Light from the Right

House Committee Reports AG Garland’s Attack on Parents Was “Manufactured”

Friday, 24 March 2023 14:17

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, March 24, 2023:

According to the interim report released on Tuesday by the House Committee on the Judiciary and its Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, there is more than enough evidence to prove that the National School Boards Association (NSBA), working in coordination with the Biden administration, created out of whole cloth the pressing need for federal investigation of parents. Twenty-five of those parents were investigated, said the committee, but no charges were brought, indicating that the entire outrage was “manufactured” with no “legitimate basis,” according to the committee.

It was all politics, designed to intimidate parents who protested what they perceived to be major educational issues that were brought to light during the Covid-inspired lockdowns.

From the report:

From the initial set of material produced in response to the subpoenas [issued by the committee], it is apparent that the Biden Administration misused federal law-enforcement and counterterrorism resources for political purposes.

The Justice Department’s own documents demonstrate that there was no compelling nationwide law-enforcement justification for the Attorney General’s directive or the Department components’ execution thereof.

Instead, the weaponization of the DOJ was clearly done for political purposes:

It appears, from these documents and the information received previously, that the Administration’s actions were a political offensive meant to quell swelling discord over controversial education curricula and unpopular school board decisions.

For proof, the committee noted that after those 25 “investigations” of what the NSBA suggested might be “domestic terrorists” were completed, not a single charge of any federal crime was made against them:

According to the FBI, none of the school board-related investigations have resulted in federal arrests or charges, highlighting the political motives behind the Attorney General’s actions. The Administration’s goal seems to have been silencing the critics of its radical education policies….

The report concluded:

Internal Executive Branch documents indicate that the Biden Administration’s use of federal law-enforcement and counterterrorism resources is an example of government weaponization against American parents.

If the Justice Department performed any due diligence prior to the issuance of the Attorney General’s memorandum, it would have understood clearly and forcefully that federal intervention was unwarranted.

Because that due diligence did not occur—and the Administration acted out of political motivations rather than for law-enforcement reasons—parents around the country had FBI “assessments” opened into them.

It was a political act from start to finish. The committee repeatedly asked Attorney General Merrick Garland to rescind the weaponization letter, but he has refused to do so. Further, the White House continues to stall in responding to the committee’s demands for more background on its conversations with the NSBA prior to the inflammatory letter it sent to the White House, and the fact that just days after receiving it, Garland issued his weaponization letter.

That means that the weaponry against anyone who might be considered a “domestic terrorist” in the future remains in place.

It was the NSBA letter that ignited the flame. On Wednesday, September 19, 2021, Viola Garcia and Chip Slaven, president and CEO of the group, respectively, signed off on the letter (without, it should be noted, approval from members of the board):

America’s public schools and its education leaders are under an immediate threat. The National School Boards Association (NSBA) respectfully asks for federal law enforcement and other assistance to deal with the growing number of threats of violence and acts of intimidation occurring across the nation.…

NSBA believes immediate assistance is required….

On the following Monday, October 4, Garland issued his weaponization letter in response to the NSBA’s demand:

Today Attorney General Merrick B. Garland directed the FBI and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to meet in the next 30 days with federal, state, Tribal, territorial and local law enforcement leaders to discuss strategies for addressing this disturbing trend.…

By this order, Garland weaponized the agencies under his command to go after American citizens who were exercising their First Amendment rights:

According to the Attorney General’s memorandum, the Justice Department will launch a series of additional efforts in the coming days designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel.

Those efforts are expected to include the creation of a task force, consisting of representatives from the department’s Criminal Division, National Security Division, Civil Rights Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the FBI, the Community Relations Service and the Office of Justice Programs, to determine how federal enforcement tools can be used to prosecute these crimes, and ways to assist state, Tribal, territorial and local law enforcement where threats of violence may not constitute federal crimes.

That Garland’s letter was sent without any oversight or review by lawyers in his office was revealed by America First Legal (AFL), which obtained records showing that those lawyers were “blindsided” by the letter. Said AFL’s Vice President and General Counsel Gene Hamilton:

We have known all along that the timeline at issue — a letter to the President followed by an Attorney General memorandum within days — indicated that the underlying premise for the memorandum was … fake….

The report issued by the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government and the House Judiciary Committee this week confirms our assertions about the Attorney General’s memorandum.

And now, the records we are revealing today further show that the memo blindsided the FBI.

The House committee’s work is far from done:

The Committee’s and the Select Subcommittee’s work is not complete.

This oversight will continue as the Justice Department and the Education Department continue to produce responsive documents.

In addition, the FBI has produced only fourteen pages of documents to date in response to the Committee’s subpoena—a flagrant disregard of the serious concerns about the Bureau’s misuse of its authorities against parents.

There remain open questions about the development and issuance of Attorney General Garland’s memorandum—issued only five days after receipt of the NSBA’s letter to President Biden—and the coordination between the Justice Department and White House on that point.

There remain open questions about how the FBI quickly operationalized the Attorney General’s directive, and whether the Bureau objected to the civil liberty concerns inherent in the Attorney General’s memorandum.

The Committee has outstanding subpoenas for testimony from Chip Slaven and Viola Garcia, [the] senior NSBA officials who signed the letter to President Biden.

Until all responsive documents are produced and interviews with the necessary parties take place, the Committee and the Select Subcommittee will continue its oversight to uncover facts that will inform potential legislative reforms.

This stalling by the DOJ and Garland’s refusal to rescind the incendiary letter weaponizing his agency against American citizens exercising their First Amendment rights are all the proof one needs to know that the entire exercise was political in nature. It was designed from the start to turn off the outrage those citizens were expressing once they learned, thanks to the Covid shutdowns, just how schools were radicalizing their children.

Keep Reading…

New York Agrees to Pay $250,000 in Legal Fees in Religious Discrimination Case

Thursday, 23 March 2023 15:32

0 Comments

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, March 23, 2023:

After attempting to force a Christian adoption agency in Syracuse, New York, to allow homosexuals to adopt babies in violation of its principles, the state has finally acquiesced and agreed to pay Alliance Defending Freedom $250,000 in legal fees for successfully defending the agency.

ADF Senior Counsel Roger Brooks summarized the case:

The state’s attempt to close New Hope [Family Services] violated its core rights protected by the First Amendment and needlessly reduced the number of agencies willing to help vulnerable children.

New Hope is a private religious ministry that doesn’t take a dime from the government. Further, New Hope’s faith-guided services don’t coerce anyone and do nothing to interfere with other adoption providers who have different beliefs about family and the best interests of children.

On behalf of the children waiting to be adopted and the prospective parents partnering with New Hope to provide loving and stable homes, we’re pleased to favorably settle this case and ensure the organization can continue its vital service to the Syracuse community.

A close look at the ruling reveals that part of the court’s decision was based on the state’s intentional targeting of New Hope for its biblical understanding of marriage.

For years the agency — New York’s Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) — had given New Hope consistently high marks for its services.

Until 2018, that is, when the agency turned against New Hope and gave them two options: 1) allow homosexuals to adopt their babies, or 2) close down.

That was unacceptable, and New Hope, with the legal assistance of the ADF, filed suit.

Lower courts ruled against New Hope, but the issue was finally resolved in its favor in 2020 in the Second Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The court understood the significance of the issue being raised:

What is the proper relationship between the First Amendment—specifically, its guarantees of free exercise of religion and free speech—and laws protecting against various forms of discrimination?

The question has arisen most recently when religious organizations, like Plaintiff here [i.e., New Hope Family Services], seek some exemption from laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, arguing that such laws compel them to speak and behave contrary to the dictates of their consciences.

The answer to this question—whether, in particular circumstances, anti-discrimination laws violate First Amendment rights—may profoundly affect our system of ordered liberty.

Its ruling in the case in favor of New Hope answered that question. It was helped by discovery of the extreme bias OCFS exhibited in its attack on New Hope.

Wrote the court:

Another matter bearing on religious hostility and making dismissal premature is the severity of OCFS’s actions in ordering New Hope’s closure.

It is plainly a serious step to order an authorized adoption agency such as New Hope—operating without complaint for 50 years, taking no government funding, successfully placing approximately 1,000 children, and with adoptions pending or being supervised—to close all its adoption operations.

All the more serious when, as just discussed, the agency has, for five years and without objection by OCFS, used recusal and referral to avoid rejecting applicants on the basis of its religious beliefs.

The court asked for the source of the authority the OCFS used in demanding either compliance with its edict or termination of the service, and questioned that authority:

In response to an inquiry from this court as to the source of its authority to order New Hope’s closure, OCFS cites N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 34(3)(e), which authorizes the agency to “enforce,” inter alia, laws and regulations pertaining to adoption.

But nothing in that section, or any other authority cited by OCFS, indicates the scope of the enforcement authority conferred by § 34(3)(e), specifically, whether OCFS’s enforcement authority is akin to that of police and prosecutors, who investigate and charge violators, or whether it also extends to judicial-like authority to prescribe the punishment for violations, specifically, the punishment of closure.

In other words, without authority, the agency assumed the power of judge, jury, and prosecutor against New Hope. The court saw through the agency’s plea that it was just following the law, and exposed the agency’s anti-Christian bias:

In sum, the pleadings, if accepted as true and viewed in the light most favorable to New Hope, do not permit [this] court to conclude as a matter of law that 18 NYCRR § 421.3(d), as promulgated and enforced by OCFS, was neutral and not based on some hostility to New Hope’s religious beliefs….

Viewed most favorably to New Hope, then, the pleadings suggest that OCFS is not seeking to avoid having New Hope’s views attributed to the State but, rather, is demanding that New Hope—in order to continue operating as an authorized adoption agency—express a State view with which it disagrees, i.e., that it can be in the best interests of a child to be adopted by an unmarried or same-sex couple….

To state the obvious, it is no small matter for the State to order the closure of a privately funded, religious adoption ministry that has, over 50 years of authorized operation, successfully placed approximately 1,000 children in adoptive homes, particularly when there is no suggestion that any placement was not in the best interests of the adopted child.

The court concluded:

(1) The pleadings, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff New Hope, state plausible claims under the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the Constitution. Among other things, the pleadings,

(a) raise a plausible suspicion that OCFS acted with hostility towards New Hope because of the latter’s religious beliefs, [and]

(b) plausibly allege that New Hope would be compelled to speak or associate in violation of those beliefs if the regulation in question were enforced.

Unfortunately, the state of New York continues to harass New Hope though another agency, its New York Division of Human Rights. In September, another federal court granted New Hope a temporary restraining order against that agency, which is harassing the adoption agency over the same issue.

The war against Christianity by the state will continue, as it has from the birth of the Savior.

Keep Reading…

ATF Arrogance on Display: Agency Issues Enforcement of Final Rule Even After Court Determines It’s Unlawful

Wednesday, 22 March 2023 21:09

0 Comments

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, March 22, 2023:

On Tuesday, the rogue and unconstitutional Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued an announcement that it was going to strictly enforce its final rule against gun dealers, even for the most minor of infractions.

In his big-boy voice, anti-gun ATF Director Steven Dettelbach declared:

That means they [gun dealers] need to run background checks and sell guns with serial numbers. That is what the ghost gun rule is about.

Today’s advisory is simple. If you’re dealing [in] firearms — including items that can be readily converted to a working firearm — ATF is going to make sure that you are following the same laws as everyone else.

The problems with his pronouncement from on high are several: Dettelbach’s agency’s rules continue to change; their enforcement puts increasing pressure on law-abiding gun dealers; and, worst of all, the rule he is enforcing has already been declared beyond the agency’s purview and therefore is unlawful.

Dettelbach accuses gun dealers of trying to subvert the new rule against ghost guns — a rule that contravenes his agency’s long-standing opinion that the pieces and parts that might make up a “ghost gun” don’t, of themselves, make them a firearm. Now, apparently, they do.

Said Dettelbach:

Some suppliers of partially complete frames or receivers appear to be attempting to willfully circumvent the rule by (1) selling parts from the type of firearms parts kit covered by the final rule in separate transactions, or (2) coordinating with other distributors to sell, market or make available individual parts that, when put together, create a frame or receiver.

In determining whether a dealer has violated his now-unlawful rule, the agency will also violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech:

ATF will consider the seller’s marketing conduct and materials. This may include the seller providing information on how a partially complete frame or receiver may readily be converted to a firearm, serving essentially as instructions or a guide.

It may also include internet links to templates, jigs, molds, equipment, tools or other materials that enable ready completion or assembly of the unfinished frame or receiver into a firearm.

This is because such materials may affect how “readily” the part may be converted.

And the consequences if a law-abiding gun dealer happens to step, however briefly or unintentionally, outside the agency’s ever-changing edicts?

When a supplier in such a circumstance fails to comply with the GCA’s [the unconstitutional Gun Control Act of 1968] requirements, that may constitute a willful violation of the GCA. ATF considers such conduct, and all willful violations of the GCA, an investigative priority.

Under the ATF’s old rules, that “investigative priority” would usually result in a conversation with the dealer himself, and perhaps a warning. Now, though, there is no such warning, as more former gun dealers learned the hard way last year: the closures following those “investigations” set a record in 2022.

As for the court ruling that the ATF so willfully ignored, it involved the firearm-kit maker Defense Distributed, which has had a running battle with the ATF since the invention of 3-D printers. Last November, Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction against the ATF’s enforcement of the final rule.

On March 2, after hearing more arguments from the ATF, he made his temporary injunction permanent:

This Court previously held that any injury to the Government’s general interest [i.e., that of the Biden administration and its anti-gun ATF] in law enforcement and public safety is appreciably undermined by the Court’s preliminary determination that the Final Rule is likely unlawful.

Once again, this reasoning is strengthened by the fact that the Government’s likely ultra vires [beyond its legal authority] enforcement efforts upset decades of ATF regulatory precedent against a public that has relied on that historic posture.

And so, in words that the ATF brazenly chose to ignore in its haste to shut off the legitimate flow of legally owned firearms to law-abiding citizens, Judge O’Connor wrote:

The court grants the motion … and ORDERS that Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, and employees are enjoined from implementing and enforcing against Defense Distributed and its customers….

Keep Reading…

Makers of “Jesus Revolution” Announce Next Film, “Ordinary Angels”

Tuesday, 21 March 2023 15:16

0 Comments

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, March 21, 2023:

Long before production began on Jesus Revolution, the makers of that film, Kingdom Story Company and LionsGate, started work on Ordinary Angels. It will hit theaters in October. On Facebook, the company said the film is based on a true story:

We’re thrilled to announce the newest film from Kingdom Story Company and LionsGate — ORDINARY ANGELS — coming to theatres October 13, 2023.

Starring Hilary Swank and Alan Ritchson, ORDINARY ANGELS is the incredible true story of a struggling hairdresser who single-handedly rallies an entire community to help a widowed father save the life of his critically ill young daughter.

The story is that of ordinary people caring for other ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. For two years, Michelle Schmitt, age three, had been waiting for a liver transplant. Time was running out when the phone rang, informing her grandmother that after all that wait a donor was available. That was the good news.

The bad news was that the donor was in Omaha, Nebraska, and Michelle and her widowed father were in Louisville, Kentucky, 600 miles away. And the donor couldn’t wait. The call came at 9:00 a.m. and they had until 6:00 p.m. to get Michelle to Omaha.

There was more bad news. A snowstorm that was expected to drop just a few inches turned into one of the worst in the history of Louisville. Roads were closed. Highways were closed. The only solution was a helicopter to fly Michelle.

But where to land? Sharon Stevens, a family friend, began the rescue operation that ultimately named Michelle the “miracle snow baby.” Stevens called a local radio station and asked for help. She called around to find a place where the helicopter could land. She found the parking lot of the Southeast Christian Church.

But it was covered with nearly 16 inches of snow.

Undaunted, she headed over to the church. By the time she got there, she found half a dozen people already there.

But time was running out. The clock was ticking.

Soon, more people showed up. And then more people. And then a snowplow.

They cleared the parking lot, the helicopter took Michelle to Omaha, and the liver transplant was successful.

The incident made the papers:

People from all over Kentucky came together yesterday in a breath-taking battle against time and nature for a Louisville girl.

Since 3-year-old Michelle Schmitt was a year old, she has been on a waiting list for a liver transplant. Yesterday, at 9 a.m., as a record snowfall paralyzed Louisville, her grandmother got the call the whole family had been waiting for. By sundown, a liver would be waiting for her.

In Omaha, Nebraska.

But there was no way for Michelle to get to the airport. No way for pilots to get there. No way for planes to take off, with the airport closed. No way for emergency medical workers to get out of their driveways.

To have the best chance of success, hospital workers in Nebraska wanted Michelle in Omaha by 6 p.m. — 7 p.m. at the latest.

The race was on.

For Hilary Swank, who plays Sharon Stevens in the film, the story touched her heart:

I was drawn to this beautiful true story because it’s such a powerful reminder that angels reside everywhere among us.

And that faith, hope, grit and positivity are all powerful fuel for miracles.

It’s also a story about the power of organ donation — something incredibly near and dear to my heart. I couldn’t be more thrilled to be a part of this story and message.

For Jon Gunn, the film’s director, the timing couldn’t be better:

The story of Sharon Stevens and the Schmitt family is a powerful reminder that helping others is how we heal ourselves. I can’t think of a message I’d rather share with the world right now, and I’m honored to be telling it with such a fearless and talented cast.

According to screenings done in advance of its public debut, the film is the highest-tested film Kingdom Story — producers of I Can Only Imagine, I Still Believe, and Woodlawn, in addition to Jesus Revolution — has ever made.

Michelle passed away in May, 2021 at age 31. From her obituary:

She was born on December 3, 1990, in Louisville, Kentucky to Edward and Theresa (Sinnott) Schmitt. She is preceded in death by her mother, Theresa Ann Schmitt and grandparents; Edward E Schmitt and Barbara Schmitt.

Michelle was loved by all and known by many as the “Snow Baby of Louisville.”

For more than two years the Schmitt family waited for a life-saving liver transplant. On January 17, 1994, when Michelle was three, they got the call a donor liver was available in Omaha, Nebraska. Louisville woke up to more than a foot of snow and below freezing temperatures that day, making travel difficult; the donor liver would only be viable for a few hours.

After a family friend called a local radio station to broadcast a call for help, strangers cleared a parking lot at Southeast Christian Church, then located on Hikes Lane, for a helicopter to land and take Michelle to the airport.

In Omaha, the donor liver was successfully transplanted and Michelle was dubbed the “Snow Baby.” After her liver transplant, Michelle graduated from Spalding University, got married and started her career in the medical field working with children.

She was passionate, caring and loving to everyone and she treated everyone equally.

Keep Reading…

“Jesus Revolution” Continues to Set Box Office Records

Monday, 20 March 2023 17:06

0 Comments

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, March 20, 2023:

After exploding out of the blocks during its opening weekend less than a month ago, Jesus Revolution — a film depicting the Jesus movement in Southern California in the late 1960s and early 1970s — continues to set records. Initial estimates that first weekend were that the film, starring Kelsey Grammar and Jonathan Roumie (who plays Jesus in The Chosen), might generate $6 or $7 million in revenues. Instead, opening weekend saw the film garner over $15 million in revenues.

As of last Friday, the film had passed $45 million, making it Lionsgate’s most successful film since the Covid lockdowns. Pastor Greg Laurie, a primary beneficiary of the Jesus movement who now serves as senior pastor for Harvest Christian Fellowship (which, with four campuses, enjoys a weekly attendance of nearly 15,000 worshipers), told Fox & Friends Weekend: “The timing of this [film] is incredible, and I believe God’s hand has been on it from the beginning.”

The film is based on Laurie’s book of the same title, in which he takes readers on his remarkable life’s journey. In 1973, at age 19, Laurie, under the wing of Pastor Chuck Smith, was given the opportunity to teach a Bible study to 30 people. From this group, Laurie’s ministry grew to become one of the largest churches in the country.

In 1990 he founded Harvest Crusades, and in 2013 served as national chairman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force. In 2017, then-President Donald Trump invited him to give a message at his inauguration. Laurie has written more than 70 books and hosts a radio program, “A New Beginning,” syndicated on more than 1,100 radio stations worldwide.

And Smith’s ministry (he died in 2013) continues to impact believers around the world. His Calvary Chapel has grown to include more than 1,800 churches worldwide.

The timing is exquisite. The film opened on February 24, just two weeks after the Asbury revival began in Wilmore, Kentucky. That revival was augmented by the celebration of the Collegiate Day of Prayer, and radiated outward from there, touching students and others across the planet.

America is no stranger to surprise visits of the Holy Spirit. The nation’s first revival — the Great Awakening of the 1730s and 1740s — was prompted by poignant preaching by Jonathan Edwards (“Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”) and George Whitefield.

America’s Second Great Awakening, beginning in the early 1800s, lasted five decades. The Third Great Awakening began in the late 1800s, driven by preachers such as Dwight L. Moody.

The Fourth Great Awakening likely began with the preaching of evangelist Bill Graham in the early 1950s, and culminated in the Jesus movement of the late 1960s, celebrated in Jesus Revolution.

Historians may be conflicted about when these revivals began and ended, but one startling fact stands out: God is at work in surprising ways, including turning a small, low-budget film about an obscure pastor and some California hippies finding Jesus into a blockbuster.

Keep Reading…

Ten Republican Senators Offer a Bill to Codify Heller and Bruen Decisions Into Law

Friday, 17 March 2023 13:52

0 Comments

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, March 17, 2023:

At first blush, the bill (which has not yet been assigned a bill number) offered by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday to “codify” the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and Bruen into federal law should please law-abiding gun owners, who think they might be able to rest a little easier over threats to their rights to “keep and bear arms” as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Currently, those decisions only relate to the particular or instant cases and are not federal law. Only Congress can enact such laws, and that’s what Graham and the other nine Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee said they hope to accomplish. It would make it vastly more difficult for future Supreme Courts to overturn those two decisions if they were codified into law and not just precedents supporting future decisions.

Graham has unanimous support from the other nine Republican senators on the committee — Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and John Kennedy (R-La.) — as reflective of support for the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decisions in those two landmark cases.

Said Graham:

I am very pleased that all Senate Judiciary Republicans are speaking with one voice when it comes to supporting the Second Amendment rights recognized by the Supreme Court in the Heller and Bruen decisions.

Now more than ever, it is important that Congress recognize and support that the Second Amendment is an individual right and that the right to bear arms to defend oneself is an integral part of American society.

The bill, the “Respect for the Second Amendment Act,” is barely six pages long and makes it clear that (if enacted into law) states or municipalities enacting laws that transgress the new norm — being “consistent with the United States’ historical tradition of firearm regulation” — would be in violation of those decisions now codified into law.

From the bill:

No person … may enforce … any … regulation that prohibits … the right of an individual to lawfully … possess, own, carry … a privately owned firearm or … ammunition unless the law … is consistent with the United States’ historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Infringements are enforceable by the U.S. attorney general, or in civil court by the individual citizen whose rights were infringed, with legal fees paid by the government entity issuing the regulation.

It’s pretty straightforward, according to the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) Brian Calabrese: “On behalf of our millions of members, we thank Senator Graham for sponsoring legislation to reinforce Bruen in federal law.”

For staffers at Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the National Association of Gun Rights (NAGR), however, the bill is greatly flawed. In a conversation with GOA’s director of federal affairs, Aidan Johnston, The New American was told that his group felt the bill didn’t go nearly far enough in protecting citizens’ Second Amendment rights. By referring only to decisions in Heller and Bruen, it fails to provide the actual text of the Second Amendment: “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.”

By that standard, every law and every piece of legislation, including laws that created the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968, would be declared unconstitutional. By default, according to Johnston, Graham’s bill, if passed, would cement into place those egregious assaults on the Second Amendment.

In speaking with staffers at the NAGR, The New American learned that the group considers Graham’s bill as just “political cover,” with Graham hoping observers wouldn’t remember his often weak and inconsistent support of the Second Amendment. That goes as well for Cornyn, whose support for the Second Amendment has been very inconsistent during his time in Congress. NAGR said this makes the offering of the bill “highly suspect.”

In reality, the bill has little chance of being passed into law. As long as the Senate is controlled by communists masquerading as Democrats, Graham’s bill is DOA.

Keep Reading…

High-school Football Coach Joe Kennedy Gets His Job Back

Thursday, 16 March 2023 14:28

0 Comments

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, March 16, 2023:

Joe Kennedy is now b ack as assistant varsity football coach for the Bremerton (Washington) High School Knights. After eight long years of litigation culminating in the Supreme Court ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District last summer, the school will pay Kennedy $5,304 to coach the team, and First Liberty Institute $1,775,000 in legal fees for defending him.

When asked how he felt about being back on the field after being fired for praying on the field after games had ended, he said “Overall, it’s been great. A lot of people have been praying for this for a long time, and I think America is ready to just enjoy the religious freedom once again.”

Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, agreed:

I am glad to hear that Joe Kennedy has finally been reinstated as a football coach at the Washington state high school he was dismissed from for praying in the field after games in 2015….

This is great news! I hope that Coach Kennedy will continue to kneel in prayer — on and off the field — and that his win will protect and encourage others in the same situation.

Missing from nearly all of the muted media coverage was the enormous victory his win signals: the obliteration of the myth of the “wall of separation of church and state” that those opposed to Christianity have erected since the founding of the Republic. That “wall” has been used to justify all manner of secular interference and intimidation over the right, guaranteed in the First Amendment, for citizens to enjoy worshiping without governmental interference.

As Supreme Court Justice Neal Gorsuch wrote for the 6-3 majority:

Both the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect expressions like Mr. Kennedy’s.… The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligions views alike….

Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a personal religious observance, based on a mistaken view that it has a duty to suppress religious observances even as it allows comparable secular speech.

The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination. Mr. Kennedy is entitled to summary judgment on his religious exercise and free speech claims.

Tim Greenwood of Tim Greenwood Ministries provided one of the clearest definitions of the Founders’ original intent on the matter more than 10 years ago:

The “wall” was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state.

The world was not to corrupt the church; yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values [without interference].

Instead, anti-Christian forces have for decades deliberately misread the Founders’ intentions, based on a private letter from Jefferson written 10 years after the Constitution was ratified, in order to justify its war against Christianity. Gorsuch made that point clear in his majority opinion:

The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression.

When attorneys for the school tried to make the case for that so-called “wall of separation” which it said it was defending by firing Kennedy, Gorsuch clarified the issue:

In truth, there is no conflict between the constitutional commands before us. There is only the “mere shadow” of a conflict, a false choice premised on a misconstruction of the Establishment Clause.

And in no world may a government entity’s concerns about phantom constitutional violations justify actual violations of an individual’s First Amendment rights…

Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic — whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head. Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance doubly protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment…

[T]he only meaningful justification the government offered for its reprisal rested on a mistaken view that it had a duty to ferret out and suppress religious observances even as it allows comparable secular speech.

The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination.

Mr. Kennedy is entitled to summary judgment on his First Amendment claims. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Reversed.

This is the unheralded victory most of the media covering the matter have ignored: There is no “wall of separation of church and state” that keeps religious sentiments from influencing our secular and steadily darkening world.

Keep Reading…

Biden Unleashes Another Attack on the Second Amendment

Wednesday, 15 March 2023 12:35

0 Comments

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, March 15, 2023:

While paying lip service to constitutional constraints, Joe Biden continued his administration’s attack on the Second Amendment. In his EO issued on Tuesday, he pushes the limits of power and he knows it: “It is the policy of my Administration,” said the White House press release, “[to] pursue every legally available … action to reduce gun violence.”

Even if his moves would provably reduce gun violence, they would still be unconstitutional under Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution: “The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America … he shall take care that the laws [passed by the legislative branch] be faithfully executed.” (Emphasis added.)

The occupant of the White House cannot, under the Constitution, create legislation. But that doesn’t deter Biden:

He is asking the attorney general (AG), Merrick Garland, to “clarify [read: expand] the definition of who is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms, and thus required to become Federal firearms licensees (FFLs)….”;
He is asking Garland and the secretaries of Defense(!), Homeland Security, Health and Human Services (including the surgeon general), and Education(!) to “encourage [read: expand] effective use of extreme risk protection orders (‘red flag’ laws)….”;
He is asking his Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to determine “how gun manufacturers market firearms to minors [and] civilians, including through the use of military imagery”; and
He is asking all major agencies in the executive branch to propose additional infringements of the Second Amendment “on how the Federal Government can better support the recovery, mental health, and other needs of survivors of gun violence, families of victims and survivors of gun violence, first responders to incidents of gun violence, and communities affected by gun violence.”

None of these moves will have any noticeable impact on “gun violence.” Expanding background checks wouldn’t have caught the 18-year-old shooter in Uvalde, Texas, because prior to the attack he had no criminal record and so wouldn’t have been flagged by the system.

The shooter who killed 11 people at a dance studio in Monterey Park, California, used a firearm that was banned in the state.

So-called red flag laws already infringe on the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens by denying them due process. And there’s precious little hard evidence to show that their enforcement has measurably reduced gun violence.

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), took Biden to task over his latest effort to infringe on precious rights enjoyed by law-abiding gun owners — Biden’s primary target:

Joe Biden is trying to sell this new gun control scheme the way he’s always done, by promising less violent crime and safer neighborhoods, but this plan isn’t going to accomplish either goal, and he knows it.

This sleight-of-hand maneuver simply makes it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms, while creating the impression gun dealers are crooks and the industry is unregulated.

This is just another chapter in Joe Biden’s war on gun rights. It is a diversion to the Democrat failure to keep Americans safe from violent criminals who are released without bail and are free to prey on us all.

He added:

So, Biden wants the Defense Department to buy more guns; he will blame crime on gun dealers and tell gun makers how to market their products. But he won’t tell the Justice Department to crack down on recidivist criminals; he’s not asking the courts to lock up armed felons; and he’s continuing to treat the Second Amendment as a second-class right.

Biden has always had an anti-gun agenda and on this important constitutional issue, he has never let the courts, public opinion or the Bill of Rights get in his way.

This is textbook Joe Biden. Talk tough, mak

e it appear he’s doing something about crime when he really isn’t, and ultimately just continue penalizing law-abiding gun owners for crimes they didn’t commit.

The only people who will be any safer are the criminals who ignore gun control laws already.

Do note that a careful reading of the entire EO issued Tuesday reveals nothing about a tactic that actually would reduce gun violence committed by violent criminals: pressure Soros-backed state and local attorneys general to enforce existing laws to keep convicted felons off the streets.

Biden’s true agenda is revealed once again. His target isn’t the criminals committing the violence, but the law-abiding gun owners whose ownership of firearms prevents the federal government from becoming totally tyrannical.

Keep Reading…

Good News in a Bad-news World: 8-year-old Boy Raises $100,000 for His Favorite Waiter

Thursday, 09 March 2023 12:52

0 Comments

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, March 9, 2023:

After learning about the struggles his favorite waiter at a local Waffle House restaurant in Little Rock, Arkansas, was having, Kayzen Hunter, age eight, asked his mother to set up a GoFundMe appeal for him.

They thought $500 would help out. The waiter, Devonte Gardner, had to move out of low-income housing when it became infested with mold and rats, and had put his wife and two daughters into a motel.

When Kayzen learned that Devonte had to walk to work every day because he didn’t have a car, he and his mother Victoria decided to raise the request to $5,000. The account was posted on February 18 and the first donation was for $100.

Since then, Kayzen’s story has gone viral. Nearly 3,000 people have donated to get Devonte a car. At this writing, his account is approaching $110,000, more than enough for a used minivan and a year’s rent on their new apartment. Plus plenty left over to help with Devonte’s girls’ education.

With assistance from his mother, here is Kayzen’s request:

Hi, my name is Kayzen, I am 8 years old.

I am wanting to raise funds for my friend, Devonte, who I met and have come to know from eating breakfast at Waffle House.

Devonte is a hard-working dad with two little girls and a wife. He is a dedicated worker and has to walk or get a ride to get to work every day. He was looking for a decent priced car, and his family was unfortunate and ended up in an apartment riddled with black mold. He had to get his kids out and it set him back a lot.

We are now helping him get into a clean rental property and want to help him even more by raising funds so he has a reliable vehicle to drive his family and get to and from work.

Devonte is one of the most joyous and positive people you’ve ever met!! He always greets us with the biggest smile. I hope your heart is as BIG as mine and you will help me spread kindness in the world. Any amount helps!!

Hunter’s mother told Today how they got to know each other:

It was about a year ago when they met. My dad started going and Kayzen would go with him. When he came home, he talked about Devonte and how much he liked him.

The feeling was mutual. Said Devonte:

Every time he comes in, I always give him a high five because that’s what he expects….

He’s a wonderful kid. He tells me jokes every time he comes in, like, “Hey, Devonte, I got a joke for you,” and the next thing you know, we’re laughing….

He’s a positive young kid. He has a very huge heart, and I’m thankful he came into my life.

Kayzen’s father, Korey, said the response to his son’s GoFundMe page was “crazy”:

That’s the crazy part to us. I get it, but the goal was $5,000, and people don’t care what the goal was: they keep giving and giving.

No, Korey, it’s not crazy. In a world filled with bad news — catastrophes, killings, examples of “man’s inhumanity to man” — Kayzen is a light in a dark world. The young man spoke the wisdom of the ages: “It just feels good to help someone else.”

Kayzen’s full name is Kayzen Love Hunter.

Keep Reading…

Second Amendment Foundation Doubles Down on Opposition to NY Gun Law

Wednesday, 08 March 2023 14:54

0 Comments

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, March 8, 2023:

Ever since the Supreme Court ruled against New York in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen – aka “Bruen” – last summer, anti-gun, anti-freedom, anti-Second Amendment politicians in Albany have attempted to cast new and clever ways to work around that decision.

According to Gothamist, as of December 30, 2022, possession of firearms by private citizens in the Empire State is prohibited in:

• Federal, state, and local government buildings;

• Health care facilities (including behavioral health and chemical dependency);

• Libraries, public playgrounds, public parks and zoos;

• Childcare facilities;

• Nursery schools, preschools and summer camps;

• Programs for people with developmental disabilities, addiction and mental illness;

• Homeless shelters, domestic violence shelters and emergency shelters;

• Programs funded by the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance;

• Schools and colleges;

• Public transportation, airports, train stations and bus terminals;

• Places with licenses for alcohol and cannabis consumption;

• Places of worship;

• Spaces where crowds gather for performances, entertainment, gaming or sports, including theaters, stadiums, conference centers and amusement parks;

• Polling places;

• Public sidewalks or other public areas that have been blocked off for a limited time or for special events;

• Protests; and

• Times Square.

And, just to make sure that law-abiding gun owners get the message, possession is also prohibited on private property unless the owner of that property has prominently posted permission to do so.

Back in September, Brett Christian, a law-abiding gun owner who also had a concealed-carry permit, filed suit, claiming that New York’s new law was unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra, a Trump appointee, shredded the attempt by lawyers for the state to justify the outrageous infringement of Christian’s rights in his decision:

[New York] argues that private property owners have always had the right to exclude others from their property and [therefore] may exclude those carrying concealed handguns. But that right has always been one belonging to the private property owner — not to the State….

Property owners indeed have the right to exclude. But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense outside of their own homes.

He issued a temporary restraining order (TRO). The state appealed. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) entered with its plea to make the TRO permanent:

Following its loss in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, , the State of New York enacted a sweeping series of restrictions on the right to carry firearms that together rid the right to carry of much of its practical utility.

At issue in this appeal is one particularly pernicious part of the State’s law — the State’s decree that it is criminal to carry firearms on every parcel of private property throughout the State, including private property open to the public, absent the express consent of the owner or lessee of the property.

Far from being “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” New York’s Anti-Carry Default is unprecedented in the Nation’s 246-year history, and the district court properly ordered it preliminarily enjoined.

According to SAF, all private property (i.e., most of the state of New York) is now considered to be a “restricted location” under the new law, hence the name “Anti-Carry Default.”

Said Alan Gottlieb, the founder and executive VP of SAF, “The restriction is absurd. Brett Christian’s dilemma exemplifies the problem, and the very real threat of prosecution, all of our New York State members now face under this new law. Christian and others like him can’t even legally carry at a gas station or a hardware store.” Gottlieb continued,

The case for freedom from the latest attempt at infringing Second Amendment rights in New York was clearly spelled out in Christian’s November lawsuit:

The Supreme Court’s cases addressing the individual’s right to keep and bear arms — from Heller and McDonald to its June 2022 decision in Bruen – dictate that New York’s private property exclusion is equally unconstitutional.

Regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the current enactment is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations.

… New York fails that test.

It cannot be reiterated too often: But for the appointment of constitutionalist judges such as Sinatra by Donald Trump, New York gun owners — nay, gun owners across the land — would see their precious Second Amendment rights abridged, denigrated, and denied. Thanks to Trump’s determination to nominate “originalists” to both the high court and inferior courts across the country, gun owners such as Brett Christian will retain their Second Amendment rights, even in the face of anti-gun, anti-freedom, anti-Second Amendment politicians infesting the legislatures of states such as New York.

For readers concerned about the other infringements in the new law as outlined above, nearly a dozen other lawsuits contesting them have already been filed, with similar outcomes expected.

Keep Reading…

Page 1 of 568

House Committee Reports AG Garland’s Attack on Parents Was “Manufactured”

New York Agrees to Pay $250,000 in Legal Fees in Religious Discrimination Case

ATF Arrogance on Display: Agency Issues Enforcement of Final Rule Even After Court Determines It’s Unlawful

Makers of “Jesus Revolution” Announce Next Film, “Ordinary Angels”

“Jesus Revolution” Continues to Set Box Office Records

Ten Republican Senators Offer a Bill to Codify Heller and Bruen Decisions Into Law

High-school Football Coach Joe Kennedy Gets His Job Back

Biden Unleashes Another Attack on the Second Amendment

Good News in a Bad-news World: 8-year-old Boy Raises $100,000 for His Favorite Waiter

Second Amendment Foundation Doubles Down on Opposition to NY Gun Law

Site Search

Like Us

Tweet Us

Pin Us

Latest Comments