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

Category Archives: Constitution

A District Judge from Wisconsin Unwittingly Exposes the Threat to our Republic

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, March 13, 2020:

A liberal judge, Lynn S. Adelman (no relative of this writer), District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, has unwittingly served the cause of freedom by exposing the courts’ threat to it over the years.

In his “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy,” Adelman reveals what happens when one is subjected to the kind of thinking and teaching that passes for education in law schools like Princeton and Columbia. His article is due to be published by the Harvard Law & Policy Review and has already received plaudits from the usual sources: the Washington PostSlate, and the American Bar Association.

He exposes his intellectual addiction to the fiction that the founders intended to construct a democracy by complaining that the Roberts Court is doing what it can to restore originalism.

He begins with a frontal attack on the character of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts:

Keep reading…

Wisconsin District Judge Attacks Supreme Court’s Restoration of Originalism

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, March 12, 2020: 

Most of the criticism leveled against U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Lynn S. Adelman’s article — “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy” — focused on the judge’s support of positions that Socialist Bernie Sanders would embrace: free health insurance for everyone, voting rights for everyone including illegals, prohibiting corporations from supporting political positions financially, taking political redistricting away from local jurisdictions, and so forth.

But a closer look at his 35-page article to be published shortly by the Harvard Law & Policy Review reveals a basic misunderstanding of the political structure that the Founders attempted to create through the U.S. Constitution.

Adelman (no relation to this writer) opens with a bald attack on the character of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts:

Keep reading…

Missouri House Committee Passes “Second Amendment Preservation Act”

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, March 11, 2020: 

On Monday the Missouri House General Laws Committee approved House Bill 1637 — the “Second Amendment Preservation Act” — and referred it to the full house with a “do pass” recommendation. The bill has more than 80 sponsors, enough to pass the bill.

The bill, if it became law in Missouri, would prohibit any person, including any public officer or employee of the state, from enforcing any past, present, or future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules or regulations” that infringe on the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms.

The bill defines “infringement” as taxes and fees on firearms, accessories, or ammunition; registration or other schemes devised to track the ownership of firearms; any act that forbids the possession, use, or transfer of a firearm or its accessories or ammunition; or any act that orders the confiscation of firearms or its accessories or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

That would include President Trump’s “bump stock” ban and any federally mandated “red flag” laws. It also pertains to any federal agents who try to enforce those laws in Missouri.

The knee-jerk reaction from the Michael Bloomberg-funded anti-gun group Moms Demand Action was predictable, and wrong:

Keep reading…

It’s Been a Long Five Years for Coach Kennedy

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, March 11, 2020: 

For Joe Kennedy, the former coach of Washington’s Bremerton High Junior Varsity football team, it’s been a long five years. He coached the team from 2008 until his contract wasn’t renewed in 2015. For those seven years, after every game, he would take 15 seconds to go out to the 50-yard line and pray for his players.

And for seven years nobody minded. Nobody said anything. Nobody sued. Nobody even threatened to sue.

But when a school administrator paid a public compliment for how the coach was positively impacting the lives of his players, the school board told Kennedy to stop. When he didn’t, the board decided not to renew his contract.

Kennedy enlisted the help of First Liberty, a non-profit public interest law firm that specializes in such First Amendment cases. Together they sued the board, claiming it violated his First Amendment rights. And they lost.

So they appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. And they lost again. So they appealed to the Supreme Court. And lost. But with a disclaimer: there were enough loose ends to the case that needed to be resolved at the lower court’s level to keep the court from reviewing Kennedy’s claim.

In the Supreme Court’s denial in January 2019, Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh added a statement to the public record, explaining that “important unresolved factual questions would make it very difficult if not impossible at this stage to decide the free speech question that [Kennedy] asks us to review.”

The justices then excoriated the Ninth Circuit Court’s reasoning: “The Ninth Circuit’s opinion applies our decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos to public school teachers and coaches in a high tendentious [i.e., biased] way.”

That decision ruled that statements made by public employees in the normal conduct of their official duties are not protected by the First Amendment. It ruled that public employees are not speaking as citizens when they are speaking to fulfill a responsibility of their job. It held that the First Amendment does not prevent employees from being disciplined for making statements that are made “pursuant” to their professional duties.

But the Ninth Circuit stretched that ruling out of all recognition, according to the justices:

Keep reading…

Football Coach Fired for Praying Likely To Get Case Reviewed by Supreme Court

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, March 10, 2020: 

U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Leighton ruled against Bremerton High School’s football coach Joe Kennedy last week, saying that “although the Court is sympathetic to Kennedy’s desire to follow his beliefs, the former must give way to the latter in this case.” The “latter” to which Leighton referred is the right of Bremerton High School to fire the coach when he took 15 seconds at the end of a football game to pray for his players on the 50-yard line.

Kennedy coached the school’s JV football team for seven years, and for seven years he took time after each game to pray for his players. And for seven years nobody minded. Nobody said anything. Nobody sued. Nobody even threatened to sue.

But when a school administrator paid a public compliment for how the coach was positively impacting the lives of his players, the school board told Kennedy to stop. When he didn’t, the board decided not to renew his contract.

Kennedy enlisted the help of First Liberty, a non-profit public-interest law firm that specializes in such First Amendment cases. Together they sued the board, claiming it violated his First Amendment-protected rights. And they lost.

So they appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. And they lost again. So they appealed to the Supreme Court. And lost, but with a caveat: There were enough loose ends to the case that needed to be resolved at the lower court’s level to keep the court from reviewing Kennedy’s claim.

In the Supreme Court’s denial in January 2019, Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh added a statement to the public record, explaining that

Keep reading…

Brett Kavanaugh About to Prove His Constitutional Mettle

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, March 4, 2020: 

Back in 2016, when Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a minority opinion he wrote this about Senator Elizabeth Warren’s evil brainchild, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: “When measured in terms of unilateral power, the Director of the CFPB is the single most powerful official in the entire U.S. Government, other than the President. Indeed, within his jurisdiction, the Director of the CFPB can be considered even more powerful than the President.”

Kavanaugh added that “independent agencies collectively constitute, in effect, a headless fourth branch of the U.S. government. They hold enormous power and in the absence of Presidential supervision and direction, independent agencies [such as the CFPB] pose a significant threat to individual liberty and to the constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances.”

Now he has the opportunity to declare the CFPB unconstitutional, and fire the first round in the war against all other agencies that violate the U.S. Constitution.

Calling it the most important case of the year, the Wall Street Journal urged the Supreme Court to declare the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) unconstitutional. The justices began hearing arguments on the matter on Tuesday morning.

The agency, the brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren, was specifically and intentionally designed not only to be independent of Congress and the President but also to

Keep reading…

Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today on Critical Separation of Powers Case

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, March 3, 2020: 

Calling it the most important case of the year, the Wall Street Journal urged the Supreme Court to declare the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) unconstitutional. The justices began hearing arguments on the matter on Tuesday morning.

The agency, the brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), was specifically and intentionally designed not only to be independent of Congress and the president but also to gather unto itself all three separate powers inimical to the U.S. Constitution: law-maker, judge, and enforcer. To make matters worse, the agency is funded by the Federal Reserve rather than Congress, thus avoiding Congressional oversight. It resides in the Eccles Building, which also houses the Fed, and is run by a single dictator who cannot be fired except for cause.

The agency was included in Dodd-Frank, the bill Congress passed following the 2008 financial crisis. It immediately began harassing legitimate businesses by issuing rules and then finding companies that violated them. Once found, they would be threatened with outrageous fines.

One of its victims, a sole practitioner law firm that specializes in consumer lending, received a demand that it turn over its records in order to determine if it had violated certain telemarketing rules the agency had written. The owner, Aissac Aiono, refused. The head of the agency pressed the matter. Aiono sued, claiming that the agency, and its titular head, was unconstitutional since it violated the separation of powers doctrine inherent in the U.S. Constitution.

That case, Seila Law v. CFPB, is now being heard by the Supreme Court.

The New American exposed the CFPB in June 2018 when its acting director, Mick Mulvaney, culled the agency’s board of directors by firing all 25 of them. Mulvaney, a Trump appointee, called the agency a “sad, sick joke” and “essentially a one-person dictatorship.” There is no congressional oversight on its activities, it writes its own laws, it investigates any violations of those laws and then fines those who have violated them. In simple terms, Warren’s brainchild is, as it was designed to be, a rogue agency.

Aiono, with the help of a number of other attorneys, crafted the brief, noting in particular that the president can’t fire the head of the agency except for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

When a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in 2016 that the structure of the CFPB was unconstitutional, then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote: “When measured in terms of unilateral power, the Director of the CFPB is the single most powerful official in the entire U.S. Government, other than the President. Indeed, within his jurisdiction, the Director of the CFPB can be considered even more powerful than the President.”

Kavanaugh added that “independent agencies collectively constitute, in effect, a headless fourth branch of the U.S. government. Because of their massive power and the absence of Presidential supervision and direction, independent agencies pose a significant threat to individual liberty and to the constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances.”

The Court has three options. It may simply rule that the agency’s demand for documents from Aiono’s law firm is invalid and unenforceable. It may eliminate the “for cause” provision from the law, thus allowing the president to fire the director “at will” instead.

Or, the Court can declare the entire agency unconstitutional, invalidating the entire statute that created the agency.

The Journal is recommending the third option: “Tossing the whole law would invalidate all CFPB actions to date,” including its demand for documents from Aiono’s law firm. After all, wrote the Journal in its editorial, “the Court also did this when it overturned Barack Obama’s illegal recess appointments [in 2014].… If the current Court is serious about reviving the original meaning of the separation of powers, the CFPB is an ideal opportunity to send a shot heard ’round Washington.”

It will also present an “ideal opportunity” for now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to apply the same thinking he did in 2016 to the present case and declare that the rogue agency is unconstitutional. If he can persuade a majority of justices to agree, then perhaps this “shot heard ’round Washington” might be the opening round in the war to restore the Constitution to its rightful place as the supreme law of the land. Once this specific cancer is excised, then other agencies could be subjected to the same analysis and conclusion.

When Will the Supreme Court Rule on Unconstitutional Red Flag Laws?

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, February 28, 2020: 

With more than a dozen states passing so-called “red flag” laws – aka ERPOs or Extreme Risk Protection Orders – the question is more relevant than ever: when is the Supreme Court going to rule on their constitutionality?

Connecticut was the first state to impose such a law on its citizenry 20 years ago, and an appellate court ruled it to be constitutional. Since then? Nothing but silence.

But things are heating up in New Mexico that just might force the issue: the governor expects local sheriffs to enforce her shiny new unconstitutional red flag law, but the sheriffs are refusing to do so.

What if she presses the matter?

Upon signing into law Senate Bill 5 – the state’s version of an ERPO or “red flag” law – on Tuesday, New Mexico Governor Michelle Grisham claimed that “this law is sensible and balanced. It is a good public safety measure. If it saves even one life, and it will, we will have done good work here.”

Not if those good intentions violate the U.S. Constitution, say the sheriffs she is counting on to enforce it. Sheriff of Cibola County Tony Mace is also chairman of the New Mexico Sheriffs Association. In a public statement, he made clear that sheriffs don’t work for the state, the governor, or the legislature:

Keep reading…

New Mexico Governor: Sheriffs Should Enforce Red Flag Law or Resign

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, February 27, 2020: 

Upon signing into law Senate Bill 5 — an ERPO or “red flag” law — on Tuesday, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham claimed that “this law is sensible and balanced. It is a good public safety measure. If it saves even one life, and it will, we will have done good work here.”

Not if those good intentions violate the U.S. Constitution, say the sheriffs she is counting on to enforce it. Sheriff of Cibola County Tony Mace is also chairman of the New Mexico Sheriffs Association. In a public statement, he made it clear that sheriffs don’t work for the state, the governor, or the legislature: “The sheriff is elected by the people within a sovereign state and county to protect and serve all people within the county.… [He] swears a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States as well as the Constitution and laws of the state of New Mexico, in that order of precedence.”

And he and his association think that the red flag law doesn’t conform to either constitution:

Modern “Red Flag Laws” deny responsible gun owners notice or a chance to defend themselves against an initial confiscation order….

 

Citizens have a right to bear arms and we cannot circumvent that right when they have not even committed a crime or even been accused of committing one. “Shall not be infringed” is a very clear and concise component of an Amendment that our forefathers felt was important enough to be recognized immediately following freedom of speech and religion.

 

We sheriffs have sworn to uphold those and other God-given rights for our citizens at all costs.

In response, Governor Lujan Grisham told reporters that the sheriffs “cannot not enforce. And if they really intend to do that, they should resign as a law enforcement officer and leader in that community.”

Lea County Sheriff Corey Helton is one of dozens of sheriffs who have signed a resolution drafted by the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. Regarding the newly minted red flag law, he said, “I’m proud to say I’m a constitutional sheriff and I’m just not going to enforce an unconstitutional law. My oath prevents me from doing that.”

That resolution holds that

Keep reading…

Obama Judge in California Rules Against Gig Economy

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, February 18 , 2020: 

The ruling denying injunctive relief to Uber and Postmates and their drivers from California’s onerous, and likely unconstitutional, law AB 5 by Obama-appointed judge Dolly Gee last week illustrates why such judges holding for unions and the state need to be replaced.

The bill was supported by unions and the state of California for obvious reasons. The unions hated the competition, and the state needed the tax revenues that would be generated by turning freelancers into employees.

Proponents said gig workers would benefit from minimum-wage laws imposed on employees, and they would now have sick-leave coverage and unemployment insurance, along with other benefits. And the state would gain an estimated $8 billion from payroll taxes that gig operators such as Uber and Postmates and their independent contractors weren’t currently paying.

Opponents pointed out the obvious: Most gig workers don’t want to be employees. Most like the freedom associated with the gig economy, such as setting their own hours. And customers and consumers enjoy the better service and lower costs associated with services such as Uber and Postmates when compared to taxi drivers and FedEx, UPS, and the U.S. Postal Service. They predicted that once the law became effective on January 1, many of those freelancers would be out of work.

It’s already happening.

As The New American pointed out, Vox Media (which interestingly supported AB 5) has canceled its contracts with about 200 freelance writers and replaced them with just 20 new part-time and full-time employees.

Thomas Cushman, a commercial fisherman, has seen the law force his business to stop paying his crew:

Keep reading…

Virginia House Passes Bill Banning Possession of AR-15 Style Semi-automatic Rifles

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, February 12, 2020:

In a rush to beat a Tuesday deadline, the Virginia House Democrats passed a bill banning possession of “assault”-style weapons by innocent Virginians, including the popular AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle.

The bill also makes it a felony (punishable by up to five years in jail) to import, sell, transfer, manufacture, purchase, possess, or transport “large capacity magazines, silencers, and trigger activators [bump stocks].” In addition, the bill also forbids any formerly law-abiding Virginian from carrying a shotgun with a “magazine that will hold more than seven rounds of the longest ammunition.”

It further infringes on rights of Virginians by requiring formerly law-abiding citizens owning the soon-to-be outlawed firearms to obtain a permit to possess them “in accordance with procedures established in the bill.”

The bill now moves to the Democrat-controlled Senate, where passage is expected.

Democrats used the mass shooting that took place in Virginia Beach in May 2019 as cover for their egregious infringements of the Second Amendment. Missing from any of the arguments supporting the bill was

Keep reading…

How My Fight for Student-Led Prayer Took Me to the White House

This article was first published at The Daily Signal on January 29, 2020. It was written by Chase Windebank, a high school student attending Pine Creek High School in Colorado Springs. 

How does a young man find himself standing behind the president of the United States in the Oval Office of the White House?

I invited a friend to pray with me.

Actually, I invited several friends during my freshman year at Pine Creek High School in Colorado Springs, Colorado. We had a free period in the middle of the school day. A lot of my classmates used the time to just hang out, or to text or talk about their plans for the weekend.

I thought it might be a good time to find an empty room and a few good friends who would enjoy praying together and encouraging one another in our shared faith.

We did that for three years. Gradually, word got around, and more and more young people joined us.

By the time I was a senior, some 90 other students were in that room twice a week. We enjoyed a strong sense of community as we met to pray for each other, our teachers and school, and even our nation.

During my senior year, however, something changed.

Keep reading…

How Will Virginia Enforce Its New Unconstitutional Gun Laws?

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, February 5, 2020: 

Now that the newly compliant Democrat-controlled legislature in Richmond, Virginia has passed most of Democrat Governor Ralph Northam’s gun controls, he faces the next challenge: how to enforce them.

He says he’s up to the challenge.

Following the Democrat Party’s takeover of both houses in Virginia last November, the party gained control of both the legislature and the governor’s mansion for the first time in a generation. Gun owners awakened, saw what was coming and pressured nearly all of the state’s counties and many of its cities to pass “Second Amendment sanctuary” resolutions. These were passed to protest the coming abrogation of their rights by politicians in Richmond, the state’s capitol.

The governor’s spokeswoman Alena Yarmosky, referring specifically to one of those bills (making it a felony for a gun owner to “recklessly leave a loaded, unsecured firearm” in a way that endangers a minor) said “This bill will keep children safe from loaded, unsecured firearms.” She added that this “is something that everyone … should support.”

But what if they don’t? Will those resolutions keep Governor Ralph Northam from enforcing them anyway?

When he was asked, Northam said they will be enforced, and any law enforcement officer, including county sheriffs, who doesn’t will face “consequences”:

Keep reading…

How Will Virginia’s New Gun-control Laws Be Enforced?

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, February 4, 2020: 

Following the Democrat Party’s takeover of both houses in Virginia last November, the party gained control of both the Legislature and the Governor’s Mansion for the first time in a generation. Gun owners awakened, saw what was coming, and pressured nearly all of the state’s counties and many of its cities to pass “Second Amendment sanctuary” resolutions. These were passed to protest the coming abrogation of their rights by politicians in Richmond, the state’s capitol.

When speaking about a bill that would make it a felony for a gun owner to “recklessly leave a loaded, unsecured firearm” in a way that endangers a minor, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s spokeswoman Alena Yarmosky said, “This bill will keep children safe from loaded, unsecured firearms.” She added that the bill “is something that everyone … should support.”

But what if everyone doesn’t support the bill, or any of the new gun-control legislation? Will those Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions keep Governor Northam from enforcing them anyway?

When he was asked, Northam said the new gun-control measures will be enforced, and any law-enforcement officer, including county sheriffs, who doesn’t enforce them will face “consequences”:

Keep reading…

The Supreme Court’s Decision in Citizens United 10 Years Ago Has Strengthened the Republic

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, January 29, 2020: 

The issue of free speech came to a head more than 10 years ago when a conservative political advocacy group wanted to air a program detailing the shady dealings and dark background of Hillary Clinton just before the 2008 presidential election. Titled “Hillary: the Movie” it detailed her political chicanery and exploits ranging from Whitewater to her cattle futures investment “success.” A lawsuit was brought, claiming the effort to inform violated existing election laws. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled those laws violated Citizens United’s First Amendment right to free speech.

Predictions that that decision by the Supreme Court would allow “dark money” to invade and take over the political process in the United States have failed to materialize. Instead the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech has been strengthened in the political arena, to the benefit of the Republic.

Some Democrats still haven’t gotten the memo. Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.) declared just last week that, “Ten years after Citizens United our democracy has reached a crisis point. Just look at the ever-increasing amount of secret money flooding [into] our elections.” The New York Times whined at the time of the ruling that the decision “paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections … thrust[ing] politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century.”

Udall didn’t bother to check his facts, and the Times is silent over the failure of its gloomy prediction.

Keep reading…

Backdoor Attack on Second Amendment Through Credit Card Transactions

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, January 27, 2020: 

Representative Jennifer Wexton (D-Va.) has devised another way to attack the rights of law-abiding gun owners: tracking their purchases of firearms using credit cards.

The core of her bill (H.R. 5132, the Gun Violence Prevention Through Financial Intelligence Act) seems, on the surface, innocuous enough:

To request information for financial institutions for the purpose of developing an advisory about the identification and reporting of suspicious activity … relating to how homegrown violent extremists and perpetrators of domestic terrorism procure firearms … for the purpose of carrying out “lone actor” or “lone wolf” acts of terror within the United States.

Said Wexton when introducing her bill:

Keep reading…

The Real Reactionaries Are Anti-gun Politicians Who Seek to Punish Law-abiding Citizens for Criminals’ Lawlessness

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, January 27,  2020: 

“If a crime involves the use of a firearm, it must be the firearm’s fault” is almost the automatic reaction of anti-gun politicians plagued by crime in their jurisdictions. Since guns were involved in all three of the shootings that occurred in Seattle, Washington last week, politicians are threatening to infringe further on law-abiding gun owners’ precious rights in retaliation.

Following the third shooting in Seattle in as many days, Mayor Jenny Durkan said “We will not allow this to be the new normal. We know gun violence is preventable and are taking urgent action.”

A similar statement was issued by Congressional Representative Democrat Pramila Jayapal, who pointed to the need for stronger gun controls.

The shooting Wednesday night in front of a McDonald’s located in Seattle’s high crime area was gang-related. One of the three thugs was wounded while the other two bolted but were later apprehended by police. Seven bystanders caught in the crossfire following an argument were either killed or wounded.

The thug who was wounded, 21-year-old Jamel Jackson, was booked into jail for unlawful possession of a firearm following being treated at a local hospital. The other two who bolted from the scene

Keep reading…

Seattle Politicos Call for More Gun Control Following Third Shooting in Three Days

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, January 24, 2020: 

Following the third shooting in Seattle in as many days, Mayor Jenny Durkan said on Thursday, “We will not allow this to be the new normal. We know gun violence is preventable and are taking urgent action.”

A similar statement was issued by Representative Democrat Pramila Jayapal, who pointed to the need for stronger gun control.

The shooting Wednesday night in front of a McDonald’s located in Seattle’s high-crime area was gang-related. One of the three thugs was wounded, while the other two bolted but were later apprehended by police. Seven bystanders caught in the crossfire following an argument were either killed or wounded.

The thug who was wounded, 21-year-old Jamel Jackson, was booked into jail for unlawful possession of a firearm following being treated at a local hospital. The other two who bolted from the scene were captured shortly afterwards. Between the three of them, they have a history of more than 65 arrests for numerous felonies and misdemeanors and yet, despite Seattle’s strict gun controls, they were able to obtain the firearms they used in the gang war.

Marquise Latrelle Tolbert has been arrested 21 times, convicted of three felonies and 12 gross misdemeanors. William Ray Tolliver has been arrested 44 times, convicted of one felony, 18 gross misdemeanors, and one misdemeanor. Both are 24 years old.

Police Chief Carmen Best said the shooting was

Keep reading…

Critics of “Red Flag” Laws Said They Would Be Abused, and so They Are

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, January 22, 2020: 

From the beginning, critics of “red flag” laws have warned about their potential abuse by people seeking to harass, intimidate, and punish perceived enemies who legally own firearms without having to charge them with a crime. ERPOs (extreme risk protection orders) avoid the necessity of having to conform to the U.S. Constitution’s 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments. These guarantee “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures … and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause.” They further mandate that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

Red flag laws have turned these guarantees on their heads, as explained by Raheem Williams. Writing for the Foundation of Economic Education, Williams noted:

Keep reading…

Judge Denies Red Flag Demand Because Petitioner Lied

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, January 21, 2020: 

Chief Judge Stephen Howard in Fort Collins, Colorado, last Thursday denied a “red flag” (aka “extreme risk protection order,” or ERPO) petition from Susan Holmes against a police officer because she lied on the form. It was the fifth petition to be filed since January 1, when Colorado’s new “red flag” law became effective.

Holmes thought she could use the new law to punish the police officer who shot and killed her son in self-defense in 2017. She’s been carrying a grudge ever since.

Back in 2017, Susan, the mother of 19-year-old Jeremy, called the police because Jeremy was threatening to kill his brother. When Colorado State University (CSU) police officer Phillip Morris and his partner confronted Jeremy, they demanded that he put down the knife he was brandishing. The video from the body cam Morris was wearing can be viewed online. In a span of less than two minutes, Morris demanded that Jeremy put down his knife more than 30 times. Jeremy can be heard saying that he didn’t want to live and asking the officers to shoot him. When Morris started to reholster his sidearm in order to access his Taser, Jeremy ran toward Morris. Four rounds were fired by the officers, and Jeremy was dead.

Ever since then,

Keep reading…

Many of the articles on Light from the Right first appeared on either The New American or the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor.
Copyright © 2020 Bob Adelmann