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

Supreme Court Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson Adopts “Originalist” Position on the Constitution

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, March 22, 2022: 

Joe Biden’s appointee to the Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, knew she would be pressed hard for her views on the Constitution: Is it, in her opinion, a “living” document, subject to judicial “interpretation?” Or is it to be interpreted in light of what its authors intended at the time they wrote it?

So, she tried to head off the question by answering it in advance. In her opening statement to the Senate Judicial Committee as her confirmation hearing began on Monday, she said:

I decide cases from a neutral posture. I evaluate the facts, and I interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me, without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial oath.

If she is confirmed she will take this oath:

 I, Ketanji Brown Jackson, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.


So help me God.

On Tuesday, the second day of her confirmation hearing, Jackson reiterated her fealty to originalism:

The adherence to text is a constraint on my authority — trying to figure out what those words mean, as they were intended by the people who wrote them….


I’m not importing my personal views or policy preferences. The entire exercise is about trying to understand what those who created this policy or this law intended.

She expanded on her position by specifically rejecting the theory that the Constitution is a “living document” that must be adjusted to changing times and circumstances:

I do not believe that there is a living Constitution in the sense that it’s changing and it’s infused with my own policy perspective or the policy perspective of the day.


Instead, the Supreme Court has made clear when you’re interpreting the Constitution, you’re looking at the text at the time of the founding, and what the meaning was.

Perhaps this is a ploy, to disarm Senators ready to challenge her judicial philosophy. By answering the question before it is asked, it puts those Senators on the defensive. If they press the matter, Jackson is free to remind them that she already answered the question.

Is she really a conservative? A black conservative, in the mold of Justice Clarence Thomas? If so, then she will greatly disappoint the far-left liberal group Demand Justice, funded with dark money through the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which itself is funded in part by George Soros and his Open Society Foundations. It was Demand Justice that provided Jackson’s name to Joe Biden and pushed him to nominate her over another equally qualified but more moderate candidate, Michelle Childs.

Jackson provided a clue in her opening remarks on Monday. She looked back fondly on her days as a law clerk for liberal Justice Stephen Breyer:

On the day of his Supreme Court nomination, Justice Breyer said: “What is Law supposed to do, seen as a whole?


“It is supposed to allow all people — all people — to live together in a society, where they have so many different views, so many different needs, to live together in a way that is more harmonious, that is better, so that they can work productively together.”

By contrast, French political philosopher and economist Frédéric Bastiat, author of The Law, first published in 1850, wrote:

The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over all.

This should answer the question: Will Jackson, if confirmed, be another Stephen Breyer, as expected? Or will her term as justice on the high court surprise and anger those who thought she was in their liberal, “living constitution” camp?

One senator on the committee, Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), isn’t persuaded. She has hinted that she will grill Jackson about her real agenda and her real judicial philosophy:

I can only wonder: What’s your hidden agenda? Is it to let violent criminals, cop-killers and child predators back to the streets? Is it to restrict parental rights and expand government’s reach into our schools and our private family decisions?


Is it to support the radical left’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court?… Is it your personal hidden agenda to incorporate critical race theory into our legal system?


These are answers that the American people need to know.

Jackson’s confirmation hearing is likely to extend into the middle of April before the committee issues its vote to confirm, or not.

Christian Middle-school Teacher Sues School Board for Religious Discrimination

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, March 17, 2022:  

A math teacher at Fort Riley (Kansas) Middle School found herself the target of an effort to remove all Biblical references to sexuality in the school last spring. As the school board running the Geary County School District, where her school is located, decided to move toward gender “fluidity,” Pamela Ricard pushed back. A Christian, Ricard refused to call her students by whatever first name they chose and instead continued to call them either “Miss” or “Mister,” depending on their biological sex.

For that she was suspended for three days last April. When negotiations failed to resolve the matter, she sued the board on Monday.

She has enlisted the assistance of Josh Ney, a partner in the Kriegshauser Ney Law Group, who explained the basis for the suit:

Our suit contends that schools cannot force teachers to promote novel views about gender fluidity and ever-expanding pronoun categories without regard to the First Amendment or due process.


Throughout her career, Ms. Ricard has consistently treated every student in her classroom with respect and dignity; unfortunately, the school district has not treated Ms. Ricard with similar good faith or basic fairness.

When Ricard was initially disciplined, the board hadn’t completely sold out to the “woke” ideology, so it found her in violation of the district’s “generic” policies related to “diversity and inclusion.”

Later, as the board solidified its stance against the traditional cultural and Biblical understanding of two sexes and two sexes only, it issued its command:

Society has historically utilized “he/him” when identifying biological males and “she/her” when identifying biological females….


Employees should be aware and make an effort to utilize the pronouns an individual requests to be identified by.


This will assist in the prevention of discrimination and harassment. This appropriate usage of pronouns also contributes to a culture of unity and inclusivity.

Ricard, who has taught math at Fort Riley Middle School since 2005, refused to bend to the shifting winds of morality. Her lawsuit spelled out her position:

Ms. Ricard is a Christian and holds sincere religious beliefs consistent with the traditional Christian and Biblical understanding of the human person and biological sex.


Ms. Ricard believes that God created human beings as either male or female, that this sex is fixed in each person from the moment of conception, and that it cannot be changed, regardless of an individual person’s feelings, desires, or preferences.


Any policy that requires Ms. Ricard to refer to a student by a gendered, non-binary, or plural pronoun (e.g., he/him, she/her, they/them, zhe/zher, etc.) or salutation (Mr., Miss, Ms.) or other gendered language that is different from the student’s biological sex actively violates Ms. Ricard’s religious beliefs.

Her suit deplores any requirement that she take a position counter to her faith, for a culture that shifts with each change in the wind and weather:

Under District policies, all teachers must now refer to each student — both in and out of class — using whatever names or pronouns the student claims reflect his or her particular gender identity on any given day.


The District now demands this of Ms. Ricard even though the concept of gender identity is entirely subjective and fluid, even though the number of potential gender identities is infinite (with ever expanding options currently available), and even though the number of potential pronouns has likewise exponentially multiplied in recent years — all for the purpose of lending credence to cultural ideas Ms. Ricard does not share or wish to advance that are contrary to her core religious beliefs.

The policies promoted by the school board are bad enough. To require that a Christian adopt them, under pain of punishment, is worse:

Defendants have retaliated against Ms. Ricard for exercising her First Amendment rights, including her right not be compelled to engage in particular speech or expression, have violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion, have violated the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, have deprived her of due process and equal protection of law, and have breached their contract with her.


Thus, this action concerns the denial of Ms. Ricard’s fundamental and clearly established rights under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

As Ricard herself said, “No public school teacher should be forced to contradict [his or her] core beliefs in order to teach math to middle schoolers. I treat all students with respect, but the district has rejected any attempts to find a compromise that respects students without violating my convictions.”

This is a skirmish in the larger war against the cultural foundations of the American Republic. At bottom, that war revolves around this question: “Is the Bible the Word of God and the rule for His creation, or isn’t it?” As Scripture Itself says, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).

In Pamela Ricard’s case, she can sue. And so, she is.

Omnibus Spending Bill Contains Anti-gun Measures

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, March 14, 2022:  

Buried in the omnibus spending bill that hurriedly passed both the U.S. House and the Senate last week were two provisions that no doubt delighted anti-gun groups: expanded enforcement of the NICS background-check system and the recruitment of local and state officials to enforce federal gun-control laws.

The measure that passed the House earlier in the week arrived at the Senate at 1:30 a.m. Wednesday. By 10:00 p.m. Wednesday, 68 Senators had voted for it under pressure to avoid a government shutdown.

Anti-gun Democrats saw their opportunity to stuff these two provisions into the bill, and they took it.

The first “insertion” is the “NICS Denial Notification Act of 2022”:

Reporting of background check denials to State authorities:


If the national instant criminal background check system … provides a notice … that the receipt of a firearm by a person would violate [the law], the Attorney General shall … report [this] to the local law enforcement authorities of the State … within 24 hours.

The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) scarcely had time to ferret out the offending language before warning its members of its danger:

Over 95 percent of all NICS denials are false positives, which means [that] all local and state police would be required to investigate law-abiding citizens when they’re wrongly and unconstitutionally denied the right to purchase a firearm.… This constitutes a serious expansion of federal gun control.

It especially endangers women, said NAGR’s executive director, Dudley Brown:

We will find ourselves in a situation where law-abiding women who need to arm themselves for self-defense get wrongfully denied a firearm purchase when the National Instant Check System [NICS] wrongfully flags them, and then [they] find themselves being investigated by the cops for doing nothing wrong.

This is bad enough. But the second “insertion” compounds the flagrant violation of the Constitution. Called the “Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys and Cross-Deputized Attorneys,” it allows the attorney general of the United States to

appoint … local prosecutors and qualified attorneys working for the United States government to serve as special assistant United States attorneys for the purpose of prosecuting violations … and deputize State … and local law enforcement officers for the purpose of enhancing the capacity of the agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives [ATF] in responding to and investigating violations.

In other words, this “insertion” violates states’ rights, and any sanctuary laws that states may have erected to keep federal law-enforcement officials from entering and enforcing laws the states consider to be unconstitutional.

The bill is more than 2,700 pages long, thus ensuring that hardly any representative or senator had time to read it before voting on it. And it neatly precluded any response from Second Amendment advocates such as the National Association for Gun Rights or Gun Owners of America to rally their members in protest.

It’s another example of how Congress passes laws the people don’t want.

Second-grader Chastised for Preaching the Gospel to her Classmates

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, March 9, 2022:  

A second-grade student attending North Hill Elementary School in Des Moines, Washington, has been sent to the principal’s office 10 times since the first of the year for witnessing to her classmates on the school’s playground.

When the parents contacted the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), the public-interest law firm sent a letter to the principal reminding him of the student’s First Amendment-protected rights, and suggesting that unless the harassment stopped they would be filing suit.

The principal responded by telling ACLJ that the student was scaring her classmates with talks of Satan and hell. She offered religious tracts which some of her classmates took home with them, resulting, as the public-relations officer for the school district told CBN News, in “Multiple parents complain[ing] about their children coming home with religious pamphlets.”

The PR officer filled in the blanks: During playtime the student would stand on a playground table and preach the Gospel. School officials told her she couldn’t “tell other children they’re going to hell and that [she] must stop distributing what the school considers to be unacceptable religious materials.”

The principal said she would be allowed to distribute religious materials but only if the staff decides they’re appropriate.

The ACLJ was astonished after learning from the parents that their daughter was being stopped at the schoolhouse door and having her backpack searched for those “unacceptable religious materials”:

We were astonished when we were first contacted by a second-grade student’s parents who said their little girl had been sent to the principal’s office at North Hill Elementary School no less than 10 times since January 1st for witnessing to classmates on the playground.


But it only gets worse. Not only were they scolding her for talking about Jesus to her classmates outside of instruction time, but they were stopping her at the entrance to the school every morning to inspect her backpack and remove any Christian tracts!


Her mother witnessed this exchange one morning when dropping her daughter off and immediately confronted the principal. The principal told her that her child is not allowed to pass out tracts or crosses to students because it is upsetting parents, and the school wanted her to confirm that there were no tracts in her daughter’s backpack every morning before dropping her off from now on.


Christian tracts were being treated as contraband, as if speaking about Jesus were an illicit drug.

The ACLJ is prepared to defend the student if the school doesn’t back down, declaring that Supreme Court precedent supports her right to share the Gospel with her classmates:

It is well-settled Supreme Court precedent that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). [Under that ruling] students are free to express their religious views while at school, which includes sharing Bibles, Christian tracts, and crosses.

Since 1969, Tinker has often been cited in cases such as this one. Although the court at the time of the ruling was considered one of the most liberal in judicial history, the majority opinion, penned by Justice Abe Fortas, is comforting:

First Amendment rights … are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.


This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years.

In this constitutional republic, wrote Fortas, freedoms come with certain inevitable risks. The alternative is tyranny where no expression outside of what the state declares is allowed:

In our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.


Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble.


Any variation from the majority’s opinion may inspire fear.


Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance.


But our Constitution says we must take this risk … and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom — this kind of openness — that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society.

If the Highline School District, where North Hill Elementary School is located, decides to accept ACLJ’s challenge, it will have to show that the student’s behavior “materially and substantially interfere[s] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school,” according to the Tinker ruling.

ACLJ has given the school district until March 14 to respond. The New American will report on any developments in the case.

Indiana, Georgia, Alabama, Ohio Could Soon Allow Constitutional Carry

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, March 8, 2022: 

Indiana’s General Assembly is likely to pass “constitutional carry” legislation this week, perhaps as soon as today, making it the 23rd state to do so once Republican Governor Eric Holcomb signs it into law.

The law would allow any Hoosier aged 18 and older to carry a firearm without first having to obtain government permission. It’s called “constitutional” as it reflects the Second Amendment guarantee that exercising such a right may not be “infringed” by government.

The bill’s author, Representative Ben Smaltz, said his bill “levels the playing field” by allowing the state’s citizens to carry openly or concealed, adding:

House Bill 1077 gets us to a place where the law-abiding citizen is not required to go through a process of asking permission, submitting to government investigation, supplying their fingerprints to enjoy a right that is constitutional at the federal level and constitutional at the state level.

On March 5, the Georgia Senate passed a similar bill, removing the need for Georgians to obtain a permit before being able to carry a firearm in public.

Alabama’s Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill last week that would grant the state’s citizens the freedom to carry a firearm without first obtaining permission. It now heads to the full Senate for approval and then on to Governor Kay Ivey’s desk for her signature.

On March 3, Ohio’s General Assembly overwhelmingly passed a bill eliminating the need for Ohioans to get a concealed-carry permit — the House by 57-35, and the Senate by 24-8. That bill now heads to Governor Mike DeWine for signing into law.

The momentum is all in favor of such legislation. Vermont has never had any such requirements thanks to its carefully worded Constitution. A synonym for “constitutional carry” is “Vermont carry.”

In 2003, Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski signed a constitutional carry bill into law; Arizona followed suit in 2010. Wyoming passed similar legislation in 2011, followed by Maine and Kansas in 2015. Four more states passed constitutional carry laws in 2016: West Virginia, Idaho, Mississippi, and Missouri. New Hampshire and North Dakota joined the lengthening list of states removing the permission requirement in 2017, while South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Kentucky followed suit in 2019.

Arkansas joined the constitutional-carry crowd in 2020, followed by Utah, Montana, Iowa, Tennessee, and Texas in 2021.

CNN took note of the accelerating move toward constitutional carry, noting that similar legislation is now pending in Wisconsin, South Carolina, and Nebraska. Michigan and Louisiana are also lining up behind the move toward permitless carry. CNN complained that such a law somehow “protects criminals,” claiming further that such freedom will lead to a rise in violent gun-related crime.

Not so, wrote John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. In fact, those carrying firearms are much less likely to be convicted of a gun-related crime than even police — 12 times less likely, in fact:

Permit holders nationwide are incredibly law-abiding. Police officers are extremely rarely convicted of firearms-related violations, but it still happens, at a rate twelve times more often than for permit holders.

The case for constitutional carry is persuasive:

The people who benefit the most are those who live in high-crime urban areas;


None of the states which have passed constitutional carry laws have reconsidered them, or even held a single hearing questioning the decision;


The citizens resisting tyranny in Ukraine provide unassailable evidence of the efficacy of the private ownership of firearms; and


Where firearms are prevalent violent crime predictably and consistently declines.

The Second Amendment is overcoming its status as a “second-class” right. Next on the agenda must be repeal of the oppressive Gun Control Act of 1968 and then the National Firearms Act of 1934.

New York State Attorney General Suffers Setback in Effort to Dissolve NRA

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, March 4, 2021:  

New York State Attorney General Letitia James, who called the National Rifle Association (NRA) a “terrorist organization” with a “poisonous agenda” during her election campaign in 2018, was rebuffed in her attempt to have the group dissolved altogether.

Judge Joel M. Cohen chided AG James for overreaching:

The Attorney General’s claims to dissolve the NRA are dismissed.


Her allegations concern primarily private harm to the NRA and its members and donors, which if proven can be addressed by the targeted, less intrusive relief she seeks through other claims in her Complaint.


The Complaint does not allege that any financial misconduct benefited the NRA, or that the NRA exists primarily to carry out such activity, or that the NRA is incapable of continuing its legitimate activities on behalf of its millions of members.


In short, the Complaint does not allege the type of public harm that is the legal linchpin for imposing the “corporate death penalty.”


Moreover, dissolving the NRA could impinge, at least indirectly, on the free speech and assembly rights of its millions of members. While that alone would not preclude statutory dissolution if circumstances otherwise clearly warranted it, the Court believes it is a relevant factor that counsels against State-imposed dissolution, which should be the last option, not the first.

In other words, Judge Cohen accused James of massive overreach in her attempt to close down the NRA altogether over the alleged, and as-yet unproven, misbehavior on the part of the group’s top officials.

Not surprisingly, James, on the day she filed suit, claimed that politics or her personal animosity against the NRA had nothing to do with her complaint: “This is not a question of the moment that I’ve been waiting for. This is a question … of following the facts and applying the law.”

Of course.

She began the investigation into the NRA’s alleged misconduct within a month of taking office in January 2019, an investigation involving dozens of lawyers and investigators in her office and costing taxpayers millions of dollars. In August 2020, she filed the infamous lawsuit, 169 pages long, detailing what she and her task force found: that NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre

has exploited the organization for his financial benefit, and the benefit of a close circle of NRA staff, board members, and vendors.


Contrary to his statutory duties of care, loyalty and obedience to the mission of the charity, LaPierre has undertaken a series of actions to consolidate his position; to exploit that position for his personal benefit and that of his family; to continue, by use of a secret “poison pill contract,” his employment even after removal and ensuring NRA income for life; and to intimidate, punish, and expel anyone at a senior level who raised concerns about his conduct.


The effect has been to divert millions of dollars away from the charitable mission, imposing substantial reductions in its expenditures for core program services, including gun safety, education, training, member services and public affairs.

And then, in a non sequitur, she claimed that La Pierre and his cohorts cost the group millions of dollars, as a result:

During the period 2015 to 2018, the NRA has reported a reduction in unrestricted net assets by $63 million.

In her humble opinion, therefore, she asked the court to dissolve the NRA, use its remaining liquidated assets to reimburse injured parties, and ban the guilty parties from ever running another charity in New York State:

As a result of these persistent violations of law by the Defendants, the Attorney General seeks a finding by this Court that the NRA is liable to be dissolved … based upon the NRA’s pattern of conducting its business in a persistently fraudulent or illegal manner, abusing its powers contrary to public policy of New York and its tax exempt status, and failing to provide for the proper administration of its trust assets and institutional funds; because directors or members in control of the NRA have looted or wasted the corporation assets, have operated the NRA solely for their personal benefit, or have otherwise acted in an illegal, oppressive or fraudulent manner.


The Attorney General requests that this Court determine … that the interest of the public and the members of the NRA supports a decision to dissolve the NRA.

James is disappointed in Cohen’s rebuffing of her request, but relishes the opportunity to pursue the defendants: “We are disappointed that the judge ruled against the dissolution portion of the case [but] are considering our legal options with respect to this ruling. We remain committed to enforcing New York law regardless of how powerful any individual or organization may be.”

Her campaign promise to attack the “terrorist organization” with its “poisonous agenda” will continue despite the court’s rebuff.

Biden’s Supreme Court Nominee Faces Uphill Confirmation Battle

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, February 25, 2022:  

Joe Biden nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson, a federal judge currently serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to the Supreme Court on Friday. If confirmed she would replace Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who is retiring in June.

A liberal judge replacing a liberal justice. Senate confirmation of her should be an afterthought. After all, the so-called “conservative advantage” on the high court would remain in place, 6-3.

The White House exulted:

President Biden sought a candidate with exceptional credentials, unimpeachable character, and unwavering dedication to the rule of law.


He also sought a nominee — much like Justice Breyer — who is wise, pragmatic, and has a deep understanding of the Constitution as an enduring charter of liberty.


And the President sought an individual who is committed to equal justice under the law and who understands the profound impact that the Supreme Court’s decisions have on the lives of the American people.

It confirmed that Jackson is a bonafide liberal with all the proper credentials:

She graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College, then attended Harvard Law School, where she graduated cum laude and was an editor of the Harvard Law Review.


After law school, Judge Jackson served in Justice Breyer’s chambers as a law clerk.

She is a social justice warrior:

Judge Jackson served as a federal public defender from 2005 to 2007, representing defendants on appeal who did not have the means to pay for a lawyer.

And she is a black woman, meaning that she falls into the category that Biden said he would draw from for his Supreme Court pick:

If confirmed, she will be the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

In addition, she has written opinions savaging the Trump administration, including ruling in December denying President Donald Trump’s claim that executive privilege protected White House records from being handed over to the House’s January 6 witch-hunt committee.

The nomination is clearly political, designed to shore up sagging support among women, minorities, and soft Democrats.

Missing from the White House statement was any mention of the enormous hill her nomination must climb before she takes Breyer’s seat next October. First, the Republican National Committee (RNC) has announced all-out war against her confirmation. Said RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel:

Maybe the only promise Joe Biden has kept is his pledge to nominate a liberal, activist judge to the Supreme Court. Ketanji Brown Jackson is exactly that: a radical, left-wing activist who would rubberstamp Biden’s disastrous agenda.


By picking Jackson, Biden put far-left special interests ahead of defending Americans’ rights and liberties.


The Republican National Committee will make sure voters know just how radical Jackson is and remember at the ballot box in November.

That assumes Jackson gets that far. Her ties with Democrat “dark money” funding groups like Demand Justice are likely to provoke inquiry into that connection. Demand Justice is a left-of-center advocacy group that put her on their “select” list of potential nominees for Biden to consider. It applauded Biden’s selection on Friday, saying that “Jackson would bring more experience as a trial court judge than any sitting Supreme Court justice.”

Demand Justice, formed in 2018 and financed by “dark money” [money from unlisted and untraceable donors] from the Sixteen Thirty Fund, opposed the confirmations of Trump nominees Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, and advocates for court packing — adding additional seats to the high court to be filled by Demand Justice-approved nominees.

Sixteen Thirty Fund, which the liberal Atlantic calls “the indisputable heavyweight of Democratic dark money,” is primarily funded by four billionaires, including George Soros through his Open Society Foundations.

Judge Jackson will certainly be asked if she plans to recuse herself when Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard arrives at the high court in October. As a current member of Harvard University’s Board of Overseers, she has direct and intimate ties to the defendant in that case. As National Review noted:

The Senate should … probe Jackson on her role in and approval of Harvard’s policy of race discrimination which has led to vastly disparate effects on the admission rates for Asian students compared to African-American students with comparable academic records…


The Senate will be wholly justified in grilling Jackson to find out whether she supported Harvard’s policy of race discrimination in her role on its Board of Overseers.


This is not a hypothetical question about a future case, which she could reasonably decline to answer; it is a question about her own record, and it goes to the core of whether she is committed to equal justice under the law for people of every race and ethnicity.

When Biden nominated her for her present position last spring three Senate Republicans jumped the fence and joined Democrats in confirming her. Provided with this additional evidence of racial discrimination by a justice “who,” according to the White House, “is committed to equal justice under the law,” those three, and any others considering confirming her to the high court, might just conclude that her confirmation has become too high a hurdle too to overcome during the upcoming Senate confirmation hearings.

Supreme Court to Hear Colorado Web Designer’s Free-speech Lawsuit

This article was published by TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, February 24, 2022:  

Not long after Colorado passed its anti-discrimination law (the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, or CADA) the state’s civil rights commission — staffed with hard-core liberals — saw an opportunity to weaponize the law against anyone holding traditional views of human sexuality, and they took it.

Colorado web developer Lorie Smith saw the imminent threat from the commission to her business and filed a pre-emptive suit, claiming that the law, if enforced by the commission, would violate her First Amendment-protected rights. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court accepted the case on appeal after lower courts decided the law was enforceable.

Lawyers from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) crafted the question the court will answer:

Artist Lorie Smith is a website designer who creates original, online content consistent with her faith. She plans to (1) design wedding websites promoting her understanding of marriage, and (2) post a statement explaining that she can only speak messages consistent with her faith.


But the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) requires her to create custom websites celebrating same-sex marriage and prohibits her statement….


The Tenth Circuit … astonishingly concluded that the government [the commission] may, based on content and viewpoint, force Lorie to convey messages that violate her religious beliefs and restrict her from explaining her faith.

Specifically, the high court will be answering this key question: “Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent, contrary to the artist’s sincerely held religious beliefs, violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment [to the United State Constitution].”

This should be a slam dunk for the high court. Nowhere in the Constitution are gay rights guaranteed, but rights of free speech, free exercise of religion, and due process are.

When the high court ruled in a similar case — Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission — it punted. Instead of settling the issue once and for all — that the Constitution overrides states’ efforts to negate it — it held that the commission failed “to act in a manner neutral to religion.” As a result, Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, continues to be harassed by the commission.

Last July, Colorado’s 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Smith cannot refuse to create websites celebrating same-sex marriages. The three-judge panel also ruled that she cannot express her reasons on her business website.

As ADF’s Senior Counsel John Bursch explained, “Lorie Smith is being told that she must speak views she opposes and can’t post about her beliefs on her own business website.”

In other words, by weaponizing CADA, Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission is both denying and compelling her speech to fit its perception of how they want the world to behave.

The ADF said this could be a “landmark” case:

No one should be banished from the marketplace simply for living and speaking consistently with their religious beliefs. This could be a landmark case for the freedom of speech, religious liberty, and artistic freedom. We look forward to representing Lorie before the high court.

On the other hand, the Left is afraid that the Supreme Court will finally do what it should have done in the first place: reaffirm the First Amendment. Mark Joseph Stern, writing for the far-left Slate, warned that by taking the case under appeal, “the court formally commenced its long-delayed project of dismantling non-discrimination laws that protect LGBTQ people … [the justices] have indicated that they may take a wrecking ball to the edifice of civil rights law, dismantling the constitutional foundations of non-discrimination in public accommodations.”

Stern fears that “if ADF [and Lorie Smith] prevails, the majority could relegate gay people to second-class status under civil rights law.”

This is just plain silly. What he fears is that the Supreme Court will finally come to its senses and declare that LBGTQ individuals have no “special” rights or privileges just because they assume a particular lifestyle.

Stern is correct about one thing: “If a business’ First Amendment rights outweigh the government’s interest in ending discrimination, few non-discrimination laws will be safe from constitutional attack.”

Precisely. Whether the Supreme Court seizes this opportunity to affirm the First Amendment is an open question. Most liberal commentators bemoan the fact that the high court is now ruled by conservatives, 6-3. In reality it’s a draw: three liberals, three conservatives, and three waffles, including Chief Justice John Roberts himself.

Smith is going to have to wait another year and a half to find out, as the high court won’t be hearing arguments on the matter until October, and then rendering its decision in June 2023.

District Judge Stops Air Force’s Persecution of Officer Seeking Religious Exemption From COVID Mandate

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, February 17, 2022: 

In a decision fraught with national implications, a Trump-appointed judge in Georgia ruled on Tuesday that the Air Force cannot continue to pressure a reserve officer into taking the COVID vaccine.

Although technically the ruling affects only the future of a 25-year reservist, the judge’s reasoning lays substantial groundwork for future cases against the religious discrimination currently being applied by all the military services of the United States.

The religious discrimination was blatant, as Tilman Self, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, noted on the first page of his ruling. The plaintiff’s superior officer, in rejecting her final request for a religious exemption to taking the vaccine, wrote: “Your religious beliefs are sincere, [they’re] just not compatible with military service.”

Although that statement was a single individual’s opinion, it reflected the Air Force’s general view of religion. As Judge Self noted: “When considering the Air Force’s abysmal record regarding religious accommodations requests, it turns out that he was dead on target.”

In his 32-page ruling, Judge Self took considerable pains to expose the hypocrisy and disdain for those holding strong religious beliefs.

First, any claim by the Air Force that it has in place a procedure to process religious exemption requests is a sham, a fraud, a ruse, nothing but “theater”:

Although the Air Force claims to provide a religious accommodation process, it proved to be nothing more than a quixotic quest for Plaintiff because it was [quoting from another judge’s ruling on the same issue] “by all accounts,… theater.” …


Despite thousands of requests for religious exemption, the Air Force hadn’t granted a single one of them when Plaintiff filed her Complaint.

The issue is about the Constitution’s Bill of Rights: “Even in a pandemic [wrote Self, quoting still another judge’s ruling on the same issue], the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.”

Judge Self exposed the Air Force’s blatant disdain for those holding sincere religious objections to taking the vaccine:

As of January 31, 2022, the Air Force hadn’t approved a single religious accommodation request, but it had disapproved 2,787 of them and had another 2,443 requests pending.

Not only was the Air Force not granting any religious exemptions, it was punishing those requesting them:

The Air Force … informed Plaintiff that “any refusal to receive [a] COVID-19 vaccine … may be punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice…” and that “continued refusal will result in involuntary reassignment” … without pay, benefits, or regular responsibilities.

The plaintiff was being “forced to choose between her sincerely held religious beliefs, and her livelihood.” She complained that “the Constitution prohibits Defendants [the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Surgeon General of the Air Force] from forcing her” to make such a choice.

The judge exposed the Air Force’s deliberate intention to deny religious exemptions to everyone requesting them:

Like every other religious-based request and appeal filtering its way through the Air Force’s accommodation process, it was … rubber-stamped with disapproval and denial.

He reminded the defendants that “constitutional protections remain commandments, not suggestions,” and that he agreed with the plaintiff that they “have violated the Constitution because they essentially forced her to choose between her sincerely held religious beliefs and her livelihood.”

The plaintiff’s attorneys had no defense:

Defendants don’t say much in response to Plaintiff’s arguments that their COVID-19 vaccination requirement substantially burdens the free exercise of her religion. And how could they? Very few scenarios paint a bleaker picture than giving up your livelihood in order to follow your religious beliefs.…


Defendants simply don’t explain why they have a compelling interest in Plaintiff being vaccinated while so many other Air Force service members are not [vaccinated].

Judge Self then touched the third rail of the whole business of vaccinating against the COVID-19 virus:

Plaintiff’s natural immunity coupled with other preventive measures begs the question: Does a COVID-19 vaccine really provide more sufficient protection?


This is especially curious given the number of people who have been and continue to be infected after becoming fully vaccinated and receiving a booster — including the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

Additionally, he exposed the Air Force’s hypocrisy and its anti-religion stance:

Defendants’ COVID-19 vaccination requirement allows service members to refuse vaccination for secular reasons while disallowing refusal based on religious reasons…. No matter whether one service member is unvaccinated for a medical reason and another unvaccinated for a religious reason, one thing remains the same for both of these service members — they’re both unvaccinated. In other words, both of these service members pose a “similar hazard” to Defendants’ compelling interest in “stemming the spread of COVID-19” within the military.

He then called out the defendants’ personal hypocrisy in allegedly supporting and defending the Constitution while violating it:

Given “the Nation’s essential commitment to religious freedom [,]” Plaintiff’s harm — a constitutional injury involving her right to freely exercise her religion — is not a mere trivial grievance…. And, what real interest can our military leaders have in furthering a requirement that violates the very document they swore to support and defend?

Stephen Crampton, senior counsel with the Thomas More Society, which assisted the reservist with her complaint, said:

This is a great victory for religious freedom.


The Air Force had granted over 1,500 medical exemptions by the time we filed this lawsuit, but not a single religious exemption — not one. After we filed, it suddenly decided to start granting or claiming to grant religious exemptions, albeit only a handful.


It is disgraceful how the military in general has disrespected fundamental First Amendment rights.

He then added a hopeful footnote:

We are grateful that the court has restored the Free Exercise rights of this courageous officer and are hopeful that her victory will help to protect the rights of conscientious objectors everywhere.

Remington’s Insurance Carriers Forced Remington to Settle With Sandy Hook Victims’ Families, Paying Them $73 Million

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, February 16, 2022:  

The announcement on Tuesday that Remington Arms had finally settled (some used the words “claimed liability” for) the seven-year-old lawsuit filed by parents of children lost in the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012 was portrayed as a major breakthrough by the anti-gun major media. The settlement, wrote the New York Times, “is a significant setback to the firearms industry.”

No, it is not. The Times explained why: “The lawsuit worked around the federal law [Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA] protecting gun companies from litigation by arguing that the manufacturer’s marketing of the weapon had violated Connecticut consumer law.”

That’s why the lawsuit has meandered through the court system for seven long years: the plaintiffs had no case. It was the Supreme Court that refused to hear the case on appeal from Connecticut’s Supreme Court, thus allowing the case to proceed. Finally, in exhaustion and not admission of guilt, the settlement was made.

Originally the parents wanted $225 million. But Remington was in bankruptcy and the only asset it had was its insurance coverage from four different insurance companies, which just happened to be the amount of the $73 million settlement.

The Connecticut law involved in the “workaround” is the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. Its meaning had to be expanded to include marketing practices that the left-wing state Supreme Court considered illegal: Remington pointed its ads to young men, its most profitable target market. Some of those young men included mentally unbalanced people such as Adam Lanza who saturated his mind with video games that involved firearms.

As John Lott, head of the Crime Prevention Research Center, wrote in USA Today: “There is no evidence that the ads influenced the actions of the Sandy Hook killer.” In fact, Lanza didn’t even purchase the firearms used in the shooting: he stole them from his mother.

Added Lott:

The [Connecticut] state Supreme Court decision [that the Supreme Court refused to hear on appeal] significantly expands the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. For the first time, the court has allowed the act to be used in cases where there was no “commercial relationship.” The shooter did not buy the gun he used to kill 20 first-graders and six educators at the Sandy Hook Elementary School; his mother did.

It’s clear who the ruling is targeting, and it’s not mentally unstable young men such as Adam Lanza: It’s the gun manufacturers. Jonathan Lowy, chief counsel for the rabid anti-gun group Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (“Brady”), clearly stated:

This is an important win for victims of gun violence and the movement to hold the gun industry accountable. It sends a powerful message to these executives — even with your special protections, you can and will be held accountable for gun violence.

Not according to Timothy Lytton, professor of law and expert on the firearms industry at Georgia State University: “Most of the country — or at least half the country — is not looking for ways to liberalize or open the door to litigation. They’re looking for ways to expand gun rights and clamp down on anything that would restrict supply.”

The only state to pass a copycat law like Connecticut’s is New York, which is already notoriously anti-gun. A similar bill has been introduced in anti-gun California, and anti-gun legislators in New Jersey is considering similar legislation.

As crime rises in big cities across the land, the demand isn’t for more restrictions on the right to keep, bear and use firearms, but the contrary. Brady and its sycophants in the media celebrating the “big win” on Tuesday are pushing their agenda uphill against an increasingly informed electorate who know who is threatening their rights.

CNN Poll: Democrats Say Anybody but Biden for President in 2024

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, February 14, 2022:  

Poor Joe Biden. He can’t catch a break. Each poll shows him losing to the American people as his failed and destructive policies take hold: reducing the standard of living of the middle class, issuing mandates where none are necessary (or constitutional), scaring people with an incomprehensibly large national debt they know will never be paid off, and presenting himself as an aged and increasingly inept leader of the free world.

The latest poll from CNN, of all places, confirms and even amplifies his troubles: nearly three out of every four Democrats — Democrats! — want someone other than old Joe to run in 2024.

It gets worse. Those polled by SSRS for CNN, which released the results on Sunday, don’t really care who Democrats run in 2024, so long as it isn’t Biden!

Bernie Sanders got five percent support, while Michelle Obama received four percent. Kamala Harris received a nearly invisible two percent from those even willing to offer an alternative to Joe. Most of those polled couldn’t come up with a viable alternative. Falling into the “virtually invisible” category to replace him were Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, Oprah, Cory Booker, Stacey Adams, and Amy Klobuchar.

When pressed by SSRS, the 1,500-plus respondents didn’t think Biden could run successfully against whomever the Republicans run. A third said he was too old (he’s 79 now and will turn 82 in November 2024), while the rest of them couldn’t come up with a good reason — they just want him gone.

It gets worse: Republicans can hardly wait for 2024 to rid themselves of the Democratic disaster — according to SSRS, more than eight out of 10 Republicans were looking forward to 2024, while barely four out of 10 Democrats were.


Democrats know the shellacking they are likely to take. If the midterms shape up the way current polls are showing, 2024 could be an utter and complete disaster for them and their party.


Under Trump Americans saw a glimpse of how great America could become, given the right policies while following the Constitution. They can hardly wait for the chance to rid themselves of the fallout of failed Democratic policies and put the nation back on the path to greatness.

Ed Morrissey, writing for Hot Air, called the opposition to Biden exposed by CNN “dead weight”:

If you’re a Democrat running in the midterms, what does this tell you — besides “retire”? These negative numbers within their own base [portend] a turnout nightmare for Democratic incumbents. The dead weight of that level of opposition to Biden makes a red wave in both chambers of Congress all but certain if something doesn’t improve quickly. But with Biden’s legislation stalled out, inflation increasing, and the White House refusing to read the room on COVID restrictions, there’s no path for this to improve … and still room for it to get worse.

About the only thing that could turn the Democrats’ ship around would be a shooting war in Europe. Most Americans, regardless of their extreme distaste for the present occupant of the White House, would likely rally around him if American soldiers were committed in some phony, fake, trumped-up excuse to meddle in someone else’s business overseas.

Ukraine might just fit that bill.

Judge Halts Persecution of Military Officers for Requesting Religious Vax Exemption

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, February 3, 2022:  

Steven Merryday, U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, has had it with the continuing persecution of military service members requesting religious exemptions from the COVID mandates. He ordered that Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and “any anyone acting in concert with him” stop the persecutions of two military officers immediately.

Back in November, he heard a lawsuit from 23 service members complaining that each of their religious-exemption requests had been arbitrarily denied; that they were subject to harassment, intimidation, and threats of losing their positions for even making the requests; and concluded:

The plaintiffs claim the regulations … in reality disguise an unlawful and pervasive policy of the Secretary of Defense and each branch of the armed forces to deny individual consideration of each claim for a religious exemption, to instead “deny them all,” and to punish, possibly by discharge, without exemption or accommodation, those who assert a sincere religious objection and accordingly refuse the vaccine.

He called the process set up by the military services a “ruse” designed to remove anyone claiming a religious exemption from the service:

The claim that the regulations are a ruse becomes … more convincing … that the regulations are, shall we say, insincere and … the less convincing is the argument that the military has a compelling reason not to grant the exemptions and accommodations.

Despite Merryday’s order that each branch of the military report to him every week on how many requests for denials were being made and how they were being handled, it’s clear that those branches have not only failed to comply, but have continued the policy of harassment, intimidation, and threats. These two senior officers were in imminent danger of losing their command positions by refusing to take the vaccine.

In the present case, after hearing of the threats of “undeployment” if the two failed to get the vaccine, Merryday concluded:

The record in this action establishes that the two service members are very likely to prevail on their claim that their respective branch of the military has wrongfully denied a religious exemption from COVID-19 vaccination.


The record creates a strong inference that the services are discriminatorily and systematically denying religious exemptions without a meaningful and fair hearing and without the showing required under RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] (while simultaneously granting medical exemptions and permitting unvaccinated persons to continue in service without adverse consequence).


One struggles to imagine a wholesome and lawful explanation for the results evidenced in this record. The military is well aware of the frailty of their arguments in defense of their practices.

He wrote that the two service members are likely to prevail in a full-blown trial:

The two … service members face either (1) a most-likely-unlawful deprivation of their accumulated status and standing in the United States military, as well as prospective advancement and benefits, or (2) deprivation of their constitutional and statutory rights to Free Exercise and the statutory right to receive a religious exemption unless the military can meet the statutory burden of proof, which the military has not and likely cannot.

Merryday said the defendants have an extraordinarily weak case supporting the continuing mandates:

On the other hand, the military faces a trivial, if any, prospect of material injury as a result of permitting the service members continued service under the same terms and conditions and with the same privileges and emoluments as currently prevail, especially because the military permits a large group of unvaccinated persons to serve without adverse consequence.

That “large group” includes 234 medical exemptions granted by the Marines and 270 medical exemptions granted by the Navy, providing more proof that those services are deliberately and intentionally targeting believers by denying religious exemptions.

Merryday has given Secretary of Defense Austin until February 11 to conjure a sufficient defense of this blatant and unconstitutional behavior. Otherwise, his ruling will become permanent, affecting every service member holding strong religious convictions against taking the vaccine.

Student Sues High School Principal for Violating His First Amendment Rights to Free Speech and Religion

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, February 2, 2022:  

David Stout, a junior at Plainwell High School in Michigan, was suspended for three days last fall as punishment for expressing his religious beliefs in a private conversation with a friend. When his parents learned about his suspension, and the details behind the school’s action, they enlisted the assistance of the Great Lakes Justice Center.

After reviewing the background, which extends back to April 2021, the attorneys took on the case and filed suit last Thursday, claiming that the school’s principal, assistant principal, and band director all violated Stout’s First Amendment right to express his beliefs:

A foundational core of our Constitutional Republic is that the State cannot punish its citizens for engaging in speech that is protected by the First Amendment.

The 29-page complaint provided the court with all the details. Last April, Stout, a self-proclaimed Christian who is active as a football player and band leader at the school, responded to a question texted to him by a Christian friend about the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality.

From the complaint:

On or about April 28, 2021, Plaintiff [Stout], using his own smartphone, participated in a series of private group chat/text sessions with these friends from school.


At one point during this group session, one of these children asked to speak with Plaintiff in a private text.


Once Plaintiff began texting with this other child, Plaintiff was surprised that this friend, who was not homosexual, asked Plaintiff’s opinions and beliefs about this other child’s friends “being gay.”


Plaintiff stated that the Bible teaches that homosexual conduct is a sin and in the Christian context that God created only two biological genders — man and woman.


Plaintiff stated that while homosexual conduct is a sin, however, everyone is a sinner due to freewill choices, and he would pray for them “to repent and follow Jesus.” He also shared that he would extend love toward them because “God commands” it, as “Jesus died on the cross for them and extends His love toward them, and all they have to do is accept it.”


Plaintiff continued that “the Bible says at the end of days all will know the truth, every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord.”

Stout’s response offended his friend, and the text conversation ended.

However, the next day Stout reached out to his friend in an attempt at reconciliation:

Although Plaintiff felt his friend was “discriminatory, selfish, and unkind,” Plaintiff did not want to lose his friendship. Thus, on April 29, 2021, Plaintiff contacted this child for another private chat/text session.


Plaintiff began by expressing that he still held his Christian opinions, but he respected his friend’s opinions as well.


Further, Plaintiff did not want to end his friendship with this other student because of a disagreement, and he wanted to respect everyone’s opinions even if they disagreed so they could remain friends.

At no time was this conversation made public. It was private, occurred off campus, and was well within Stout’s First Amendment rights. Said the complaint: “Plaintiff never posted or otherwise distributed any of the content of this private chat/text to any public social media site, to the school, to other band members, to the student body, or to any other person.”

When school officials learned about the conversation (probably from Stout’s “friend”), they called Stout in for several “conversations,” which ultimately led to his being suspended for three days in October.

Following the filing of the complaint on Thursday, Stout’s lawyer, David Kallman, issued a statement to the media:

My client’s religious speech and beliefs should be treated with tolerance and respect. Public schools may not violate the Constitution and enforce a heckler’s veto of student speech.


Nothing David did caused any disruption or problem at the school. He has the right to express his opinion in accordance with his sincerely held religious beliefs, without vilification or punishment from the government for holding to those beliefs.

Kallman expanded on the case:

David was suspended for three days last fall for stating his Christian beliefs in a private text conversation and in a hallway at school. He is also being punished for not policing and reporting the inappropriate jokes of fellow students.


He was instructed to stop posting his religious comments on all his social media platforms, and was disciplined for the offensive behavior of some other students; something he was unaware of and did not participate in.


David is a good student with a clean record. Nothing he did caused a disruption or any problem at the school. He has the right to express his opinion in accordance with his religious beliefs without vilification or punishment from the government.

Kallman’s lawsuit is asking the court to declare the school’s principal, assistant principal, and band director’s “actions … unconstitutional and that [they] violated [Stout’s] fundamental constitutional rights,” and to find “that [they] acted outside the scope of their authority.”

The suit also demands that the school expunge Stout’s school records of any mention of the incident, pay all of his attorney’s fees and court costs, and “grant such other and further relief as is just and appropriate.”

That would include exacting promises from the school’s officials not to punish Stout as retribution during his remaining year for bringing them to task for their unconscionable, illegal, and unconstitutional acts.

ATF Reveals It Has a National Gun Registry Already in Place

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, February 1, 2022:  

When the Washington Free Beacon obtained documents last November revealing that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) had more than 54 million records of Americans who purchased firearms from local gun dealers, Representative Michael Cloud (R-Texas) and 51 other members of Congress demanded answers. In November he expressed his “concern”:

We are concerned that this Administration is leveraging its power in a way to establish a federal gun registry….


Congress has made it clear … that the federal government shall not create a federal gun registry and has prohibited ATF from creating any centralized databases.

He demanded answers to a number of questions, including just how many records ATF had, how many of them have been digitized using OCR or Optical Character Recognition technology, and specifically “how its Out-of-Business Records Center policy [of capturing all records from gun dealers who go out of business] does not violate the statutory restriction on a federal gun or gun owner registry?”

Cloud’s letter was signed by House members Thomas Massie, Pete Sessions, Ronny L. Jackson, Andy Biggs, Chip Roy, Jim Jordan, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Burgess Owens, Louie Gohmert, and others. 

Those members were stunned when Daniel Board, ATF’s assistant director, responded:

In total, ATF manages 920,664,765 OBR [Out of Business Records], as of November 2021 … 865,787,086 of those records are in digitized format.

Board then tried to explain that the ATF’s purposes in keeping such an immense database were benign:

The OBR [database does] not capture and store certain key information, such as firearms purchaser information in an automated file….


The ATF National Tracing Center … only traces crime guns … ATF is confident that it does not violate any laws.

Cloud didn’t buy it, telling the Free Beacon:

A federal firearm registry is explicitly banned by law. Yet, the Biden administration is again circumventing Congress and enabling the notably corrupt ATF to manage a database of nearly a billion gun transfer records.


Under the president’s watch, the ATF has increased surveillance of American gun owners at an abhorrent level. The Biden administration continues to empower criminals and foreign nationals while threatening the rights of law-abiding Americans.

John Crump, writing for Ammoland Inc., caught the lie about the OBR database only capturing “certain” limited information in its files, excluding purchaser information:

Although the ATF claims not to have the ability to search for specific character strings [such as purchaser names and related information], the fact they are using OCR means that it would only take mere minutes to enable [its] ability to search the documents.

The information-technology company Teris explains just how easy it is to turn paper documents into digital form that then can be searched using keywords such as “purchaser”:

OCR is the process of converting images and flat non-searchable documents into searchable text documents … so you can search for keywords….


OCR has a range of benefits, including:


Converting non-searchable documents into searchable text documents,


Quickly find relevant information: keywords, dates, phrases, and more, and


Convert paper files into a searchable digital repository.

So, the ATF already has nearly a billion searchable files on American gun owners, including name, address, phone number, and other information the agency requires on its Form 4473 a purchaser must complete before a gun may be purchased from a gun dealer.

This is the agency that Cloud describes as “notably corrupt” and about which Lee Williams, a researcher for The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project, notes:

There has never been a federal agency with so little regard for the sanctity of human life, with such a history of failure, with such antiquated duties and responsibilities, with such a propensity to overreact, with such an addiction to good press, with such a willingness to bend over for any politician in charge, and — as we currently see playing out — with such little regard for the constitutional rights of American citizens.

Readers seeking more information about ATF’s failures and atrocities in Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Branch Davidians, and Operation Fast and Furious, Crump’s review is available here.

The gun registry that gun owners have feared for years as the next step towards gun confiscation is now in place. Disarming the public is the final step in turning the American Republic into a dictatorship.

White House: J. Michelle Childs Being Considered to Replace Justice Breyer

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, January 31, 2022:  

The White House confirmed on Thursday that one of the nominees being considered to replace Justice Stephen Breyer is present U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs. Childs was nominated to her current position by then-President Barack Obama in 2009 and then nominated by Joe Biden to move to the U.S. Court of Appeals last December.

Biden said he’d been studying the backgrounds of a number of candidates, provided that each of them first fulfill his campaign promise that they be female and black:

While I’ve been studying candidates’ backgrounds and writings, I’ve made no decision except one: the person I will nominate will be someone of extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity, and that person will be the first black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.

Nothing was said about how she might view the Constitution of the United States, or the historic (and controversial) decision made in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison what the high court’s primary responsibility is, in the words of then-Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall:

The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. The rule must be discharged.

Nothing was said about any “law repugnant to the Constitution is void” when she responded in 2010 to then-Senator Jeff Sessions’ question during her nomination hearings as to how she would “ensure the fair administration of justice”:

The “fair administration of justice” requires that judges act as fair and impartial arbiters, treat all litigants courteously, assess the particular facts and evidence presented in individual cases, make deliberate and well-reasoned decisions based on established legal precedent, and abide by the judicial canons and ethical standards of conduct.

So, by that light, her decision in Bradacs v. Haley in 2014 was bereft of any concern over the Constitution or its 10th Amendment. Instead, in the lawsuit brought by a lesbian couple who wanted South Carolina to recognize their marriage in the state, she ruled that “valid marriages of same-sex couples entered into in other states or jurisdictions [they were “married” in the District of Columbia in 2013] meet the prerequisites for marriage in the State of South Carolina,” completely ignoring the right of the state, under the 10th Amendment, to make its own such rules and establish its own “prerequisites.”

When the Supreme Court ruled in June 2015 that the case of “marriage” of same-sex couples was now a federal matter and not of the states, then-Justice Antonin Scalia voiced his dissent:

Today’s decree says that my ruler, and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.


The opinion … is the furthest extension in fact — and the furthest extension one can even imagine — of the court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its amendments neglect to mention.

The best any Senator could produce following Biden’s racist and discriminatory selection of Childs as one of the “black and female only” selections he is considering for the high court position was this from Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), who called it “affirmative action”:

The irony is that the Supreme Court is at [this] very time hearing cases about this sort of affirmative action racial discrimination while adding someone who is the beneficiary of this sort of quota.

No matter whom Biden selects, he will further enrage the electorate. The latest poll from ABC News/Ipsos finds that his decision to use race and gender as primary qualifiers for the high post is opposed by more than three out of four of those polled.

San Jose City Council Moves to Tax Lawful Gun Owners and Require Them to Buy Liability Insurance

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, January 26, 2022:  

Even after being warned against moving to tax law-abiding gun owners and require them to buy liability insurance, the San Jose City Council voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to move ahead with those infringements.

The city’s mayor, Sam Liccardo, even admitted during the hours-long council meeting that the new measures would do nothing to reduce violent crime: “This won’t stop mass shootings and keep bad people from committing violent crime.” But he justified the move by concern that the availability of firearms in homes somehow risks an increase in suicides. And besides, said the mayor, the cost of gun violence in San Jose costs the city millions and, therefore (by his reasoning), law-abiding gun owners should help defray some of that expense.

The fee would be $25 per firearm (which assumes that the city either already knows where they are and who owns them, or would establish some sort of registry to collect such data), and liability insurance would be required to cover costs related to “accidental use of the firearm, including death, injury, or property damage,” according to the Associated Press.

This ignores the fact that, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center, gun owners are already among the safest, lowest-risk individuals in the country. But the tax and insurance, according to the anti-gun majority on the council, would “incentivize” gun owners to take extra special care of their weaponry, take gun safety classes, and lock up their firearms at home when not in use.

How would such an ordinance be enforced? The mayor said the liability insurance would be just like car insurance, which he said (without proof) has already dramatically reduced traffic fatalities. Implementation would fall to law-enforcement officers making routine traffic stops, by requiring them to ask drivers if they own a firearm and if they have liability insurance, and to demand to “see proof of that insurance.”

All of this was just too much for Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights and executive director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights. Just before the final vote on Tuesday night, Brown told CNN:

We’ve opposed this ordinance every step of the way, and we will see this through to the end.

If the San Jose City Council actually votes to impose this ridiculous tax on the Constitutional right to gun ownership [the final vote is scheduled to take place at the next monthly meeting in February], our message is clear and simple: see you in court.

That’s what he promised in a letter his foundation had their lawyers send to each member of the council back in July.

From the letter:

This Firm represents the National Foundation for Gun Rights. It has come to our attention that on June 29, 2021, you voted unanimously to have the City Attorney research and draft an ordinance that would impose a mandatory fee on gun owners and require them to buy gun liability insurance. Given that the city’s own press release regarding the proposed ordinance, concedes that “criminals won’t obey these mandates,” the City of San Jose is seeking to impose a tax on a select group of law abiding citizens simply for exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

The letter reminded council members that the issue was settled at the Supreme Court, in two rulings: McDonald v. City of Chicago held that the Second Amendment not only guarantees the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, but also guarantees against infringement by the individual states through the Fourteenth Amendment; and Nordyke v. King held that the Second Amendment is “fundamental and is incorporated against states and municipalities” like the City of San Jose.

The attorneys added:

What you propose to do strikes at the very core of this fundamental right and seeks to punish (though registration and taxation) citizens of your city who have committed no crime or offense.

The attorneys made it sound as if the council members were suffering a temper tantrum: “It is easily understood that the goal of the proposed ordinance is to suppress and discourage the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms … [which is] presumptively unconstitutional.”

The warning by Brown through his attorneys was clear to the San Jose City Council, or should have been:

Please be advised that should you pass the proposed ordinance and blatantly violate the constitutional rights of the residents of San Jose, my clients have authorized our firm to file a lawsuit against the City to protect the constitutional rights of their members. This lawsuit will be brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for the deprivation of constitutional rights.


As such, once we prevail in protecting the residents of San Jose’s constitutional rights, our firm will then seek our reasonable attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b).


We thereby strongly encourage you to reconsider moving forward with the proposed ordinance.

CNN noted in its coverage of the vote by the city council that the legislation, if passed into law, would be “the first of its kind” in the country. If the San Jose City Council votes in February to approve it, Brown’s attorneys are prepared to make it the last.

NYC Mayor Eric Adams Announces Revised “Stop, Question, and Frisk” Policy

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, January 25, 2022:  

New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced on Monday a four-step program to reduce violent crime in the Big Apple. Since he took over from former mayor Bill DeBlasio on January 1, five NYPD officers have been shot.

His plan:

Reinstating the Public Safety Teams that were terminated under DeBlasio, calling them Neighborhood Safety Teams;


Employing state-of-the-art technology to identify if an individual is carrying a firearm;


Increasing funding for the department’s Gun Violence Suppression Division which builds cases against criminals; and


Appointing judges with a “demonstrated commitment to keeping violent criminals who use guns off New York City streets.”

Adams is attempting to fulfill a campaign promise to rein in violent crime, saying, “I know how to do this. New York has done it before.”

Without saying so directly, Adams is clearly inferring that he will allow officers in the new Public Safety Teams to infiltrate the highest crime-ridden precincts and reinstitute the controversial “stop, question, and frisk” policies that cost former mayor Michael Bloomberg his job when running against leftist Bill DeBlasio in 2013.

The officers will cruise high-crime precincts in unmarked vehicles and will wear street clothes. When confronting a suspect, under Terry Stop rules, they will identify themselves as officers by wearing jackets similar to those used by the FBI when they conduct raids. The new technology could amount to “a no-contact (no frisk) version” of the Terry Stop, said Nolan Hicks of the New York Post.

The Terry Stop, based upon the 1968 Supreme Court ruling in Terry v. Ohio, reduced the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated … but upon probable cause” to “reasonable suspicion.”

Under Mayor Bloomberg, the policy resulted in major pushback from liberal groups who complained that it was enforced out of all proportion in black and Hispanic neighborhoods.

Bloomberg tried to explain his way out of the dilemma in 2015:

Ninety-five percent of murders — murderers and murder victims — fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16-25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every city … and that’s where the real crime is….


[We] put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. Yes, that’s true. Why do we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is.

The impact on violent crime in New York City apparently was inconclusive, and Bloomberg lost his reelection bid to DeBlasio, who shut down the effort.

The new mayor faces a daunting task: selling the resurrected team as a way to fight violent crime to hard-core leftists who are opposed to it. They include Keechant Sewell, Adams’ newly appointed police commissioner, who failed to show up at Adam’s announcement ceremony. Observers will remember that when Sewell accepted her appointment, she did so with a poster featuring cop-killer Assata Shakur behind her. Shakur was charged in 1977 with the murder of New York State Trooper Werner Foerster, escaped from prison in 1979, and now lives in communist Cuba.

Adams also faces resistance from Adrienne Adams, the newly elected speaker of the New York City Council. Her resume includes being a “long time member of the NAACP and the National Action Network (NAN).” The NAN was founded by tax-evader and race-baiter “Reverend” Al Sharpton. In June 2021, the NAN and the NAACP joined forces in a march down Fifth Avenue calling for an end to stop-and-frisk.

Also on the City Council is another hard-core leftist, Tiffany Daban, who, upon learning of Adams’ plans to reduce violent crime, said, “Much in the Mayor’s plan is cause for deep concern.… [It’s] built on a foundation of surveillance and punishment, which are ineffective and dangerous.”

There are other solutions to New York City’s spiraling violent-crime rate, such as allowing constitutional carry among its citizens. At present, the proposed reinstatement of stop and frisk is likely to go nowhere, and violent crime in the Big Apple will continue to increase.

YouTube Bans Pastor John MacArthur’s Sermon on Biblical Sexuality and Morality

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, January 24, 2022:  

John MacArthur, senior pastor of Grace Community Church in Los Angeles and founder of his ministry Grace to You, was one of the reported 4,000 pastors who preached last Sunday against Canada’s new law, Bill C-4. For telling the Biblical truth about human sexuality and morality, his sermon was initially banned by YouTube for promoting what it called “hate speech.”

The video was later restored, and can be seen here.

But the threat to free speech remains, and not only for pastors and preachers such as MacArthur. The Canadian law punishes anyone promoting “conversion therapy” to transgenders, homosexuals, and others whom the culture has confused about their sexual identity. The law has teeth: violations could by punished by up to five years in jail.

The anti-Bible culture in Canada is vicious. Pastors who followed God’s word and kept their churches open during the COVID-19 pandemic, violating government mandates, were jailed.

MacArthur and his church felt the bite from secular authorities as well when health “authorities” in Los Angeles County attempted to shut down his church during the pandemic. After a long and costly legal battle, Grace Community Church and MacArthur were vindicated, and the county was forced to reimburse the church for its legal expenses and other costs, to the tune of $800,000. Nevertheless, MacArthur expects the government’s pressure against him to continue in intensity.

In his sermon on January 16, he said:

There is no such thing as transgender. You are either XX or XY, that’s it. God made man male and female. That is determined genetically, that is physiology, that is science, that is reality.… The reality of that lie and deception is so damaging, so destructive, so isolating, so corrupting, that it needs to be confronted.

He was joined in preaching on this theme by thousands of pastors across North America on Sunday, January 16, following the urging by MacArthur and Liberty Coalition Canada to do so.

MacArthur drew inspiration for the title of his sermon, “And Such Were Some of You,” from the apostle Paul’s letter to Christians in Corinth:

And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

To the anti-God voices this is anathema. No one must pledge allegiance to any other power but to that of the state. And that’s the real threat from the Canadian law: The business of the church is “conversion” of sinners of every stripe, hue, and color. If they are sinners then they are ripe for conversion, according to the Word of God. If the Canadian law is allowed to stand, and a similar law is implemented in the United States, it’s easy to see how anyone attempting to promote the Christian faith to a non-believer could be subject to sanctions by the state.

As James Coates, the first Canadian pastor to be jailed for keeping his church open during the pandemic, said,

I believe our government is capitalizing on a politically expedient [event] in an effort to further dismantle Western civilization as we know it. To do this, it must outlaw its very foundation, which is rooted in a Judeo-Christian worldview.

Bill C-4 is another brick laid in this effort and is evidence that our government is under the judgment of God.

Those who stand against the state can expect to suffer, added Coates:

As governments seek totalitarian authority over every aspect of society, it’s inevitable that they will persecute any and all who refuse to declare allegiance to the state. As such, unless the tide of totalitarianism is stemmed, Christians can expect persecution to increase.

For proof, YouTube’s banning of Biblical truth from its platform (even though it restored MacArthur’s sermon later) should awaken those who think the attack is only on preachers in Canada protesting an obscure law. It’s a shot across the bow of every one who believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and who is urged to take that message of salvation to the world.

As Marty Moore, a Canadian attorney for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, told Fox News, “This piece of legislation is by the far the most direct attack we’ve seen on freedom of expression and freedom of conscience and religion.” In essence, the law is an attempt to criminalize Christianity.

MacArthur put the matter succinctly:

This notion that you are something other than your biology is a cultural construct intended as an assault on God.

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem Announces Two More Pro-life Bills

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, January 24, 2022:  

Coinciding with Friday’s March for Life attended by thousands in Washington, D.C., South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem’s announcement of two new anti-abortion bills adds to the pro-life momentum continuing to build across the land. From her office she announced:

Today, as tens of thousands of pro-life Americans participate in the annual March for Life in Washington, DC, Governor Kristi Noem announced the text of two pro-life bills to protect unborn lives.


The first will ban abortions once a child’s heartbeat can be detected; the second will ban telemedicine abortions in South Dakota.

Noem’s first bill is the third so-called heartbeat law in the country, succeeding those passed by Texas and Mississippi. Texas bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, usually around the 10th week of pregnancy, while Mississippi’s law bans abortions after 15 weeks. A lawsuit challenging the Mississippi law — Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — is currently under review by the Supreme Court.

Noem’s announcement also coincides with the 49th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that “discovered” the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy. The court doubled down on that highly controversial decision years later.

Said Governor Noem in announcing the new bills:

Every human life is unique and beautiful from the moment it is conceived. Every life is worthy of our protection, worthy of the right to live. We hope that this year’s March for Life will be the last and that the Supreme Court will finally protect every unborn life. But until that comes to pass, these bills will ensure that both unborn children and their mothers are protected in South Dakota.

The South Dakota law is modeled after the Texas heartbeat law in that only private citizens can bring civil action against abortionists or those aiding them in performing an abortion. This has so far successfully thwarted the abortion industry from obtaining a court’s injunction against enforcement of the law.

South Dakota’s new law has teeth: There is a minimum $10,000 penalty against the abortion provider, along with legal fees and other financial penalties if the lawsuit is successful. This aspect of Texas’ heartbeat law has virtually shut down abortions in that state.

Thanks to South Dakota’s already-strong stand against taking the life of an unborn infant, abortions in that state have been reduced by 80% over the last ten years.


Gov. Noem reinforced that South Dakota is a strongly pro-life state:

The Constitution clearly delegates defending the lives and safety of the people to the [state] government as its chief role. That includes defending the rights and the lives of unborn children.…


As soon as the High Court overturns Roe v. Wade, our state laws already in place should protect every unborn South Dakota child….


Science tells us that an unborn child’s heart starts beating as early as six weeks after conception. Any abortion after that point stops that heartbeat — stops that life — stops that gift from God.

The second bill announced by Noem bans so-called “telemedicine” abortions: abortions facilitated by two drugs, mifepristone (which deprives the fetus of nutrients) and its follow-up drug, misoprostol (which induces labor to expel the remains of the dead infant). These were formerly available online, but this bill would effectively codify Noem’s executive order issued last September banning the purchase of such drugs over the internet.

Under the new bill, those drugs may only be prescribed during an in-person consultation with a physician licensed in the state. The bill also bans the drugs from being delivered by mail, and forbids them from being provided in schools or on state properties.

These two bills follow eight other pro-life bills Governor Noem signed into law last year, including a ban on abortions based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome, and a bill protecting the life of an infant born alive, regardless of the circumstances of that child’s birth.

In addition, South Dakota has a “trigger law” enacted in 2005 that would ban all abortions at any time “on a date that the states are recognized by the United States Supreme Court to have the authority to regulate or prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy.”

That’s one of the most egregious aspects of Roe v. Wade: The high court overruled every state’s power granted under the Constitution to regulate abortions, thus unleashing a tsunami of abortions — an estimated 65 million lives have been lost in the holocaust that began back in 1973.

Biden’s Legacy “Voting Rights” Legislation Defeated in Senate, Filibuster Preserved

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, January 20, 2022:

The Constitution and its design to limit the federal government scored a resounding victory late Wednesday night when Joe Biden’s key legislative push — his “voting rights” bills, i.e., the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act — failed to pass the Senate.

The final vote was 49-51 after Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer — the legislation’s chief champion — changed his vote to “no” at the last minute in order to allow him to bring it to the floor for another vote sometime in the future.

Following the vote, whose demise was assured by the opposition of two Democrats, Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Schumer then moved on to an even bigger challenge: changing Senate rules so that the bills could pass by majority vote instead of the two-thirds vote required under the Senate’s “filibuster” rule.

As noted by the Senate itself:

Whether praised as the protector of political minorities from the tyranny of the majority, or attacked as a tool of partisan obstruction, the right of unlimited debate in the Senate, including the filibuster, has been a key component of the Senate’s unique role in the American political system.

Schumer viewed the rule as a roadblock to his favorite legislation:

A few hours ago, this chamber, with the eyes of the nation upon it and with the evidence of voter suppression laid bare before it… took a vote to move to final passage on the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. It received 50 votes, and [without the filibuster] … we would have had a majority.

Under the Senate’s own rule that legislation would have required two-thirds of the Senate to pass it, or 60 votes. If the Senate can’t pass the legislation the regular way, said Schumer, “then the Senate rules must be reformed.”

So, he brought to the floor action to temporarily suspend the filibuster rule, and it too failed, 48-52, with the same two Democrat senators voting against it. Vice President Harris was waiting in the wings to break any deadlock, but she left early when it was clear Schumer’s move was destined to fail.

Biden, of course, was “disappointed”: “I am profoundly disappointed that the United States Senate has failed to stand up for our democracy.”

But as Biden well knows, the Founders never intended for the country to be a “democracy,” but a constitutional republic. It took a Democrat to remind the Senate of the fact. Said Manchin, “Let this change happen in this way and the Senate will be a body without rules.”

Republican Senator John Thune of South Dakota agreed:

What you’re talking about doing today is turning the United States Senate into a majoritarian body. The essence of the Senate is a check and balance on the passions of the other body [the House of Representatives].

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Americans can now breathe easier, tweeting, “The Senate will be saved tonight. America can breathe a sigh of relief. This radicalism [has] been stopped. It is a good day for America.”

McConnell added, “The legislative filibuster is a central Senate tradition. It is the indispensable feature of our institution. It makes the Senate serve its founding purpose: forging compromise, cooling passions, and ensuring that new laws earn broad support from a cross-section of our country.”

With the opposition of two Democrat senators, both of whom supported the legislation but not the way Schumer wanted to pass it, the attempt to federalize elections and turn America into California was thwarted.

Another victory for the Constitution went unheralded. Biden said, “I’ve had five Republican senators talk to me … who have told me that they agree with whatever I’m talking about, [saying] ‘But Joe, if I do it, I’m going to be defeated in a primary.’”

It was a near thing. Without opposition from Manchin and Sinema, the American republic would have suffered a mortal blow. As Amazon noted in its touting of Senator Ted Cruz’s book on the federal judiciary, One Vote Away:

In One Vote Away, you will discover how often the high court decisions that affect your life have been decided by just one vote. One vote preserves your right to speak freely, to bear arms, and to exercise your faith. One vote will determine whether your children enjoy their full inheritance as American citizens.

The same goes for the “near thing” that almost happened last night in the Senate. The war against the American Republic continues, with the latest battle in the Senate won only by the slimmest of margins.

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