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: Politics

Anti-Trump Lawyer Spills the Beans: Mar-a-Lago Raid Seeks to Keep Trump From Running in 2024

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

The raid by the FBI on Trump’s Florida residence has nothing to do with “national security” or the “National Archives.” It has everything to do with finding something — anything — in those 15 boxes to nail him under a law that, if he is convicted, would prevent him from ever running for president again.

The hubris of Marc Elias — who served as Hillary Clinton’s top lawyer in her failed 2016 presidential campaign and was invested heavily in almost all of the Deep State’s attacks on Trump since then — not only may be his undoing, but also may help propel Trump into the presidency in 2024.

On Monday — 48 years to the day after President Nixon resigned from the presidency — the raid on Mar-a-Lago was followed by rejoicing by Elias on Twitter:

The media is missing the really, really big reason why the raid today is a potential blockbuster in American politics.

This revelation was followed by a screen shot of U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071, with the following text highlighted:

[Anyone] having the custody of any such record [filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States], proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. [Emphasis added.]

On the surface, it appears that the FBI could either find, or create, evidence that could be used to charge the former president under this law.

But a closer look reveals that Hillary Clinton escaped prosecution under this identical law when she destroyed those highly sensitive personal emails. In fact, then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey sought clarification and found that “disqualification extends only to statutory or appointed offices, but not to any constitutionally-mandated or elected positions.”

Since Trump was elected and not appointed, he could run in 2024 even if he were in jail.

But that is highly unlikely, as Elias noted in a follow-up tweet:

Yes, I recognize the legal challenge that application of this law to a president would garner (since Qualifications are set in the Constitution).


But the idea that a candidate [Trump] would have to litigate this during a [presidential] campaign is in my view a “blockbuster in American politics.”

On the contrary, it could turn out that the raid on Mar-a-Lago was the greatest law-enforcement mistake ever made in American history. It could galvanize Trump’s base and cement into place his reelection in 2024 while destroying what might remain of the FBI’s credibility, possibly leading to its dismantlement and restructuring by Congress.

Trump is the Teflon President, having survived all efforts by the Clinton camp, the Democrat establishment, the administrative agencies (i.e., the Deep State), the NeverTrumpers, the sold-out media, and the RINOs to get rid of him. In announcing the raid on his Florida residence, Trump said:

After working and cooperating with the relevant Government agencies, this unannounced raid on my home was not necessary or appropriate.


It is prosecutorial misconduct, the weaponization of the Justice System, and an attack by Radical Left Democrats who desperately don’t want me to run for President in 2024.

His announcement that he will run for re-election in 2024 is expected shortly. Until then, this three-minute ad that he released following the raid will suffice.

New San Francisco DA Reverses Course, Gets Tough on Drug Dealers

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, August 5, 2022:  

There’s a new sheriff in town, and dealers selling drugs aren’t going to rehab; they’re going to jail. So announced San Francisco’s newly appointed District Attorney Brooke Jenkins who replaced disgraced and recalled former San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin.

Appointed by Mayor London Breed, Jenkins had quit her job as a prosecutor under Boudin to organize the recall campaign that successfully ousted him in June.

Immediately after being appointed to her old boss’s position, Jenkins said:

I think we have to start addressing repeat and violent offenders.… That needs to be our main priority….


We [will be] addressing those who continually commit crimes in San Francisco, [who] continue to victimize people in a violent way….


[Under Boudin] we’ve created an environment where [offenders] think there are no consequences to their actions.

After reviewing the cases pending under Boudin, Jenkins said:

Since 2020, nearly 1,500 people have died of drug overdose in part because dealers have been allowed to operate with impunity…. We must immediately change course, so we can save lives and hold people accountable for the havoc they are wreaking in our communities like the Tenderloin and South of Market.


Going forward defendants holding lethal doses of fentanyl will face felony charges.

Under Boudin, drug dealers, if they were charged at all, were allowed to go to rehab — San Francisco’s Community Justice Court — instead of facing jail terms.

In one egregious case, a drug dealer had six open cases against him, but Boudin offered him a plea bargain of a single misdemeanor to settle all of them. And in all of 2021 there was not a single drug conviction under Boudin, thanks to his loose, nearly nonexistent, enforcement policies.

That has changed under Jenkins. Her office has raised the pain level for drug dealers considerably, adding “charging enhancements” along with pre-trial imprisonment in extreme cases.

Jenkins also announced that, following her review of the cases Boudin left behind, she will recharge more than 30 of them with felonies — i.e., jail time if convicted — instead of misdemeanors for their crimes.

Under Boudin’s far-left “safe harbor for criminals” administration, the results were predictably catastrophic: Property crimes soared, along with open drug use. Car and home break-ins jumped. Homicides rose. Pan handling increased. Homelessness and the related squalid conditions he inherited got worse.

As EMC Research noted, burglaries spiked by 49 percent during his 18-month administration, and an astonishing 84 percent of charged perpetrators were back on the streets within two days!

With a new DA in town, San Francisco residents are going to feel safer, drug and other crimes will decline, and something like normal will return to the City by the Bay.

Democrats Now Publicly Shunning Biden

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, August 4, 2022:  

The latest poll from Insider Advantage merely confirms suspicions that Joe Biden, if he survives and runs for reelection in 2024, would be the pick of a pretty poor lot. His disapproval rating among those polled is now at 60%. And among Democrats, a recent CNN poll found, three-quarters of them would rather have someone else running in 2024.

Some say his term in office has been beset by a series of self-inflicted wounds, including his botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, the ongoing pandemic that he promised to end, runaway inflation, high gas and grocery prices, the border crisis, executive overreach, his divisive “woke” policies, his increasingly obvious declining mental condition, and now the recession.

Others say these are intentional, as part of a plan to reduce the great American Republic to a second-rate socialist country.

It doesn’t matter. Democrats are putting as much distance as they can between them, their campaigns, and the Oval Office occupant. Earlier this month in Ohio, the Democratic candidates for governor and the U.S. Senate refused to attend an event with him.

On Tuesday, Democratic Representative Dean Phillips from Minnesota was asked a direct question during a radio interview: “Do you want Joe Biden to run in 2024?”

Responded Phillips:

I have respect for Joe Biden. I think he has — despite some mistakes and some missteps, despite his age, I think he’s a man of decency, of good principle, of compassion, of empathy, and of strength.


But to answer your question directly, which I know is quite rare, uh no, I don’t. I think the country would be well served by a new generation of compelling, well-prepared, dynamic Democrats to step up.

Another Minnesota Democrat running for reelection, Angie Craig, was posed the same question. And she gave the same answer: “I would say we need new leaders in Washington up and down the ballot.”

The shunning of Biden has been coming for some time. Recent headlines from the progressives’ thought leader, The New York Times, illustrate the point:

  • June 11: “Should Biden Run in 2024? Democratic Whispers of ‘No’ Start to Rise”
  • July 9: “At 79, Biden Is Testing the Boundaries of Age and the Presidency”
  • July 11: “Most Democrats Don’t Want Biden in 2024, New Poll Shows”

Prominent Democratic governors are seeing their opportunity and taking it. California Governor Gavin Newsom is running political attack ads in Florida against his possible Republican opponent in 2024, Governor Ron DeSantis. And Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker made a special campaign trip to New Hampshire to headline that state’s annual Democratic Party convention.

The question arises: If not Biden for president, then who?

Max Boot made a feeble attempt to suggest worthy alternatives in an opinion piece in The Washington Post on Tuesday, but admittedly came up short:

[F]or all Biden’s manifest weaknesses — chief among them that he would be 82 years old at the start of a second term — it is far from clear that the Democrats have any better alternative. Biden won the nomination in 2020 not because he excited anyone but because he was seen as the least bad option. That might still be true.

Vice President Kamala Harris is aching for the opportunity, but Boot notes that “she is every bit as unpopular as Biden,” and other Democrats appear to be equally lame:

Many of Harris’s potential competitors — e.g., Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker — failed, like her, in winning over Democratic voters in 2020, and it’s not clear that they would do any better in 2024.

There appears at present to be no way out for the Democrats. Biden could decide, or his handlers or doctors could declare, that his mental and/or physical conditions prevent him from running again. His continuing Covid-related infections could end the discussion permanently.

But, as Boot laments, Democratic leaders “should seriously ponder the possibility that he might be the very worst Democratic nominee, except for every other.”

On Tuesday, Kansas Voters Can Undo State’s Court Ruling Granting a “Right” to Murder an Unborn Child

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, August 1, 2022:  

On Tuesday, Kansans have a unique opportunity to override their state’s high court’s ruling from 2019 that a mother has an inherent right to kill her unborn child.

Pro-life advocates are calling the ballot issue the “Value Them Both Amendment,” and are giving Kansas voters a clear choice: toss the high court’s ruling granting an “inherent” right to pregnant mothers to kill their unborn child, or not.

The ballot reads:

Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion.


To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.





At the moment polls show “Yes” leading “No” at 47-43. But millions of dollars are being spent to sway voters on both sides.

A “Yes” vote affirms that there is, despite the 2019 high court ruling, no constitutional right to abortion in the Sunflower State, and consequently any legislation relating to abortion rests with the people’s elected representatives.

A “No” vote would leave things as they are, giving abortion promoters a major victory. let their voices be heard on the issue.

In 2019, in appealing a previous ruling, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas ruled that, according to their interpretation of the state’s constitution, a pregnant mother had an inherent if not clearly enunciated right to kill her unborn child. From that decision:

Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights provides: “All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” We are now asked: Is this declaration of rights more than an idealized aspiration? And, if so, do the substantive rights include a woman’s right to make decisions about her body, including the decision whether to continue her pregnancy? We answer these questions, “Yes.”


We conclude that, through the language in section 1, the state’s founders acknowledged that the people had rights that preexisted the formation of the Kansas government. There they listed several of these natural, inalienable rights—deliberately choosing language of the Declaration of Independence by a vote of 42 to 6.


Included in that limited category is the right of personal autonomy, which includes the ability to control one’s own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination. This right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life — decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy.

The decision had but a single dissenter, and the court ruled for abortion 6-1.

The decision tomorrow in Kansas is being cast as a “bellwether” moment, as the vote is the first of at least four other opportunities — in California, Kentucky, Montana, and Vermont — for voters to “clarify” their intentions on the contentious issue.

Harvard Study Obliterates Claims of January 6 “Insurrection”

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, August 1, 2022:  

Three scholars from the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School sought answers to why protesters participated in the Capitol breach on January 6, 2021. If they were looking for proof that there was an organized insurrection — defined as “the act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority … specifically, the armed resistance of a number of persons to the power of the state” — they were greatly disappointed.

The best they could come up with was that most protesters were there to support their president, Donald Trump, and his claims of election fraud. Insurrection was a distant third on the list, at less than eight percent.

According to the authors:

We [quantified] the most frequently cited reasons for participating in the breach of the Capitol Building.…


We coded the contents of 469 charging and sentencing documents representing 417 defendants….


We find that the largest fraction of defendants were motivated to come to Washington DC on January 6 by either their desire to support President Trump, their concerns about the integrity of the 2020 election, or some combination of both.

They expected to find a very large percentage bent on insurrection. After all, on January 13, just one week after the breach, the Democrat-controlled House (with the compliance of 10 Republicans) voted to impeach the president for “incitement of insurrection.”

And that’s what the January 6 Committee claimed occurred:

In the first of a series of hearings beginning in June 2022, Committee Vice Chair Elizabeth Cheney laid out a case suggesting that Trump had knowingly subverted the election results, in part by strategically spreading various accusations of voter fraud and unfounded conspiracy theories about the election that he knew to be false — a campaign that has since been dubbed “The Big Lie.”


Cheney said, “President Trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack.”


But did the members of the mob see it that way? Did they see themselves as Trump’s personal volunteer army, or as dedicated (albeit frustrated) countrymen, trying to defend democracy?


Relatedly, did they even believe Trump’s claims, or were they simply protesting the outcome of the election, rather than the process by which it was decided?

The authors charted the results of their study:



Support Trump 20.62%


2020 Election Rigged 20.62%


Revolution / Civil War / Secession 7.91%


Pursuit of “Historical” Significance 7.43%


Peaceful Protest 6.95%


General Interest in Violence 6.24%


Protect the country or “Take back the country” 5.76%


Distrust of Government 5.76%


Marxism, Socialism, Communism 5.76%


QAnon 4.08%


Resisting Tyranny 2.88%


Religiosity 2.40%


Coronavirus 2.16%


Exercise 1st Amendment Rights / Make Voice Heard 1.20%


Curiosity 0.48%

In other words, far from planning to be part of an insurrection, an uprising, an open revolt, or an armed resistance to authority, less than eight percent — 7.91 percent, to be exact — were motivated by “revolution/civil war/secession.”

The authors were disappointed and surprised by their results:

Far and away, we find that the two most commonly cited reasons for breaching the US Capitol were a desire to support Trump on January 6 in DC and concerns about election integrity.

They were, to be clear, motivated to support the Republic, not to destroy it!

Wrote the authors:

The documents show that Trump and his allies convinced an unquantifiable number of Americans that representative democracy in the United States was not only in decline, but in imminent, existential danger.


This belief translated into a widespread fear of democratic and societal breakdown, which, in turn, motivated hundreds of Americans to travel to DC from far corners of the country in what they were convinced was the nation’s most desperate hour.

But the narrative from the prostitute press remains unchanged. On Friday CNN published its “minute-by-minute horrors of the January 6 insurrection, and then-President Donald Trump’s role in fomenting the violence.”

That, it turns out (as confirmed by the Harvard study), is the real Big Lie.

17 State AGs Sue ATF Over Unconstitutional Expansion of Powers

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, July 29, 2022:  

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich submitted a complaint on Wednesday against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Attorneys general from 16 other states, along with some gun-rights groups, joined him in the complaint.

At issue is the ATF’s attempt to prohibit the making of “ghost guns” by private individuals by declaring the parts needed to make them as firearms themselves and therefore subject to ATF regulation.

As Brnovich noted, the ATF seeks to “regulate unfinished, non-functional parts as if they [are] complete firearms.” This move “overshoot[s] the authority granted to it by Congress. The rulemaking is unconstitutional.”

The issuance of the agency’s “final rule,” says the complaint,

unconstitutionally subverts Congress’ authority, exercising quintessentially legislative powers in a manner that could never pass either (let alone both) houses of Congress today, which is precisely why defendants have no intent whatsoever to ask for legislative authorization to take such unprecedented actions.

In other words, the ATF action is another example of the administrative state — the unconstitutional fourth branch of government — run amok.

The complaint makes clear, from the agency’s own words, that its purpose is to eliminate ghost guns altogether by regulating their parts into oblivion:

The Final Rule can be viewed as an effort by ATF to eliminate the market for 80% frames and receivers (and DIY homemade firearms) entirely, through arbitrary standards, intimidation, and threats of criminal charges for vague federal crimes.


In fact, ATF admits that the Final Rule “will reduce the overall supply and demand for … firearm parts kits,” and “estimates … that 98% of such companies “will end up dissolving their businesses”….


The Final Rule can best be understood as an effort to eliminate entirely the market for DIY firearm parts that can be manufactured into functional firearms by law-abiding, “do-it-yourself” gun owners.

The 161-page complaint declares that

The Final Rule upends existing federal gun law, imposing onerous burdens on federal firearms licensees and private gun owners alike, and creating out of thin air a new federal crime with respect to what ATF terms “privately made firearms,” all in clear disregard for the statutory text that Congress enacted.

To create that “new federal crime,” the ATF first must create a new definition of ghost gun. The new definition reads:

Privately made firearm (PMF): A firearm, including a frame or receiver, completed, assembled, or otherwise produced by a person other than a licensed manufacturer, and without a serial number placed by a licensed manufacturer at the time the firearm was produced.

Under the new definition, any PMF that doesn’t have a serial number (none of them do) automatically becomes illegal to own.

The complaint states that the “ATF does not have the power to create new crimes,” just as the Executive Branch cannot, either through the president or one of its agencies, create criminal statutes. Under the Constitution, only Congress can do that:

Defendants may only exercise the authority conferred upon them by statute, and may not legislate through regulation in order to implement [the agency’s] perceived intent of Congress or congressional purpose behind federal gun control statutes.

The complaint spells out how the Constitution works, and how the ATF works to violate it:

Article I, § 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that “[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”


Article I, § 7, Clause 2 of the Constitution mandates that “[e]very Bill … shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” and “shall … be presented to the President of the United States … before it become a Law….”


The [ATF’s] Final Rule violates these provisions, usurping legislative powers. The Final Rule represents an attempt by an administrative agency to implement policy change and enact omnibus federal gun control legislation through bureaucratic regulation, rather than through legislation.

The complaint provides a helpful analogy:

The Constitution protects the corresponding right to sell firearm components, magazines, ammunition, and accessories, just as the freedoms of speech and press protect the right to buy and sell newspapers, books, paper, and ink.


Indeed, it would not mean much if there was a right to make a firearm, but no ability to purchase the materials necessary to do so.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court of North Dakota, asks the court to rein in the ATF by declaring that

the Final Rule is unlawful and an ultra vires [“beyond the powers”] agency action and of no force and effect;


the Final Rule is an act “not in accordance with law” and of no force and effect;


the Final Rule violates the Separation of Powers doctrine embodied in the United States Constitution; and


the Final Rule violates rights protected by the Second Amendment and is of no force and effect.

Unfortunately, the complaint doesn’t address the issue of the constitutionality of the ATF itself, or of Congress’ original abrogation of the separation of powers doctrine by granting legislative authority to the ATF in the first place. As the complaint itself states, in its effort to perform an end run around the constitutional limitations built in by the Founders,

ATF has created an informal definition, within another informal definition, within a regulatory definition, within another regulatory definition, within a statutory definition, of a statutory term.

This will continue until such time as the ATF is abolished, or the Second Amendment is abolished by it.

House Committee Seeks Apologies From Gun Makers After Recent Mass Shootings

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, July 29, 2022:  

The Democrat-laden House Oversight Committee demanded apologies from CEOs of gun manufacturers Ruger and Daniel Defense on Wednesday for selling weapons used by murderers in recent mass shootings.

The chairwoman of the committee, Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), asked the CEO of Smith & Wesson to show up for the grilling as well, but he declined. In her letter “inviting” the three company presidents to the inquisition, she wrote:

The information you provided has heightened the Committee’s concern that your company is continuing to profit from the sale and marketing of weapons of war to civilians despite the harm these weapons cause, is failing to track instances or patterns where your products are used in crimes, and is failing to take other reasonable precautions to limit injuries and deaths caused by your firearms.

She picked on those three companies deliberately, as their products were involved in the Uvalde, Texas, and Highland Park, Illinois, shootings.

This set the stage for her grilling of the two CEOs who agreed to subject themselves and their companies to the attack. The weapons are the offending criminals in those recent shootings and, by clear inference, so were the company executives.

Behind her was a white board showing how much each company made in recent years from the sale of their products.

She began:

The gun industry has flooded our neighborhoods, our schools, and even our churches and synagogues with these deadly weapons.… How many more American children need to die before your compan[ies] stop selling assault weapons?

Each president began to present a reasonable response to such a provocative and intentionally offensive question, but each time Maloney cut them off, citing time limitations. She, of course, had plenty of time to rant but precious little time was granted for any response.

However, Daniel Defense president Marty Daniel was able to declare: “These acts are committed by murderers. The murderers are responsible.”

Ruger’s president, when given a chance to respond to the outrageous question posed by Maloney, refused to answer directly but instead argued that a gun is “an inanimate object,” adding that “it is wrong to deprive citizens of their constitutional right to purchase a lawful weapon … because of the criminal acts of [a few] wicked people.”

He said, “The difference is in the intent of the individual possessing it,” and then added that her committee ought to look at the criminals using the weapons illegally rather than on the makers:

We respectfully submit [that] should be the focus of any investigation into the root causes of criminal violence involving firearms.

A Republican member of the committee, Jody Hice (R-Ga.), called out Maloney for her misleading and offensive questioning: “It’s absolutely disgusting to me and unthinkable … the height of irresponsibility and lack of accountability [by Maloney]. My colleagues seem to forget that the American people have a right to own guns.”

Another Republican on the committee, Clay Higgins (R-La.), called out Maloney and her cohorts: “What my colleagues are doing [here] is unbelievably beyond the pale of anything reasonable or constitutional. Will we have that debate reasonably … through the legislative branch? Or will [the issue] be settled on the front porch of Americans, when the FBI and ATF show up to seize legally owned weapons?”

Happily, the confrontation that Maloney hoped would capture national exposure and attention failed miserably. As of this writing, there were fewer than 5,000 views of the committee’s inquisition that was posted on YouTube.

Delaware “Assault Weapons” Ban Unconstitutional, Declares New Lawsuit

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, July 27, 2022:  

Following the Uvalde, Texas, mass shooting, Delaware’s Democratic Party — which controls the offices of governor, secretary of state, attorney general, and both chambers of the state’s legislature — rushed through nine gun-control bills in response. They largely ignored not only protections guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but also broader protections guaranteed by Article 1, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution: “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.”

And they largely ignored as well the recent ruling by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Following that ruling, the high court remanded (returned) pending lawsuits impacted by that ruling to the states to comply accordingly.

On Wednesday, the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association and several other groups and individuals sued Delaware state officials charged with enforcing the new law, asking the U.S. District Court of Delaware to render the law unenforceable.

The Delaware law makes it illegal to make, sell, purchase, or possess so-called assault weapons, including semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles such as the immensely popular AR-15 platform. It also bans possession of “large capacity” magazines, arbitrarily defined as containing more than 17 rounds of ammunition.

The law provides a long list of the newly-prohibited handguns and rifles and then, to make sure that if any were not included in the list they would also be banned, defined “assault” rifles as having detachable magazines and pistol grips, a flash suppressor, having a barrel shroud, and — unbelievably — the capability of launching grenades as well.

The lawsuit declares that “the State of Delaware recently enacted in law [a bill] which flouts the fundamental civil rights of Delawareans … by making them criminals — felons — for exercising one of their most exacted rights enshrined in both the Delaware Constitution and the United States Constitution.”

House Bill 450 and its companion Senate Bill 68 were signed into law on June 30 (the Uvalde shooting occurred on May 24) by Democrat Governor John Carney, who said at the time that “we have an obligation to do everything we can to prevent tragedies like we’ve seen around the country from happening here in Delaware.”

He said nothing about how similar bans have failed to prevent such shootings, nor did he say anything about the mental states of the shooters. It was all about inanimate objects and punishing their innocent owners in order to make a political statement.

From the lawsuit:

When House Bill 450 was signed into law on June 30, 2022, the State of Delaware criminalized possession, transportation and sale of common firearms used by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes — mislabeling them as “assault weapons” — making it a felony for law-abiding citizens to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear such arms.

The plaintiffs

seek declaratory and injunctive relief not only on the basis that the Regulatory Scheme violates their rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, but also on the fact that the Regulatory Scheme violates their rights under Delaware Constitution, Article I Section 20; their rights to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Delaware Constitution; their right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit referred to the Bruen decision coupled with the Heller decision (District of Columbia v. Heller, decided by the Supreme Court in 2008) which “assert that the Second Amendment protects the carrying of weapons that are those ‘in common use’ at the time.”

It derided Delaware officials who passed the law, using the phrase “assault weapons” in the text:

The banned semiautomatic firearms deemed as “assault weapons” under the Regulatory Scheme, like all other semiautomatic firearms, fire only one round for each pull of the trigger.


They are not machine guns.


What is more, the designation “assault weapons” is a complete misnomer, “developed by anti-gun publicists” in their crusade against lawful firearm ownership.

Further, banning such “assault weapons” has historically had almost no impact on mass shootings:

According to a widely cited 2004 study, these arms “are used in a small fraction of gun crimes.” See Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control [for] evidence [that] indicates that “well under 1% of [crime guns] are ‘assault rifles.’”

More recent data confirms Kleck’s 2004 conclusions. FBI crime statistics found that of the average of 14,556 homicides committed annually for the past decade, rifles typically account for just 314 of them. And in 2019, the latest year for which records are available, Delaware suffered 48 homicides, with none of them attributed to a rifle.

Of the five judges currently sitting on the U.S. District Court of Delaware, two were appointed by President Donald Trump, one was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, and the other two were appointed by Presidents Obama and Biden.

The New American will keep its readers advised of developments in the case.

Houston Doctor Sues Hospital for Defamation Over Covid Opinions

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, July 26, 2022:  

In March 2020, at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, Houston ear, nose, and throat doctor Mary Talley Bowden offered to serve patients whose primary physicians refused to see them.

She began using ivermectin, and then, as her personal experience with it as part of a multimodal treatment protocol grew, she began sharing her results on her Twitter account.

She had privileges at Houston Methodist Hospital, and when the hospital CEO Marc Boom learned about her tweets, he used the hospital’s Twitter account to respond. In November of 2021 he tweeted:

These opinions, which are harmful to the community, do not reflect reliable medical evidence or the values of Houston Methodist, where we have treated more than 25,000 COVID-19 inpatients, and where all our employees and physicians are vaccinated to protect our patients.


Dr. Bowden, who has never admitted a patient at Houston Methodist Hospital, is spreading dangerous misinformation which is not based on science.

In January, Bowden sued the hospital to obtain information about how much money it had received from treating those 25,000 patients.

On Monday she sued again, this time claiming that Boom’s tweets were defamatory and had damaged her reputation and her practice.

The lawsuit claimed that

Without notice, they published false and defamatory statements to the press and on social media, affording no due process, acting contrary to and with reckless disregard for both the letter and spirit of Methodist’s bylaws.


Beginning in November 2021, Methodist and Boom, took to Twitter and published a series of statements of fact about Dr. Bowden that injured Dr. Bowden’s reputation, exposed her to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, financial injury, and impugned her professional judgment, integrity, honesty, and veracity as a licensed medical professional.

For proof, her attorneys quoted 19 disparaging responses to Boom’s tweets, including repeating the phrase “spreading misinformation,” “spreading dangerous misinformation,” and “spreading Covid misinformation” from Boom’s original tweets.

Bowden claimed that Boom and Houston Methodist Hospital not only knew their statements were false, but that they knew that the compliant media would spread the canard across the land.

Her attorneys wrote:

Dr. Bowden’s opinions were not and are not harmful to patients or others in the community.


Dr. Bowden has extensive first-hand experience treating COVID. She is considered an expert by other physicians who believe in outpatient treatment of COVID.


She has kept over 4,000 patients out of the hospital, and no one who has received early treatment under her care has died.


Dr. Bowden has had no serious adverse reactions from using Ivermectin.


Methodist and Boom’s Statements are provably false.

They are suing the hospital for $25 million in compensatory damages, punitive damages to be determined by a jury, and other costs and expenses recoverable under the law.

They justify this amount:

In this case, Dr. Bowden seeks presumed damages, actual damages (past and future mental anguish and past and future injury to reputation), special damages (including career damage and impairment of future earning capacity) and punitive damages as a result of the defamation and defamation by implication.

Lawyers defending the hospital will be hard-pressed to deny Bowden’s claims:

Prior to publication, Methodist and Boom knew from the hospital’s own data collected from its patients and from their review of scientific studies and reports about Ivermectin and other off-label medications and the efficacy and risks of the vaccines, including VAERS data, that Dr. Bowden’s statements were true and were supported by an abundance of reliable medical evidence, including expert opinions from other renowned medical professionals.


Methodist and Boom knew that Dr. Bowden’s use of Ivermectin to treat patients with COVID had not harmed a single patient, and that there was no public record of any patient complaints.


Moreover, Dr. Bowden was collaborating with 2 ENTs at Methodist to publish data related to all the COVID patients Dr. Bowden was testing, so for Methodist and Boom to say that Dr. Bowden was “dangerous” was clearly reckless disregard for the truth. Methodist and Boom published the Statements in spite of their actual knowledge of the truth, and in order to disparage and discredit Dr. Bowden’s professional reputation.

Bowden’s attorneys, Madhu Sekharan and Steven Biss, are likely taking the case on a contingent basis. They are basing their position on a prior case, Don King Productions, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., where the court ruled:

An intention to portray a public figure in a negative light, even when motivated by ill will or evil intent, is not sufficient to show actual malice unless the publisher intended to inflict harm through knowing or reckless falsehood. (Emphasis added)

The New American will keep readers informed as the story develops.

Soros-backed State Attorney Loses Reelection Bid

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, July 25, 2022:  

In Baltimore, arguably one of the most violent and corrupt cities in the country thanks to its overwhelmingly Democratic Party rule, voters had enough of the city’s state attorney. In her bid for another term, Marilyn Mosby placed third in the party’s primary election last week.

Even the strong likelihood that mail-in ballots were fraudulently submitted to support her campaign, they weren’t enough. She finished third behind two other lesser-known candidates. Thanks to those bail-in ballots, and the state’s rule that they can be counted up to two days after the day of the election, the final results weren’t released until Friday night.

Mosby made a major mistake: She ran on her record. She celebrated reducing the prison population significantly (using Covid as an excuse); she rejoiced at “holding police officers” accountable for their alleged misdeeds; and she was pleased to have exonerated many criminals after she reviewed their convictions through her progressive lens.

Her record speaks for itself. During the eight years before she took office in 2014, there had been an average of 229 homicides per year in Baltimore. During her five-year reign, that average jumped to 331 — nearly a 50-percent increase.

Right behind were increases in rapes, aggravated assaults, and robberies, jumping 13 percent, 12 percent, and 42 percent, respectively.

Mosby gained national attention when she overcharged six police officers involved in the arrest of street thug Freddie Gray in 2015. He was arrested for illegally carrying a flip-out knife (he had a record of at least 18 prior arrests, including drug and assault charges).

It took all six officers to subdue Gray and force him into a police van for transport to police headquarters. As National Review Online explained:

At a certain point, he [Gray] evidently attempted to stand, despite being bound and unable to see outside the van to judge traffic conditions.


As the van moved, he appears to have careened violently into its interior, suffering an injury [to his spinal cord] similar to that experienced by [someone diving into] shallow water.

Gray died a week later.

Mosby saw her opportunity to sully the reputation of the six officers and indicted them all on charges ranging from involuntary manslaughter to second-degree murder, to “depraved heart” murder in the case of the van driver.

So eager was she in charging the officers that she charged two of them using wrong names, birth dates, and addresses.

She stoked the riots that followed, declaring: “To the people of Baltimore and demonstrators across America, I heard your call for ‘No Justice, No Peace.’”

The civil unrest continued for days, resulting in at least 20 police officers being injured, 250 demonstrators arrested, and more than 300 businesses damaged and/or looted.

The charges were later determined to be bogus, and were dropped. But the damage had been done, and Mosby’s star among progressives was on the rise.

She instituted progressive policies, announcing in March 2021 that her office would no longer enforce laws pertaining to the following crimes:

Possession of CDS (controlled dangerous substances, i.e., drugs);


Attempted distribution of CDS;


Paraphernalia possession;






Minor traffic offenses;


Open container (of an alcoholic beverage in a motor vehicle);


Rogue and vagabond (actual or attempted theft of a motor vehicle or its contents); and


Urinating/defecating in public.

Mosby owed her election in 2014 to two people: George Soros and Kamala Harris. According to the Heritage Foundation, “When Soros decided back in 2014 to spend millions to fund the election efforts of rogue prosecutors, one of the first people he backed was Marilyn Mosby.”

In November 2020, Mosby described Kamala Harris as her “inspiration,” her “role model,” and “a bold, brilliant, beautiful black woman” who had “inspired” her to run for office. She declared, “There would be no Marilyn Mosby without Kamala Harris.”

What voters focused on most, however, was her lying on two mortgage applications in order to purchase a couple of Florida vacation homes during the pandemic. U.S. Attorney Erek Barron, who brought the charges in January, claimed that

Marilyn M. Mosby knowingly made false statements or reports for the purpose of influencing … the action of [the two mortgage companies involved] … certifying that (1) Mosby certified the only liabilities she owed were those disclosed in the application, when in truth and fact, as Mosby knew, she owed significant amounts of federal taxes; (2) that she was not presently delinquent or in default on any Federal debt, when in truth and in fact, as Mosby knew, she was delinquent in paying her federal taxes.

Mosby declared her innocence, and blamed instead that the indictment by Barron was “merely a political ploy by my political adversaries to unseat me.… There [are] ulterior motives for something like this … for an attack like this.”

She wanted to expedite her trial, and the court agreed, setting a date in February. But as it became clear that it was an issue that was going to cost her her reelection, she changed her mind. She asked the court to move the trial date until after the election so that it wouldn’t be so much of a detraction during her reelection campaign. Again, the compliant court agreed.

Now that she has been ousted by unhappy Democrat voters in the primary, Mosby is free to work on staying out of jail. If she is convicted, she could face up to five years in prison for the two counts of perjury and up to 30 years in prison for each of the two counts of making false mortgage applications. Her trial date is set for September 19.

It is highly unlikely that she will ever see the inside of a jail cell. After all, she has friends in high places, and her attorney, Scott Bolden, declares that she is innocent of all charges:

Marilyn Mosby is innocent, has been innocent, and we look forward to defending her in the court of law, and presenting evidence of her innocence to a jury of her peers.


We will fight these charges vigorously, and I remain confident that once all the evidence is presented, that she will prevail against these bogus charges — charges that are rooted in personal, political and racial animus five months from her election.

LAPD No Longer Enforcing “High-capacity” Magazine Ban Thanks to SCOTUS Ruling

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, July 22, 2022:  

Reverberations from the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen holding that both the Second and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self defense outside the home reached Los Angeles on Wednesday.

Ernest Eskridge, assistant commanding officer for the LAPD’s Detective Bureau, announced suspension of enforcement of the city’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds, effective immediately.

He saw the writing on the wall. After ruling in Bruen in June, the high court also disposed of a number of other related lawsuits, including one challenging the Los Angeles magazine ban, Duncan v. Bonta.

“Due to this ruling,” wrote Eskridge, “Department sworn personnel shall not investigate, detain, or arrest any persons … [in] possession of firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.”

The city’s ban was authored by LA City Councilmember Paul Krekorian, and enforcement began in November of 2015. Krekorian celebrated the event at the time:

The City Council banned the possession of large-capacity magazines to give law enforcement another tool to keep people safe and get these dangerous devices off the streets.


Starting next week, Los Angeles wilI start enforcing and upholding the ban. I urge anyone currently in possession of these illegal magazines to dispose of them legally at an LAPD station before enforcement begins.

That a limit on magazine capacities would somehow “keep people safe” is another gun-control myth used to justify infringing on the Second Amendment. The argument goes like this: A higher “rate of fire” from a firearm with a “high-capacity” magazine allows perps to kill more people in a shorter period of time.

In his book Countering the Mass Shooter Threat, author Michael Martin examined the evidence by looking at the actual rates of fire from recent mass shootings:


The cowardly Newtown shooter fired at a rate of fire no faster than the 150-year-old lever-action Henry rifle [used during the Civil War] — even though he had ten 30-round magazines and an AR-15.


The despicable Fort Hood shooter was one-third slower than that, while the mass murderer at Virginia Tech was 50 percent slower.


Even the San Bernardino shooters, who carried AR-15s and 30-round magazines, fired at a rate no faster than one round every 3.3 seconds. This is 40 percent slower than the lever-action Henry.


The coward who shot up a theater in Aurora, Colorado, fired at a rate no faster than the 170-year-old single-shot Sharps rifle — even though he had a 100-round magazine. Keep in mind, the Sharps rifle has a capacity of one round!


Finally, the Red Lake shooter and the Columbine shooters fired at a rate of fire no faster than the 240-year-old, muzzle-loading flintlock Kentucky rifle.

In the real world, Martin explained, large magazines are heavy, make a firearm difficult to handle, and result in a higher incidence of misfires. Take the Aurora, Colorado mass shooting, for example:

The Aurora, Colorado theater shooter brought one single AR-15 magazine with him, which held 100 rounds. Not only did that make his firearm incredibly heavy and unwieldy, the magazine also failed completely after approximately 45 rounds, and his incredibly slow rate of fire (one round every four to seven seconds, no faster than a single-shot rifle) would indicate that he most likely was fighting misfeeds right up until the point that the magazine failed.

In fact, commands that magazines be limited to 10 rounds might actually increase the rate of fire:

Had he been using 10-round magazines, it’s unlikely that any failure would have occurred, and his rate of fire could have been much higher. [Emphasis added.]

Martin concluded:

When politicians who know absolutely nothing about firearms attempt to make firearms policy, they shouldn’t be surprised when their actions don’t have the desired effect.

The effects of the Bruen decision (thanks to originalists nominated to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump) continue to resonate throughout the land, to the benefit of law-abiding gun owners specifically and the populace in general.

Missouri Sheriff Warns FBI That Demands for Data on CCW Permit Holders Will Be Denied

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, July 21, 2022:  

When Scotland County, Missouri, Sheriff Bryan Whitney learned that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was going to be conducting an audit in 24 counties in the state next month, he launched a preemptive strike:

As the sheriff of Scotland County, I want all my citizens to know that I will not allow, cooperate or release any CCW [Concealed Carry Weapons] information to the FBI, even at the threat of a federal arrest.


Point Blank, I will go down with the ship if need be.

His defiance of a potential demand from the FBI that sheriffs release information on Missourians with concealed-carry permits was not the only one. Sheriffs in Howard, Gasconade, Camden, Macon, Osage, and Randolph counties also agreed to keep such information away from the FBI.

To back up his letter, Whitney told Fox News, he is preparing to move all that CCW information to a secure location in case the FBI threatens him with a search warrant for it.

Why all of a sudden is this a concern?

Last month there was a massive data breach in California that released the detailed personal information of CCW permit holders that included names, dates of birth, gender, race, driver’s license numbers, and residence addresses, along with any criminal history that might have been included.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta — who is endorsed by the anti-gun group Everytown for Gun Safety while carrying a 0% rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) — was “deeply disturbed and angered” over the breach and said he would be launching an “investigation” into how it happened.

The breach was far-reaching, and just happened to occur days after the Supreme Court ruled against New York’s gun-control law. It allowed sensitive information about concealed-carry permit holders in the state to be accessed and downloaded.

Additionally, data from other sites was open to public display and access: the state’s Assault Weapons Registry, its registry of Handguns Certified for Sale, its Dealer Records of Sale, its listings of those receiving a Firearm Safety Certificate, and anyone subject to a Gun Violence Restraining Order.

Bonta was terribly sorry but didn’t apologize, and provided no assurance that the promised investigation would actually take place, nor any assurance that such a breach would never happen again.

In addition, Missourians still remember the demand the FBI made of sheriffs’ offices under the Obama administration, wanting to know which Missourians had firearms, supposedly to establish who was “entitled to federal benefits.”

This “plausible” reason was seen for what it was, and the state legislature passed a law making it illegal to share such confidential information with any agency of the federal government.

The FBI, of course, denied that there was anything to worry about. It released a statement that under the planned Missouri audit, “a small sampling of system transactions is to be inspected for compliance and to ensure there is no misuse of the [FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division] systems.” It added, of course, that it was just a “routine auditing program” — nothing to see here, we’re just doing our job.

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt exposed the danger and added to Whitney’s defiance. In a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray last week, Schmitt wrote:

The FBI has absolutely no business poking around in the private information of those who have obtained a concealed carry permit in Missouri.


The Second Amendment rights of Missourians will absolutely not be infringed on my watch. I will use the full power of my Office to stop the FBI, which has become relentlessly politicized and has virtually no credibility, from illegally prying around in the personal information of Missouri gun owners.

He added:

You may wonder why there is such strong suspicion of federal agents here in the “Show Me State.” Simply put, Missourians are hard-working, law-abiding citizens who don’t need a national nanny-state keeping tabs on us.


But more than that, over the last couple of years, we’ve seen story after story of incompetence and corruption at the highest levels of the FBI.

Three Latest Polls Show Biden’s Approval Rating Continuing to Sink

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, July 20, 2022:  

No matter who does the polling or how the questions are posed, Americans are increasingly fed up with the performance of Joe Biden. The latest three polls show his performance dropping from dismal to disastrous in the eyes of American voters.

The results of CNBC’s All-America Survey released on Monday reveal that Biden’s economic and overall job-performance numbers “dipped to the lowest levels of his presidency,” said the survey authors. His economic approval numbers dropped five points since April, lower than even Barack Obama’s worst levels.

More than half told the pollster that they expect the economy, already in trouble, to get worse over the next year, while six out of 10 expect the economy to be in recession by then.

Biden’s overall job-performance numbers now show a disapproval/approval rating of 57/36, the lowest since CNBC has been tracking them.

CNN’s poll, conducted by SSRS and with results also released on Monday, reported that 62 percent disapprove of Biden’s overall performance, with just 38 percent approving — a favorability rating of -24. Among Democrats, Biden’s approval rating continues to drop as well: In April, they gave him an 86-percent approval rating. It’s now down to 73 percent. And when it comes to managing the economy, Democrats’ support of their man has also dropped, from 71 percent this spring to 62 percent.

Among people of color, the disaster is even worse. Biden’s overall performance among Black adults has dropped six points in two months, while among Hispanic adults it has dropped by nine points. CNN summarized the continuing disaster:

Just 38 percent of Democrats now say things are going well in the country, down from 61 percent this spring. Likewise, there’s been a steep drop among people of color, from 41 percent saying things were going well in the spring to 27 percent now.

The CNN poll also asked its audience about Biden’s (and Vice President Kamala Harris’) “personal favorability”: “A year and a half ago, just before their inauguration, 59% held a favorable opinion of Biden and 51% had a favorable view of Kamala Harris. Now, those figures stand at 36% and 32% respectively.”

The results of a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Tuesday confirmed the results from CNBC and CNN: Biden’s approval rating fell to 36 percent, “the lowest rating of his 19 months in the White House … [while] 59% of Americans disapprove of Biden’s job performance.” That’s a three-point drop from another Reuters poll taken last week.

Biden is also underwater in 44 out of the 50 states, according to Morning Consult. That’s up from 40 just three months ago. Especially damaging is that, in so-called battleground states — states where Biden allegedly won enough votes to tip the election in 2020 — he is greatly underwater: Arizona (-20 net approval rating), Georgia (-13), Pennsylvania (-19), Ohio (-23), and Wisconsin (-18). Excluding Ohio, the president supposedly won all of those states in the 2020 election.

America’s middle class — the target of the Biden administration’s attack — is suffering. Two thirds report spending less on entertainment, while three out of five are driving less and more than half have cut back on their travel plans this summer.

What’s worse is that these polls were taken before the latest inflation numbers were announced (above nine percent), and before Biden’s obsequious trip to Saudi Arabia (which The Wall Street Journal called “worse than an embarrassment”).

Pollsters tracking the rolling disaster are likely to report even lower approval numbers for Biden in the future as the impact of his anti-middle-class policies takes firmer hold over the intended victims.

Court Rules Biden Administration’s Collusion With Social Media be Exposed

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, July 19, 2022:

History is likely to record that the decision by a District Judge in Louisiana on Tuesday — allowing that state, along with the state of Missouri, to expose the bureaucrats imposing censorship through collusion with social media — marks a historic milestone victory for the First Amendment.

The First Amendment declares that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” And yet bureaucrats in the executive branch often act as if the First Amendment doesn’t apply to them and have, over the past months and years, worked diligently to limit, restrict, cancel, and otherwise abrogate those precious freedoms with impunity.

Now, thanks to the ruling by Trump-appointed Judge Terry Doughty of the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division, those bureaucrats’ days of hiding their identities from public view are shortly coming to an end.

Ruled Judge Doughty:

Within five business days after this ruling, Plaintiff States [Louisiana and Missouri] may serve interrogatories and document requests upon Government Defendants [including Joe Biden, Dr. Anthony Fauci, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, former White House Secretary Jen Psaki, and others] and third party-subpoenas on up to five major social-media platforms [i.e., Meta/Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, etc.] seeking the identity of federal officials who have been and are communicating with social-media platforms about disinformation, misinformation, malinformation, and/or any censorship or suppression of speech on social media, including the nature and content of those communications.

In other words, as soon as the attorneys general of those two states and their staffs can issue those “interrogatories and document requests,” those individuals and platforms will be exposed to the exquisitely painful and disinfecting light of day.

The court is going to monitor those demands closely to make sure the bureaucrats comply with them in a timely manner. There will, in other words, be no escape for those working in the bowels of the executive branch to censor conversations that expose their radical, anti-freedom agenda.

The quest to expose them began in May when Missouri’s State Attorney General Eric Schmitt announced:

Missouri and Louisiana just filed sued against Joe Biden, Jen Psaki, Dr. Fauci, and other top-ranking officials for allegedly colluding with social media companies to suppress freedom of speech under the guise of combating “misinformation.”

That “misinformation” included the Hunter Biden laptop story, the Wuhan lab-leak story, the election-fraud story, and others.

Schmitt provided evidence:

In October 2020, after publishing an article on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, the New York Post’s main Twitter account was locked, and Twitter blocker other users from sharing the link….


Over a year and a half later, the Washington Post and the NY Times acknowledged the truth and reliability of the story, but not before the damage was done and free speech was suppressed by Twitter and companies.

The original complaint, filed on May 5, described the attempt to shut down freedom of speech and press:

In 1783, George Washington warned that if “the Freedom of Speech may be taken away,” then “dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.”


The freedom of speech in the United States now faces one of its greatest assaults by federal government officials in the Nation’s history….


Having threatened and cajoled social-media platforms for years to censor viewpoints and speakers disfavored by the Left, senior government officials in the Executive Branch have moved into a phase of open collusion with social-media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social-media platforms under the Orwellian guise of halting so-called “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “malinformation.”…


Federal officials — including, most notably, certain Defendants named herein — have repeatedly and aggressively threatened to remove these legal benefits and impose other adverse consequences on social-media platforms if they do not aggressively censor and suppress disfavored speakers, content, and viewpoints on their platforms;


and Defendants named herein, colluding and coordinating with each other, have also directly coordinated and colluded with social-media platforms to identify disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content and thus have procured the actual censorship and suppression of the freedom of speech….


As a direct result of these actions, there has been an unprecedented rise of censorship and suppression of free speech — including core political speech — on social-media platforms.


Not just fringe views, but perfectly legitimate, responsible viewpoints and speakers have been unlawfully and unconstitutionally silenced in the modern public square.


These actions gravely threaten the fundamental right of free speech and free discourse for virtually all citizens in Missouri, Louisiana, and America, both on social media and elsewhere.

The complaint and the proper response by Judge Doughty illustrate once again the brilliance of the Founders in “binding [men] down by the chains of the Constitution.”

As the exposure of those working to censor speech and press begins, The New American will keep its readers apprised of who they are and what charges they will face for their misdeeds.

Former Trump Advisor Peter Navarro Turns Down DOJ Plea Deal

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, July 18, 2022:  

After being violently arrested and mistreated by the FBI, former Trump trade advisor Peter Navarro was indicted on June 3 on two counts: 1) refusing to produce documents demanded by the January 6 committee; and 2) refusing to comply with the committee’s subpoena to testify.

Navarro pleaded not guilty, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed a deal: plead guilty to one of the two charges, and they’ll send him to jail for just 30 days rather than up to a year for such infractions. Navarro’s attorney told (Obama-appointed) U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta on Friday that Navarro declined to take the plea deal.

Part of the deal would require that Navarro turn over to the committee the various papers, documents, and other materials they had originally demanded.

Navarro, it will be remembered, produced the three-volume report on the 2020 presidential election fraud called “The Navarro Report.” It was based on evidence compiled in more than 50 related lawsuits and thousands of affidavits and testimonies, all of which provided ample proof of “a coordinated strategy to effectively stack the deck against the Trump-Pence ticket.”

Navarro’s conclusion has since been amply confirmed by Dinesh D’Souza’s movie 2000 Mules, which has now been viewed by more than 20 million Americans.

In Navarro’s report, as in the movie, it was revealed that there was massive voter fraud perpetrated in the battleground states where the final outcome of that election was determined.

One of Navarro’s attorneys, John Irving, said his client’s denial of both the committee’s demands and the plea bargain stems from a “constitutional case involving separation of powers.… It involves not only the President of the United States asserting his executive privilege but [also] over 50 years of DOJ opinions that make it clear that top presidential aides are able to assert absolute immunity and not testify before Congress.”

Another Navarro attorney, John Rowley, told reporters: “This is the first time in our nation’s 250-year history that a senior adviser to a president has been criminally charged for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena.”

That the Department of Justice, through its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), has now become the enforcement arm of the January 6 committee, reaching far outside its legitimate and constitutional prerogatives, is evident in how they treated Navarro.

As Navarro himself explained:

On June 3, 2020, five armed FBI agents swooped down on me at Reagan National Airport as I was about to board a flight to Nashville and an interview with Mike Huckabee.


I was denied the opportunity to call an attorney, quickly handcuffed, jammed into the back seat of a government car, sent first to the FBI for a mug shot and fingerprinting, and then to a Washington, DC jail.


At the DC jail, I was first spread-eagled and stripped searched [sic] and then put in a set of leg irons. A prison guard then led me to solitary confinement and placed in same cell in which John Hinckley once sat after shooting President Reagan.

At issue is not so much the separation of powers, but the legitimacy of the committee. As Navarro noted:

The issue is whether the so-called January 6 Committee — a Kangaroo Democratic Committee empaneled by Nancy Pelosi without support of the Minority House Republicans — can illegally weaponize the investigatory powers of the U.S. Congress.


Last February I received a subpoena from this unduly authorized, illegal, and highly partisan committee. I made it clear from the outset that I was honor- and duty-bound not to comply with that subpoena because President Trump had invoked “Executive Privilege.”  By law, President Trump’s executive privilege is not mine to waive.


In my repeated communications, I directed the Jan. 6. Committee to go directly to President Trump and his attorneys and negotiate a possible waiver of the privilege. If President Trump had negotiated such a waiver, I further indicated that I would have complied with the subpoena.


Instead of following the law in this matter — or even bothering to go to court to have a federal judge weigh in on the matter — the Jan. 6 Committee voted to hold me in contempt of Congress.


They shared the contempt charge with the Department of Justice. And the DOJ, which has never acted in such a manner in the entire history of our Republic, targeted me for a brutal arrest and show trial prosecution.

The actions of the FBI, an agency of the Department of Justice, against a private citizen were historic:

In the history of our nation, no senior White House official has ever been arrested on a contempt of Congress charge, put in leg irons, and pushed into a prison cell.


No one!


From the outset, I have made it clear this fight is not just about my freedom.


This fight is also about fighting against the illegal weaponization of Congress’ investigatory powers.


It is about stopping the political weaponization of the FBI.

His trial is set for November 17.

Yahoo News/YouGov poll: Further Declines for Biden Even Among Democrats

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, July 15, 2022:  

In a poll conducted over the weekend for Yahoo News, YouGov quizzed nearly 1,700 American adults on many issues. The most glaring result is the one least surprising: Biden continues to fade among those polled. But for the first time, more Democrats want someone other than Biden to run for president in 2024, 41 percent to 35 percent.

When asked “Who would you rather see as the Democratic nominee for President in 2024?” Democrats and independents who lean Democrat could only name Vice President Kamala Harris, but with an extraordinary lack of enthusiasm, at 19 percent. “Someone else” scored higher, at 20 percent, while “not sure” came in at 30 percent.

The poll results were merciless. When asked, “Would you say things in this country are generally headed in the right direction?,” just 15 percent agreed, while 72 percent disagreed. When asked, “Do you approve or disapprove of the way … Biden is handling the economy?,” 30 percent approved while 60 percent disapproved — a two-to-one disapproval ratio.

On crime, Biden scored just as poorly. Question: “Do you approve or disapprove of the way … Biden is handling crime?” Response: 31 percent approved; 52 percent disapproved.

On inflation, Biden scored worse. Question: “Do you approve or disapprove of the way … Biden is handling inflation?” Response: 26 percent approved; 63 percent disapproved.

When asked if Biden “has been a better or worse president than you expected?” just 12 percent said better, while 44 percent said worse.

The biggest question of all: “Do you think Joe Biden is up to the challenges facing the U.S.?” Response: 27 percent said yes; 56 percent said no.

YouGov quizzed its people on Biden’s leadership qualities. On “strength” he scored a 40, down 15 points from May. On “competence” he scored a 52, down 12 points from May. On “intelligence” he scored a 56, down five points from May.

Biden is already the oldest president ever elected in the nation’s history. In November, he turns 80. It’s no wonder that YouGov learned that fewer than one out of five surveyed want him to run for reelection in 2024. Nearly two out of three (64 percent) told YouGov that Biden should bow out.

With the 2024 presidential election more than two years away, it’s a little early to make predictions about whom the Democrats will find to replace the aging White House occupant. But that’s not keeping California Governor Gavin Newsom from making his move: He’s already running ads in Florida challenging one of the potential Republican nominees, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

Now, however, Newsom isn’t even showing up in the YouGov poll, while DeSantis comes in behind Trump, 29 percent to 50 percent, as the Republican nominee for president in 2024.

Wealthy Democrats Support Liz Cheney’s Reelection Bid

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, July 11, 2022:  

As Liz Cheney’s bid to win reelection to a fourth term as Wyoming’s sole member of the House continues to falter among voters, high-dollar Democrat donors are coming to her rescue financially.

The New York Times reported that film producer Jeffrey Katzenberg (Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King) is supporting Cheney’s failing effort. Said Katzenberg:

We agree on little, if anything. But she has done something that very, very few people in history have done, which is, she’s put her country over party and politics to stand in defense of our Constitution.

Katzenberg didn’t reveal just how much money he has given to Cheney, but her campaign coffers presently exceed $10 million, dwarfing amounts her other three Republican opponents have raised for their primary bids.

Democrat political consultant Dmitri Mehlhorn, who advises a number of wealthy Democrat donors, said that “Cheney is the most important person in America right now.” Accordingly, he has persuaded LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman to support Cheney’s failing bid.

Hoffman joined Seth Klarman, who runs the Boston-based hedge fund Baupost Group, in supporting Cheney. On Tuesday, he is holding an online fundraiser for her, coinciding with the next “revelation” from Cheney’s January 6 investigation committee which she co-chairs.

Klarman explained his support in an emailed invitation to his network of Democrat donors:

I strongly support Congresswoman Cheney’s bid for reelection, as we share a deep commitment to protecting American democracy and the rule of law.


I’m resolved to do everything possible to send a strong message by keeping her in Congress. We need to stand behind Liz and send a rebuke to the most extreme factions in the Republican Party.


If we don’t save democracy, everything else goes to hell.

Melhorn sings the same tune, i.e., that Cheney is his enemy in general but on this issue — Donald Trump — they are joined at the hip. “Liz Cheney is our enemy, so to speak, on every other issue. But on this issue, she is so aligned with us.”

That “issue” has been massaged into “the peaceful transfer of power,” which Trump is alleged to have threatened with his support of January 6 protestors. Explained Melhorn:

Our theory is that, if that is the dividing line — that all politics as about … the peaceful transfer of power, or not — the governing coalition will be the peaceful transfer of power coalition.


And if you want that, you rally around Liz Cheney, who is making it the most important issue personally.

Other wealthy Democrats supporting Cheney’s bid include Jane Fraser, CEO of megabank Citigroup.

In a last-ditch effort to salvage her campaign, Cheney is spending some of that $10 million on a mass mailer to Democrats and Independents in Wyoming with instructions on how to change party affiliation before the August 16 primary so they can vote for her as Republicans.

This is likely only to offend Republicans, who outnumber Democrats by 71 percent to 15 percent. Even if every Democrat and Independent, unaffiliated, Libertarian, and Constitution Party voter were to change affiliation at the last minute, Cheney would lose overwhelmingly in the August primary anyway.

Cheney has further offended Wyoming Republicans by showing up at a White House invitation-only televised Medal of Freedom event last Thursday. As USA Today noted, “It’s … unheard of for a Republican lawmaker in the middle of a bruising primary fight to be seen at a high-profile White House event of a Democratic president.” Especially one where the White House occupant is held in such low esteem across the land, and especially in Wyoming.

Cheney sealed her fate last week during a debate with her three Republican primary opponents, saying:

If we embrace the lies of Donald Trump, if we tell the people of Wyoming something that is not true, we will soon find ourselves without the structure and the basis and framework of our constitutional republic.

The latest polls show Cheney’s opponent Harriet Hageman leading the incumbent by 29 points, while a Cygnal survey shows that barely one quarter of Wyoming voters have a favorable opinion of Cheney.

The Republican primary is set for Tuesday, August 16.

Philadelphia Mayor says he Would take Away all guns from Owners if he Could

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, July 8, 2022:  

Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney let slip what he would do if he were dictator: “If I had the ability to take care of guns, I would.” This faux pas occurred during the mayor’s rant that followed the shooting of two PPD officers on Monday night:

It was a chilled back day … beautiful weather.


But we live in America where we have the Second Amendment, and we have the Supreme Court of the United States telling everybody they can carry a gun wherever they want.


I was in Canada two weeks ago and never thought about a gun. The only people I knew who had guns in Canada were police officers.


That’s the way it should be here.

As a result, continued the mayor:

There’s a lot of goofballs out there with guns and they can get them anytime they want, so this is what we have to live with.

What Philadelphians have to live with — a 25-percent increase in gun violence in just the last two years — is a direct result of policies he and the city council have instituted. Those policies include no traffic stops for minor offenses such as expired license tags or inspection stickers or burned-out taillights. These apparently were somehow racist, and something had to be done.

As a result, law enforcement was deprived of a valuable tool that oftentimes turned up illegal weapons during a routine traffic stop.

If Mayor Kenney were serious about reducing gun violence by removing firearms from criminals, he would listen to former Deputy Police Commissioner Joseph Sullivan. Sullivan was relieved of his duties in 2015 after serving the city for 38 years as he “wasn’t needed any longer.”

Said Sullivan:

In Philadelphia at one point … 80% of the illegal guns they took off the street were the result of car stops. Legal vehicle investigations [were] a critical part of … gun violence strategy.

But after the city council, at the behest of council member Isaiah Thomas, passed a bill in October 2020 called the Driving Equality Bill, gun violence began to escalate. The bill decriminalized nearly a dozen traffic violations as data the council relied on appeared to show that Philadelphia police were pulling over a “disproportionate” number of black drivers for minor traffic infractions.

The new law prohibited law enforcement officials from performing a traffic stop unless the violation presented an “imminent and articulable risk of bodily injury to specific person or damage to private or public property.”

It prevented police from performing traffic stops for violations involving the vehicle’s registration, a broken brake light or headlight, illegally tinted windows, or “lack of inspection.” It also barred police from performing stops related to failure to follow traffic signals, stop signs or other traffic lights.

Accordingly, those involved in illegal gun trafficking were all but guaranteed free and unrestricted entry into the city.

The measure was considered to be an experiment. As Jerry Ratcliffe, a former police officer and now a criminology professor at Temple University, expressed it at the time: “This really is an experiment. If we go through with this … it could go either way.”

The results are in. The experiment is over. It failed.

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) told his members:

The same politicians tying the hands of police and preventing them from putting a crimp in gun trafficking are constantly demanding more laws to restrict law-abiding gun owners. It’s as though liberal city politicians are on the side of criminals rather than cops and honest citizens.


[Philadelphia Mayor] Jim Kenney is a perfect example of the liberal urban political mindset. He complained there are “a lot of goofballs out there with guns and they can get them anytime they want.”


His administration made that a lot easier with these ridiculous reforms that prevent police from actually intercepting gun traffickers and discovering guns possessed by people who shouldn’t have them, during routine traffic stops.


It is because of such policies, and soft-on-criminal prosecutors, that the nation is seeing criminals operate with impunity.


When criminals know they’re not going to be vigorously prosecuted, they are simply emboldened to continue committing crimes that often turn violent.


Then what happens? Law-abiding gun owners take the heat from self-righteous politicians for crimes they didn’t commit.

If he had the power, Philadelphia Democrat Mayor Jim Kenney said he would solve the crime problem in the City of Brotherly Love by removing firearms from law-abiding citizens while leaving criminals free to bring in firearms without interference by law enforcement.

Biden Ramps Up the Rhetoric in Ohio as He and His Party Descend Into Oblivion

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Thursday, July 7, 2022:  

In a speech to union workers in Ohio on Wednesday, the present occupant of the White House, Joe Biden, touted his plan to rescue failing pension plans using taxpayer funds while attacking Republicans for not supporting the plan.

“Not one single solitary Republican voted” for it, explained Biden, because “they’re afraid … because the Trumpers [voters who support President Donald Trump, will] literally take them out.”

Those “Trumpers” earned a special place in Biden’s speech, as he blamed the former president for most if not all of the country’s current woes. “The previous administration lost more jobs in his watch than any administration since Herbert Hoover … all based on failed trickle down economics to benefit the wealthiest Americans.”

He also blamed Republicans for Intel’s decision to put on hold its plans to build a multi-billion-dollar assembly plant near Columbus:

I was able to work out something with Intel. They’re gonna provide for over 7,000 jobs … [but Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell is gonna block the passage of the legislation that will provide for another 100 billion dollars.… This is not right … and that’s why this [midterm] election is going to be so darn important.

The midterm election isn’t going well for the Democrats, and swing state Ohio has been trending red over the last two election cycles. Two Democrats seeking office in November — Tim Ryan, who is running against Republican nominee J.D. Vance for the U.S. Senate, and Nan Whaley, the candidate challenging GOP Governor Mike DeWine — didn’t show for the occasion. Each candidate claimed “unavoidable campaign conflicts.”

No doubt those candidates have been reading the polling tea leaves and decided to distance themselves from any association with Biden. According to the latest data from poll tracker CIVIQS, Biden has just a 20-percent approval rating in Ohio.

In fact, according to CIVIQS, Biden is under water in every state in the union except Hawaii and Vermont. He’s under water in deep blue California, and even in his own state of Delaware, with a 55-percent disapproval rating.

The latest results from CIVIQS reveal just how ugly the numbers are for the current Oval Office resident:

  • Voters aged 18-34 give Biden a 22-percent approval rating;
  • Voters aged 35-49 give him a 27-percent approval rating;
  • Republicans give him a one-percent approval rating;
  • Independents give him an 18-percent approval rating;
  • White voters give him a 24-percent approval rating; and
  • Black voters give him a 56-percent approval rating.

That last reading is especially important and indicative of just how much ground Biden and his handlers have lost by imposing their far-left, anti-American agenda onto the country. In the past, the Democratic Party could always count on at least 90 percent of black voters for their support.

Not any longer.

In reviewing the latest poll from CIVIQS (which is based on responses from more than 220,000 registered voters, thus reducing the margin of error significantly), Scott McKay, writing for American Spectatornotes the positive aspect:

If there is any positive to be taken from this, it’s something I wrote about in The Revivalist Manifesto, my new book just recently released by Bombardier Books.


One of the key theses of the book is that transformationally awful presidencies tend to wipe out the political party responsible for them for a generation, and begin entirely new political eras after the suffering of the public at the hands of the incompetents is paid back at the ballot box.


James Buchanan was such a president. So was Herbert Hoover. And Joe Biden is a larger disaster than either.


At the bottom of his vortex is a completely new American story, and perhaps the revival we so badly need.

Biden’s Attack on Middle Class Is Succeeding: Monmouth University Poll

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, July 6, 2022:  

The latest poll from Monmouth University, released on Tuesday, reveals the extent to which the Biden administration’s economic attack on the middle class is succeeding.

When nearly 1,000 Americans were asked this question in late June, “How much have each of the following groups benefited from President Biden’s policies so far — have they benefited a lot, a little, or not at all?” only seven percent said that “middle class families” benefited “a lot,” while 54 percent said they benefited “not at all.”

More than four out of ten respondents told the pollster they are “struggling to remain where [they] are financially,” while only nine percent said their financial situation was “stable.”

A majority — 57 percent — said that the actions of the federal government over the past six months have hurt their families, while just eight percent said they have helped them.

When asked, “Would you say things in the country are going in the right direction, or have they gotten off on the wrong track?” just 10 percent said the country is heading in the right direction, while 88 percent said Biden had put the country “on the wrong track.”

Columnist Liz Peek opined at Fox News that “Americans are furious, despondent, and fed up with … Joe Biden. They agree: the country has gone off the rails and the president seems utterly incapable of fixing what’s wrong.”

Peek is looking at the Biden administration through a sympathetic lens: he’s doing the best he can, but he “seems utterly incapable.” In other words, he really means well, but he’s getting bad advice.

However, the proper lens is the one provided by Marx and Engels in their Communist Manifesto:

The [dictatorship of] the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from [the middle class], to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state.

Lenin wrote that “whoever conceives of the transition to Socialism without the suppression of [the middle class], is not a Socialist.… It is essential to suppress the [middle class].”

The reason is simple: the middle class, when thriving, presents a nearly insurmountable obstacle to those working to establish a dictatorship. In her article “The Middle Class Must Not Fail,” Taylor Caldwell said:

The middle class made the dream of liberty a possibility, set limits on the government, fought for its constitutions, removed much of governmental privilege and tyranny, demanded that rulers obey the just laws as closely as the people, and enforced a general civic morality.

The middle class in America is known for its self-reliance, its independence, its belief in God, and its strong family ties. It also provides the bulk of the capital that the private capitalist system needs to operate.

The Biden attack on the middle class is showing up in slowing economic activity as the middle class pulls back from its spending, and that class’s sentiment in June reached the lowest level ever recorded. The economy is now in recession, with two straight quarters of negative economic growth. Jobless claims are rising, and companies who were hiring are now laying off workers. Stocks have had their worst first six months since 1970.

The attack is showing up at the gas pump, too, aided and abetted by Biden’s regime restricting oil and gas production and now imposing new ozone rules that will cut oil production in the Permian Basin.

And the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) just reported its manufacturing index dropped in May, along with a major decline in new orders and a decrease in supplier deliveries.

The middle class is increasingly unhappy about Biden’s attack. The Monmouth University study is hardly an outlier — the Trafalgar Group and Quinnipiac University polling show Biden’s approval rating in the middle 30s, while its disapproval rating is approaching six out of ten of those polled.

Let’s have no more talk of Biden’s “failures.” A different lens — one that proposes that he and his handlers are doing everything they can to slow, ruin, and destroy the middle class — reveals remarkable success.

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