— Monique Common Sense Queen (@legitDogeQueen) July 14, 2022
On the evening of Jan 5th, Epps urged people to go into the Capitol the next day
Here's Epps on the morning of Jan 6
Did Alan Feuer of NYT ask where Epps got the idea to go into the capitol, and why he was so obsessed with it? pic.twitter.com/KnoZAnzAgR
— Darren J. Beattie 🌐 (@DarrenJBeattie) July 14, 2022
THREAD
1/x The New York Times puff piece on Ray Epps is hugely important.
Ray Epps, the only person caught on repeatedly directing people into the Capitol is the only January 6 rioter the New York Times has written a puff piece forhttps://t.co/9VUUJbkVLz
— Darren J. Beattie 🌐 (@DarrenJBeattie) July 14, 2022
Why don’t Democrats want Americans to know about Ray Epps, the only man caught on video telling people to go into the Capitol the day before January 6th? pic.twitter.com/UbpMzGonZP
When asked about his own intelligence community assessment Joe Biden just smiled and walked away. Why does American corporate media repeatedly parrot Chinese state run media talking points? Dr. Fauci’s own emails indicate lab origins.
— Red Apple Media 🇺🇸 (@RedAppleMediaUS) July 19, 2022
This hero needs a go fund me immediately.
25 yo pizza delivery man runs into burning house, saves four children who tell him another might be in the house. He goes back in, finds the girl, jumps out a window with her pic.twitter.com/yC2wgttwS2
Of course audiences and advertises will leave these radio stations and end up operating at a loss, but these billionaires will fund them anyways.
“I couldn’t accept being part of any business associated with these leftist activists and their socialist agenda.”
A growing number of hosts are leaving a Spanish-language radio station after it was purchased by a group backed by billionaire #GeorgeSoros. https://t.co/pzeMgKFad2
Soros-Backed Group Seeking To Own A Conservative Spanish Radio Station In Miami Has Deep, Radically Left Views https://t.co/ksNasnSZjW
— Christina Pushaw 🐊 🇺🇸 (@ChristinaPushaw) June 10, 2022
The progressive activist group's intentions are clear: silence the most prominent and influential anti-communist Spanish language radio station in Miami.
— Alberto de la Cruz (@albertodelacruz) June 8, 2022
Bill Gates has given $319 million to media outlets. Including:
NPR: $24,663,066 The Guardian: $12,951,391 Der Spiegel: $5,437,294 NBC: $4,373,500 Le Monde: $4,014,512 El País: $3,968,184 BBC: $3,668,657 CNN: $3,600,000https://t.co/5jBEH1LjAl
Florida has worked with parents to create one of the strongest curriculum transparency laws in the country. Parents have a fundamental role in educating their children and have the right to know what is being taught to their kids and to have recourse if it violates DOE standards. pic.twitter.com/HbOWbjjN5d
Earlier this year, we signed legislation banning CRT in classrooms across Florida, providing parents with recourse if districts violate state standards.
The voter integrity problems from the 2020 election are well known, what is less well known is that hospitals were letting people die alone because of the foolish lockdown rules that just didn’t work.
We have taken action to protect the integrity of our elections by making ballot harvesting a felony, strengthening voter ID, eliminating drop boxes, and banning Zuckerbucks. pic.twitter.com/kio4bQ2IpT
George Soros funded prosecutors are just not enforcing laws against drugs, gun crime, theft, and other violence. At the same time God help you if you defend yourself against a thug, because then they throw the book at you.
Tucker Carlson: Whether you’re in Arlington, or Kenosha, or St. Louis, or New York City, you do not have the right to self-defense anymore. This is the national policy, and it’s been set by Joe Biden and the Democratic Party.
“But it’s even more than just being the last line of defense, we’re actually going to go on offense now.” https://t.co/72SUW1s36n
You will not see the video or news reports below in most American corporate media. What you will see in the videos below reflects an eternal truth, “The more than planners’ plans fail the more than planners plan.”
Klaus Schwab
The “Green New Deal” was not just something that was invented by Congressman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and picked up by Joe Biden. It is a part of the “Great Reset” plan of the World Economic Forum (WEF) ran by Klaus Schwab made famous recently such as comments like “you will own nothing and be happy.“
The Word Economic Forum has a simplistic ideology similar to what one might find in the dystopian film Elysium. The merging of the ideologies of communism, corporatism, and eco-extremism ran by an oligarchy of a technocratic wealthy “elite”.
Klaus Schwab, leader of the WEF, DeFacto unelected leader of the globalist left. Behind him is a bust of Vladimir Lenin, the Russian leader largely responsible for communism.
The WEF wants the elimination of fossil fuels and nuclear energy, the elimination of modern agriculture, and the elimination of meat as a food source to be replaced by artificial proteins made from algae and insects. Of course the elite still get to eat steaks.
A big problem is that like most elitists who believe that we don’t need farmers because we can just go to the grocery store is that they have nothing to replace the farms and the energy resources. So called “green energy” is unreliable, expensive and can only generate a small fraction of the energy needed to run an economy.
In Sri Lanka, Holland and other European countries the socialists who follow Green New Deal ideology passed laws against using or generating Nitrogen. Nitrogen is a key component of fertilizer and livestock breaths it in and out. Nitrogen is not a pollutant as our atmosphere is 78% Nitrogen.
The Biden Administration announced that food shortages would be coming last year after the WEF announced its agenda at its conference at Davos. Biden is blaming it on Putin, but the food shortages are deliberate as you will see by the content below. The inflation we are seeing is no accident.
Sri Lanka just a few short years ago had a thriving middle class and a robust agriculture industry until their politicians fell in with Klaus Schwab and the Green New Deal. Farms were put out of business, inflation hit, the economy collapsed and the country defaulted on it’s loans. The political leaders literally fled the country when the people revolted.
Hundreds of Dutch farmers block Roermond today. They promised yesterday: "The protests will continue. We have the support of millions of people. There will be actions the Holland has never seen before." pic.twitter.com/jdnCmPUoaa
The next time you hear Biden, Klaus Schwab, or any other global elite talk about Build Back Better, the Great Reset, transforming our agricultural industry, 'Putin's price hike,' etc, remember what THEIR plan did to Sri Lanka. pic.twitter.com/acJWVJn8Gi
🚨Today I demanded the FBI Director cease and desist attempts to illegally obtain information on MO concealed carry permits from local sheriffs. MO law prohibits sharing information on concealed carry permit holders to federal entities and others. https://t.co/CmFxcrEM9Gpic.twitter.com/y8hZTUiwlv
The situation at the border is a pilot program for what the Democrats plan to do to the entire country: completely abandon the rule of law and then call you crazy if you complain about it. pic.twitter.com/excvGgvYVa
Why are Democrats having a cow about The Terminal List? It is about how government, in league with a BigPharma company, used the military as guinea pigs for experimental drugs, and then went to great lengths to cover it up. Sound familiar?
Big Pharma and corrupt leaders rob us blind again.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signs a new executive order to aid in prescription drug cost transparency and explains how Florida was all ready to buy many common prescription drugs from Canada but Biden has blocked it.
Kash Patel was the Chief of Staff for the Department of Defense in January 2021. Patel explains how Trump ordered the transition of power to the Biden Administration including the Department of Defense. How could Trump be planning a coup, insurrection etc, when he is ordering the military to go through the transition of power process?
On abortion Democrats went from “safe legal and rare” to late term abortions up to the moment of birth are preferred so Planned Parenthood can sell the body parts to favoring abortion up to months after child birth.
It is just not on this issue, Democrats have gone crazy pushing the sexualization of very young children, to blaming citizens who own guns for the crimes of repeat criminals who they keep letting out of jail or just not prosecuting.
Democrats push overt race hate in school with CRT and then trying to lie their way out of it, When that failed they sent the FBI after parents who objected. Covid lockdowns that didn’t work, mask mandates that didn’t work, but those in favor with the Democrats got a pass.
In New York, the court previously let the state pick who can get concealed carry permits, so Democrats made it so those who donate and are in the “club” can carry a gun and no one else can legally, while at the same time they are not prosecuting gun crimes my hardened felons. Of course that violated not just the Second Amendment, but the 14th which guarantees equal justice under the law.
This latest Supreme Court ruling stripped New York’s ability to pick and choose thus allowing all legal citizens to carry a gun except in “sensitive areas” as prescribed by state law such as court houses. Now Democrats in New York are drafting legislation to declare virtually everywhere a sensitive area. This will prompt the Supreme Court to strip that away from New York as well. It is just a matter of time.
The content below shows the unhinged over reach Democrats have engaged in that has America and the courts pushing back.
The Court’s decision today was about neither a woman’s “right to choose” nor the sanctity of pre-natal life. It was about undoing previous political overreach by an activist liberal Court. Decisions about abortion will now rightfully be left to the States to legislate. Or not.
Once again Democrat prosecutors elected with money from George Soros are releasing major felons by declaring them “not a risk.” The drug dealers had 150,000 fentanyl pills which is enough to kill an entire city. These same politicians blame crime on Republicans and legal gun owners who have not committed a crime.
The Founders wrote about the deadly power of lawmaking and why an excess of legislation is a threat to us all. This is why they put gridlock into our system as a check and balance. Even so politicians have still found ways to bury us in legislation. So much so that there are so many laws that most people commit three felonies a day and do not even know it.
Blessed to have joined @GovRonDeSantis at his press conference on #civicseducation. I can't thank the Governor enough for recognizing the importance of civics education and for his call for excellence in its teaching. I’m grateful for the opportunity to teach my students… (1/3) pic.twitter.com/KBT8fgBkyI
Let's teach them that no matter their background or socio-economic status, they are Americans and that’s something to be proud of. Congratulations Florida on those amazing civics and history scores! (3/3) 🍎📚🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/pdK4kCCMVg
Talk show host explains that men are expected to perform traditional roles while women are no longer traditional. Cultural decline combined with militant feminism and a lack of accountability makes marriage too risky for men.
You heard it on live TV! Trump physically attacked Secret Service agents and tried to take control of the Presidential Limo…
Cassidy Hutchison lied under oath to the “January 6th Committee”
National Review and even the Washington Examiner fell for it. Why, after all the lies, the edited video, the presentation of a show trial with no cross examination and no push back, would anyone believe a word that comes out of the January 6th Committee? The backpedaling has begun.
Under oath, Cassidy Hutchison, a top aide to the then-White House chief of staff, recalled in detail several meetings, text message conversations, and phone calls with which she was personally involved.
[Hutchison testified that a Secret Service Agent] “told her that the president got in the vehicle after his speech believing that there was a good chance he would be driven to the Capitol ahead of the mob. When agents said they were not going to do that because they had no way to keep him safe, the agent told Hutchinson that Trump grew irate. Hutchinson said the agent relayed that Trump yelled something to the effect of: “I’m the f-ing president, take me up to the Capitol now.” He then reached up towards the front seat to try and grab the steering wheel. When the agent in the limo, known as one who was particularly loyal to Trump, told the president to remove his hands from the wheel, Trump then lunged at the agent, apparently going for his neck, Hutchinson testified.
"There is not a chance in hell a Secret Service agent would put their hands on a protectee … We would not put our hands on our protectee. That's not what we do. We're there to protect them, not to control them or to assault them."https://t.co/H3Aqe2c4Q9
🚨 A source close to the Secret Service tells me both Bobby Engel, the lead agent, and the presidential limousine/SUV driver are prepared to testify under oath that neither man was assaulted and that Mr. Trump never lunged for the steering wheel.
EXCLUSIVE: Text Messages Show Cassidy Hutchinson Referring To January 6 Committee As ‘BS’
The January 6 committee’s key witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, called the committee “bs” in a text message obtained exclusively by the @DailyCallerhttps://t.co/zqy6SqZtgV
If questioner (Cheney) wants to appear fair to jury (American people), it probably is not a good idea to get caught on camera hugging the witness…see below from @Politico;already people have very strong feelings – both ways – about this hearing and pics like this don’t help; pic.twitter.com/lbdkMtzT4y
After the 2020 election Texas filed suit in the Supreme Court with 21 states concurring that several states who had disputed results used election rule changes that were unconstitutional as they violated laws passed by state legislatures. The Supreme Court dismissed the case without hearing or argument.
Now that the issue has cooled the court seems ready to issue a correction.
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”
The presidential electors clause in Article 2 states: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”
Now it seems that the Supreme Court would like to remedy that error.
The Electors Clause in the Constitution is in plain language. Local judges may not change election laws at the last minute. Secretaries of State may not unilaterally change election laws either, all of which happened in the states disputed in the 2020 election allowing drop boxes, ballot harvesting, mass mailout of ballots, suspending of signature verification of ballots and other election integrity checks.
The state legislature and only the legislatures set election laws so long a they do not violate the US Constitution (such as saying red heads cannot vote). Legislatures do not even need a governor’s signature to set such laws. The Founders were clear on this.
Affirming the plain language of the Electors Clause would go a long way in curtailing ballot fraud efforts.
The #SupremeCourt seems likely to accept a new election law case that Republicans hope will recognize what they say is the preeminent constitutional authority of state legislatures to set the rules for redistricting and federal elections. https://t.co/JE5tlO23Ju
Justice Samuel Alito used his concurring opinion to dismantle the arguments of the court’s three far left dissenting Justices whose arguments in short amounted to “there is gun crime, how dare you!” As is often the case, the leftists take the crimes of the guilty and lay them at the feet of innocent, ordinary citizens who have not broken the law or had ill intent.
NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. KEVIN P. BRUEN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.
JUSTICE ALITO, concurring. I join the opinion of the Court in full but add the following comments in response to the dissent.
I
Much of the dissent seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided, and therefore it may be helpful to provide a succinct summary of what we have actually held. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), the Court concluded that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. Heller found that the Amendment codified a preexisting right and that this right was regarded at the time of the Amendment’s adoption as rooted in “‘the natural right of resistance and self-preservation.’” Id., at 594. “[T]he inherent right of self-defense,” Heller explained, is “central to the Second Amendment right.” Id., at 628.
Although Heller concerned the possession of a handgun in the home, the key point that we decided was that “the people,” not just members of the “militia,” have the right to use a firearm to defend themselves. And because many people face a serious risk of lethal violence when they venture outside their homes, the Second Amendment was understood at the time of adoption to apply under those circumstances. The Court’s exhaustive historical survey establishes that point very clearly, and today’s decision therefore holds that a State may not enforce a law, like New York’s Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for this purpose.
That is all we decide. Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess. Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns.
In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.
What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?
The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?
The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1
The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. See post, at 3. And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.
No one apparently knows how many of the 400 million privately held guns are in the hands of criminals, but there can be little doubt that many muggers and rapists are armed and are undeterred by the Sullivan Law. Each year, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) confiscates thousands of guns,2 and it is fair to assume that the number of guns seized is a fraction of the total number held unlawfully. The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection for the State’s nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live in New York City. Some of these people live in high-crime neighborhoods. Some must traverse dark and dangerous streets in order to reach their homes after work or other evening activities. Some are members of groups whose members feel especially vulnerable. And some of these people reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury.
Ordinary citizens frequently use firearms to protect themselves from criminal attack. According to survey data, defensive firearm use occurs up to 2.5 million times per year. Brief for Law Enforcement Groups et al. as Amici Curiae 5. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report commissioned by former President Barack Obama reviewed the literature surrounding firearms use and noted that “[s]tudies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns . . . have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.” Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, Priorities for Research To Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence 15–16 (2013) (referenced in Brief for Independent Women’s Law Center as Amicus Curiae 19–20).
Many of the amicus briefs filed in this case tell the story of such people. Some recount incidents in which a potential victim escaped death or serious injury only because carrying a gun for self-defense was allowed in the jurisdiction where the incident occurred. Here are two examples. One night in 1987, Austin Fulk, a gay man from Arkansas, “was chatting with another man in a parking lot when four gay bashers charged them with baseball bats and tire irons. Fulk’s companion drew his pistol from under the seat of his car, brandished it at the attackers, and fired a single shot over their heads, causing them to flee and saving the wouldbe victims from serious harm.” Brief for DC Project Foundation et al. as Amici Curiae 31 (footnote omitted).
On July 7, 2020, a woman was brutally assaulted in the parking lot of a fast food restaurant in Jefferson City, Tennessee. Her assailant slammed her to the ground and began to drag her around while strangling her. She was saved when a bystander who was lawfully carrying a pistol pointed his gun at the assailant, who then stopped the assault and the assailant was arrested. Ibid. (citing C. Wethington, Jefferson City Police: Legally Armed Good Samaritan Stops Assault, ABC News 6, WATE.com (July 9, 2020), https://www.wate.com/news/local-news/jefferson-city-policelegally-armed-good-samaritan-stops-assault/).
In other incidents, a law-abiding person was driven to violate the Sullivan Law because of fear of victimization and as a result was arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated. See Brief for Black Attorneys of Legal Aid et al. as Amici Curiae 22–25.
Some briefs were filed by members of groups whose members feel that they have special reasons to fear attacks. See Brief for Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association as Amicus Curiae; Brief for DC Project Foundation et al. as Amici Curiae; Brief for Black Guns Matter et al. as Amici Curiae; Brief for Independent Women’s Law Center as Amicus Curiae; Brief for National African American Gun Association, Inc., as Amicus Curiae.
I reiterate: All that we decide in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense and that the Sullivan Law, which makes that virtually impossible for most New Yorkers, is unconstitutional.
II
This brings me to Part II–B of the dissent, post, at 11–21, which chastises the Court for deciding this case without a trial and factual findings about just how hard it is for a lawabiding New Yorker to get a carry permit. The record before us, however, tells us everything we need on this score. At argument, New York’s solicitor general was asked about an ordinary person who works at night and must walk through dark and crime-infested streets to get home. Tr. of Oral Arg. 66–67. The solicitor general was asked whether such a person would be issued a carry permit if she pleaded: “[T]here have been a lot of muggings in this area, and I am scared to death.” Id., at 67. The solicitor general’s candid answer was “in general,” no. Ibid. To get a permit, the applicant would have to show more—for example, that she had been singled out for attack. Id., at 65; see also id., at 58. A law that dictates that answer violates the Second Amendment.
III
My final point concerns the dissent’s complaint that the Court relies too heavily on history and should instead approve the sort of “means-end” analysis employed in this case by the Second Circuit. Under that approach, a court, in most cases, assesses a law’s burden on the Second Amendment right and the strength of the State’s interest in imposing the challenged restriction. See post, at 20. This mode of analysis places no firm limits on the ability of judges to sustain any law restricting the possession or use of a gun. Two examples illustrate the point.
The first is the Second Circuit’s decision in a case the Court decided two Terms ago, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. City of New York, 590 U. S. ___ (2020). The law in that case affected New York City residents who had been issued permits to keep a gun in the home for selfdefense. The city recommended that these permit holders practice at a range to ensure that they are able to handle their guns safely, but the law prohibited them from taking their guns to any range other than the seven that were spread around the city’s five boroughs. Even if such a person unloaded the gun, locked it in the trunk of a car, and drove to the nearest range, that person would violate the law if the nearest range happened to be outside city limits. The Second Circuit held that the law was constitutional, concluding, among other things, that the restriction was substantially related to the city’s interests in public safety and crime prevention. See New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. New York, 883 F. 3d 45, 62–64 (2018). But after we agreed to review that decision, the city repealed the law and admitted that it did not actually have any beneficial effect on public safety. See N. Y. Penal Law Ann. §400.00(6) (West Cum. Supp. 2022); Suggestion of Mootness in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. City of New York, O. T. 2019, No. 18–280, pp. 5–7.
Exhibit two is the dissent filed in Heller by JUSTICE BREYER, the author of today’s dissent. At issue in Heller was an ordinance that made it impossible for any District of Columbia resident to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. See 554 U. S., at 574–575. Even the respondent, who carried a gun on the job while protecting federal facilities, did not qualify. Id., at 575–576. The District of Columbia law was an extreme outlier; only a few other jurisdictions in the entire country had similar laws. Nevertheless, JUSTICE BREYER’s dissent, while accepting for the sake of argument that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a handgun in the home, concluded, based on essentially the same test that today’s dissent defends, that the District’s complete ban was constitutional. See id., at 689, 722 (under “an interest-balancing inquiry. . .” the dissent would “conclude that the District’s measure is a proportionate, not a disproportionate, response to the compelling concerns that led the District to adopt it”).
Like that dissent in Heller, the real thrust of today’s dissent is that guns are bad and that States and local jurisdictions should be free to restrict them essentially as they see fit.3 That argument was rejected in Heller, and while the dissent protests that it is not rearguing Heller, it proceeds to do just that. See post, at 25–28.
Heller correctly recognized that the Second Amendment codifies the right of ordinary law-abiding Americans to protect themselves from lethal violence by possessing and, if necessary, using a gun. In 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted, there were no police departments, and many families lived alone on isolated farms or on the frontiers. If these people were attacked, they were on their own. It is hard to imagine the furor that would have erupted if the Federal Government and the States had tried to take away the guns that these people needed for protection.
Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so.
Tim Pool is a former left wing journalist who gained fame working for Vice Media. A note to people not familiar with Tim Pool, he defines “civil war” figuratively. He does not mean blue states and red states should start shooting each other.
Montana congressional candidate Ryan Zinke, Wisconsin congressional candidate Derrick Van Orden, Arizona congressional candidate Eli Crane, and Florida congressional candidate Brady Duke discussed surging gas prices and inflation.
The legal reasoning used in ROE v Wade was “outcome based” and used pretzel legal logic to get where the judges on the court wanted it to go. This behavior undermined the legitimacy of the court. Many left of center legal scholars who are pro-abortion have said the same in their writings.
No rational person wants nine unelected elite law school grads to decide our social issues. That is what elections are for.
Does anyone seriously believe when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 that it was Congress and the States’ intent to create a constitutional right to abortion?
The majority of the world does not allow late term abortions and in that the United States was an outlier. This court decision does not ban abortions at all, it simply leaves it to the states to decide for themselves.
This does not mean that “Republicans want to ban birth control” or any such thing. These new rulings are simply making the point that if the Constitution does not address an issue it is left to the political process. It’s called democracy.
Justice Alito wrote of Roe:
Roe was on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided… Wielding nothing but “raw judicial power,” the Court usurped the power to address a question of profound moral and social importance that the Constitution unequivocally leaves for the people.
You’re beginning to see why precisely zero people throwing tantrums have bothered to explain the law and principles underlying Roe v. Wade. Instead, they're yelling.https://t.co/Ktd941iGo1pic.twitter.com/gQPwBN7R02
When the Democrat attack ad is so over the top and silly that you wonder if it came from the Babylon Bee why not take ownership of it for a good laugh? Candidate for Arizona Governor Kari Lake certainly is having all the fun.
Just more racially divisive BS from the Democrats. Americans aren’t buying it.
Latinos, including my Husband and two Children … you can rest assured that I do not want you to vanish 😂
I want to welcome each and every one of you to the GOP. America First means ALL Americans.
The United States is the gun capital of the world. Is it also the murder capital of the world? The recent Supreme Court rulingstriking down restrictions on concealed carry prompted us to take a look. According to the Rand Corporation, only 0.4% or 123 out of 27,900 gun control studies met minimum academic standards and many of the 123 were still flawed. In short academics on politically charged subjects produce politically motivated junk science in order to please peers and get grants.
“Science” has been corrupted by money, bribes, kickbacks ands politics. The Pfizer documents released by the court show that they, as well as government, knew that most of the claims about the properties and effectiveness of the COVID poke were false or exaggerated. Claims of catastrophic events of global warming alarmists have also repeatedly shown to be untrue, and leaked emails from top climate scientists show how they punished and smeared scientists who posted honest data sets and manipulated the peer review process to push an alarmist narrative.
Bill Whittle, in this analysis below, takes the raw homicide statistics from organizations such as the United Nations and compares it to who and what places have the highest levels of civilian ownership of legal firearms.
The United States is the gun capital of the world. Is it also the murder capital of the world? What would happen if we eliminated the top few progressive cities ran by Democrats who have strict gun control and looked at the rest of gun packed America? How safe would it be?
If “good guys with guns” just make things worse. Than why are there not mass shootings at gun shows? Why do politicians who insist you and your children have no guns to protect them, have armed guards protecting them and their families?
Why is the IRS stockpiling ammunition?
Rep @mattgaetz: "So here's the Biden plan: Disarm Americans, open the border, empty the prisons but rest assured, they'll still collect your taxes, and they need $725,000 worth of ammunition, apparently, to get the job done."https://t.co/qPnieMYBkT
UPDATE – JUSTICE ALITO RESPONDS TO LEFTISTS CITING MASS SHOOTINGS:
“How does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo?
The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.”
(1/8) Supreme Court’s ruling regarding concealed carry is a strong step forward in upholding 2nd Amendment & our constitutional right to defend ourselves. 10 years ago there was a credible threat against my life by a man who knew where I lived & worked, and wanted to kill me by… pic.twitter.com/46P5vnwApv
“If you are not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” – Malcolm X
Political Arena 