Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

-Ephesians 5:11-13

Author Archives: Bob Adelmann

Joe Biden’s Lies Dwarf Those of George Santos

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, December 30, 2022:

Democrats who supported Joe Biden’s presidential campaign expressed outrage over revelations that a Republican congressman-elect from Long Island, New York, lied.

Rep. Joaquin Castro, a Democrat from Texas, declared that “George Santos should resign.… If he refuses, Congress should expel him.… Just about every aspect of his life appears to be a lie. We’ve seen people fudge their resume but [his] is a total fabrication.”

Castro, a far-Left member of the House (Freedom Index rating: 20 out of 100 in support of the U.S. Constitution), dug his hole even deeper:

George Santos represents more than an individual case for American democracy. If he’s allowed to serve there will be more who seek office up and down the ballot who will believe that they can completely fabricate credentials, personal features and accomplishments to win office.


[Santos is a] total fraud about academic and professional credentials, religion, sexual orientation [Santos is a homosexual], etc.

At least Santos admitted, partially anyway, to “embellishing” his credentials in order to win the district last November.

However, observers are still waiting for the current occupant of the White House to come clean over his many and continuing lies, fabrications, and falsehoods expressed repeatedly over decades as a politician.

DiscoverTheNetworks has 47 pages filled with detailed and sourced examples of the cascade of canards Biden has emitted for years. Here are just a few of the most obvious and odious:

His first wife and daughter were killed by a drunk driver:

In 1973 Biden’s wife Neilia and their three children were broadsided by a truck. Neilia died along with their daughter Naomi. His two sons, Beau and Hunter, survived and recovered from their injuries.

Here is how Biden told the story, with variations depending upon the audience. In September 2001 he said:

It was an errant driver who stopped to drink instead of drive and … hit my children and my wife and killed them.

Later on, in 2007, he retold the story in a speech at the University of Iowa:

Let me tell you a little story. I got elected when I was 29, and I got elected November the 7th [1972].


And on Dec. 18 of that year, my wife and three kids were Christmas shopping for a Christmas tree. A tractor-trailer, a guy who allegedly — and I never pursued it — drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family and killed my wife instantly, and killed my daughter instantly, and hospitalized my two sons, with what were thought to be at the time permanent, fundamental injuries.

Biden lied. Curtis Dunn, the driver who broadsided Mrs. Biden’s vehicle, was never charged with drunk driving. “The rumor [spread by Biden] about alcohol being involved by either party, especially the truck driver, is incorrect,” said Delaware Superior Court Judge Jerome Herlihy. He had worked with crash investigators, some of whom thought that Mrs. Biden had pulled out in front of Dunn’s truck without looking, giving him no time to avoid the crash.

When Dunn’s daughter, outraged at Biden’s repeat of the lie, tried to contact Biden to extract an apology, she received nothing but silence. Finally, years afterward, Biden sent her a note saying, “Please know that neither I nor my sons feel any animosity whatsoever.”

His educational background:

In 1987 when a reporter from C-SPAN asked Biden about his grades in college, Biden revealed the mean streak that he largely keeps hidden:

I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do, I suspect.


I went to law school on a full academic scholarship, the only one in my — in my class to have a full academic scholarship.


In the first year in law school, I decided didn’t want to be in law school and ended up in the bottom two-thirds of my class, and then decided I wanted to stay, went back to law school, and in fact ended up in the top half of my class.


I won the international moot-court competition. I was the outstanding student in the political science department at the end of my year.


I graduated with three degrees from undergraduate school and 165 credits — I only needed 123 credits. And I’d be delighted to sit down and compare my IQ to yours if you’d like, Frank.

Each of these claims is a lie. Biden earned only two degrees — one in history and the other in political science — which he obtained at the University of Delaware, where he graduated 506th in his class of 688.

He attended law school on a “half-scholarship” that was based not on ability but on need, eventually graduating 76th in a class of 85.

When pressed over the lie, Biden responded: “I exaggerate when I’m angry, but I’ve never gone around telling people things that aren’t true about me.”

The Amtrak lie:

In a speech he made in New Jersey in October 2021, Biden repeated this fabrication for the fifth time:

I commuted every single day, 263 miles a day, on Amtrak from the time I got elected United States senator [1973 to 2009]. I got to know all the conductors really well, they became my friends — I mean, really, my genuine friends, I’d have them at my home for Christmas and during the summer.


And Ange [Angelo Negri] walks up to me and goes, “Joey, baby,” grabs my cheek and I thought the Secret Service was going to blow his head off.

Biden, who claims to be a Catholic, then blasphemed his Lord:

I swear to God, true story.


I said, “No, no, he’s a friend.” I said, “What’s up, Ange?” And he said, “Joey, I read in the paper you traveled 1,200,000 miles on Air Force planes.”

They laughed about it, according to Biden’s telling. But Negri’s obituary states that he retired from Amtrak in 1993, while Biden was still a senator. When this inconvenient fact was brought to his attention, Biden changed the story and made the lie even worse. The incident, he said, happened in the “fourth or fifth year” of his vice presidency, claiming more recently that it really happened in the seventh year of his tenure as VP.

Oh, yes: Biden officially celebrated flying one million miles on Air Force Two in 2015.

In still another iteration of the lie, Biden said he was traveling by train to visit his sick mother, even though she had died in 2010.

Back to Santos:

It’s likely that, since House-Speaker-to-be Keven McCarthy needs every single Republican vote he can muster on Monday to secure that position, he will remain silent until after Santos is sworn in and the vote taken. Then, expediently, McCarthy is likely to entertain a motion to sanction Santos or refer him to a House committee to investigate the matter further.

In the meantime, Santos is being investigated by law enforcement on every level — federal, state, and county — for lying about his ancestry, his education, his employment, his charity work, and his property ownership.

18 Republican Senators Sell Out Second Amendment in Passing Omnibus Spending Bill

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, December 29, 2022:  

In passing the $1.7 trillion spending bill that Biden has promised to sign into law shortly, 18 Republican senators (all of whom claim on their websites that they support the Second Amendment) joined with every Senate Democrat in passing the monstrous, pork-laden, and anti-Second Amendment 2023 Omnibus Appropriations Act.

After being approved by the Senate by a 68-29 vote, the bill moved to the House, where Democrats quickly passed it. Biden has confirmed that he will sign it.

Included in the 4,100-page spending bill is $858 billion for defense, another $787 billion for “non-defense” domestic spending and welfare programs, another $45 billion to shore up the corrupt Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, and 7,200 earmarks totaling over $15 billion.

Deep in the bill are found a dozen infringements on the Second Amendment, with the most pernicious and dangerous being funding to bribe state governments to pass so-called red flag laws, aka ERPOs — Extreme Risk Protection Orders.

ERPOs allow law enforcement to seize firearms from people who have committed no crime but are “believed” to be a danger to themselves or others. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have red flag laws in place, and more than $770 million of the odious omnibus bill provides federal funding (that is, bribes) to states that enact such laws.

The money will flow to the states via Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants, which will be parceled out to states acceding to the red flag violations.

Those laws violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as they may be issued without the gun owner’s knowledge, allowing his or her firearms to be confiscated without a hearing to allow a defense to be presented. This violation of due process is explained away by advocates who hold that the gun owner may appeal to the court to get his firearms back.

But this is backwards, and the 18 Republican senators who voted for it know it. They include such pro-gun worthies as Roy Blunt (Mo.), Tom Cotton (Ark.), Jim Inhofe (Okla.), and Richard Shelby (Ala.).

The danger of ERPOs is that the definition of who may be “dangerous” can be expanded — and likely will be — to include anyone who owns a firearm. And the ATF knows who those owners are. Given sufficient resources from bills like the one Biden is about to sign, the ATF will then be free to move from door to door collecting the firearms under the guise of removing those “dangers” from law-abiding citizens.

The sell-out by Republicans who claim to be “friends” of the American Republic and its guarantees spelled out in the Bill of Rights was predicted long ago by Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University. In his seminal work Tragedy and Hope, published in 1966, Quigley wrote:

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers.


Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.


Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.

To see evidence of this, the reader is invited to review the “Freedom Index” (FI) made available by The New American here. That shows, not surprisingly, that the voting patterns of these 18 “Republican” senators range from “moderate” to “poor.” Senator Susan Collins (Maine), for example, sports a dismal 38 out of 100, while Senator Inhofe (from the dark-red conservative state of Oklahoma) has earned just a 69 out of 100. Senator Cotton from Arkansas, in a surprise to some, earns an Index rating of only 60, and Mitt Romney of Utah comes in at a disheartening 42.

Lest readers become discouraged at the selling out of our liberties by our “friends,” keep in mind those who voted against the bill, including Senators Mike Braun of Indiana (FI 80), Ted Cruz of Texas (FI 77), Bill Hagerty of Tennessee (FI 93), Mike Lee of Utah (FI 93), Rand Paul of Kentucky (FI 95), and Tommy Tuberville of Alabama (FI 87).

No Shoo-in for Kevin McCarthy as House Speaker

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, December 28, 2022:  

Tuesday, January 3, 2023, could be a very long day for Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). On the surface, all he needs is 218 Republican representatives to vote for him. There will be 222 Republicans in the new, 118th Congress.

End of story, right?

Not quite. Back in November, House Republicans nominated McCarthy for that position by a vote of 188 to 31. On December 9, seven Republicans issued a lengthy list of demands to McCarthy, including installing a “vote of confidence” rule — a “motion to vacate the chair” — that would allow any member of Congress to call for a vote to oust the speaker.

And on Wednesday, five anti-McCarthy Republicans — “Never Kevins” — announced a pact that they would vote as a bloc against McCarthy, depriving him of the position at least on the first vote.

Those five, according to the New York Times, “don’t seem to have a price.” In other words, they can’t be bought. They, among unnumbered others taking the oath of office next Tuesday, are determined to shrink the size of government, regardless.

It’s the number of those “others” that could upset McCarthy’s apple cart. He is the darling of “moderates” — those with voting records, according to The New American’s Freedom Index (FI), in the 60s (out of 100) — and McCarthy, with an FI rating of 60, fits right in.

He is, in the words of the Times’ White House correspondent Annie Karni, “not an ideologue” but instead “a go-along-to-get-along guy.”

In still other words, McCarthy is exactly the kind of speaker the country doesn’t need to begin to rectify the enormous damage being deliberately inflicted on the nation by Democrats and their enablers and sycophants.

McCarthy has the endorsement of Donald Trump, who, claims Karni, “doesn’t see a viable alternative and believes McCarthy [would be] better for him” in 2024 than an even weaker speaker “who [could] draw some Democratic votes.”

McCarthy, scrambling to secure his election before Tuesday, has several factors working in his favor, including history. In January 1997, Rep. Newt Gingrich secured the position with just 216 votes because four Republicans voted for another Republican, five voted “present,” and three were absent that day.

In January 2015, Rep. John Boehner won the speakership with 216 votes when 25 members didn’t vote. And in 2021, Rep. Nancy Pelosi regained the position with 216 votes due to vacancies and absences.

And history also records that no speaker vote has gone to a second ballot in a century.

McCarthy himself told Fox News last week that he would have the votes on the first round.

On the other hand, though, Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) said:

I’m obviously observing it from the other side [of the aisle], but all the intel I get from my Republican friends is … to expect it to go late … I plan to wear my comfortable suit.

64 Years Later, What Has The John Birch Society Done?

This article, written by the Communications Director of the John Birch Society, Paul Dragu, deserves widespread circulation. It appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, December 26, 2022:  


Modern man is simply being played for a sucker by an immoral gang of sophisticated criminals. These cunning megalomaniacs seek to make themselves the absolute rulers of the human race…. Although they now occupy most of the positions of great prestige and influence in Washington, London, and Paris, as well as in the educational, financial, and publishing circles of the whole world, their power rests entirely on bluff, pretense, and deception. Their success and their purposes are contrary to the whole current of human history. They are sitting precariously on the gigantic powder keg of all honest human emotions. Despite their arrogant assurance on the contemporary scene, they are well aware that sooner or later, the whole flamework of their cruel power will be blown pieces by a mighty uprising of the incalculable forces of man’s moral principles, love for freedom, and common sense. How soon that day of delivery comes will depend on you.

— Robert Welch, December 1958

On December 9, 1958, Robert Welch of Belmont, Massachusetts, gathered eleven successful and patriotic men in a quiet Indianapolis home to announce that he would forego retiring and dedicate the rest of his life to fighting the tyrannical forces trying to destroy America and establish a one-world totalitarian government. To do this, he was going to create an organization unlike any other. He wanted to know if they’d join him.

That was the birth of The John Birch Society.

Welch, who had worked many years as a successful executive for his brother’s lucrative candy company, James O. Welch Company, was a wordy man, attributes tragically considered liabilities in today’s distraction-filled, fast-paced society that is in dire need of truth and understanding. He spent two days explaining the gravity of the communist conspiracy, part of a larger “Master Conspiracy,” he would explain. The transcript of that two-day presentation was published as The Blue Book, now in its 25th printing.

Communism had by that point officially blanketed with equal misery, tyranny, and poverty at least half the planet. Furthermore, Welch warned, communism had subversively infected the U.S. government. His insistence on the large degree of communist influence within the government would over the years serve as a lightning rod for smears and ridicule from corporate media journalists with their heads in the clouds. However, time — which made possible the declassification of documents such as the Venona cables — have unfortunately further vindicated Welch. The Venona operation was a U.S. Army intelligence program set up in 1943 to decrypt messages sent by Soviet spy agencies. According to historians John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr who read and analyzed the cables, by 1948 the “Soviets had recruited spies in virtually every major American government agency of military or diplomatic importance.”

Little has changed in the news business. Today’s regime propagandists by and large continue to deny our nation’s tyrannical march, yet they’re different because they do so while being trampled over by it.

After the Indianapolis meeting, Welch and his co-founders wasted little time getting to work. JBS began creating chapters the following month and in two years’ time the organization would explode in membership and influence. By 1961, chapters had formed from sea to shining sea, as patriotic Americans of all walks of life joined to reverse the fast-spreading disease of collectivism. JBS established its own book publishing house and set up bookstores all over the country to circumvent the publishing gatekeepers. This was in addition to the magazine Welch had started before JBS, American Opinion. Members worked to create understanding of the collectivist threat and an influence that would steer the nation toward freedom. Birchers passed out magazines, informational pamphlets, and books. They met regularly and recruited others and launched letter-writing campaigns. Many would even run for local office and win.

And all these book-reading, pamphlet-distributing, letter-writing patriots were getting things done. Americans were learning about the statist threat, they were joining in the fight against collectivism and government centralization, and they became part of a group who understood that behind the attempt to destroy our successful Republic stood a conspiratorial push for an oppressive New World Order, one that would crush the human spirit with the boot of tyrannical oligarchical rule.

It didn’t take long for JBS’s meteoric rise to incite a response from the forces it threatened. Beginning in 1961, corporate media — the propaganda arm of the Insiders — launched a nonstop, merciless, mostly fact-free onslaught at the JBS. Interestingly, corporate media attacks resembled to a tee the exact strategies the communist hierarchy in Moscow created to be used against the growing anti-communist grassroots movement in the United States. Psy-op expert and former OSS agent Edward Hunter revealed this in 1961 to the Senate Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws. In the coming years, media mouthpieces would smear Birchers as right-wing extremists, Nazis, fascists, antisemites, bigots, and racists, all despite blatant evidence to the contrary but all according to communist-devised strategies. The JBS has always opposed government centralization and all collectivism, which includes fascism; and JBS members, leaders, and sponsored speakers have included people of various colors, races, and religions, including Jews. The media painted a profoundly false picture of the JBS, a distortion each subsequent generation of reporters has largely perpetuated.

The attacks against the JBS became so intense that Welch asked the government to investigate his organization, confident it would vindicate it. In 1963, the California Senate Subcommittee on Un-American Activities released the results of an investigatory report on the JBS. It concluded that the organization comprised patriots of various colors and religions and nothing subversive or bigoted existed about the JBS. It also documented that JBS had chapters that were racially integrated. This was before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became law.

But the fact-finding report did not curb the attacks. Even so-called conservatives got in on the act, including William F. Buckley and his National Review magazine. The neocons at National Review — the magazine included members with at one point had ties to communist organizations, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the CIA — peddled the narrative that America’s decline was the result of bumbling liberalism and gross stupidity as opposed to an intentional, orchestrated dismantling. Welch and JBS members, however, knew better.

National Review went after Welch in 1962 with infelicitous articles about him. Then in 1965 NR went after JBS members because they followed Welch, whose great sin was believing in conspiracies. NR especially took issue, like the rest of media, with Welch’s belief that General Dwight Eisenhower had wittingly or unwittingly served the goals of the communists. Welch was inclined toward the former, that Eisenhower consciously served the communist agenda. Welch’s unpopular, hard-to-swallow thesis, which remains controversial to this today and is still being used as a cudgel against the JBS, was eventually printed as the book The Politician.

Sixty-four years have passed since Robert Welch launched the JBS. The organization, typical of one that has endured so long, has gone through changes, trials, and triumphs. But through it all, we have remained consistent in our mission, “Less Government, More Responsibility and – with God’s Help – A Better World.”

Decades after that fateful meeting in Indianapolis, Welch was asked to name one of JBS’s most significant accomplishments. “Surviving,” he replied. While this may seem a flat and inapplicable answer, JBS survival, we believe, is the difference between complete global tyranny and the world in which we live today. JBS members have foiled plans for regional alliances such as the North American Union. They have fought tooth and nail to prevent the destruction of the Constitution via an Article V Convention. They’ve worked since the ’60s to stop the nationalization of local police. JBS has also been credited by its enemies as the most effective organization to besmirch the angelic goals of the Agenda 21/2030 plan and derail it from burrowing into American communities.

But our greatest contribution has been education. Sixty-four years later, we’ve arrived at point in time in which we are on the brink of majority knowledge of the maniacal conspiratorial elite class. During all our years, from 1959 to 2022, Birchers continued living up to Mr. Welch’s mantra — “education is our total strategy, and truth is out only weapon.” They have distributed millions of magazines, books, pamphlets, and videos. We’ve even met visitors from the other side of the planet whose eyes were open after reading our materials. We’ve published and distributed some of the most important books on the Conspiracy, including None Dare Call It Treason by John Stormer, The Invisible Government by Dan Smoot, None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen, The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin, and Deep State: The Invisible Government Behind the Scenes by Alex Newman. Our affiliate magazine, The New American, and its predecessors, Review of the News and American Opinion, have influenced more people than today’s efficient surveillance apparatus could track. We’ve also started a K-12 school, FreedomProject Academy, to raise up the next generation of patriots. And we recently revived a tool that can revolutionize the political makeup of the United States – the Congressional ScorecardThe Scorecard uses seven key votes to measure how well – or badly – every U.S. congressman, Republican or Democrat, adheres to the U.S. Constitution. This tool is now being expanded to include state legislatures. The Scorecard omits the need to decode politicians’ political rhetoric and goes straight to the fruit they bear via their legislative votes.

In short, JBS has prevented the destruction of America. If it weren’t for the JBS, we believe the world the globalists seek to install — one in which you will own nothing and they everything — would already be reality. If, however, we would’ve had more “pullers at the oars,” as we’ve always sought to recruit, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are now in, either. Inflation is robbing us, our elections are a mess, government is collaborating with corporations to silence and manipulate us, and our rogue intelligence agencies run illegal operations against its own citizens.


It is not unreasonable to argue that we are in better position than we were in 1958, if for no other reason than that more people know what’s going on than ever. You cannot address a problem you don’t believe exists. Birch education has converged with reality. Covid tyranny revealed that there indeed exists a totalitarian-minded managerial class seeking to render us subservient cattle citizens of their global oligarchical government. It showed that despite endless talk of “democracy,” the West is not only not immune to tyranny, but plans to weaponize its exclusively advanced technology to injure, control and enslave all humanity.

A giant is awakening. There are plenty of signs. An overwhelming majority of Americans now reject the experimental concoctions they tried to jab into all of us. The propaganda and censorship collaboration between government and Big Tech is coming to light faster than we can keep up with. Corporate media trust (and subscriptions) is plummeting while that of “alternative” media is skyrocketing. Government school indoctrination continues to lose its influence as parents are pulling their children out by the droves. Election chicanery has been exposed and Americans won’t rest until our elections are restored.  This is why the Biden regime has tried to nationalize elections. And patriotic Americans are working in a plethora of ways to raise awareness and change their communities, the key to national restoration.   And politically speaking, the America First takeover of the GOP is within sight.

In an August 1815 letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams ruminated on the War of Independence. “What do we mean by the Revolution? The War?” Adams asked rhetorically. “That was no part of the Revolution. It was only an Effect and Consequence of it. The Revolution was in the Minds of the People….”

Why is there such an intense effort to propagandize and censor us?

Because they are afraid of you. They know that when enough Americans wake up, the jig is up. During that fateful meeting in 1958, Robert Welch said this to his future co-founding members:

“Truth, reality, human instinct, and the overwhelming weight of human desire are on our side. We have these points in our favor against a Conspiracy that must depend on falsehood, cunning terror, utilized by less than 5% of the population.”

New Jersey Gives the Raspberry to the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment Ruling

This article appeared at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, December 26, 2022:  

The day after the Supreme Court gave full throat to the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in public (while striking down New York’s onerous restrictions on such ownership) back in June, anti-gun Democrat New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy announced he would find a way to “work around” the high court’s ruling.

The ruling in Bruen — New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen — struck down New York’s “proper cause” requirement and, by implication, New Jersey’s “justifiable need” requirement for a citizen to be able to exercise his Second Amendment rights.

So, New Jersey Democrats, fully in control of both houses of the legislature and the governor’s mansion, launched bill A4769, which Murphy signed into law last week.

Under New Jersey’s old law, now discarded, virtually no one (except the elite, of course) could own a firearm. Under Murphy’s new law, no one may carry a firearm virtually anywhere. According to a lawsuit filed immediately after Murphy signed A4769 into law:

A4769 unconstitutionally suppresses the fundamental right to bear arms in: parks, beaches, libraries, museums, theatres, playgrounds, zoos, medical offices, sports arenas, restaurants, public gatherings, casinos, one’s own car and other vehicles, and presumptively all private property.

The bill also makes it nearly impossible for a citizen to obtain permission to purchase a firearm, despite the Bruen decision. The law prohibits the issuance of permits based on “character” and “temperament,” uses social media posts by the applicant as valid reasons for denying a permit, and requires four — four! — endorsements by unrelated parties assuring the governmental authorities of the applicant’s character. Furthermore, local law enforcement officials will then interview each of those four endorsers to make sure that they aren’t somehow in violation of some law themselves.

The permitting fee, under the new law, is raised from $50 to $200, and liability insurance is required to be purchased by the application. Unfortunately, there are no carriers presently providing such coverage in New Jersey.

Not surprisingly, the new law creates a “special class” of citizens — public officials — to whom the new law doesn’t apply (no permit required, and few restrictions on where they may carry a firearm).

The lawsuit filed on the same day that Murphy signed the bill into law pointed out the hypocrisy of the new law:

When [We] the People, by enacting that [Second] amendment, enshrined in their fundamental charter the right to “carry weapons in case of confrontation” for the “core lawful purpose of self-defense,” [quoting from the high court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller], they [the founders] did not mean to leave the freedom to exercise that right at the mercy of the very government officials whose hands they sought to bind.

At the time of the Bruen decision in June there were eight states with “may issue” laws that were struck down. In six of them — California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware — they either moved to remove the offending statutes from their books or were considering making such changes. New York, and now New Jersey, are instead giving the raspberry to the high court.

They are swimming upstream. Since the June ruling by the high court, nearly one million citizens in those former “may issue” states have purchased a firearm. Nationally, background checks are averaging nearly two million a month.

And a recent poll by the Marquette University School of Law revealed that almost two out of every three citizens support the Bruen decision.

So, New York and New Jersey are outliers in the great debate over the Second Amendment versus state government restrictions and limitations. The lawsuit, brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc., an NRA affiliate, was filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey. It asks simply that the court declares “immediate and urgent injunctive relief … [and rules] that New Jersey’s brand new law … is unconstitutional.”

Jan. 6 Report From Republicans Counters Official Report From the Select Committee

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, December 22, 2022:  

The “counter report” from the five House Republicans who were originally nominated to the Select Committee to investigate the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot is so hot that many of its sources were shielded from being named for fear of retaliation and reprisal by their superiors.

The report — Security Failures at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021 — was prepared at the direction of the five Republicans who should have been on the Select Committee: Reps. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), and Troy Nehls (R-Texas).

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to seat Reps. Banks and Jordan, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy withdrew the other three from consideration, knowing that the Select Committee was to be nothing more than a kangaroo court — an inquisition instead of an investigation — designed to attack and sully the reputation of former President Donald Trump.

From the report:

This report goes to great lengths to protect the identities of the line officers and analysts who participated in interviews.


Sources who cooperated with this investigation described retaliation by USCP [U.S. Capitol Police] leadership for their participation in this investigation and other investigations into the events of January 6, 2021.

The report pointed to the likely instigator of those potential reprisals on the whistleblowers the counter report relied on:

The Staff Director for the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, David Buckley, has a track record of acting in a retaliatory manner against whistleblowers.


For those reasons, this report uses “USCP source” to cite or otherwise refer to conversations with USCP employees who are not in leadership positions.

The counter report not only damns the Capitol Police for incompetence leading up to and during the January 6 riot, it also puts much of the blame on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It claims that Democrats, who held the majority in the House, were responsible for the security at the Capitol, and they failed — perhaps deliberately.

From the report:

Documents provided by the House Sergeant at Arms show how then-House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving carried out his duties in clear deference to the Speaker [Pelosi], her staff, and other Democratic staff.

Meanwhile, members of the Republican House leadership were kept in the dark about proposed security measures until it was too late to rectify any errors. Said the report:

Leadership and law enforcement failures within the U.S. Capitol left the complex vulnerable on January 6, 2021.


The Democrat-led investigation in the House of Representatives, however, has disregarded those institutional failings that exposed the Capitol to violence that day.

What the report implies is clear: Since Capitol Police were denied knowing the potential for violence, and thus preparing for that possibility, instigators of violence insinuated in the vast crowd of citizens were allowed to run rampant. The media was complicit in reporting endlessly that, because of those relatively few intentional troublemakers, the entire crowd — and thus the former president himself — was responsible.

Based on that assumption, hundreds of otherwise innocent people have been arrested and jailed, and remain incarcerated in what are reported to be wretched conditions, many without being charged with a crime.

The counter report asks: “Why [was] the Capitol left so unprepared?” It provides several reasons, including “internal politics” and “unnecessary bureaucracy,” but fails to suggest that the lack of preparation was deliberate in the hopes that thugs inserted in the crowd would create the chaos desired.

Without calling it a “false flag” event, the report makes it clear that malfeasance of the first order made such infiltration and its consequences inevitable. Concluded the report: “The USCP was set up to fail.”

Among the report’s key findings:

Republicans were “intentionally excluded” from “key meetings and conversations related to House Security”;


USCP “leadership … retaliated against subordinates who spoke out about the division’s shortcomings”;


The House Sergeant at Arms “was compromised by politics … and did not adequately prepare the capitol for possible violence”; and consequently “U.S. Capitol Police did not give officers the appropriate training necessary to prepare them to protect the capitol from violence.”

The final report from the Select Committee is due out next week.

FBI Analyst Sues Bureau for Placing Him on Leave for “Conspiratorial” Views

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, December 21, 2022:  

Marcus Allen (not the NFL player), a former FBI analyst, was caught in the ongoing “purge” of American patriots from the FBI last January and, with the help of Judicial Watch, filed suit against the FBI last week. After serving the country as a Marine with two tours in Iraq, he joined the FBI seven years ago.

His record was unblemished until January, when he received this letter from the HR department of the FBI:

This letter is to inform you, as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Security Programs Manager, I (Jennifer Leigh Moore, acting Executive Assistant Director) am suspending your Top Secret security clearance effective upon receipt of this letter.


The Security Division has learned that you have espoused conspiratorial views both orally and in writing and promoted unreliable information which indicates support for the events of January 6th….


The suspension of your security clearance is based on security concerns related to [an internal guideline]….


You will not be allowed access to FBI space … You may not represent yourself as an FBI employee.

In February he received another letter indicating that he was being placed on administrative leave, without pay. Under the terms of that letter, Allen, if he wanted to obtain other employment outside the agency, would first have to obtain approval from his former employer.

When he tried to earn some money selling a personally written prayer journal, the agency ignored his petition to do so. Apparently, starvation is part of the retaliation and punishment the FBI metes out to those who might hold views it doesn’t like.

In May, he was called in for an interview by the agency. Since then, nothing has changed: He and his family (wife and three children) have used up their savings and are now living off early withdrawals from his pension account.

Judicial Watch (JW), self-described as “a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation which … fulfills its educational mission through litigation,” filed a lawsuit against the FBI:

Plaintiff … brings this action … against Defendant Director of the FBI Christopher Wray for violating Plaintiff’s rights, pursuant to the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution….


By a letter dated February 17, 2022, the FBI placed Plaintiff on administrative leave without pay due to the suspension of his security clearance.


Plaintiff has never “espoused conspiratorial views” and does not support the “events of January 6th,” which on information and belief is a reference to the unlawful activities that occurred at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 (hereafter “January 6”).


The FBI has not identified any specific statements or actions supporting its contention that Plaintiff has done otherwise.


Prior to the January 10, 2022 letter, Plaintiff had never been disciplined in any manner during his years of service to the FBI…

Judicial Watch wrote that Allen had no connection with the January 6 incident:

Plaintiff was not involved in the events of January 6 and did not support them in any material way.


The FBI has made no allegation or offered any evidence to the contrary.


Plaintiff has expressed no view that could be reasonably interpreted as personally expressing support or sympathy for any unlawful activity that occurred on January 6.

In the months since Allen received the letter, the FBI has gone dark:

In the ten months since Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave without pay, the FBI has made no decision or taken any other action regarding the suspension of Plaintiff’s security clearance.


Because no decision has been made or any action taken on the security clearance suspension, Plaintiff has had no meaningful opportunity to challenge being placed on administrative leave without pay.

Nor has he had any opportunity to earn any income since he was placed on unpaid leave:

Despite being placed on unpaid administrative leave, Plaintiff is required to obtain the FBI’s approval for outside employment.


To this end, Plaintiff authored a prayer journal and sought permission from the FBI to sell the journal. After initially engaging with Plaintiff, the FBI has ignored his request for approval of outside employment, reaching no decision on whether he is permitted to sell copies of the prayer journal.

Judicial Watch spelled out what Allen wants the court to do:

  1. Declare that [the internal guideline] on its face … violates the First Amendment Free Speech Clause of the U.S. Constitution;
  2. Declare that [the guideline] violates the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution;
  3. Permanently enjoin [the FBI or any of its agents] from enforcing [the guideline]; and
  4. Declare [that the FBI] is in violation of the law, and order the FBI to act promptly in regard to [Allen’s] security clearance and employment suspension by reinstating [Allen’s] security clearance and returning [Allen] to active duty with the FBI.

Judicial Watch failed to demand that the FBI respond to Allen’s demands within a certain time frame, especially important in light of the agency’s policy to starve Allen and his family as punishment and retaliation for any perceived failure on his part to embrace fully the FBI’s agenda concerning the January 6 incident.

It’s likely the “guideline” is being used not only against Allen but against other FBI employees as a weapon to enforce submission of its employees to that agenda.

Jan 6 Committee Files Four Charges Against Donald Trump

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, December 20, 2022:  

During its final meeting before it is disbanded on January 3, the House “Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol” unloaded on Donald Trump, along with four House Republicans: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Representatives Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Scott Perry (R-Pa.), and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.).

The committee unanimously referred the four House members to the House Ethics Committee for defying subpoenas issued by the committee.

For Donald Trump, the committee upped the ante further, charging him with conspiracy to defraud the United States; obstruction of an official proceeding; conspiracy to make a false statement; and inciting, assisting, or aiding in and comforting an insurrection against the country.

The committee asked the Department of Justice to prosecute the former president.

If convicted on the fourth charge, Trump would be banned from running for public office.

Jordan’s spokesman called out the committee:

This is just another partisan and political stunt made by a Select Committee that knowingly altered evidence, blocked minority representation on a committee for the first time in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives, and failed to respond to Mr. Jordan’s numerous letters and concerns.

Perry’s spokesman called the committee “petulant”:

More games from a petulant and soon-to-be defunct kangaroo court desperate for revenge and struggling to get out from under the weight of its own irrelevancy.

Biggs himself unloaded on the committee:

This referral is their final political stunt. It’s inappropriate to use the House Ethics Committee — a committee with more pressing matters to attend to — to help reach the J6 Committee’s pre-determined conclusions.

And then Biggs made a promise:

The J6 Committee has defamed my name and my character, and I look forward to reviewing their documents, publishing their lies, and setting the record straight in the 118th Congress.

Trump used his Truth Social account to accuse the committee of doing everything they could to keep him from running for president again:

The people [of the United States] understand that the Democratic Bureau of Investigation, the DBI, are out to keep me from running for president because they know I’ll win and that this whole business of prosecuting me is just like impeachment was — a partisan attempt to sideline me and the Republican Party.

He added:

The Fake charges made by the highly partisan Unselect Committee of January 6th have already been submitted, prosecuted, and tried in the form of Impeachment Hoax # 2.

That “hoax” died in the Senate on February 13, 2021, when 43 senators voted “not guilty,” resulting in Trump’s acquittal.

Noted legal and constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz weighed in on the irrelevance of the committee’s final report, calling the 154-page regurgitation and summary following thousands of pages of reports, hundreds of interviews, and the expenditure of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ funds “a worthless piece of paper.”

He told Newsmax:

Congress has no power to recommend a prosecution….


The Justice Department [should] say [to] Congress: Look. We process. We investigate. Don’t tell us who to investigate and who to prosecute.


You had a kangaroo hearing. One-sided.


You didn’t allow a cross-examination. You didn’t allow any adverse witnesses, so don’t expect us to take seriously any [of your] recommendations.


You made a bad prosecution, so the American public should make no conclusions based on this one-sided recommendation and it should ignore it as well.

What the Department of Justice, headed as it is by far-left Attorney General Merrick Garland, is likely to do instead, is ignore Dershowitz, ignore the rules, ignore the Constitution’s separation of powers, and proceed with the prosecution/persecution of the 45th president of the United States.

Garland will also ignore the will of the people. The results of the latest poll from McLaughlin & Associates, taken last week, reveals that, among Republican voters, 77 percent support Trump for the Republican Party nomination in 2024.

When asked who they would support in a primary battle with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, 58 percent of those same voters would vote for Trump, while just 36 percent would vote for DeSantis.

So, it appears that Trump is right when he commented on Truth Social, “When they come after me, people who love freedom rally around me.”

Virginia Restaurateur Fights State’s Democrat-controlled ABC to a Standstill

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, December 19, 2022:  

Virginia’s Democrat-controlled Alcoholic Beverage Commission (ABC) finally decided to cut its losses and caved on Wednesday.

On Dec. 2, a gaggle of ABC agents and Virginia state troopers had descended on Matt Strickland’s restaurant, Gourmeltz, and Strickland recorded it all on his iPhone.

For once, The Washington Post got it right:

On the morning of Dec. 2, as agents with the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Commission boxed up bottles from the bar at Gourmeltz in Fredericksburg, Va., owner Matt Strickland took out his phone and began recording. He pointed his camera at the ABC agents, along with the Virginia state troopers who accompanied them, and accused them all of supporting tyranny. He questioned their loyalty to country and the constitution. He questioned their manhood.


“What you’re doing right now is government overreach. What you’re doing right now is supporting a tyrannical government,” Strickland told the officers as he panned his phone around the room. “The Constitution means more to me than my self-preservation. If any of you guys had the b—- to stand up and say that, and fight for that, this would not be going on right now.”


When the agents responded that they’re simply executing a lawful search warrant, Strickland compared them to former Nazi officers who, during the Nuremberg trials, said they were just following orders. “So many people were just doing their job for Hitler back in Germany,” he told the agents and troopers, their faces as still as stone.

After seizing all of his alcoholic beverages, they informed Strickland that he was closed until January 31, 2023.

The public, which recently had tossed the state’s Democratic governor and his attorney general, rallied, and on Wednesday the ABC announced its  “settlement” with Strickland:

Virginia ABC and Gourmeltz LLC have entered into a Consent Agreement resolving all issues associated with the serving of alcohol products without the requisite license to do so at the restaurant.


Effective December 23, 2022, the mixed beverage and wine and beer licenses of Gourmeltz will be reinstated.

The ABC managed to squeeze a CYA out of Strickland:

It is understood and agreed by the Parties that the Consent Agreement and related obligations are neither an admission nor denial of liability or wrongdoing on the part of any of the Parties.

Nothing was said about the legal fees Strickland has incurred, estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Nothing was said about the state’s Department of Health backing down after Strickland fought them in court. Nothing was said about the commission being staffed with Democratic holdovers from Democratic Governor Ralph Northam’s administration that put them onto the commission.

The backstory is this: Strickland is a former military serviceman, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan for more than 15 years. Upon leaving he started a melted-cheese-sandwich business out of a truck. In two years his business grew to the point where he decided to open a retail location.

Things went swimmingly until March 2020. Then, using Covid as an excuse, Virginia Democrats issued all manner of decrees, mandates, and demands. Masks were required for both his staff and his customers. His seating capacities were limited. Social distancing was required. Even bartenders had to follow strange and convoluted rules. Explained Strickland:

My bartender couldn’t serve a customer across the counter at the bar.


He could make a drink right in front of him though, but then he had to walk around the bar and serve it to them side by side.


Just stuff like that just didn’t make any sense, so it seemed to be more about control than our health and safety.

After 90 days of this silliness Strickland fought back, and incurred the wrath of the health department.

As Strickland explained:

We took it all the way. I mean they tried to settle with me on several different occasions saying, “hey man, instead of X amount of dollars and suspension of your license, just give us a quarter of that and we’ll make it go away.”


I declined every settlement that they sent me and we took it all the way to court and we won and we got our health department license back.

Not so quickly the ABC. It apparently was determined to make a point: “thou shalt not resist the state.” But reality set in, and they finally settled.

Strickland isn’t done, not by a long shot. He is now running for the Virginia state Senate. When asked if he was going to run as a Republican, he scoffed, reminding reporters that none of the Republicans in office stood by him while the battle was raging, though they were only too happy to support him and the cause of freedom after he’d won. Said Strickland: “My loyalty is to America, and that’s it.”

Oregon Judge Shreds State’s Defense, Extends Ban on Measure 114

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, December 16, 2022:  

Robert Raschio, presiding judge for Oregon’s 24th Judicial District, heard arguments on both sides of the issue on Tuesday and then extended the ban on implementation of Measure 114, while lambasting the state’s defense.

At issue is just the part of the law — which was narrowly passed in November — that restricts the sale, ownership, or possession of magazines to 10 rounds or fewer. Raschio has put in place a separate ban on implementing the rest of Measure 114.

That separate ban will remain in place, ruled Raschio:

The court will maintain the Temporary Restraining Order [TRO] … until the state provides notice that it is prepared to deploy a “Permit to Purchase” program.… The court will [then] hold a preliminary injunction hearing … to determine if [that] program can constitutionally be deployed.

On Tuesday, in an attempt to make its case that the magazine ban didn’t infringe on the rights Oregonians have under the state’s constitution, the defense tried to fudge the numbers. It claimed that 593 people died from firearms in 2020.

But looking closely at a study presented by the defense, the judge pointed out that “in 2020, 122 of [those deaths were] with a weapon … and 70.5% of those weapons were firearms meaning [that in a state with more than 3.4 million citizens] there were 86 homicides with [a] firearm.”

He pointed out that “magazines are an integral part of firearms…. Limiting magazine sizes has a direct impact on who can use a firearm in self-defense…. Weaker individuals compensate for the inability to use larger caliber ammunition with larger magazines.” 

But he saved his vitriol for the defense’s use of “proof” provided by a study titled “Evidence Concerning the Regulation of Firearms Design, Sale, and Carrying on Fatal Mass Shootings in the United States.”

He wrote:

The results were the researchers “found no evidence that concealed carry laws, assault weapons bans, prohibitions for domestic abusers and violent misdemeanants, or point-of-sale [criminal background checks] were associated with the incidents of fatal mass shootings.”…


The court finds the article states there is no scientific certainty [that] large capacity magazine bans have an impact on fatalities and casualties.

Raschio went on by quoting from the study itself:

The findings of this study suggest that the most common policy prescriptions offered by advocates on each side of the debate over gun control — comprehensive background checks and assault weapon bans on one side and so-called “Right to Carry” [i.e., “Constitutional Carry”] laws reducing restrictions on civilian concealed carry of firearms on the other side — do not seem to be associated with the incidence of fatal mass shootings.

The judge also found “that there is less than a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of a person being a fatality in a mass shooting in Oregon, and even less with an offender who is using large capacity magazines.”

He added that “The court cannot sustain a restraint on a constitutional right on mere speculation that the restriction could promote public safety,” and then ended with gusto:

The defendants’ own literature “seems” to show that the ban will help with fatalities. No definitive scientific evidence has been provided that large capacity magazine bans have any impact on the number of fatalities or casualties now or in future events.

The defendants have until December 23 to shore up their argument. That’s the day when Judge Raschio will hear an appeal to his extension of the ban by the state’s attorney general.

NBA Coach Loses, Prays for Winning Team’s Coach

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, December 15, 2022:  

After losing a game that his team should have won, Phoenix Suns head coach Monty Williams embraced Houston Rockets coach Stephen Silas, a moment that was caught on video and, since Monday night, has garnered nearly 400,000 views.

When asked about the embrace, Silas, whose father passed away just three days earlier, told reporters:

Everybody knows he’s one of the best people in the world … it means a lot. He has a great way of communicating. Tonight, his way of communicating was through a hug, which I needed.


I love him for that. He’s a good man.

Williams disagrees. Named NBA Coach of the Year in May, Williams, an unashamed Christian, sees himself vastly differently:

There’s a lot of times within the faith, as a Christian, that most people think we walk around like we have it together.… I just got to be straight with you: I need the Lord because I don’t have it together. I am broken. I am flawed.

Williams said that in the past he “had the idea that because I was faith-based, things would work out well for me. I thought that being a man of faith, [success] would be a byproduct of that.”

But as his faith matured, he understood better the trials that come with accepting the cross of Christ:

Having been around a little bit, I’ve come to realize that my faith is something I can hang onto in the good and not-so-good times, and it allows me to deal with both successes and the failures and the in-between.


It’s not a good luck charm.

Then he added:

Whether it’s winning or losing, or getting a contract or not getting signed by a team and all the in-between, my faith allows me to hopefully have something to hold onto that’s much bigger than sports.

He needed that something in 2016 when his wife was killed in a head-on collision with another car driven by a woman under the influence of methamphetamines. During the funeral service, Williams astonished the world first by quoting Romans 8:28 — “All things work together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose” — and then forgiving the woman who killed his wife:

We cannot serve the Lord if we do not have a heart of forgiveness….


Everybody is praying for me and my family, which is right. But let us not forget that there were two people in this situation. And that family needs prayer as well … we have no ill will towards that family.


That family didn’t wake up wanting to hurt my wife. Life is hard. It is very hard and that was tough, but we hold no ill will….


We, as a group, as brothers united in unity, should be praying for that family because they grieve as well.


So, let’s not lose sight of what’s important. God will work this out.

God continues to use Williams for His eternal purposes. The three children riding with his wife at the time of the accident survived. He remarried. He was named head coach of the Phoenix Suns in May 2019, and a year later was named coach of the year after leading his time to a record 64 wins and just 18 losses.

He has “anchor” verses that he clings to during difficult times:

One of my anchor verses is Colossians 3:23, doing my work as “unto the Lord and not unto man.”


Another anchor verse for me is Matthew 6:33: “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness and all these things will be added unto you.”


Those two verses help me in my coaching because no matter what’s going on, a big win or tough loss, I know that I’m there to do God’s will.


I don’t do it well, and I fail daily. But that’s my reference point. That’s my lighthouse. In doing that, my goal is to serve and to elevate people as best I can.

At the moment, his team is 16-12 on the season.

Rich New Yorkers Fleeing the Big Apple

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, December 14, 2022:  

The results of a study by New York City’s Independent Budget Office (IBO) released last week revealed what common-sense economics predicted: High-income earners in New York City are fleeing the Big Apple for lower- or no-income tax states such as Florida and Texas.

It’s common sense, something clearly lacking among progressives in Albany. They raised state taxes by $4 billion last year, making New York the state with the highest tax rate in the country. And just last week those same economic illiterates have launched a campaign for another $40 billion in new taxes on the rich.

Surely they must know that the top one percent of New York City’s taxpayers provide nearly half of the city’s budget. Wouldn’t one think politicians would want to cater to them, make things easier for them, and reduce their tax liabilities to make their state more competitive with low-tax states?

As Walter Wriston, the former chairman and CEO of Citicorp, famously said, “Capital goes where it’s welcome, and stays where it’s well treated.” But Wriston died in 2005, apparently taking with him the last semblance of reason, reality, and economic good sense.

And the wealthy are getting out before things get worse. Between April 2020 (the start of the Covid-19 pandemic) and June 2021, 337,000 people left New York City for warmer and lower-tax climes. That’s an astonishing three times the number who leave in a typical year.

Arthur Laffer (the creator of the “Laffer Curve”) and Stephen Moore, one of those few “common sense” economists who works at the Heritage Foundation, reported recently the impact of the transition of such large amounts of capital is having on the “move-in” states such as Florida and Texas. They found that those states created more jobs and had faster economic growth. Where capital is treated well, it appears, it goes to work creating additional capital, not only for its owners, but for those who are employed by its owners.

It didn’t have to be this way, as Laffer and Moore point out:

Consider the fiasco of New Jersey [another high tax state]. In the early 1960’s, the state had no income tax and no state sales tax. It was a rapidly growing state, attracting people from everywhere and running budget surpluses.


Today, its income and sales taxes are among the highest in the nation … [and] it suffers from perpetual deficits.

It turns out that even after driving away high-income taxpayers, progressives continue to run the government programs they love, creating enormous and increasingly larger budget deficits. This leaves the middle class — those without the means to move — holding the proverbial bag. Progressives seeking to close those budget gaps have only one place left to go: the middle class.

So, raising taxes on the rich is in reality an attack on the middle class. And this is Marxism in action. According to Marxist ideology, capital is the enemy and thus private property should be abolished. History shows that a strong, well-educated, and prosperous middle class is the primary bulwark against tyranny. Damage or destroy the middle class, and Marxists are then free to inflict their regressive “back to the Middle Ages” economic system onto the country.

Perhaps the “progressive” legislators in Albany and elsewhere know exactly what they are doing.

Another Free-speech Lawsuit Goes to Trial

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, December 13, 2022:  

When Kiersten Hening, a starting forward on the Virginia Tech soccer team, didn’t kowtow to pressure to “kneel” during a “social justice” event at the start of an Atlantic Coast Conference game in the fall of 2020, her coach, Charles Adair, retaliated.

At halftime he castigated her in front of her teammates, and cut her time on the field drastically during the second half. During film review of the game the following week Adair continued to chastise and criticize her, and cut her from the starting lineup ahead of the next two games.

Kiersten just couldn’t go along with the display of “unity” following the death of George Floyd that Virginia Tech embraced. As the lawsuit noted:

On September 3, 2020, the Atlantic Coast Conference’s (“ACC”) Committee for Racial and Social Justice announced that, in addition to creating an ACC Unity Symbol and implementing mandatory “diversity and inclusion training for student-athletes” focused on “anti-racism,” a Unity Statement would be read before every ACC event.


This Unity Statement provided: “We, the ACC, are committed to seeing each other as equals, supporting each other, and treating each other with respect and dignity at all times, recognizing that our differences don’t divide us, but they make us stronger.”


As this Unity Statement was read prior to the UVA game, all but three of the players and coaches from both teams kneeled in an apparent show of support.


Hening and two of her teammates declined to kneel.

As Jonathan Turley, a constitutional scholar and professor at George Washington Law School, noted, “the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech includes both the right to speak freely, and the right to refrain from speaking at all.”

That right also includes, said Turley, “the right to be free from retaliation by a public official for the exercise of that right.”

Coach Adair, not understanding of Hening’s free-speech rights, violated them. He benched her, he publicly ridiculed her, he denounced her in front of her team, and, in the end, forced her to leave the team.

In early December, following oral presentations of both parties, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Cullen denied Adair’s move to dismiss the case, allowing Hening’s complaint to go to a jury trial.

Adair argued that Hening had failed to make a sufficient case against him. He tried to say that, while she was engaging in a First Amendment protected right by not kneeling, she couldn’t prove that he retaliated against her; i.e., that there was no “cause and effect.”

Instead, he claimed that he criticized her for her poor play in the first half of the game.

Judge Cullen didn’t buy it:

Whatever his motivations, the court has no trouble concluding that Adair’s conduct towards Hening — publicly chastising her, removing her from the starting lineup, and reducing her playing time — would tend to chill a person of ordinary firmness’s exercise of her First Amendment rights.


Indeed, Hening has testified that Adair’s actions caused her to take a knee prior to the second (Clemson) and third (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) games of the season before she decided to quit the team.


A reasonable jury, in sum, could find that Adair’s actions reasonably chilled Hening’s First Amendment expression.

Cullen concluded:

This motion [to dismiss] has been fully briefed by the parties, and the court heard oral argument on December 2, 2022 … the court will deny Adair’s motion and allow the case to proceed to trial.

Adair had better settle before that trial and get the best deal he can from his former player.

Biden’s “Parents Council” Quietly Disbanded Following Uproar

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, December 12, 2022:  

Succumbing to political pressure, public exposure, and legal threats, the Biden administration last week quietly axed its ultra-left “National Parents and Families Engagement Council.” Its announcement was simple: “The Department [of Education] has informed plaintiffs [in a lawsuit against the agency] that it is immediately and permanently disbanding the Council, and that the Council will not hold any future meetings.”

The Council, formed in June, faced resistance from the very beginning: There were no parents invited onto the council, nor were any “family organizations” representing parents concerned about how their children were being indoctrinated in the public schools.

Instead, 11 of the 14 groups making up the council were left-wing, anti-parental-input collectivist ideologues.

The lawsuit said the council violated rules that required it to be “fairly balanced”; that the council violated rules of transparency, holding private meetings without prior public notice or public input; and that the council was designed from the beginning to fly under the radar, thus avoiding any meaningful oversight by Congress.

Ian Prior, executive director of Fight for Schools, immediately saw the danger:

Over the past year, the Biden Administration weaponized the federal government against parents who were peacefully and passionately exercising their rights to speak at school board meetings and to be involved in the education of their children.


This new “parents council” is nothing more than a public relations mirage, behind which are the same cabal of activist groups that created the very problems that parents have been working to fix at the local level.


We’re not fooled, and neither will the parents that wake up every day ready to fight for their children.”

Betsy DeVos, the former education secretary under President Trump, was also among the first to see the fraud and the danger. She called it “laughable”:

I think it’s a very laughable attempt to address what is a very glaring — clearly glaring — issue: parents across the country are upset for a variety of reasons … [and] they want to have control of their children’s education….


So, it’s just incredible to me that they would now set up something called a parents’ council and then populate it with individuals from all the alphabet soup organizations that … protect the system and the status quo.

Among those “alphabet soup organizations” is the National School Boards Association, or NSBA, that supported Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland when he proposed going after parents who disrupted school-board meetings, calling them “domestic terrorists.”

There was Al Sharpton’s National Action Network (“No Justice, No Peace”).

And there was the National Parents Union, headed up by a liberal union activist with a long history with the SEIU, the nation’s largest labor union. She saw the opportunity present in the council to mold, shape, and change the educational culture into the Marxist model. She called it “an opportunity … the education system in this country needs bold changes … [the committee is] ready to get to work and have their struggle and solutions heard in the halls of Washington, D.C.”

The final straw was likely the letter from Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.) that was sent just days before the ax came down. Joining with a number of his senatorial colleagues, Cassidy wrote to DOE Secretary Miguel Cardona:

[Your] department has filled the Council with organizations that have limited, if any, engagement at the local level. Most, if not all, of these organizations are liberal advocacy groups that seek to nationalize our education systems….


The Department’s failure to include anyone with a diverse set of parental, or even political, perspectives, makes the Council void of any balance.

Some are calling this dismissal of an odious Marxist government agency a “sweeping victory,” a “significant victory,” and so on. It is not. It is merely a temporary setback to Marxists and communists who know that the real target for their collectivist agenda is the students.

Christian Law Students Prevail in Free-speech Lawsuit Against University of Idaho

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Saturday, December 10, 2022:  

When a fellow law student asked a member of the Christian Legal Society (CLS) on the campus of the University of Idaho (UI) why the group holds to the traditional belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, she was told that it was because the Bible says so.

When the CLS member offered to discuss the matter further with her, if she cared to, she got offended, felt “threatened” for her “safety” and complained to the administration.

The school’s Office of Civil Rights & Investigations issued a “no-contact” order against not only the CLS student responding, but also two others and the CLS faculty advisor.

In April, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) brought a lawsuit against the university on behalf of the students, noting that “the founding fathers considered [the] irreducible minimum of free speech to be an inalienable natural right that could not be surrendered to the government … [but UI’s no-contact orders strike] at the very foundation of this guarantee.”

The order issued by the university was no simple “stay away from her” order, either. From the lawsuit:

On April 7, [2022] Defendants issued no-contact orders to [the three students] based on their protected speech….


Each order prohibits [the students] from “contacting Ms. Doe in any way, from this point forward, until otherwise notified.”


Defendants’ orders explain that contact “can be defined as, but is not limited to”: “[w]ritten,” “[v]erbal,” “[e]lectronic,” and “[n]on-[v]erbal” communication, including mail, letters, text messages, telephone, voicemail, in person, email, social media, skype, pictures, videos, or music.


The orders also require [the students], including [one] who currently attends four courses with Ms. Doe, to “sit on opposite sides of the room” from her during class.


If [any of the CLS members] believe they have a “legitimate reason” to contact Ms. Doe, they must first obtain permission from [the school].


The orders do not have a termination date or geographic limitation.


They apply indefinitely and both on and off campus.


They also threaten [the students] with discipline.


Defendants consider any violation of the no-contact orders to be “retaliation” that could lead to “suspension” or even “expulsion.”


Defendants issued the no-contact orders with almost no process.


They did not conduct any investigation regarding whether [the students] violated any University policy.


They did not provide [the students] with notice of the allegations against them. Nor did they allow [the students] to respond to any possible complaints against them.


Rather, Defendants issued the orders because they were “requested by [Ms. Doe]” and “deemed” — in Defendants’ own estimation — “reasonable based on the information presented.”

These “no-contact” orders against the three students “violate a host of free speech and free exercise principles.… [They] target [the students’] speech because of its content and viewpoint, impose a prior restraint [on such speech], and demonstrate hostility to their religion,” according to the lawsuit.

In May, the court ordered an expedited hearing on the matter, pushing the school toward reconciliation in advance of a full-blown jury trial. Last week the school relented and acquiesced to all demands, including rescinding the orders, terminating any investigation that the school might be doing into the matter, removing any notation of the incident from the students’ records, and agreeing to stop enforcing the school policies that “restrict or punish speech based on allegations of pure speech alone that does not rise to the level of harassment.”

The school also paid $90,000 as part of the settlement.

The school didn’t offer an apology, however, but instead explained that

The settlement, for the U of I, is a business decision and in the best interest of our students, the university, and the state of Idaho.


Litigation costs money and time as well as creates the potential for ongoing trauma to students.

And then the school whined that it was operating at a disadvantage because all the facts of the matter weren’t allowed to be presented:

The university is often disadvantaged in such a case as laws prevent us from sharing the full story.

It added that the school wasn’t about teaching the law, but about making it a “safe place” for students to live while studying the law:

This case, for us, has always been about safe access to education, which is paramount.

No, said ADF’s senior counsel Tyson Langhofer:

Today’s university students will be tomorrow’s leaders, judges, and school administrators, so it’s imperative that university officials model the First Amendment freedoms they are supposed to be teaching their students.


University of Idaho administrators cannot punish students because they dislike or disagree with their deeply held beliefs — that is religious discrimination and, unfortunately, necessitate[d] this lawsuit.

Southwest Airlines Unrepentant, Vows to Appeal Judgment in Free-speech Case

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, December 9, 2022:  

In his ruling this week, U.S. District Court Judge Brantley Starr slammed Southwest Airlines: “Bags fly free with Southwest. But free speech didn’t fly at all with Southwest in this case.”

This “case” goes back to 2017, when flight attendant Charlene Carter protested her union spending her dues to transport union officials to Washington, D.C., to attend a pro-abortion march. This conflicted greatly with her Christian views of the sanctity of life, and she expressed herself on Facebook and via emails.

In February 2017, she posted a video of an aborted fetus on her Facebook page along with this: “WARNING, this is VERY GRAPHIC!! I want my tax dollars to STOP funding this … PERIOD!!!! This is MURDER.”

A week later she sent four Facebook messages to the head of the Transportation Workers Union of America (TWU), Audrey Stone. The messages included two videos of aborted fetuses, adding “This is what you supported during your paid leave with other [union members] at the Women’s March in D.C.… You truly are despicable.… By the way, [your] recall is going to happen.”

Carter, who began working for Southwest in 1996, opted out of the union in 2013 when she learned how actions of the union were violating her most cherished and deeply held Christian beliefs and principles. But she was forced to continue to pay dues to the union to keep her job.

The company brought her in for questioning over her social media posts, and a week later fired her.

Five years later, with the legal assistance of the National Right to Work Foundation, she filed suit, claiming the airline had violated her First Amendment right to free speech. In July, a federal court ruled in her favor, demanding that the airline and the union pay her more than $5 million in damages.

Carter celebrated:

Today is a victory for freedom of speech and religious beliefs. Flight attendants should have a voice and nobody should be able to retaliate against a flight attendant for engaging in protected speech against her union.


I am so humbled and thankful for today’s decision and for everyone who’s supported me these past five years, including the National Right to Work Foundation.

Her celebration was premature. In December, her award was reduced to $810,000 thanks to caps and other limitations on damages allowed by law.

But the judge ordered Southwest and the union to announce via email to every union member the results of July’s ruling against them. He also forbade both the company and the union “from discriminating against Southwest flight attendants for their religious practices and beliefs, including — but not limited to — those expressed on social media and those concerning abortion.”

Mark Mix, the president of the National Right to Work Foundation, celebrated the court’s ruling but added a warning:

Southwest and TWU union officials made Ms. Carter pay an unconscionable price just because she decided to speak out against the political activities of union officials in accordance with her deeply held religious beliefs.


This decision vindicates Ms. Carter’s rights — but it’s also a stark reminder of the retribution that union officials will mete out against employees who refuse to toe the union line.

Arielle Del Turco, assistant director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council, issued a similar note of celebration and caution:

It’s sad that Southwest Airlines had to be told by a court that someone’s exercise of free speech is not an acceptable reason to fire them.


The reality is that we live in a society that is increasingly intolerant of Christian perspectives. Carter’s win is a powerful declaration affirming First Amendment protections for those working in major corporations who don’t want to check their faith at the door.

The fight isn’t over. The company, which complained that Carter violated company policy over her posts as they implicated her as an employee of Southwest, was only too happy to let company banners and supporters march in the pro-abortion march back in 2017.

Accordingly, Southwest has vowed to continue the fight and announced its intention to file an appeal with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Free speech isn’t free. Rights not exercised are often lost. The freedom fight is never over. Our appreciation goes out to Ms. Carter for standing tall and soldiering on in the face of opposition, oppression, and criticism. She stands for all who support the right of every citizen to speak in public without fear of sanction or punishment.

Texas Methodist Churches Leave Organization Over Abortion & LGBT Agenda

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, December 8, 2022:  

Two of the four conferences that make up the United Methodist Church (UMC) in Texas were held last weekend; one in Lubbock and the other in Houston. When the dust had settled, more than 400 of the 1,300 churches represented in the conferences voted to leave the UMC.

A total of 145 of the 201 churches in the Northwest Texas Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church and 294 churches of the 598 churches in the Central Texas Conference of the UMC voted to “disaffiliate” themselves from the mother UMC church.

The split between conservatives and liberals in the UMC has widened into an unbridgeable canyon in recent years. The mother church, while theoretically still adhering to the UMC Book of Discipline, has increasingly allowed member churches to thumb their noses at it, supporting same-sex marriage, abortion, and ordination of LBGT pastors.

The Book of Discipline spells out the church’s doctrine, defining “marriage as the union of one man and one woman” and does not condone the practice of homosexuality, considering it “incompatible with Christian teaching.”

This calls to mind the first chapter the Book of Romans, where the Apostle Paul writes:

For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened….


Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another….


Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.


In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

But in its continuing effort to be “relevant” to the changing and morally declining culture, the UMC has increasingly allowed violations of its Book of Discipline to be ignored and in some cases applauded.

The exit of those 439 churches is just the beginning of the flood, according to Mark Tooley, head of the Institute on Religion & and Democracy. He puts the exit numbers over recent months from the mother church at more than 1,300 nationwide, adding, “By the end of next year, at least 3,000 and possibly 5,000 churches are expected to exit [the UMC].”

Britney Griner, writing for the Texas Tribune, was spot on as to the primary cause of the flood of Methodist churches leaving the UMC:

As the sexual revolution and other progressive social movements of the 1960s continue to flourish in more liberal parts of the country, the UMC attempted to reconcile its ranks’ divergent views on gay rights and other issues.

Back in September, 81 churches in the Central Texas Conference voted themselves out of the UMC, and 54 churches in the North Texas Conference are in the process of exiting the mother church as well.

Many of those churches exiting the UMC are affiliating with the new Global Methodist Church. Formed in May, its position on abortion is clear:

The sacredness of all life compels us to resist the practice of abortion except in the cases of tragic conflicts of life against life when the wellbeing of the mother and the child are at stake.


We do not accept abortion as a means of birth control, or gender selection.

In its zeal to be “relevant” to the sinful and morally declining culture by leaving behind the Bible and adopting that culture’s values, the UMC continues to emasculate itself into irrelevancy and oblivion.

Judge Puts Hold on Oregon Gun-control Law

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, December 7, 2022:

Within hours of receiving the complaint over Oregon’s controversial Measure 114 — one of the nation’s strictest gun-control laws — Harney County Judge Robert Raschio issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the law’s implementation scheduled for tomorrow.

Raschio ruled that under Article I of the Oregon Constitution: “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the State….” He wrote:

With implementation [of Measure 114], there are serious harms [not only to individual lawful gun owners but] to the public interest as well, which could include individuals being arrested and prosecuted for Class A misdemeanors under what could be found [later] to be an unconstitutional statutory scheme.


And that potential could happen if Ballot Measure 114 is allowed to go into effect without significant judicial scrutiny.

And then Raschio provided a mini-lesson in political philosophy, confirming the “sovereign citizen” basis upon which the state’s — and the federal — constitution is built:

And, certainly no one would argue that individual liberty is not a cornerstone of our country. First the people, then the state.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs celebrated the early victory:

On behalf of Gun Owners of America and our clients we are pleased with the decision and confident that courts will continue to see that Measure 114 is unconstitutional both because its permit to purchase scheme does not even currently exist and gives arbitrary discretion to licensing agents to deny Oregonians their constitutional rights, and [it] would prohibit the sale of most modern firearms since most are capable of being converted to hold more than 10 rounds [illegal under Measure 114].

The state’s attorney general, Ellen Rosenblum, promised to file an appeal immediately to the state’s Supreme Court to reverse Raschio’s TRO.

In a separate but related ruling, on Tuesday U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut delayed implementation of part of Measure 114 for 30 days so that the court could allow both parties to present arguments in a judicial review of the law. Although she allowed the 30-day delay because the state didn’t have the regulatory infrastructure in place to enforce the law, she wrote that the complaint, brought by the Oregon Firearms Federation, was not persuasive:

Based on the record before this Court at this early stage in the litigation, this Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden showing that they are entitled to the extraordinary relief they seek.


Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they will suffer immediate and irreparable harm if this Court does not block Measure 114 from taking effect on December 8, 2022.


Plaintiffs have not produced sufficient evidence at this stage to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their challenge to Measure 114’s restrictions on large-capacity magazines.


Plaintiffs have also failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on their facial challenge to Measure 114’s permitting provisions.

Lawyers for the Oregon Firearms Federation have their work cut out for them. They have just 30 days to prepare their clients’ case in such a way that, in the event Judge Immergut rules against them, they have sufficient and persuasive reasons to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The highest court in the land ruled in Bruen that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms outside of their home unless a government can justify infringements on that right. The high court has already ruled against California’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 cartridges.

Thus, an appeal of any of the lawsuits against Oregon’s Measure 114 now pending or about to be filed will likely find a friendly ear favoring the plaintiffs and law-abiding gun owners in the Beaver State.

SCOTUS Appears Favorable to Web Developer in Lawsuit Against Colorado Anti-discrimination law

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, December 6, 2022:  

Liberal media watching the two-and-a-half-hour oral arguments in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis on Monday concluded that Lorie Smith is likely to prevail in her preemptive lawsuit against Colorado’s anti-discrimination law and the state agency attempting to enforce it.

Reuters concluded that the high court “leans toward web designer” while Colorado’s liberal CPR News headlined: “Supreme Court seems poised to side with Colorado web Designer in 303 Creative case.” CPR reluctantly added that the high court is likely to rule “that creative businesses [like Lorie Smith’s] would be protected by the 1st Amendment.”

As The New American noted earlier, this case should never have been filed on an issue that never should have been raised, but Smith saw what was coming. Back in 2016, when Colorado’s Democrat-controlled legislature amended the “Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act”, Smith saw that her business would likely be targeted because of her Christian beliefs. That law prohibits businesses that are open to the public from denying the sale of goods or services to people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, race, creed, color, sex, age, national origin, ancestry, or religion.

On her website, Smith makes clear her position:

As a Christian who believes that God gave me the creative gifts that are expressed through this business, I have always strived to honor Him in how I operate it….


Because of my faith … I am selective about the messages that I create or promote — while I will serve anyone, I am always careful to avoid communicating ideas or messages, or promoting events, products, services, or organizations, that are inconsistent with my religious beliefs.

After lower courts rebuffed her complaint, the Supreme Court agreed to take the case. The issue before the high court is “whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”

A lower court ruled that Colorado’s civil rights commission may force Smith to develop wedding-themed websites for same-sex couples, while at the same time denying her the freedom to explain her beliefs on her own website. The lone dissenter in that ruling, the 10th Circuit Court’s Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich, called the three-judge panel’s ruling “remarkable,” adding that somehow “Colorado has a compelling interest in forcing Ms. Smith to speak a government-approved message against her religious beliefs.… No case has ever gone so far.”

The problem, wrote Kaelan Deese for the Washington Examiner,

isn’t the law itself. It’s how Colorado was applying the law to Lorie and to other artists by trying to compel their expression, and that’s simply not the way these public accommodation laws are meant to be enforced.

The “problem,” then, isn’t the law but how the civil rights commission is using it to quash her religious expression on her own website. Simply put, this is the “separation of church and state” canard taken to its logical extreme: The government is free to banish all religious expression from the culture. Lorie Smith was just the most recent example of the commission’s pursuit of that outcome.

When Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson tried to differentiate Smith’s business from that of a freelance speech writer, Justice Neil Gorsuch took Smith’s position:

What she has said [is] I will not sell to anyone a message that I disagree with as a matter of my religious faith, just as a speech writer says or a free-lance writer says, I will not sell to anyone a speech that offends my religious beliefs.

The clash between the culture and religion, expressed during the oral arguments on Monday, appeared in stark relief among those who took sides. On Lorie’s side are the Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Cato Institute, while those taking Colorado’s side included the Biden administration, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

Outside the Supreme Court building, the clash was even starker. On one side advocates for Smith carried blue and white balloons that read “Create Freely 303 Creative” while those on the other side were members of the American Atheists and the Satanic church carrying signs that read “Racist, Sexist, Anti-Gay, Christian Fascists go Away!”

The high court will issue its ruling in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis next June.

NRA Files Lawsuit Against Oregon Gun-control Law

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, December 5, 2022:

A third lawsuit challenging Oregon’s Measure 114 was filed on Thursday by the Oregon State Shooting Association, the state’s affiliate of the National Rifle Association (NRA).

As The New American noted regarding the requirements of Measure 114,

Anyone who wishes to purchase a firearm would first have to gain permission to do so by paying a fee of $65, completing an application, attending an “approved” firearms safety course at his own expense, submitting a photo ID and fingerprints, and then passing an in-depth background check that includes questions about his mental health.

Regrettably, the lawsuit filed on Thursday reveals that the “permission process” is vastly more complex than reported:

Measure 114 imposes severe and unprecedented burdens on individuals seeking to exercise perhaps the most basic right guaranteed by the Second Amendment: the right to lawfully acquire a firearm.


Although Measure 114 bills itself as creating a “shall issue” licensing regime that awards applicants a five-year “permit-to-purchase” firearms, in reality it erects a Kafkaesque regime that finds no support in history, tradition, or even modern regulation and that suffers from literally every defect the Supreme Court just identified as antithetical to the Second Amendment.


Under Measure 114, an individual must obtain a “permit-to-purchase” before she may acquire a firearm by any means. Obtaining this permit is no mean feat. To start, before an individual can even submit an application for the new permit, she first must complete a “firearms training course” that satisfies various strict new criteria…. But the state does not provide any such courses, and none that satisfies its demanding new criteria currently exists.


Even if one managed to take this as-yet-non-existent course, there would still be many hurdles yet to clear. Next up is submitting to fingerprinting and photographing by the sheriff or police chief, who must then ask the Department of State Police (“DSP”) to conduct a criminal background check…. That alone could delay any ability to exercise Second Amendment rights indefinitely, since Measure 114 neither imposes any time constraint on DSP to conduct the check nor creates a mechanism to force DSP to act.

Space does not permit listing the additional requirements to obtain permission to exercise a Second Amendment right, but the lawsuit sums it up nicely:

The net result is that, come just one week from now [Thursday, December 8], no one will be able to lawfully purchase a firearm in Oregon. [Emphasis in original.]

That’s how Oregon voters responded to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen: by embracing one of the strictest gun laws in the nation instead of celebrating the high court’s affirmation of the Second Amendment.

Last Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut heard two hours of arguments in the first lawsuit brought against the Oregon gun-control law, filed by the Oregon Firearms Federation. She said she will rule shortly on the matter, likely before the law becomes effective.

Judge Immergut is going to be busy. A fourth lawsuit against the gun-control law was filed late Friday, by Sportsmen’s Warehouse, and other lawsuits are pending.


Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.
Copyright © 2021 Bob Adelmann