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

California, LA County Pay $800K to Grace Community Church Over COVID Lawsuit

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, September 2, 2021:  

The statement from Los Angeles County’s attorneys announcing its settlement with Pastor John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church said nothing about the underlying issues. It only said it was withdrawing from the field of battle and paying MacArthur’s church $800,000 to please go away:

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled [in February] that some public health safety measures could not apply to houses of worship, resolving this litigation is the responsible and appropriate thing to do.

When elders of Grace decided in July 2020 to reopen their church for indoor worship, they knew it would rouse the ire of LA County health officials who had banned such worship, using COVID as cover for their illegal and unconstitutional mandates. They prepared for the battle, issuing a statement that said:

While civil government is invested with divine authority to rule the state [no authority exists which] grants civic rulers jurisdiction over the church.

 

God has established three institutions within human society: the family, the state, and the church.

 

Each institution has a sphere of authority with jurisdictional limits that must be respected….

 

Government is specifically tasked with the oversight and protection of civic peace and well-being within the boundaries or a nation….

 

God has not granted civic rules authority oved the doctrine, practice, or polity of the Church….

 

Government officials have no right to interfere in ecclesiastical matters in a way that undermines or disregards the God-given authority of pastors and elders.

Those government officials demanded under penalty of fines and imprisonment that church officials stop indoor services immediately.

The church ignored the demands and instead filed suit against those officials, claiming they were violating the church’s rights to free speech and free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. The church also claimed it was being discriminated against, as those mandates weren’t being applied equally to secular institutions and organizations.

Sure enough, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled in favor of those government officials. The church refused to follow that ruling, and in November, the county went to court.

The church’s attorneys made the persuasive case to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff that the lower court’s ruling couldn’t be enforced until the constitutionality of those mandates had been decided.

And there matters stood until February, when the Supreme Court ruled that most (not all) of those mandates were indeed unconstitutional.

Jenna Ellis, the lead attorney helping Pastor MacArthur’s church fight against the state, rejoiced:

We are very pleased to see Pastor MacArthur and Grace Community Church’s First Amendment protections fully vindicated in this case.

 

It has been a hard-fought battle to preserve religious liberty and we hope that this result will encourage Californians, and all Americans, to continue to stand firm that church is essential.

Lacking further evidence in this case, Ellis’ rejoicing appears to be premature. There was no ruling by a court that the state’s officials were out of bounds constitutionally. There was no admission of guilt by those officials. There appears to be nothing in the record that resolves the conflict between church and state.

Both parties, given the ruling by the Supreme Court (half-hearted that it was), decided to withdraw from the contest, leaving the underlying issue unresolved.

Supreme Court Inaction Grants Major Pro-Life Win

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, September 1, 2021:  

By allowing the midnight deadline for Texas’ Heartbeat Act to pass without taking action against it, the Supreme Court has granted an enormously important win for pro-life advocates in America.

Under the law, which became effective at midnight, no Texas physician may now “knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child … or failed to perform [such] a test.”

This is strikingly similar to other states’ “heartbeat laws,” but with this difference: Planned Parenthood and pro-abortion activists cannot sue to stop it from going into effect. That’s because “any person … may bring a civil action against” physicians or others providing such now-illegal abortion services. Such a person, prevailing in court against a physician or other abortion provider, will be granted damages of not less than $10,000 for each abortion performed that violates the law, plus court costs and attorneys’ fees.

Pro-abortion Vox claimed the law was “drafted to intentionally frustrate lawsuits challenging its constitutionality.” And the consequences are unequivocally enormous:

The stakes in this case are astronomical. Six weeks into a pregnancy is often very soon after a pregnant person misses their first menstrual period. So they may not even be aware that they are pregnant until it is too late.

 

According to the abortion providers who are suing to block SB 8, at least 85 percent of abortions in Texas take place after the sixth week of pregnancy. Those abortions are now illegal under SB 8.

Even before the passing of the midnight deadline all 11 of Texas’ Planned Parenthood clinics stopped scheduling abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy in mid-August. Other abortion providers, frightened of the financial and public relations costs, “will,” lamented Vox, “almost certainly cease doing so” now that the Heartbeat Law is in force.

As Vox noted, “If no state official [can be] charged with enforcing the law, there’s no one to sue in order to block the law. Checkmate, libs!”

Pro-abortion mouthpiece the Washington Post noted that “the law effectively eliminates the guarantee in Roe v. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court decisions that women have a right to [abortion] before viability.”

The Texas Heartbeat Law sets the stage for the next act: the Supreme Court’s consideration of the Mississippi heartbeat law — Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. That state’s law is similar to Texas’ except it prohibits abortions after 15 weeks of gestation.

It also will likely give great encouragement to those states whose “heartbeat laws” have been tossed by courts that claimed they violated the precedents set by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and Casey.

The die is cast. Claimed Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, “Roe is grievously wrong for many reasons, but the most fundamental is that its core holding — that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to abort her unborn child — finds no support in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. The idea that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment understood the Due Process Clause to protect a right to abortion is farcical.”

In the long war the elites and the abortion industry have conducted against the Constitution and the Declaration (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life…”), and by inference the Creator of life Himself, the passing of the midnight deadline for the Texas Heartbeat Law is one of the most important battles that pro-life forces have won.

Now it’s up to the Supreme Court to confirm it in Dobbs, to be decided by June 2022.

Harvard Unanimously Names Atheist as Chief Chaplain

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, August 27, 2021: 

Harvard University has completed the circle. Founded as a religious educational institution in 1636 (and named for Pastor John Harvard), the school trained its students to become pastors with a Puritan perspective. The school’s original motto was, “Truth for Christ and the Church.”

On Thursday, the school discarded any remaining links to that past by unanimously naming Greg Epstein as chief chaplain, who will oversee 30 other chaplains of various disciplines and traditions.

Epstein received his ordination as a Humanist Rabbi from the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism in 2005. He also holds B.A. and M.A. degrees from the University of Michigan as well as a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School.

The author of Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe, Epstein describes his role: “I combine Jewish culture with the belief that this [observable] world is all we have.” Because so many incoming students hold the same view — about 40 percent of them consider themselves as either agnostic (not sure about God) or atheist (sure that He doesn’t exist) — Epstein’s role is to “minister” and “converse” with them about how to become a good person without recognizing the role of the Creator:

There is a rising group of people who no longer identify with any religious tradition but still experience a real need for conversation and support around what it means to be a good human and live an ethical life.

He told the New York Times that “we don’t look to a god for answers. We are each other’s answers.”

That means that in his role as counselor without God, he (according to the Times) “frequently meets individually with students who are struggling with issues both personal and theological, counseling them on managing anxiety about summer jobs, family feuds, the pressures of social media and the turbulence endemic to college life.” He does this through his “positive belief in tolerance, community, morality, and good without having to rely on the guidance of a higher being, according to the flyleaf of his book ‘Good Without God.’”

How is that working out? Ask U.S. Representative Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), who was removed from a panel by the “tolerant” university for her views on the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Or consider the petition Harvard students have presented to ban any Trump administration alumni from speaking or teaching at the school.

In this sinful and declining world, Epstein is looking in all the wrong places for answers to questions such as these. The Apostle Paul explained in his letter to the Romans (Chapter 3):

For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

 

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar.

He added that every individual is a sinner, without exception:

Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

 

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

 

There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

 

They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

 

Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

 

Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

 

Their feet are swift to shed blood:

 

Destruction and misery are in their ways:

 

And the way of peace have they not known:

 

There is no fear of God before their eyes….

 

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

That understanding undergirded the beliefs of our nation’s Founders as they strove to build a limited government that would allow maximum freedom for citizens whom they considered to be sovereign, instead of government. “Our Constitution,” wrote President John Adams, “was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any another.”

In his Farewell Address, President George Washington was clear:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports….

 

Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.

 

Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure [a “humanist rabbi”?], reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It may fairly be stated, then, that any deliberate intentional removal of God as creator of the universe from the instruction of young minds is an attack on the very foundations of the American Republic. King David asked, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

David provided the answer: God will not long be mocked by those posing as chaplains without acknowledging Him:

The LORD is in His holy temple.

The LORD is on His heavenly throne.

 

His eyes are watching closely;

 

they examine the sons of men.

 

The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked;

 

His soul hates the lover of violence.

 

On the wicked He will rain down fiery coals and sulfur;

 

a scorching wind will be their portion.

 

For the LORD is righteous; He loves justice.

 

The upright will see His face.

“Chaplain” Epstein, when he comes face to face with his Creator, is going to have some serious explaining to do.

Angry and Organized Voters Set to Recall California Governor Gavin Newsom

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, August 25, 2021:  

With just 24 percent of California’s voters registered as Republicans, one would assume that Governor Gavin Newsom will easily survive the recall election set for September 14.

Maybe not.

Nearly eight out of 10 of those Republicans are galvanized into action, while Democrats are remaining complacent. After all, California is the bluest of blue states. Why worry?

Katie Merrill, a Berkeley-based Democrat strategist, is worried: “I think, right now, if the election were held today, we’d probably have [just] a 30 percent turnout. That’s problematic.” She added, “Every poll has shown that the voters that are most engaged in the race right now are the ones who want to recall Gavin Newsom.”

Newsom’s shutdown of the state, bankrupting millions of small businesses, is just one reason why it’s likely that it will only take a third of those voting in the recall election to determine his future. It’s a case of organization versus complacency.

Said pollster Adam Probolsky, “It may sound silly to some people, but there is probably a large portion of the electorate that is quite uninterested in this election. They’ve heard something about a recall, something about Republicans being angry. But they’re not really engaged at all.”

It’s also a case of organization. Those angry voters — Republican, Democrat and Independent — have for months focused on a single theme: Remove Newsom from office. That is why more than 1.7 million of them were able to put Newsom’s future on the ballot — far more than the number needed.

Panic has set in, and the attacks on Newsom’s leading Republican opponent, talk-show host Larry Elder, have ramped up.

The incumbent governor has warned:

[Elder is] to the right of Donald Trump. To the right of Donald Trump. That’s what’s at stake in this election and don’t think for a second you can’t do damage in that role.

 

Think about the judges he could appoint. Who would he have appointed to replace Kamala Harris in the Senate? How would that impact the trajectory of this country?

 

What would that mean for the future of the Democratic Party in our efforts to keep the House of Representatives?

Newsom’s message is simple: “Just vote no. You don’t even have to touch the other part [of the ballot]. Don’t even touch it. Simple no. This is about the easiest ballot you ever had to fill out. Just vote no. No on the recall.”

So far his message isn’t getting through. A recent poll from SurveyUSA showed that 51 percent of likely voters would instead vote “yes” to remove him, while just 40 percent would keep him in office.

So, the establishment media has entered the fray. Los Angeles Times columnist Erika Smith wrote an article headlined, “Larry Elder is the Black face of white supremacy. You’ve been warned!”

In it she decries Elder’s facility for “cherry-picking” the facts he’s using to make the case for recall. One of those inconvenient facts was a rhetorical question asked by Elder:

Do we still have the phenomenon where a young Black man is eight times more likely to be killed by another Black man than a young white man?

Smith enlisted the help of BLM leader Melina Abdullah, who said that Elder “is a danger — a clear and present danger,” adding,

Anytime you put a Black face on white supremacy, which is what Larry Elder is, there are people who will utilize that as an opportunity to deny white supremacy….

 

But everything he’s pushing, everything that he stands for, he is advancing white supremacy.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) is the Marxist group of street thugs working in conjunction with the mainstream media to change America’s culture from individual responsibility under law to rampant mobocracy. From there it’s a short step to a dictatorship to be installed when the violence exceeds local efforts to quell it.

The Sacramento Bee has joined the chorus of Elder naysayers. Quoting from his writings dating back 20 years ago the Bee claims they “make him wholly unfit to be California’s governor. Elder must drop out of the race immediately.”

Those attacks aren’t getting traction, according to Dan Walters. Writing for Cal Matters, he said they “are making an Elder governorship more likely.… If Newsom, the media and [other liberals] are ganging up on Elder, perhaps he’s just the man to lead the revolt against the political status quo.”

What’s causing Democrat panic is this: In a state with nearly 40 million people, fewer than two million of them have forced Newsom to face recall. They are small in number, but highly organized. A small, well-informed, and highly organized group of people can have an influence far beyond their numbers. That fact is being borne out in California.

In the same vein, this is the principle upon which The John Birch Society has operated since 1958, and explains why the influence of the JBS has never been greater as more and more concerned citizens are seeking ways to restore the Republic to its original intent as dreamed of by the Founders.

For more information, go to JBS.org.

Two Courts Take Opposite Views of Second Amendment

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Sunday, August 22, 2021:

Chief Justice J. Michael Seabright — a George W. Bush appointee — of Hawaii’s District Court blasted two of Hawaii’s more ridiculous infringements of the Second Amendment last week, claiming that they had no basis in fact, or history, or common sense.

Seabright declared that Hawaii “has entirely failed to demonstrate how each law effectuates its asserted interest in public safety [and therefore] neither law can pass constitutional muster.”

At issue are two parts of Hawaii’s Revised Statutes: 1) that requires an individual to obtain permission to purchase a firearm and that that permission expires 10 days later if it isn’t exercised; and 2) that a firearm thus purchased must be taken in person to the police department for inspection and registration five days after purchase.

Plaintiffs brought suit last October when they alleged that these provisions violated their rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Seabright excoriated attorneys defending Hawaii’s laws, declaring that “there is no evidence in the record suggesting that these laws are tethered — in any way — to the ‘original meaning of the American right to keep and bear arms.’” They tried to hold that the 10-day permit somehow “furthers the ‘important government interest’ of public safety … but [they] failed to demonstrate how the 10-day permit use furthers that interest.… The government provides no empirical evidence or case law suggesting that a 10-day permit use period would enhance public safety.” (Emphasis in original.)

He nailed shut his decision: “It is worth nothing that if it really were common sense that a 10-day permit use period promoted public safety, Hawaii likely would not be the only state in the nation to maintain such a restrictive requirement.” (Emphasis in original.)

He obliterated the second part of the law requiring inspection and registration of the firearm after purchase: “The Government has provided absolutely no evidence suggesting that in-person inspection and registration was historically understood as an appropriate regulation on the right to bear arms.”

He dismissed the defendant’s attorneys’ claim that such a requirement “ensures that the registration information is accurate, [that] it ensures that the firearm complies with Hawaii law, and [that] it confirms the identity of the firearm so as to facilitate tracing by law enforcement.” Wrote Seabright:

The Government wholly fails to demonstrate how the in-person inspection and registration requirement furthers [Hawaii’s] interests [in public safety].…

 

In the absence of concrete evidence, the only support that the Government offers is conjecture. [Emphasis in original.]

He added:

It appears that the Government’s only permissible argument is that common sense shows the law is reasonably related to its interest in promoting public safety.

 

But the notion that in-person inspection and registration promotes public safety is not a matter of common sense….

 

If it were truly a matter of common sense that in-person inspection and registration promoted public safety … one would expect additional states to maintain similar requirements.

 

The Government has failed to show that the in-person inspection and registration requirement is reasonably tailored to a significant, substantial, or important government interest. [Thus, Hawaii’s statute] does not survive intermediate scrutiny.

Seabright’s ruling follows a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (in Young v. State of Hawaii), which declared that Hawaii’s total and complete ban on carrying a firearm, open or concealed, in public places was constitutional. In fact, the court ruled, 7-4, that the Second Amendment had no bearing on the matter at all!

Wrote Judge Jay Bybee, also a George W. Bush appointee,

There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment….

 

The overwhelming evidence from the states’ constitutions and statutes [at the time of the nation’s founding], the cases, and the commentaries confirms that we have never assumed that individuals have an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces.

In dissent, Judge Ryan Nelson, a Trump appointee, wrote:

The Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm openly for self-defense in public — and Hawaii’s near complete ban on the open carry of handguns cannot stand.

 

I cannot join an opinion that would flout the Constitution by holding, in effect, that “in regulating the manner of bearing arms, the authority of [the State of Hawaii] has no other limit than its own discretion.” [Emphasis in original.]

Another dissenter, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, a Reagan appointee, took the majority to task as well:

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”

 

Today, a majority of our court has decided that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says. Instead, the majority holds that while the Second Amendment may guarantee the right to keep a firearm for self-defense within one’s home, it provides no right whatsoever to bear — i.e., to carry — that same firearm for self-defense in any other place.

 

This holding is as unprecedented as it is extreme. While our sister circuits have grappled with — and disagreed over — the question of whether public firearms carry falls within the inner “core” of the Second Amendment, we now become the first and only court of appeals to hold that public carry falls entirely outside the scope of the Amendment’s protections.

 

In so holding, the majority reduces the right to “bear Arms” to a mere inkblot. The majority’s decision undermines not only the Constitution’s text, but also half a millennium of Anglo-American legal history, the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, and the foundational principles of American popular sovereignty itself. [Emphasis in original.]

In stark relief, these two diametrically opposed decisions make an increasingly strong case for appeals to the Supreme Court to sort them out. Gun-rights attorney Alan Beck, who represents Young, said, “The Second Amendment can’t mean one thing in California, in Texas it means something else, and then in Tennessee something different entirely.”

He plans to appeal to the Supreme Court. As of this writing, it’s unclear whether Hawaii will appeal the ruling against its permit and registration requirements to the high court. But the time is certainly ripe for such a conflict to be resolved.

Judge Napolitano Asks, “Does the U.S. Still Have a Constitution?”

This article was published at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, August 12, 2021:  

In the Washington Times on Wednesday, Judge Andrew Napolitano asked rhetorically in the title above his column: “Does the United States still have a Constitution?“ Though he never explicitly says yes, it is clear from his analysis that his question refers to a de facto abandonment of, not de jure elimination of, the Constitution.

Despite being ignored and circumvented, the Constitution is still the law of the land, and still protects our freedom, needing only to be upheld and applied. Napolitano writes:

The Constitution does not permit the government to infringe upon personal freedoms, no matter the emergency or pandemic.

The founders crafted the Constitution “both to establish the government and to limit it.” Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution specifies the powers of the Congress, the only branch of the federal government that may make law. But Congress may not make any law it chooses; in its law-making it is limited to exercising only its enumerated powers.

Others protections against the abuse of power are found in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights. For example, the First Amendment explicitly prohibits Congress from violating freedom of religion, speech, and the press, and “the right of the people peacefully to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” And the Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” But in addition to the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, the people possess many other rights not articulated therein.

Napolitano explains:

The Ninth [Amendment] declares that the enumeration of rights in the first eight shall not mean that there are no other rights that are fundamental, and the government shall not disparage those other rights.

 

The Tenth [Amendment] reflects that the states have reserved [to themselves] the powers that they did not delegate to the [federal government.]

Without explanation or expansion the judge used the term “natural rights,” assuming that his readers would automatically know what he was referring to:

Natural rights collectively constitute the moral ability and sovereign authority of every human being to make personal choices – free from government interference and without a government permission slip.

In an interview with The New American magazine, Pastor David Whitney with the Institute on the Constitution gave a fuller description of the source of man’s rights by quoting from the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. [Emphasis added.]

The Declaration states clearly that

All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights….

 

We, therefore, the representatives of the united state of America, “appeal … to the Supreme Judge of the World….

 

With a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

In other words, as expressed by Whitney’s Institute:

  1. There is a God.
  2. Our rights come from Him.
  3. The purpose of civil government is to secure and protect our God-given rights.

On the day the Declaration was signed Samuel Adams said: “We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven and … from the rising to the setting sun, may His kingdom come.”

John Hancock wrote: “Let us humbly commit our righteous cause to the great Lord of the universe … let us joyfully leave our concerns in the hands of Him Who raises up and puts down the empires and kingdoms of the earth as He pleases.”

James Madison wrote: “Religion … [is] the basis and foundation of government … before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.”

John Adams wrote: “We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus.”

Napolitano’s article flowed naturally from the principle that all rights come from God — though again, he uses the phrase “natural rights.” All powers that temporal government might have come only “from the consent of the governed” who are themselves governed by their Creator.

Napolitano noted in his column that

interferences with the exercise of rights protected by the Bill of Rights devolve around travel, assembly, commercial activities, the exercise of religious beliefs, and your face. These infringements have all come from mayors and state governors who claim the power to do so, and they raise three profound constitutional issues.

He then raised three critical questions regarding these infringements. First, Napolitano asked:

Do mayors and governors have the inherent power to craft regulations that carry the force of law in an emergency?

 

The answer is no … the separation of powers [crafted into the Constitution by the founders gives] each [branch of government] a distinct core function that cannot constitutionally be performed by either of the other two.

What about state legislatures that give temporary powers to the governor to handle “emergencies”? Asked the judge:

Can state legislatures delegate away to governors their law-making powers? Again, the answer is no, because the separation of powers prevents one branch of government from ceding to another branch its core powers.

Lastly the judge asked:

Third: can a state legislature enact laws that interfere with personal liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, prescribe punishments for violations of those laws, and authorize governors to use force to compel compliance?

 

Again, the answer is no, because all government in America [federal, state, and local] is subordinate to the natural rights [emphasis added] articulated in the Bill of Rights and embraced in the Ninth Amendment.

Why did the founders limit governmental powers? Why did they separate those limited powers among three branches of government, and also divide powers between the national government and the states? Because men — including men who govern others — possess a sinful nature that must be held in check. John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902), an historian and moralist who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.

Thomas Jefferson explained:

In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

Back to Napolitano. Referring particularly to those “dangerous people” who govern on the state level and “who are again threatening to take away our ability to make personal choices and use force to compel compliance,” he ended optimistically:

We must remind them that by using the powers of state governments to do this, they will make themselves candidates for federal criminal prosecutions when saner days return.

Letter From House Members Blasts ATF Attempt to Expand Definition of a Firearm

This article was published by TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, August 11, 2021:  

When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) proposed expanding its power over firearms in May, it invited public response. On Tuesday, the bureau received a blistering response from eight Republican members of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security:

[Your] attempt to expand the definition of firearm, like other ATF regulatory efforts, is deeply flawed, beyond the scope of ATF’s authority, contrary to years of previous ATF opinions, and harmful to millions of law-abiding American firearm owners….

 

[Your] proposed rule goes well beyond the authority granted to the agency in any applicable federal statutes … [and] expands the definition of a firearm beyond the intent of Congress….

 

[Your proposed] rule appears to be a deliberate attempt to usurp the authority of Congress. In so doing, ATF has also unconstitutionally infringed on American citizens’ fundamental Second Amendment rights [as well as] privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment.

In its statement of proposed redefining of “Frame or Receiver” on May 21, the bureau claimed that the present definitions “fail to capture the full meaning of those terms” and it proceeds to “clarify” such terms as “complete weapon,” “complete muffler or silencer device,” “privately made firearm,” and “readily,” stating that redefining, or clarifying, such terms is necessary “given advancements in firearms technology.”

It added, “Because ‘frames’ or ‘receivers’ are included in the definition of ‘firearm,’ any person who engages in the business of manufacturing, importing, or dealing in frames or receivers must obtain a license from ATF.”

A large portion of the 34-page expansion was dedicated to “Privately Made Firearms or ‘Ghost Guns’”:

Technological advances have also made it easier for unlicensed persons to make firearms at home from standalone parts or weapon parts kits, or by using 3D printers or personally owned or leased equipment, without any records or background check….

 

[This] makes it difficult for law enforcement to determine where, by whom, or when they were manufactured, and to whom they were sold or otherwise disposed.

The ATF cited “intelligence reports” from the FBI, the DHS, and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) that claim that “ghost guns … enable prohibited buyers to purchase deadly weapons with just a few clicks online … [while] hamstringing law enforcement’s ability to investigate crimes committed with untraceable weapons.” They also claim that the “wide availability of ghost guns and the emergence of functional 3D-printed guns are a homeland security threat.”

All of which, as The New American has repeatedly pointed out, are lies (see hereherehere and here). Hundreds of millions of firearms are already untraceable, either due to inheritance or private purchase. “Ghost guns” are costly both in terms of money and time expended in their manufacture. While popular media suggest that the average “ghost gun” can be made or purchased for around $400, the real cost is over $1,000 and approaches $2,000 when all related costs are counted.

And “ghost guns” make up an imperceptibly small percentage of the estimated 400 to 600 million firearms already legally possessed by American gun owners.

Finally, criminals find it much easier to steal, or purchase on the street, a firearm rather than to manufacture one.

Unfortunately missing from the letter was mention of the fact that any attempt to regulate the possession or use of a firearm is an infringement on the Second Amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms. That would include the first infringement dating back to 1934 — the National Firearms Act. Everything from that moment on concerning the regulation, licensing, limiting, etc., of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement.

And, it must be asked, where did Congress gets its power to assign its legislative responsibility to an unelected agency (the ATF) in the first place?

The New American has repeatedly noted that the real effort is the ultimate disarming of the American public so that all weaponry remains in the hands only of the police, the government, and criminals. As Adolph Hitler said:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject race to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.

There is good news in all of this. As the effort to disarm the public becomes increasingly obvious, so does the mounting pushback. The John Birch Society, smeared repeatedly in its early days by the leftist media, is seeing enormous growth in numbers and influence. Its program is simplicity itself: A lone citizen, concerned about how to fight the coming tyranny, can do little. But organized and following a strategic plan to expose the plans where the communists are most vulnerable, just a few can make an enormous difference.

If you’ve read this far, consider JBS.org for more information on how to join the increasing resistance to the tyranny planned and being implemented by agencies such as the ATF.

NYC Gun-trafficking Case Reveals Surveillance Against Perps and Lawful Gun Owners

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, August 5, 2021:  

The announcement by the U.S. attorney’s office of the Southern District of New York on Wednesday revealed not only indictments against nine individuals accused of gun trafficking, but also the vast array of surveillance technology involved in the investigation.

Said Manhattan U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss:

Today’s arrests shut down the alleged gun pipeline of these nine defendants. These arrests should also send a message to anyone who is thinking about illegally selling guns to New Yorkers or illegally bringing guns to New York.

 

We and our law enforcement partners are watching. And we will prosecute gun traffickers to the fullest extent of the law.

The key player in the scheme is DuVaughn Wilson, also known as “Dupree,” who, over an eight-month period, purchased some 87 firearms (mostly handguns) in his own name, and then provided them to members of the network. They transported them, mostly via public transportation, to New York City where they were sold for cash to various buyers.

If convicted, Wilson and his accomplices could spend the next 15 years in prison for the crime.

Strauss exposed part of the vast network that was involved in the takedown, including law-enforcement “partners” in Georgia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.

The announcement came just days after the U.S. Department of Justice announced its “strike force” focused on gun trafficking. Initially, that “strike force” — enhanced personnel and technology — would focus on New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said the effort is designed to “bolster cooperation” between the federal government and “local partners,” calling it “another concrete step to address violent crime and illegal firearms trafficking.”

The danger to law-abiding gun owners is clear, as those “strike forces” can also be used to track firearms they legally own. The program is, according to the DOJ, a “long-term, coordinated, multi-jurisdictional strategy” using gun trafficking as cover:

This new approach that links law enforcement and prosecutors and locations where violence is occurring with the law enforcement and prosecutors in the jurisdictions where the firearms originate broadens our focus to ensure a comprehensive and coordinated response in both of those areas.

The technology that is being used has been installed over recent years and is vast and intrusive. It includes the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN), which automates ballistics evaluations and analyses that used to be done by hand. Cartridge-casing evidence gathered at a crime scene is now entered into the Integrated Ballistic Identification System, which can be searched online by law-enforcement agencies.

At the DOJ’s disposal is eTrace, a web-based application that tracks the purchase and use history of firearms used in violent crimes. “These leads,” notes the ATF, “help law enforcement agencies quickly identify potential firearm traffickers and suspects … in order to identify an unlicensed purchaser.” eTrace, added the ATF, “is part of the broader ATF mission to catch violent offenders and criminal suppliers, and get their firearms off the street.” It added ominously, “ATF is constantly looking to leverage technology like eTrace to streamline the investigative process.” “The eTrace system allows law enforcement to conduct comprehensive traces of recovered crime guns and establish potential leads in their investigations,” the ATF continued.

The ATF uses the National Tracing Center to track the movement of a firearm from its manufacture through the distribution chain of wholesalers and retailers to identify “unlicensed” purchasers. “That information,” intones the ATF, “can help to link a suspect to a firearm in a criminal investigation and identify potential traffickers.”

Since 1968, the ATF has received several hundred million such records. So much for the claim that there is no national registry of firearms legally owned by American citizens.

The ATF has 25 Crime Gun Intelligence Centers (CGICs) across the land “designed to collect, analyze and distribute intelligence data about guns, mass shootings, and major incidents across multiple jurisdictions.” These centers “take a preventative approach to violent crime by targeting and prosecuting the sources of crime guns.” The ATF proudly reports that “CGICs disrupt the shooting cycle by identifying and prosecuting shooters and their sources of crime guns.”

All of this technology was woven together in late 2019 with the launch of Project Guardian in November, and Operation Relentless Pursuit in December. Project Guardian, launched by the DOJ, was “designed to reduce gun violence and enforce federal firearms laws across the country.” As then-Attorney General William Barr explained:

Project Guardian will strengthen our efforts to reduce gun violence by allowing the federal government and our state and local partners to better target offenders who use guns in crimes and those who try to buy guns illegally….

 

[It] will coordinate with state, local and tribal law enforcement and prosecutors to consider potential federal prosecution….

 

[It] will create new … guidelines for … prosecution of federal cases involving false statements [on Form 4473] made during the acquisition … of firearms.

“These tools,” said Barr, “can greatly enhance the speed and effectiveness in identifying trigger-pullers and finding their guns.”

Operation Relentless Pursuit is a practical application of all of these technologies and purposes by combining the ATF, the DEA, the FBI, and the U.S. Marshals “to support those cities that … continue to be plagued by rates of violent crime that are simply too high.”

Barr made it clear:

Through Relentless Pursuit, we pledge to hold accountable the trigger-pullers, firearm traffickers, violent criminals and those who supply them the guns to terrorize our communities.

 

ATF will aggressively utilize every available tool, including our crime gun enforcement teams, National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, and firearms tracing, to identify, investigate and support the prosecution of the most violent firearm offenders.

It’s a short step to expand the definition of who those “violent firearm offenders” might be to include anyone who owns a firearm. That would be prima facie evidence that such an individual is a potential “violent firearm offender” merely by his possession of such a weapon.

If virulent anti-gun David Chipman, Biden’s pick to head the ATF, somehow gets confirmed, every legal gun owner in the country will shortly be in his crosshairs. All the tools are in place. And the agency knows where millions of those gun owners live.

The success the ATF and the DOJ had in rounding up those gun traffickers from Georgia to New York reveals just how potent those tools are.

SCOTUS Will Hear Challenge to New York’s Gun Laws

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, August 4, 2021:

The Supreme Court has accepted 52 amici curiae (friend of the court) briefs in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association’s lawsuit against New York’s superintendent of state police, Keith Corlett. Nearly all of them focus on a particular part of the case that the justices might otherwise miss during the deliberations scheduled to begin in October.

One of them, however, focuses directly on the personal and intimate pain suffered by innocents, especially innocent people of color — black and Hispanic — who transgressed, often without knowing it, New York City’s draconian and unconstitutional limits on their right to keep and bear arms.

The brief, presented by the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, or BALA, a group formed in 2017 to defend innocents against laws such as New York’s, makes the case that not only do New York’s gun-control laws prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining permission to keep and bear firearms outside their homes, they are being used primarily against people of color. BALA presents six cases. We will look closely at just one of them here.

BALA summarizes its argument:

The … Second Amendment affords the people “the right to keep and bear arms.”Despite the clear text and this Court’s precedents [McDonald and Heller], New York’s licensing regime does the opposite.

 

It deprives everyone of that right, only returning it to those select few who manage to first secure a firearm license from the police.

 

For everyone else, possession of a firearm is effectively a “violent felony,” punishable by 3½ to 15 years in prison.

 

New York’s licensing requirements criminalize the exercise of the fundamental Second Amendment right, with rare exceptions.

 

As a result, each year, we represent hundreds of indigent people whom New York criminally charges for exercising their right to keep and bear arms. For our clients, New York’s licensing regime renders the Second Amendment a legal fiction. Worse, virtually all our clients whom New York prosecutes for exercising their Second Amendment right are Black or Hispanic.

 

And that is no accident. New York enacted its firearm licensing requirements to criminalize gun ownership by racial and ethnic minorities. That remains the effect of its enforcement by police and prosecutors today.

 

The consequences for our clients are brutal. New York police have stopped, questioned, and frisked our clients on the streets. They have invaded our clients’ homes with guns drawn, terrifying them, their families, and their children.

 

They have forcibly removed our clients from their homes and communities and abandoned them in dirty and violent jails and prisons for days, weeks, months, and years.

 

They have deprived our clients of their jobs, children, livelihoods, and ability to live in this country. And they have branded our clients as “criminals” and “violent felons” for life.

 

They have done all of this only because our clients exercised a constitutional right.

This, wrote the attorneys, results in a system where the New York Police Department “unilaterally decides whose firearm possession is an unlicensed crime and whose is a licensed right. It thus leaves the right to keep and bear arms up to the discretion of local police.”

Consider the case of Jasmine Phillips, a Texan who lawfully owned a gun in that state but was prosecuted under the New York law for unlicensed possession of the firearm while visiting family in the city:

Ms. Jasmine Phillips is a combat-decorated military veteran who served in Iraq. She had never been convicted of a crime. She legally possessed a pistol in Texas for self-defense.

 

After she and her husband separated, her husband moved to New York. To have their children spend some time with their father, Ms. Phillips and her children drove to New York.

 

While Ms. Phillips was parked in her car in New York, police officers surrounded the vehicle. One officer knocked on the passenger side window. Another opened the driver side car door, put her in a chokehold, dragged her out of the car, threw her on the pavement, flipped her over and handcuffed her. She heard officers search the car and find her pistol.

 

The prosecution later justified these acts because of a “tip.”

 

“The arrest was traumatizing,” she recounts. “Being separated from my two baby boys, who were three and four years old, broke my heart.”

 

After the arrest, she was held at the precinct, and then the courthouse, without food, water, a phone call, or even access to a bathroom. After hours and hours of prearraignment detention and processing, she finally saw a judge.

 

Like virtually everyone else accused of possessing a firearm, she was charged with violating N.Y. Penal Law § 265.03(3), a violent felony.

 

The judge set high monetary bail.

 

“I felt completely hopeless,” she says. “I thought about my kids, wracked with guilt and worry about what they were going through — were they scared? Confused? I was taken away from them so suddenly. I was crushed. I also thought about my job and the home I was renting, realizing that I was going to lose both. I felt broken.”

 

Ms. Phillips was jailed on Rikers Island for weeks before she made bail.

 

Because of her arrest, the Administration for Children Services (“ACS”) intervened and filed a child-neglect proceeding against her.

 

“I lost everything: my job, my car, my home, and my kids.”

 

She couldn’t see her children again for a full year, missing her son’s fifth birthday. She recalls:

 

Through my attorneys, I petitioned the family court to allow ACS to let me see my child, but ACS was too slow to respond. I spent my son’s fifth birthday in an Airbnb, alone, surrounded by the gifts that I had bought for him.

 

When I was finally allowed to see my children while I was in New York, ACS required that I meet with them during supervised visits in an ACS facility. It was so humiliating to have someone stand there while I tried to have some semblance of a normal, loving interaction with my kids.

 

During one visit, my older son told me that he loved going to school.

 

I was absolutely devastated. No one had told me that he had started pre-K. I missed his first day of school. I missed the chance to ask how his first day of school went. I can never undo that.

 

After extensive advocacy, Ms. Phillips’ case was diverted and eventually dismissed.

 

Still, the case had lasting effects: a Texas judge ruled against her in a child-custody case because of her “felony arrest.”

 

For Ms. Phillips, that was “the lowest moment of [her] life and the most hopeless [she] ever felt. There are no words to fully reach the depth of that emotion I was feeling,” she explains.

 

But the effects of the case did not stop there, either. ACS failed to properly close Ms. Phillips’ case and, four years after the arrest, they called the local sheriff in Texas to do a “welfare check.” She was not at home when the police came by, but her landlord was.

 

The police repeated inaccurate information about the dismissed case, provided by ACS, and the landlord then terminated the lease.

 

In addition, to this day, Ms. Phillips reports that her younger son continues to suffer severe separation anxiety:

 

If I leave the house to get something from the car without telling him, he’ll run out and say, “Momma, why didn’t you tell me you were leaving?” It hurts me so much every time he asks.

 

In sum, Ms. Phillips’ arrest for gun possession outside of the home continues to affect her, her family, and their lives today.

This is the personal side of the unconstitutional law New York uses to persecute and prosecute innocents who unwittingly violate it. There are five more equally devastating cases in the brief.

 

The high court is limiting its role to determining not whether citizens can legally carry outside the home but merely determining whether New York City’s application for a concealed-carry license violates their Second Amendment-protected rights.

It will hear arguments this fall and make its ruling next spring.

Chip Roy: Biden Should Be Impeached Over Immigration Crisis

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, August 3, 2021:  

Representative Chip Roy (R-Texas) essentially gave 200,000 reasons why he believes President Joe Biden should be impeached and removed from office. After noting that more than 200,000 illegals were taken into custody in July, Roy told the Daily Wire:

Over the past several months President Biden and [DHS Secretary] Mayorkas have blatantly and consistently refused to do their constitutional duty to take care that the immigration laws be faithfully executed, as required by Article II [of the U.S. Constitution], endangering countless American and foreign lives in the process.

An average of 6,779 illegals crossing the southern border of the United States every day in July. That’s more than 200,000 for the month and, if left unchecked, would approach two and a half million for the year.

Chip Roy’s reasons for impeachment add to those outlined by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) in her impeachment filing the day after Joe Biden entered the Oval Office:

President Joe Biden is unfit to hold the office of the presidency. His pattern of abuse of power as President Obama’s Vice President is lengthy and disturbing.

 

President Biden has demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to bail out his son, Hunter, and line his family’s pockets with cash from corrupt foreign energy companies.

 

President Biden is even on tape admitting to a quid pro quo with the Ukrainian government threatening to withhold $1,000,000,000 in foreign aid if they did not do his bidding. President Biden residing in the White House is a threat to national security and he must be immediately impeached….

 

Joe Biden abused the power of the Office of the Vice President, enabling bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors, by allowing his son to influence the domestic policy of a foreign nation and accept various benefits — including financial compensation — from foreign nationals in exchange for certain favors.

After detailing Hunter’s efforts to sell his father’s influence to officials of foreign governments, Greene concluded in her articles of impeachment:

President Biden gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government. Through blatant nepotism, he enabled his son to influence foreign policy and financially benefit as a result of his role as Vice President.

 

He supported his son engaging in collusion with Chinese Communist party-linked officials. He allowed his son to trade appointments with his father and other high-ranking administration officials in exchange for financial compensation. He permitted his son to take money from Russian oligarchs, including Elena Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow.

By enabling the flow of illegals to become a flood, some say Biden and his DHS secretary are threatening the very foundations of the Republic. This is the same Republic that Biden swore to uphold and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Instead, he is allowing those enemies, both foreign and domestic, including his son Hunter, to run wild, without restraint.

The 200,000 who just entered the U.S. illegally last month merely add to the lengthening list of reasons why many say Biden should be impeached. Of course, since there is a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress, the possibility of this happening are basically zero.

Appeals Court: Colorado Can Both Compel and Prohibit Speech

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, July 28, 2021:  

A three-member panel of Colorado’s 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on Monday that Lorie Smith, a Denver website developer, cannot refuse to create websites celebrating same-sex marriages. The panel also ruled that she cannot express her religious beliefs in explaining why she won’t.

Smith is being assisted by the public-interest law firm Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), and ADF’s Senior Counsel John Bursch, summed up the case:

The government should never force creative professionals to promote a message or cause with which they disagree. That is quintessential free speech and artistic freedom.

 

Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips has been harassed for years; Washington floral artist Barronelle Stutzman stands to lose nearly everything she owns; and now Lorie Smith is being told that she must speak views she opposes and can’t post about her beliefs on her own business website.

 

How many more creative professionals will have to suffer before they receive recognition of their constitutionally protected freedoms — the rights they have always had in this country? Lorie is happy to design websites for all people; she simply objects to being forced to pour her heart, imagination, and talents into messages that violate her conscience.

The dispute dates back to 2016, when Smith first filed suit claiming that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) would, if enforced, violate her First Amendment-protected right to free speech and free exercise of religion. This is the same law that Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission used to harass Phillips — a case that went to the Supreme Court, which narrowly ruled in Phillips’ favor.

The court ruled on Monday that the commission could force Smith to create messages celebrating same-sex weddings, but issued a “gag” order preventing her from publishing her dissenting reasons on her business website, 303Creative.com. This is what she wanted to publish:

These same religious convictions that motivate me also prevent me from creating websites promoting and celebrating ideas or messages that violate my beliefs.

 

So I will not be able to create websites for same-sex marriages or any other marriage that is not between one man and one woman. Doing that would compromise my Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God’s true story of marriage — the very story He is calling me to promote.

The two-judge majority on the panel put Colorado’s law ahead of the U.S. Constitution:

We agree with [Smith] that “the protection of minority viewpoints is not only essential to protecting free speech and self-governance but also good in and of itself.”

 

Yet, we must also consider the grave harms caused when public accommodations [such as Smith’s] discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Combatting such discrimination is … “essential” to our democratic ideals.

 

And we agree with [Smith] that a diversity of faiths and religious exercise … “enriches” our society. Yet, a faith that enriches society in one way might also damage society in another, particularly when that faith would exclude others from unique goods or services.

 

In short, [Smith’s] Free Speech and Free Exercise rights are, of course, compelling. But so too is Colorado’s interest in protecting its citizens from the harms of discrimination.

Chief Justice Timothy Tymkovich dissented, calling this ruling “remarkable” and “novel”:

The majority takes the remarkable — and novel — stance that the government may force Ms. Smith to produce messages that violate her conscience.… [It] concludes … that 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 majority’s ruling, wrote Tymkovich, ushers in “a brave new world”:

The Constitution is a shield against CADA’s discriminatory treatment of Ms. Smith’s sincerely held religious beliefs … [but] the majority ushers forth a brave new world when it acknowledges both speech and silence — yet finds this intrusion constitutionally permissible.

 

CADA [according to the panel’s ruling] forces Ms. Smith to violate her faith on pain of sanction both by prohibiting religious-based business practices and by penalizing her if she does speak out on these matters in ways Colorado finds “unwelcome” or “undesirable.”

ADF intends on filing an appeal to the Supreme Court. Wrote ADF’s Maureen Collins: “No one should be banished from the marketplace simply for living and working consistently with their religious beliefs. Not a cake artist. Not a floral artist. Not a web designer. That’s why ADF will appeal this decision to the U. S. Supreme Court on Lorie’s behalf.”

Conservative Republican Senators Urge SCOTUS to Overturn Roe v. Wade

This article was published at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, July 27, 2021:  

Republican Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri, Mike Lee of Utah, and Ted Cruz of Texas filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on Monday urging the high court to overturn Roe v. Wade and its follow-up decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (which affirmed Roe). The trio made the case that the original decision was flawed and the follow-up decision just made things worse. The whole issue, said the senators, is best resolved by following the Constitution and returning the power to make legislation regarding abortion back to the states.

The senators wrote that the high court’s initial decision in Roe was “controversial and conceptually flawed from the outset.” The court used the term “viability” in determining when abortion may be allowed, a waffle term that may occur sometime during the 24th week of pregnancy.

In Casey, wrote the senators, the high court just made things worse by using the term “undue burden” on the mother. They called it “ambiguous,” “too subjective,” “unworkable and unpredictable.”

Instead of wading into political waters not specifically prescribed by the Constitution — “this status quo is untenable” they said — the court “engenders unpredictable consequences” as well as “usurping the constitutional prerogatives of the [states].”

This opportunity arose when the Supreme Court agreed back in April to take on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In 2018, Mississippi passed a law banning abortions after 15 weeks of gestation. The Jackson Women’s Health Organization (JWHO) immediately sued, found an Obama-appointed judge to agree, and the law was blocked.

The brief filed by the Republican senators said that just because Roe is nearly 50 years old, and Casey 20 years old, doesn’t mean the issue was decided correctly:

Stare Decisis [to stand by things decided in the past] considerations may be important to the judicial process, but they are not absolute. Where prior precedents are demonstrably unworkable, it is appropriate for the Court to reconsider them.

The high court’s previous decisions are, wrote the senators, demonstrably unworkable:

A precedent can prove unworkable in several ways. A history of confusion in the lower courts, an unstable pattern of Supreme Court decisions, and a persistent lack of judicially manageable standards all suggest that a precedent is or has become unworkable.

For example, wrote the senators, consider the “undue burden” standard the court used in Casey to replace the “viability” standard in Roe:

Casey has forced the Court to distort other generally applicable standards that are themselves unworkable.

 

Casey does not represent long-settled doctrine, rests on a foundation of flawed judicial reasoning, and boasts no traditional reliance interests.

They concluded:

Stare Decisis is not an absolute shield that protects failed precedents from subsequent review….

 

As the Court has repeatedly explained over the course of many decades, decisions that have proven unworkable … are prime candidates for reversal.

 

This is particularly true where, as here, the underlying decision [Roe] is egregiously wrong.

The three conservative Republican senators are not alone in filing such briefs. One written by Jacob Weaver, a graduate of the University of Michigan School of Law, has gained the support of 22 pro-life groups and signatures from more than 300 lawmakers in 35 states.

Wrote Weaver: “The power to regulate abortion falls squarely into States’ police powers” just as it did for 150 years prior to the flawed decision in Roe.

He added: “We argue that [overturning Roe and Casey would] depoliticize the court and … return states to their rightful place in the constitutional scheme.”

Constitutional scholar and law professor Rob Natelson was more pointed:

Judicially, Roe v. Wade was … a “rogue decision,” because it violated accepted judicial standards. Courts normally respect precedent, but Roe reversed hundreds of years of Anglo-American law.… Roe effectively voided statutes in all 50 states. Roe converted democratic resolution into Supreme Court diktats….

 

Roe v. Wade pretends to be constitutional law, but it’s not. It’s an absurd ruling stemming from arrogant decision-making and misuse of history.

A core issue regarding Roe and Casey is the high court’s overreach in those decisions. As Walter Weber, senior legal counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), wrote:

One of the problems we face is that the Supreme Court has acted as if it is the Constitution [itself] — that whatever it says becomes part of the text [of the Constitution].

 

That is not what the Constitution says.… When the Supreme Court says we have a decision that we know is wrong but we are going to follow it anyway … what they are saying is that our rulings take a higher priority than the Constitution itself.

At bottom the issue is about the right to life. As former Chaplain Colonel Wes Smith noted:

If you end a life — that is killing. Whatever the justification is, it is killing.

 

We need to call it for what it is.

 

What the people who are pro-abortion [are calling for] is state sanctioned killing.

The high court will hear arguments in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in early October, with a ruling due next spring. If it overturns Roe and Casey in its ruling, it will change everything. It would signal the end of the abortion holocaust and take a huge step toward repairing the culture that has been so badly damaged by those decisions. While the millions of lives that have been lost since 1973 cannot be restored, the lives of millions more can be saved from state-sanctioned killing in the future.

Michigan Legislators Repeal Law Governor Whitmer Abused During Pandemic

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, July 22, 2021:  

Members of the Michigan House of Representatives voted 60-48 on Wednesday to end permanently the odious and unconstitutional 76-year-old law that Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer used and abused to inflict untold damage on her citizens during and after the COVID pandemic.

The Senate had already passed the measure ending the law — the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act, or EPGA — which dates back to 1945. The Michigan Supreme Court had previously ruled that the law was unconstitutional:

The Governor did not possess the authority to exercise emergency powers under the EPGA because the act unlawfully delegates legislative power to the executive branch in violation of the Michigan Constitution.

Whitmer unconstitutionally implemented draconian measures on her citizenry, including applying criminal charges for operating a motorboat, visiting a secondary home, and banning stores from selling gardening supplies. Pushback was almost immediate, with lawsuits being filed and public protests arising over those measures.

Her mandates resulted in the creation of Unlock Michigan, a citizen campaign that forced the issue when it gathered more than 540,000 signatures on a petition to repeal the law. It wasn’t sufficient for the state’s high court to declare it unconstitutional; citizens wanted to repeal the law entirely to keep it from being resurrected some time in the future. As one state legislator said, “Bad ideas never die in Lansing, they just take naps. And this one could wake back up.”

Whitmer is powerless to veto the measure, as it was a citizen petition rather than a bill offered by the state legislature. Previous attempts to repeal the unconstitutional law were passed but then vetoed by Whitmer and her veto couldn’t be overridden. This way she is powerless to keep the law in place.

State Representative Andrew Fink, a Republican, said that the law “is discordant with the principles of American government, which are designed to prevent a single part of the government from acting unilaterally.”

Said House Speaker Jason Wentworth: “Hundreds of thousands of our families, friends and neighbors changed Michigan forever when they decided they had enough and stood up to make a difference.”

State Representative Matt Hall added:

Our action today helps reestablish needed balance between the executive and legislative branches during an emergency, something that has been so desperately missing during this pandemic.

This is the essence of the unique American experiment: that citizens are sovereign over their government, and not the other way around. The lesson from history is that governments, given the opportunity, will shortly become oppressive and destructive of citizens’ liberties. Unless bound down from such mischief by the chains of a constitution, governments will become tyrannical.

Another lesson from the victory in Michigan is that it is repeatable. California Governor Gavin Newsom is shortly to face a recall election by unhappy citizens over the same excessive use of government force, using COVID as the excuse.

Unlock Michigan is far from done. It shortly will begin circulating petitions to revise another law that Whitmer’s executive branch abused, which allowed the state health department to continue to promulgate and enforce Whitmer’s directives even after the Supreme Court ruled the 1945 law unconstitutional. If successful, the new petition will rein in the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, making its orders such as masking and capacity restrictions unenforceable after 28 days unless extended by the legislature.

Tyrants can have their wings clipped and their overreach reined in only if an aroused citizenry takes action. As Thomas Jefferson said, “they are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”

Gun-rights Groups Weigh in on Supreme Court Case on New York’s Concealed-carry Restrictions

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, July 21, 2021:  

Two gun-rights groups — the National Foundation for Gun Rights and the National Association for Gun Rights — have entered the fray over the Second Amendment. On Tuesday they filed an amici curiae (friends of the court) brief on the complaint filed by two gun owners against the State of New York.

When New York citizens Robert Nash and Brandon Koch each applied for permission to carry a firearm outside the home, permission was denied. The official used his discretion, claiming that neither Nash nor Koch had provided “proper cause” sufficient to justify his granting them such permission.

It didn’t matter that both of them cited their needs for self-protection, nor that each had completed extensive firearms training. It didn’t matter that they were upstanding law-abiding citizens concerned for their personal safety. New York has structured the law in such a way that almost no one can obtain such permission.

Each joined with the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) in filing suit in federal court in February 2018, claiming that the official violated their Second Amendment-protected rights. In December, a district court dismissed their complaint. They appealed. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal in August 2020.

They appealed to the Supreme Court, and on April 26, 2021, the high court agreed to hear the appeal, but with a catch: The NYSRPA wanted the high court to rule on “whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.” This would cure and close the loophole left behind in the Heller decision.

The high court instead limited the question to: “Whether [New York’s] denial of petitioners’ application for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

In other words, by limiting the question just to the application required to obtain a permit to carry concealed in New York, the high court is already, by inference, allowing other infringements to remain in place. The core right guaranteed by the Second Amendment will remain open to question even if the high court finds New York’s restrictions on its application unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, the amici curiae makes the case for the fullest and broadest understanding of the Second Amendment even if the high court refuses to consider it in the present case.  The brief notes that “New York officials only grant a permit if an applicant can show ‘proper cause’ … [but] the term ‘proper cause’ is not defined within the statute.” This then “makes it impossible for the typical law-abiding New Yorker to obtain such a permit.”

Just the requiring of a permit to exercise a right is, in and of itself, an infringement:

Requiring law-abiding citizens to obtain a special permit to keep and bear arms, whether for concealed or open carry, violates the Second Amendment….

 

This is clear from the text of the Second Amendment itself, which enumerated the right and declared that it “shall not be infringed.”

The brief expands the argument that the Second Amendment doesn’t stand alone but is part of the remarkable “experiment in liberty” represented by the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights:

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right necessary to our system of ordered liberty.… It is an individual right that existed prior to the Founding….

It is unique:

The right to keep and bear arms is an advantage to that system of ordered liberty “which [quoting Federalist No. 46] the Americans posses over the people of almost every other nation.”

The brief extended its quote from Federalist, No. 46:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.

New York’s restrictions contradict the intention of the Founders:

That original understanding binds government from creating policy and regulations which encroach on the original understanding of the pre-existing right that the Second Amendment protects.

The brief also dispatches any notion that somehow only “a well-regulated militia” may carry firearms, by quoting from the high court’s ruling in Heller:

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry”…. The phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” [and] it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

The brief makes the case that the Second Amendment’s position as an enumerated right removes it from discretionary restrictions by governments. It quoted Justice Clarence Thomas:

The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government — even the Third Branch of Government [the Judicial] — the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.

 

A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.

The brief invites the high court to broaden its consideration of the matter:

This Court should focus on the fact that the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, concealed or not, was never understood, in the history and traditions of that right, at the Founding, to be limited to the home … a right so limited to one’s home would be no “right” at all.

The brief reminds the high court of the sovereignty of the individual citizen:

[In] our particular form of government … it is the individual citizen who stands as the ultimate source of governmental power and authority.

 

It is the individual citizen who ultimately possesses inalienable and pre-existing rights such as the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense against tyranny and violence.

The brief decries attempts by the courts to keep the Second Amendment as a “second-class” right:

Consider the value of the rights to speech, assembly, and religion [in the First Amendment] were they to be relegated only to being exercised within the home. Such limitation would neuter the right to the point of it being meaningless.

The brief concludes that “there is no historical or legal basis for the lower courts restricting the right to keep and bear arms, concealed or not, to being exercised solely within the home.” Consequently,

Governments and courts that fear or dislike arms should not be able to cavalierly treat the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, concealed or not, as a lesser right than the right to speech, assemble, or practice one’s religion.

Whether the high court listens and agrees to expand its consideration of the complaint to encompass the full and robust guarantee of the Second Amendment remains to be seen. There are six so-called originalists now on the high court, but recent rulings have brought into question just how “originalist” they really are.

The high court will hear arguments in the fall and make its ruling next spring. In the meantime, the war against private ownership of firearms continues.

Democrat Support for Biden’s ATF Pick Is Crumbling

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, July 20, 2021:

Joe Biden’s pick to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or ATF, David Chipman, has such a sorry and odious anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment, and anti-American stance on the private ownership of firearms that even the No. 2 Senate Democrat is having second thoughts.

On Monday, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said “there are a lot of issues” with Chipman, admitting that the nomination “is not where we want it yet, but there’s always a chance.”

That’s Democrat double-speak for “any chance Chipman had to be confirmed by the Senate is now zero.”

Those “issues” to which Durbin referred were reviewed by The New American in May. Chipman’s responses to particularly probing questions by Republican senators were diffident, indirect, and in some cases incoherent. When pressed, he couldn’t define an “assault” weapon, even though he had worked for the ATF for 25 years and no doubt carried one on his person much of that time.

When quizzed about looking into Hunter Biden’s lying on the ATF’s Form 4430 in order to purchase a firearm, Chipman responded, “I will ensure that all violations of law are investigated and referred to.” Regarding Hunter Biden specifically, Chipman was incoherent: “I’m not sure that it has not been investigated.”

Unimpressed with his lies, prevarications, and distortions, not a single Republican Senator leaving the hearing said he would support the Biden nominee. That means that every single one of the 50 Democrat Senators must line up behind Chipman, or his nomination is dead.

The committee deadlocked, 11-11, on whether or not to move his nomination to the floor. That leaves the issue in the hands of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who has yet to schedule a floor vote on the nomination.

At least eight Democrats, not including Durbin, are having their doubts. As of Monday, Maine Independent Senator Angus King (who caucuses with the Democrats) said that he still hadn’t made up his mind about Chipman. Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said he was still “working on it.”

Senate Democrat Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said he’s “still analyzing” the issue but added that he’s not “feeling the urgency” to move ahead with the Chipman nomination. Others not “feeling the urgency” include Senators Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), and Gary Peters (D-Mich.).

Chipman hasn’t helped himself with his anti-gun sentiments. But most enraging are his deprecating comments about American gun owners. His denigration made headlines in March when he told them to “secure that gun, locked and unloaded, and hide it behind the cans of tuna and beef jerky that you have stored in a cabinet, and only bring that out if the zombies start to appear.”

With that, he ended his nomination. Those law-abiding gun owners didn’t need to know that he remains on the payroll of the anti-gun Giffords Law Center, or that he previously worked for Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun Everytown for Gun Safety. They didn’t need to know that Chipman, if confirmed, would advance the plan to disarm the American people as part of the Left’s attempt to transform America.

For all intents and purposes, Chipman’s nomination is dead.

Circuit Court: Law Prohibiting Citizens Under 21 From Purchasing Handguns Unconstitutional

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, July 16, 2021:  

In ruling for the majority of the three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, Judge Julius N. Richardson not only reversed a lower court’s ruling, he exposed the fatal flaw behind Congress’ creation of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968: Congress relied on fudged numbers to make its case restricting the gun rights of those under 21.

The original lawsuit was brought by 19-year-old Natalia Marshall in 2018 after she was denied the freedom to purchase a handgun for personal protection. Familiar with firearms since an early age, she decided to attempt to purchase one through a licensed dealer, but was denied thanks to the 1968 law:

[It is] unlawful for any licensed … dealer … to sell or deliver any firearm or ammunition to any individual … who the licensee knows … is less than twenty-one years of age.

Richardson wrote:

When do constitutional rights vest? At 18 or 21? 16 or 25? Why not 13 or 33?

 

In the law, a line must sometimes be drawn. But there must be a reason why constitutional rights cannot be enjoyed until a certain age.

 

Our nation’s most cherished constitutional rights vest no later than 18. And the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms is no different.

 

Plaintiff seeks an injunction and a declaratory judgment that several federal laws and regulations that prevent federally licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to any 18-, 19-, or 20-year-old violate the Second Amendment.

 

We first find that 18-year-olds possess Second Amendment rights. They enjoy almost every other constitutional right, and they were required at the time of the Founding to serve in the militia and furnish their own weapons….

 

Looking through this historical lens to the text and structure of the Constitution reveals that 18- to 20-year-olds have Second Amendment rights. Virtually every other constitutional right applies whatever the age. And the Second Amendment is no different.

 

The militia laws in force at the time of ratification uniformly required those 18 and older to join the militia and bring their own arms.

While some historical restrictions existed, none support finding that 18-year-olds lack rights under the Second Amendment.

 

Judge Richardson then opened Pandora’s Box:

We then ask, as our precedent requires, whether the government has met its burden to justify its infringement of those rights under the appropriate level of scrutiny.

 

To justify this restriction, Congress used disproportionate crime rates to craft overinclusive laws that restrict the rights of overwhelmingly law-abiding citizens.

 

And in doing so, Congress focused on purchases from licensed dealers without establishing those dealers as the source of the guns 18- to 20-year-olds use to commit crimes.

 

So we hold that the challenged federal laws and regulations are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

 

Despite the weighty interest in reducing crime and violence, we refuse to relegate either the Second Amendment or 18- to 20-year-olds to a second-class status. Congress may not restrict the rights of an entire group of law-abiding adults because a minuscule portion of that group commits a disproportionate amount of gun violence….

 

Neither the government nor [its “friends”, i.e., Brady, Giffords, Everytown, etc.] can show that the burden of the challenged laws imposed on 18- to 20-year-olds’ rights has led to any meaningful or measurable positive effects. This highlights the lack of a reasonable connection between licensed dealers and gun crimes.

This is extraordinary. After 53 years of “settled law,” Judge Richardson boldly concludes that Congress erred in using phony data to support its infringements of young citizens’ rights under the Second Amendment.

The two judges concurring were appointed by Republican presidents. The dissenting judge, Obama appointee James A. Wynn, Jr., predictably avoided confronting the arguments the majority presented. Instead, he claimed they gave the “gun lobby a victory” that was otherwise unmerited: “The majority’s decision to grant the gun lobby a victory in a fight it lost on Capitol Hill more than fifty years ago is not compelled by law.”

He then invented another reason why the Second Amendment and its impact on young citizens should be treated differently:

The Second Amendment is exceptional not because it is uniquely oppressed or imperiled, but rather because it is singularly capable of causing harm.

Wynn makes up a new “right” under the Constitution that he thinks must be taken into account when considering the Second Amendment: the “public’s right to live — or “right not to be shot.”

Wynn claimed that the restrictions in the GCA of 1968 applying to young citizens only prevented them from buying a handgun from a licensed dealer and therefore was not really an “infringement”:

Young adults aged 18 to 20 may still possess and use handguns, may still receive handguns as gifts, and can even purchase handguns through unlicensed, but otherwise legal, private sales.

 

In other words, in enacting the challenged provisions, Congress was careful not to burden use, possession, or non-commercial sales.

This is how a judge unmoored from the “originalist” position when considering what the Founders meant at the time they wrote the Second Amendment responds. Instead, he relied on the fact that, until now, the GCA of 1968 has successfully survived various constitutional challenges and therefore it must be good law:

The challenged provisions are longstanding because they, just like the federal ban on possession of firearms by the mentally ill, were passed in 1968 — over fifty years ago — and because similar provisions making 21 the minimum age to purchase or use certain firearms have been commonplace for more than a century [i.e., the National Firearms Act of 1934 was signed into law by Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt 87 years ago].

The ruling is likely to be challenged by the now anti-gun Justice Department under Biden, knowing that the majority of the judges on the full court are Democrats who will reverse the panel’s ruling. The chances that the inevitable appeal to the Supreme Court will be considered by the high court are slim.

The fight to restore the Second Amendment to its full and robust intention is painfully slow, but the goal is worthy and increasingly achievable. Tuesday’s initial ruling is a small victory in the larger war.

Michigan Legislators Expected to Repeal Law Whitmer Used to Justify COVID Lockdowns

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on  Thursday, July 15, 2021:  

Under orders by Michigan’s Supreme Court, the Board of State Canvassers on Tuesday voted to allow a petition to be presented to the state’s legislature for consideration and likely passage into law.

What’s unique is that the Michigan Supreme Court has already ruled that the 1945 law — the Emergency Powers of Governor Act, or EPGA — is unconstitutional. But, as one state legislator stated, “Bad ideas never really die in Lansing, they just take naps. And this one could wake back up.”

A group called Unlock Michigan, made up of citizens increasingly infuriated by Whitmer’s executive orders and the expansion of her draconian lockdowns, gathered more than enough signatures to allow the petition to be presented to both houses of the Michigan Legislature next week. The bill would repeal the noxious and unconstitutional act, and passage is likely.

That act on which Whitmer relied as she shut down the state (applying criminal charges for operating a motorboat, visiting a secondary home, and banning stores from selling gardening supplies, for example) was passed in 1945, giving legislative powers to the executive in the event of an emergency:

The governor may proclaim a state of emergency … and may promulgate reasonable orders, rules, and regulations as he or she considers necessary … to bring the emergency situation … under control….

 

It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent to invest the governor with sufficiently broad power of action in the exercise of the police power of the state to provide adequate control over persons and conditions during such periods.

Last October, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled not only that the ERPG was unconstitutional, but it also ruled that the 1976 Emergency Management Act on which Whitmer also relied for her mandates “did not give Whitmer the power, after April 30 [2020], to issue or renew any executive orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic after 28 days without Legislative approval.”

Specifically, the state’s high court ruled that the EPGA “is an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the executive branch in violation of the Michigan Constitution,” adding:

The Governor did not possess the authority to exercise emergency powers under the EPGA because the act unlawfully delegates legislative power to the executive branch in violation of the Michigan Constitution.

Whitmer, not to be denied, used the state health department to continue her orders without legislative approval. So, Unlock Michigan began their petition campaign to rein in the state’s Department of Health and Human Services. If successful in persuading the legislative branch, another law would limit that department’s rulings to be effective for just 28 days. After that, such administrative mandates would end unless the state’s legislative body approved their extension.

The core issue here is that of the separation of powers that limits just such illegal overreach by eager tyrants-in-waiting such as Whitmer. The success of Unlock Michigan serves as an example to follow in reining in federal administrative agencies’ similar overreach and abrogation of constitutional limits. Hats off to the success of Michiganders using Unlock Michigan to help restore those limits.

 

Pastor Received 1,500 Death Threats Over COVID Resistance

Pastor Brian Gibson, a graduate of Oral Roberts University and founder of HIS Church in Owensboro, Kentucky, has a target on his back. In an interview on Epoch TV’s Crossroads program last Thursday he said he’s being targeted “just for being a vocal proponent of the First Amendment … just for being someone who supported President Trump, and someone who spoke out actively.”

He added:

I’ve received closed to 1,500 death threats. People broke into my home, kicked my gate down, hacked all of our accounts.

 

It’s amazing what they can do and how coordinated some of these intimidation rings can really be. I think I underestimated what that would really be until it happened to me.

He was forced to move when thugs started intimidating his children, but they found his new location and continued the harassment.

Gibson gained national attention and notoriety back in January for telling the truth about how COVID restrictions, mandates, and lockdowns were greatly infringing upon precious rights guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution. He told NTD’s Focus Talk:

Whenever you watch the church being shut down, you watch the freedom of speech being taken away, you watch the censorship, you watch the ability to assemble together being threatened in the name of COVID.

He then added a phrase that rang all across the internet: “The Constitution has no COVID clause!”

He explained:

The first thing that’s listed there … is the freedom of religion. If it falls, and the First Amendment falls, the rest of the Constitution falls like dominos.

He noted the root cause of the collectivist cancer eating away at America’s foundations: “I think America needs to wake up on who has the mind of your children. Because, if you can shape the mind of a child, you can shape the mind of the future of our nation.” To restore the country’s culture, said Gibson, “We have to first start with the children.”

Gibson founded a group called Peaceably Gather where like-minded pastors could learn how to resist the COVID cancel culture, rapidly reaching more than 5,000 pastors with the message of resistance.

He sees the battle as “a fight for the heart and soul of America,” explaining on the Peaceably Gather website:

There is a constitutional crisis occurring right before our very eyes in America. Many of the governors of various states see the freedom of religion as something they can step over anytime they choose.

 

In this instance they’ve used public health and safety to silence the church. Opposing scientific opinions have been silenced, big tech is censoring conservative thought.

 

The last thing that can defeat this giant is the local church.

 

If we allow the forces that want to take away our first amendment rights to win in America we will be no different than China, Iran, or Vietnam.

 

Our children and our grandchildren will be raised in a nation where the government controls every aspect of their lives. They will live in a society where Caesar not Christ is God. America would become like any other communistic nation on the earth — totalitarian, ungodly, and impoverished.

The media made much of a selfie Gibson took of himself and another man who later attended the January 6 Capitol incident. The media, said Gibson, tried to frame him by saying that he was “one of the masterminds of the Capitol siege. I wasn’t in the Capitol, but I think what they do when they create these hit pieces, they’re trying to build a narrative against you: No. 1, with the public, and No. 2, they want a legal case against you. The mainstream media works to try to spin the narrative, and to spin public opinion, before they’ll ever file charges.”

Gibson says the church in America has become soft and decadent and doesn’t want to give up its privileges by taking controversial stands:

In America we’ve become so comfortable. We don’t want to give up any of our comforts for real truth and real conviction anymore. And that’s why the church remained silent during the lockdowns [with notable exceptions]. So that’s why so many pastors didn’t speak up and push back.

Gibson said believers and pastors have to begin to stand against the encroaching tyranny:

Stand up for what you believe in. Don’t be afraid. Continue to love your enemies, but stand your ground. I think that’s what’s really needed in America.

 

Stop being afraid of what somebody might do to you. The high cost of living is potentially dying. I don’t want to die. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t have martyr’s complex. I want to live a long life, be an old man, see all of my kids’ kids.

 

But if somebody has such a grip of fear around you that you can’t live or be who you are, what good is living?

Biden’s ATF Nominee David Chipman to Ban All “Assault-type” Weapons

This article was published by TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, May 27, 2021:

During a Senate confirmation hearing on Monday, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) pressed Biden pick, David Chipman, who is poised to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), to explain his position on banning the popular semi-automatic AR-15 rifle. Asked Cruz, “The AR-15 is one of if not the most popular rifles in America. It’s not a machine gun, it’s a rifle. Your public opinion is that you want to ban AR-15s. Is that correct?”

Chipman was crystal clear: “With respect to the AR-15, I support a ban.”

He then expanded on his remark, calling the rifle “particularly lethal”:

The AR-15 is a gun I was issued on ATF’s S.W.A.T. team and it’s a particularly lethal weapon, and regulating it as other particularly lethal weapons, I have advocated for.

This was the first among many lies, distortions, and prevarications that punctuated the nominee’s responses to intense probing and questions by Republican senators. The lie: the firearm Chipman was issued was no doubt a fully automatic weapon, capable of firing many rounds rapidly with a single press of the trigger. This is a far cry from popular AR-15s now owned by an estimated 20 million law-abiding American citizens.

The second statement — that the AR-15 is a “particularly lethal weapon” — is even more chilling:

Keep reading…

Newsom Must Pay $1.35 Million to Harvest Rock Church

This article was published by TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, May 27, 2021:  

In his final judgment in the case Harvest Rock Church v. Gavin Newsom, U.S. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal ordered Newsom to pay the church’s legal fees and related expenses, totaling $1.35 million.

Of course, since the complaint charged Newsom with unconstitutional restrictions against California churches in his “official capacity” as governor, he won’t pay a dime. The citizens of California will.

In November, California voters will likely remember this, along with a very long list of other grievances, when they vote to oust Newsom.

More importantly, however, is what else the ruling accomplished. As Bernal wrote:

Keep reading…

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