twitter, President Biden announced a new prong of the DNC’s Marxist socialist agenda by forming the Disinformation Governance Bureau, a dystopian agency under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security, tasked with monitoring the freedom of speech exercised by anyone criticizing the current regime.  As Director, he named none other than Nina Jankowicz, a former “disinformation fellow at the Wilson Center”, who advised the Ukrainian government on strategic communications under the auspices of a Fulbright-Clinton Public Policy Fellowship.  [1] 

Biden selected Nina Jankowicz to lead the
Department of Homeland Security’s
Disinformation Governance Bureau.

She repeatedly debunked and denied the existence of Hunter Biden’s laptop when she was writing articles for the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other far-left publications.  In other words, she has previously fulfilled the role of Joseph Goebbels for Joe Biden and her appointment is payback.

The Disinformation Governance Bureau (DGB) appears to be a direct response to Musk’s intentions to eliminate censorship by Twitter.  The DGB will closely monitor Twitter users and swiftly intervene on content they don’t approve, to label it as “disinformation”, countering free speech with their own brand of propaganda.  The Bureau is, in itself, suppression of free speech and is thereby an unconstitutional violation of the first amendment rights of American citizens.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said, “Surely, no American administration would ever use the power of government to sit in judgment on the First Amendment speech of its own citizens.  Sadly, I was mistaken.”  [2]

The Department issued the following statements intended to justify the creation of the DGB: 

•  ”The spread of disinformation can affect border security, Americans’ safety during disasters, and public trust in our democratic institutions.” 

•  “The board will protect privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties as part of its duties.”  [3]

You’re going to need a full rubber suit to avoid that wave of crap.  The truth is completely opposite of that nonsense.

History reminds us of similar organizations, notably the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, headed by Joseph Goebbels.  In late April 1930, Adolph Hitler appointed Goebbels to oppose Gregor Strasser, a leading Nazi organizer in northern Germany, whose policies conflicted with Hitler’s vision of the Nazi Party, naming him Reich leader of Nazi Party Propaganda.  One of his first acts was to ban Strasser’s Nationaler Sozialist newspaper and was then given control of other Nazi papers across the country, including the party’s national newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter (People’s Observer).  The goal of Goebbels’ Reich Ministry was to “centralise Nazi control of all aspects of German cultural and intellectual life”.  [4] 

The propaganda ministry was organised into seven departments: administration and legal; mass rallies, public health, youth, and race; radio; national and foreign press; films and film censorship; art, music, and theatre; and protection against counter-propaganda, both foreign and domestic.  [5]  The DNC’s “democrat socialists” who obviously are running the country today have an uncanny resemblance to the “departments” of the Reich Ministry.

In 1954 the Soviet Union formed the KGB, or Committee for State Security (Eng. translation), tasked with “the protection of the country’s political leadership, the supervision of border troops, and the general surveillance of the population.”  Every Soviet leader depended on the KGB (substitute DGB here) for information, surveillance of key elites (think: targeted American conservatives), and control of the population.  [6]  

Looking at the scope of propaganda exercised by the Reich Ministry, and the role of the KGB, we can see the similarities to the current DNC.  Democrats are protected by the mainstream media, who collude to censor all negative stories, often blatantly lying to the public about real scandals that deserve scrutiny.  They have no defense and can’t formulate legitimate arguments, so they immediately deflect by playing the race card, or unleashing intentionally divisive vitriol designed to enrage their moronic followers.  Hollywood and “big tech” dutifully march to the same drumbeat.  The media controls the social consciousness.  That which is exposed by the few alternate sources of information is uniformly denied and ridiculed as “conspiracy theories”.  They echo the exact same phrases across the various news outlets, as if they all “zoomed” a conference call to brainstorm the precise wording.  We have all seen the video montages that would be hilarious if they weren’t true.  And they don’t even care how ridiculous they sound, because they know their viewers will believe anything they say.  It’s a shame the “useful idiots” don’t realize their authoritarian “leaders” give them no credit whatsoever.

The Democrats have enacted Soviet-style communist tactics against American citizens by closing businesses, locking down schools, and mask mandates, all under the guise of “public health”.  Now, the Biden administration has launched the DGB to counter everything they determine is “propaganda”, headed by a woman who protected her “leader” by spreading Biden-approved (no doubt) “misinformation” in attempting to debunk the “Hunter’s laptop” scandal.

This is not a drill.  The far-left faction of the DNC seems to be in control (although I could argue everything we see happening today is at the direction of one man).  Their Marxist socialist agenda is barreling down on us in overdrive.  They know they have the power and the full protection of the media, the justice system, and a thoroughly divided nation.  Their game plan is to “fundamentally transform” America as quickly as possible.  Patriots must unite behind any and all political opposition, regardless of name or reputation.  It doesn’t matter who is running against them.  We must destroy the DNC by voting all of them out at the earliest opportunity.  VOTE, because your life depends on it, and those of your children and grandchildren. 

Comments always welcomed.


[1] Crane, E. & Nelson, S. ; Biden Blasted for Policing Free Speech with ‘Dystopian’ Disinformation Bureau ; New York Post, April 28, 2022


[2] ibid.

[3] ibid.

[4] Longerich, P. ; Goebbels: A Biography ; Random House, New York ; pp. 128-129 ; 2015 ; Wikipedia


[5] Manvell, R. & Fraenkel, H. ; Doctor Goebbels: His Life and Death ; Skyhorse, New York ; pp. 140-141 ; 1960 ; Wikipedia 2010


[6] Pringle, Robert ; Britannica


The Puppet Master Raises His Head

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.

Every red-blooded American patriot knows the DNC has been hijacked by the radical left-wing faction within their party, Hell-bent on “fundamentally transforming” the United States into a Marxist socialist society.  And they are proceeding at an alarming pace.  But who exactly is directing everything?  In my, almost never, humble opinion (IMANHO), the answer is painfully obvious.

Is Biden running the show?  Puhhleeez.

Is The Squad (AOC, Omar, Tlaib, and Pressley) in charge?  C’Mon man.  It has to be someone more powerful than that.

Kamala?  Yeah, right.  She’s nothing more than word salad nonsense.

Oh wait.  Have we forgotten someone?  You know, the guy who organized a 30,000 member army of activists to further his agenda, which has always been to destroy America.  Yeah, THAT guy.  Here’s a couple pictures of him, just to remind you  —-

He made his first return to the White House recently (Tuesday, April 5, 2022) to stir up some excitement with the base Democrats amidst sinking poll numbers for the “most popular” President in history.  I’m sure all 81 million voters saw the video of their man being overshadowed by their Messiah.

Watch the video in the link to see poor old Joe being upstaged by his former, and current, boss.

The conservative media all dutifully expressed their sadness for the latest high profile Democrat criminal.  I know, he hasn’t been charged with anything, so all accusations are purely alleged.  Never mind the growing list of credible evidence, some of it already verified to have serious implications (Hunter’s laptop).  But remember, the Attorney General is always appointed by the President, and presumed to be impartial.  I suspect that isn’t even close to an accurate perception.  Basically Merrick Garland is the commanding officer of the DNC Praetorian Guard. 

Despite numerous opportunities to prosecute Hillary Clinton, among other high-ranking Democrats, with plenty of evidence, Trump’s AGs never brought any charges against them in four years, all while he was under intense investigation himself.  But when the Democrats are in charge, the DOJ exhibits a little more “enthusiasm” (Loretta Lynch and Obama’s “wing man” Eric Holder).  It’s almost like the Democrats are above the law, while Republicans get accused of phony scandals and must constantly remain on defense, perhaps as a stratagem.

Dare I suggest that Obama deserves a little investigating himself?  Let me lay out a few facts and see if we can connect the dots to form a theory based on a pattern, or theme, to the actions he has taken.  Critics and deniers will try to denounce all this, calling it all part of a right-wing conspiracy theory, and labelling me a racist.  So to back up some allegations, I offer details, to wit:

•  Obama is a disciple of Saul Alinsky – Alinsky was a prominent community organizer in Chicago, founding several organizations in the 1940s that recruited various ethnicities and generated a grievance industry.  (sound familiar?) In his book, Rules for Radicals, under The Ideology of Change, Alinsky advocates for the “reorganization into a new social order” leading to the “political paradise of communism”.  I’ll be damned; “change”, “new social order”, and the “paradise of communism”.  That almost sounds like the mantra of todays’ DNC.                                                     

Following two years in New York City at Columbia University and two years of employment, Obama moved to his “hometown”, Chicago, at the age of 23, becoming Director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP) from June 1985 to May 1988, then traveled to Europe and Kenya for about 2 months.  In the summer of 1988 he entered Harvard Law School.  While at Harvard, Obama went to Los Angeles to attend a “national training course on Alinsky methods of organizing” [1], graduated in 1991 and returned to Chicago.  He taught courses at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years (1992-2004), including eight years as a Senior Lecturer, teaching courses in due process and equal protection, voting rights, and racism and law.  Hmmm, “voting rights” and “racism”; two high profile issues being championed by Democrats today.  Although they never met (Alinsky died in 1972), you can clearly see that Obama was hugely influenced by Alinsky by reading my two-part series, The Socialist Agenda of Alinsky and Obama

•  In a speech Obama gave during a campaign rally in 2008, Obama said, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”  He wasn’t kidding.  That “transformation” is right now on “full throttle” and it means he intends to change the United States into a socialist/communist society.

•  Obama’s 2008 campaign slogan was “Hope and Change” – the deliberate deception was to make the listener think he meant he was offering them hope that he could effect real change in terms of improving their lives.  In reality, he intended to change America into a socialist state using Alinsky’s blueprint.

•  Soon after his inauguration, he starts pushing for “universal health care”, a key pillar of socialism.  The result was the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, commonly known as ObamaCare).  All the well-founded criticism about most of the working class losing their preferred health care didn’t matter.  The worn-out promise “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”, became a joke, and premiums skyrocketed for harder to find doctors in the system.  I don’t want to deny health care to needy patients, wealthy or not, but we didn’t need to overhaul he entire system to accommodate relatively few people.  And now we have socialist health care that is inferior to the system we previously had.  If you think the government should be in charge of health care, ask a veteran how he rates the VA.

•  Another big agenda item on Obama’s list was education reform.  If you recall, it was during the early years of the first Obama term that Democrats started ramping up their campaign for free college tuition, college loan debt forgiveness, and the Common Core curriculum came to be.  “In general, socialists believe the government should provide a range of basic services to the public, such as health care and education, for free or at a significant discount.”  [2]                   

Have you ever seen a typical Common Core math problem?  It’s literally insane.  In Obama’s mind, he had tackled two of the biggest institutions with socialist reforms.  It was time to divide and conquer the social consciousness by waging class warfare, creating racial animosity, vilifying the police, and exploding the national debt, all intentionally designed to crush the working middle class and split the country into two antagonistic factions.  Attacks on critical institutions like the welfare system and the military were soon to follow. 

•  To take America down a few notches, he figured he would decimate the military.  There has always been resistance to excessive military spending, some of it justifiable.  Obama knew he could exploit that, starting with some general support.  The actions he took to cripple the military are too numerous to mention here, but one of the most demoralizing moves he ordered was to issue “pink slips” (notices of impending layoffs) to officers in the combat zone of Afghanistan.  Imagine being in the theater of war, literally hoping you don’t get killed at any moment, and receiving a pink slip.  Is that really necessary?  Couldn’t it have been delayed until the officer returned home?  Of course.  But the object was to demoralize the officers, and thereby distract them from their life-threatening duties, giving them something else to think about.  Despicable, and arguably treasonous!

•  Then Chief Counterterrorism Advisor, John Brennan, received a letter dated  October 19, 2011, from signatories of 57 Islamic organizations, complaining of  “biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam” inside the federal government’s instructional halls, and demanded that biased trainers be disciplined, that all instructors undergo retraining and that materials deemed offensive by Muslim activists be purged.  Within six months, the Department of Defense ordered Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley to cease and desist  teaching a Pentagon pre-approved course that prepared commissioned officers for deployment to the Middle East; the Department of Homeland Security was ordered to scrub the watch list of suspected terrorists; and the Department of Justice ordered the FBI to purge their watch list and cease the profiling of suspected Islamic terrorists.  All three of those cabinet departments were headed by Obama appointees who had only one boss, Obama himself. 

More than 300 identified terrorists, mostly foreign nationals, were scrubbed from the system under the guise of civil rights, as if terrorists deserve the same civil rights as American citizens.  Philip Haney, founding member of DHS and developer of the TECS system for collecting and organizing data on suspected terrorists, author of the book See Something, Say Nothing, said, “What I witnessed suggests the Obama administration is more concerned with the rights of non-citizens in known Islamist groups than with the safety and security of the American people”.  Haney was found dead of a gunshot wound on February 21, 2020 in a park and ride lot near his home in California, ruled a suicide, but possibly assassinated.  The local Sheriff’s Department is still waiting for the FBI to complete its investigation.

The attacks that followed:

15 Apr 2013: The Tsarnaev brothers detonate two bombs at the Boston Marathon – 3 dead, 264 wounded.  An FBI-led Boston Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) Officer questioned Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011 and closed his case.  In January 2012, Tsarnaev boarded a flight to Moscow, which triggered an alert to the Boston JTTF Officer.  He failed to follow up.  Then the Russians notified the CIA of Tsarnaev’s activities and the CIA alerted several agencies including the FBI, the DHS, and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which placed Tsarnaev on a “watch list”.  The NCTC referred the case to the FBI’s Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF), and the FTTTF analyst who reviewed the case determined the information was the same as the original JTTF assessment, despite the intermediate trip to Russia/Dagestan, and dropped the case.  [3]

2 Dec 2015: Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik attack the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, CA – 14 dead, 22 wounded.  The San Bernardino terrorists were affiliated with Tablighi Jamaat.  Philip Haney claims that if his case had remained open, there would have been two red flags raised prior to the attack.  Either Farook would have been placed on the “no-fly” list or Malik would have been denied a visa based on Farook’s association with the known terrorist organization.

12 Jun 2016: Omar Mateen blocks the only unlocked exit inside an Orlando, FL nightclub and opens fire with semi-automatic weapons – 49 dead, 53 wounded.  Mateen came to the attention of the FBI in 2013 when co-workers reported he had made inflammatory comments claiming connections to foreign terrorists. They opened a case and placed him on a terrorist watch list for over a year.  The FBI interviewed Mateen again following a May 2014 bombing in Syria based on his contact with the suicide bomber, who had attended the same mosque.  They ended their investigation after a third interview found no credible evidence that he posed a terrorist threat.  The mosque in Fort Pierce, Florida frequented by Omar Mateen is also affiliated with the Tablighi Jamaat network.

All of these terrorist attacks have common threads:

1. they were all committed by Islamic extremists, or “radical” Islamists.

2. two of the three were affiliated with the same terrorist network – the Tablighi Jamaat

3. two of the three were committed by terrorists who were on the FBI “radar screen”, more than once.

4. all of them could plausibly have been prevented by Philip Haney’s program if it had been permitted to continue.

This is my personal favorite act of alleged treason committed by Obama, among several “contestants”.  It was a deliberate act that exposed American citizens to a very real threat, and left blood on his hands.

•  Obama’s 2012 campaign slogan was “Forward” – a term long associated Europe’s radical left wing.  “A column by Russian immigrant Svetlana Kunin, for Investor’s Business Daily, said Obama seeks to move America forward to ‘total government involvement in people’s lives.’ “ [4]

In his book, Radical in Chief, Stanley Kurtz called Obama a “stealth socialist”, saying, “over the long term, Obama’s plans are designed to ensnare the country in a new socialism, a stealth socialism that masquerades as a traditional sense of fair play, a soft but pernicious socialism similar to that currently strangling the economies of Europe.”  [5]  Kurtz recognized that Obama is playing the long game, and exploiting the natural instinct of liberal minds to embrace compassion towards the “Have-Nots”, as Alinsky called them.  How many times did you hear him say the millionaires and billionaires (the “Haves”) should pay their “fair share” in taxes to subsidize the “Have-Nots”?  Deliberate class warfare.  Divide and conquer.

Ken Blackwell, former Ohio Secretary of State, said, “My fundamental belief is that he wants to transform our market economy into a government-controlled economy – not far afield from European-style socialism.” [6]  There’s that word again, ‘transform’.

•  During the 2016 election cycle, it was widely accepted that Hillary Clinton, the Queen of Corruption, would carry on with Obama’s agenda.  All the polls told us it was inevitable that she would be coronated.  As an insurance policy, she and her campaign brain trust, concocted a phony opposition research scheme that implicated Donald Trump as a Russian agent.  The propaganda arm of the DNC, the mainstream media, was eager to promote the story.  As it turned out, Trump won the election, legitimately, and the entire smear campaign was exposed as a complete lie financed by the Clinton campaign.  Meanwhile, Obama had to put his plans on hold until the Democrats won back the White House, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.  They assured Joe Biden that he could hide away in his basement during the campaign season of 2020.  They would make sure Trump was not re-elected.  Using the COVID pandemic as an excuse to lobby for mail-in voting, and massive fraud in battleground states, they somehow produced 81 million votes for a candidate who hardly even poked his head out during the campaign.  The Trump legal team collected over 1,000 independent sworn affidavits from witnesses who claimed they saw various “irregularities” at polling places in seven states.  The DNC simply denied everything, echoed by the MSM, and the courts dutifully dismissed the cases.  Texas brought a case before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of four states, which is perfectly allowable, and on December 11, 2020, SCOTUS announced they would not consider the case because it “had no basis”.  No basis?  Are you serious? 

At that point, there was no stopping the Biden inauguration, despite a January 6th “mainly peaceful” protest on the U.S. Capitol that Democrats immediately called an “insurrection”.  To this day, the FBI and recruited antagonists have not been completely exonerated in their incitement of the “riot”.  And of course, the DOJ has no intention of exploring that avenue of investigation.

•  In the 2018 midterm primary, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) won a shocking victory over powerful Democrat Caucus Chair, 10 time incumbent, Joe Crowley.  She immediately formed a coalition with Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), naming themselves “The Squad”, and began lobbying for alternative energy sources they termed the “Green New Deal”, which called for a quick transition to renewable resources and abandonment of fossil fuels.  Fast forward a few years and it seems The Squad has hijacked the entire DNC and is directing policy from the House of Representatives.   

•  Enter “Quid Pro” Joe Biden: Remember the Ukraine scandal of 2020?  That time VP Joe Biden withheld $1 billion in funding to Ukraine unless they fired the respected prosecutor who was zeroing in on his son, Hunter.  He bragged about it on camera.  Check out the video at

Biden brags about withholding aid from Ukraine unless they fire the Prosecutor investigating his son, Hunter

By this time, Biden is mentally declining, to put it mildly, and Obama will find it easy to manipulate everything from behind the scenes, which is exactly what is going on right now.  After all, he didn’t recruit an army of over 30,000 activists to further his agenda for no reason.  They had “work” to do.

•  On his first day in office, Biden halted the Keystone XL pipeline and issued Executive Orders that effectively shut down domestic oil and gas production by eliminating exploration on federal lands.  Apparently, Biden is beholden to The Squad and will not budge on his war against American energy, even in the face of serious shortages and rapid inflation due to the current Russia/Ukraine conflict.  He has even pledged to increase exports of U.S. produced LNG to Europe by 15 bcm (billion cubic meters) this year, and increase those exports to 50 bcm annually through 2030.  To put that in perspective, we sent Europe about 22 bcm last year, and the total U.S. production is only about 100 bcm.  Simple logic tells us that less supply for Americans means higher prices.  But never mind you hurting Americans.  You can just pay $5 a gallon for your gas, or buy an electric car.  Is this just stubborn old Joe, as if he can analyze anything, or is there a bigger picture lurking in the shadows?  An opportunity for Obama to strike a devastating blow to the American economy.  This whole pandemic and Russian aggression thing is working out really well for a guy who wants to destroy a country. 

Looking down the road, he quite possibly sees a replacement for Biden in 2024, perhaps another easily controlled “candidate”.  Maybe even somebody he lives with and could place on a pedestal, convincing his moronic voting base that Michelle would be a fine first woman President.  We know the media will be ecstatic.  He’s even on record as saying he could control someone by giving instructions through a hidden earpiece.  Sound ludicrous?  Don’t be surprised when they nominate Michelle.  Then he’d have eight more years to “fundamentally transform” America.



[1] Lizza, Ryan ; The New Republic, March 19, 2007 ; The Agitator: Barack Obama’s Unlikely Political Education – courtesy Wikipedia, Footnote 58                                           https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama

[2] Haltiwanger, John, Business Insider, February 11, 2020     


[3] Excerpts from an article by Susan Zalkind, Boston Daily, 11 Apr 2014 under headline, “FBI Admits It Missed Opportunities to Stop Tamerlan Tsarnaev”

[4] CNBC ; Election 2012: Is Obama a Socialist? ; June 4, 2012                                                  https://www.cnbc.com/2012/06/04/is-obama-a-socialist.html

[5] ibid., Kurtz, Stanley, Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative Washington think tank

[6] ibid.



The Media Propaganda Machine

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 mainstream media has unquestionably become a propaganda machine for the Democrat party.  There is no denying it.  They openly display their bias every day.  That is an established fact.

Knowing the power of the press is incredibly effective in forming the social consciousness, we as American Patriots, must expose their misrepresentations at every instance.  We cannot be intimidated from speaking the truth for fear of the tech giants de-platforming our voices.  Censorship is fascism, PERIOD!

There is a consortium of tech giants, Twitter, Facebook, Google, and a few others, who control the narrative and regulate the public discourse through social media.  They are fully supported by the big networks and most major newspapers, and are collectively known as the “mainstream media” (or MSM).  Together, in complete collusion, they act as the Praetorian Guard of the DNC, offering protection from all dissenting opinion, criticism, and legal jeopardy.  They are bodyguards, promoters, and protectorates of the Marxist socialist movement.

The MSM operates under two underlying principles;

  1. “If you tell a big lie often enough, it will become the truth”

            —  Joseph Goebbels

The MSM, on a regular basis, disseminates information that has been     slanted to support the Marxist socialist agenda, combining deception and omission to portray the “story” the way they want you to perceive it.  The message could be partially true and partially false, or even a total lie, but they will repeat it ad nauseum until they are confident their audience believes it.  And they double down against any challenge, while ridiculing the opposition.

2. The MSM believes their viewers and listeners are fools. 

While the elite leftists run around crowing about how intelligent they are, their favorite media outlets give them no credit whatsoever.  They will beat a false narrative into the people, either knowingly, or in their own ignorance, expecting to win a numbers game.  They figure so many people are too stupid to do their own due diligence by researching anything, and those are the folks they are counting on to accept their portrayal of the message.  They don’t even care about push-back from their opposition.  They just call that racism, or right-wing conspiracy theories, knowing their loyalists will cheer along.  But it’s even worse than that.

Censorship is a huge element of classic fascism.  It’s not enough that the MSM is regularly distorting the facts, by misrepresentation, deception, and outright omissions with zero coverage of important events.  The big tech oligarchs have entire departments dedicated to monitoring the content of their users and filtering out opinions they disagree with.  All users, organizations, and individual posts are subject to the approval of their partisan “fact checkers”.  Almost everyone still reading this has been “incarcerated” (unfairly) in Facebook jail.  And the censorship movement is gaining momentum.

I just got this “fact checked” censorship notice this morning.

Here is the post they censored.Maybe Facebook did not announce their mistake. I don’t know. But the point of the meme is that HCQ actually could have saved lives and censorship is fascism.

Just over two years ago, The Atlantic published a piece titled, Instagram Is the Internet’s New Home for Hate. [1]

The author, Ms. Taylor Lorenz, now writing for that bastion of uber-liberalism, the Washington Post, hypothesizes that the popular social media platform Instagram is nothing more than a sounding board for right-wing conspiracy theories.  Her analysis consists of anecdotes “DM”ed to her by high school students and some of her own cursory research of the platform.  I don’t hold any financial interest in Instagram, or its’ parent organization, Meta, but this smacks of a generalized attempt to smear the credibility of the platform and all of its users because she doesn’t approve of some of the content.  According to her, most of the content is “TikTok videos and nostalgia memes with anti-vaccination rhetoric, conspiracy theories about George Soros and the Clinton family, and jokes about killing women, Jews, Muslims, and liberals.”

She must have “investigated” into this, citing an email she received from an Instagram spokesperson, who told her that the company and its parent, Facebook, “continue to study trends in organized hate and hate speech and work with partners to better understand hate organizations as they evolve.” The spokesperson added, “We ban these organizations and individuals from Instagram and also remove all praise and support when we become aware of it.”  She doesn’t reveal whether she was contacting Instagram to complain about any particular content and what they were doing about it, but we could consider that as part of her inquiry, playing more of an activist than a journalist.  The takeaway here is that she likely asked of the aforementioned jokes about killing people to spin the narrative into a more legitimate complaint because the first part of the response she writes about concerns “hate speech”, whatever that is.

What is “hate speech”, and what is not “hate speech”?  Is it legally defined by statute?  I consulted Google and found the following top results:

•  There is no legal definition of “hate speech” under U.S. law, just as there is no legal definition for evil ideas, rudeness, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn.

•  the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment – see Matal v Tam (2017), whereby the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no “hate speech” exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker’s viewpoint.  [2]

•  There is no consensus on a definition for “hate speech” in International Human Rights Law.  Speech that is simply offensive but poses no risk to others is generally NOT considered a human rights violation. Hate Speech becomes a human rights violation if it incites discrimination, hostility or violence towards a person or a group defined by their race, religion, ethnicity or other factors. [3]

Who decides what is “hate speech”?  Apparently, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and any other public company that hosts social media platforms get to decide on their own what constitutes “hate speech”, making it a “fluid” term subject to their interpretation of anything they may dislike.  In other words, you may not think “anti-vaccination rhetoric, conspiracy theories about George Soros and the Clinton family” represent “hate speech”, and clearly it is not, but the tech giants could censor your relevant posts and even de-platform you from their site at their own whim and without explanation or recourse.

Digging deeper, Lorenz found that “social-media companies have come under fire for allowing white supremacy and other extremist ideologies to spread”.  And further, “Following just a handful of these accounts can quickly send users spiraling down a path toward even more extremist views and conspiracies, guided by Instagram’s own recommendation algorithm.”        

Oh my, “spiraling down” into some devilish abyss.  Oddly, she didn’t mention the constant bombardment by the mainstream media of the anti-American, Marxist socialist movement of left-wing extremists.

Later she says, “Given the velocity of the recommendation algorithm, the power of hashtagging, and the nature of the posts, it’s easy to see how Instagram can serve as an entry point into the internet’s darkest corners.”

You are led to the (intended) conclusion that Instagram itself is evil, representing the “darkest corners” of the internet, and should only trust established authoritative media outlets, such as the Washington Post, CNN, et al.  I think we all realize there are deceptive, misleading, and even complete lies in some of the content you will see on Instagram.  But it’s not all “disinformation” and the mainstream media certainly can’t be trusted either.  In fact, the MSM is a well-oiled propaganda machine for the DNC and their socialist agenda.

Comments welcome


[1] Lorenz, T., Instagram Is the Internet’s New Home for Hate, The Atlantic, March 21, 2019


[2] Wikipedia


[3] What is Hate Speech?, Rights for Peace