Saturday, July 1, 2023

MSM Has Convinced Even Republicans to Believe Hunter’s Business is No Big Deal


After reading my commentary about my self-inflicted ordeal of listening to NPR for a month, a friend noted this station’s “reports” bear no resemblance to “objective reality.” Can so many Americans, asked my correspondent, believe that the U.S. is full of oppressed transgendered who must take up arms to protect themselves against “anti-trans rhetoric?” Do NPR listeners really think American blacks are suffering from “systemic white racism,” and that only increased government control can protect them from being shot on the streets by white racists?

Apparently, some people are convinced by what the MSM is feeding them. About half of those surveyed in a recent Reuter/Ipsos poll, including 25% of self-identified Republicans, think, for instance, that Hunter Biden was appropriately charged by our Department of Justice. These respondents have announced that neither Hunter’s sinister behavior nor his father’s possible involvement in his business deals will influence their vote in next year’s presidential race.

According to about half these respondents, the deal Hunter reached with prosecutors for his “two misdemeanors,” was presumably no big deal. These voters may also think that “the Big Guy” was not entangled in his son’s money laundering or in his shakedown of foreign governments. The same respondents may also doubt that there was anything incriminating on Hunter’s laptop or that the FBI did anything wrong by not treating its contents seriously.

Despite what looks like a disastrous presidency and his failing cognitive abilities, Biden is still running neck and neck with his main Republican rivals for the presidency. According to the latest NBC poll, Biden enjoys a four-point lead over Trump and the Democrats hold a two-point generic lead over the GOP for Congress. This leads me to ask: Is roughly half the country disregarding the information that I have been listening to about Hunter’s felonies and Joe’s patent involvement in his son’s misdeeds? Do people honestly think that neither Hunter’s laptop nor the whistleblowers’ testimony should be considered when measuring the Biden family’s transgressions? And were all the efforts to show that Joe had a hand in his son’s criminality just driven by Republican hysteria?

I don’t dismiss the presence of committed woke leftists among those who are rallying to the administration. Nor would I deny that there are people (and I have known such types) who imagine this country, outside of certain coastal areas, is inhabited by psychopathic bigots and violent Christian fanatics. Flyover country is putatively teeming with future recruits for an American Nazi Party or an American version of the Spanish Inquisition. Some voting blocs are, moreover in near perfect sync with the Left, e.g., unmarried college-educated women, who tend to repeat whatever the MSM is featuring on any given day.

But there are lots of apparently normal Americans who continue to say that Donald Trump is a “Russian stooge,” that tens of millions of transgendered children are afraid of discussing their need for a sex change operation, and that Hunter Biden is being framed by Republican congressmen. These apparent normies also insist that Ron DeSantis is censoring books in Florida, as I learned from an elderly lady at a retirement village who had “fled” DeSantis’s fascist-ruled state. Many who support the Left may not fit our conservative stereotype about leftist nutjobs and snobbish elitists. But these folks do listen to the MSM version of reality, and it is hard to understate the effect of this brain-laundering.

I doubt that I’m the only one who has noticed that TV movies and TV advertisements feature blacks and gays in vast disproportion to their actual representation in the country. We are also bombarded by movies that depict identifiable Christians, who are shown to be white and who speak with drawls as loathsome beings. In what now passes for TV entertainment, white male heterosexuals are typically shown in an inferior social, and/or cognitive relationship to members of other groups.

From this bogus entertainment the viewer can then flick over to the MSM, where the major news stories are Donald Trump’s indictments and the ongoing investigations of the former president’s financial holdings – somewhere. No mention of issues from these sources about the Hunter Biden investigation, which now involves his father, Merrick Garland, the FBI, and IRS. Those things are not happening for major networks or the national press, except as examples of “Republican retribution” against innocent public servants and a former cocaine addict who is still bravely fighting his addiction. It is ridiculous to pretend that such coordinated leftist propaganda doesn’t shape public perceptions.

The media has massaged reality so cleverly that our corrupt, inept chief executive has not gone down in the polls since the onset of the present congressional investigations. But the Republican Speaker who authorized them is languishing at a 27% approval rating. If we’re now seeing examples of media control of reality, just wait for the presidential campaign to really get going. Then “fake news” will be drowning us every time we turn on the boob tube or open up the Washington Post.



Red Pill news and Badlands Media- July 1st

 



A long, tiring week, and a peaceful ending given that this is a 4 day holiday weekend!

Without Borders, Why Have A Military In the First Place?


The annual military budget of the U.S. is around $800 billion. That is a serious chunk of change. At its most basic, the military’s sole goal is protecting the country. If it is not going to do so, why spend the money?

Let me explain. I live in Colorado and a significant national transportation conduit is the interstate highway I-70. Like all interstates, an incredible amount of material rolls along it 24 hours per day, seven days per week.

Interstate 70 is a significant national time saver as it cuts right over the top of the Rocky Mountains. At the very top, at an elevation of just over 11,000 feet is the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnel – two 1.7-mile tunnels for both directions.

Without the tunnels, traffic must go up and over the 12,000 foot Loveland Pass. It’s a beautiful drive but not one a lot of over-the-road truckers would like to drive, especially in the winter.

A couple well-placed truck bombs could easily damage, if not destroy this vital national transportation artery. It really wouldn’t be that difficult to do – and given the incredible traffic volume the tunnels handle on a daily basis, it would be very difficult to predict and stop such an attack.

There are literally hundreds of similar transportation choke points around the country. Few, if any, have any serious protection from someone bent on doing the country harm.

Throw in unprotected electrical generation facilities, substations and power lines, train tracks and bridges, fuel refining, pipelines, water facilities, and other national infrastructure and there are thousands of targets for those who wish us harm.

With coordinated attacks, this country could be brought to its knees without our enemies firing a single missile. And recovery would not be quick or easy. It could take years to get things operating at a somewhat normal level. 

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that full recovery would never happen. It would require trillions of dollars and millions of man hours to fix this carnage.

Our enemies know this as well. Would they rather have a possible nuclear exchange with us or simply destroy our country’s ability to function from the inside? Why risk going mano-a-mano with the most powerful military the world has ever seen when a far simpler strategy presents itself?

A few hundred pre-planned saboteurs could do the work – and stop our country in its tracks – all with little risk to their home country.

They could in effect win a war with the USA without ever directly confronting us – at least until after the mayhem is unleashed on the country. Would the country give a damn about defending Taiwan – or any country – from Chinese conquest when food, water, fuel, electricity, and medical care are nowhere to be found?

Then the USA would face a conundrum. Unleash nuclear weapons on this foe killing millions, who perhaps hasn’t fired a single shot at us – and who would maintain deniability – or acquiesce to the will of those who plan to be our new rulers.

So, why have a military if at the same time we aren’t going to have borders? This is a serious question. Let’s save the money for the rebuilding expenses which are certain to come. 

I respect the intelligence of our enemies and I would be astonished if the Chinese communist government hasn’t already sent thousands of agents across our southern border – each with a specific target(s) in mind.

That’s what I would do. We know that more than 10,000 Chinese nationals are already roaming freely somewhere in our country. The number could be far higher – we really have no idea. Russians, Iranians, North Koreans – they all may be playing this game.

When the word comes, each executes their plan and the USA becomes a third-world country overnight with hundreds of millions of citizens crying out for help – all without firing a shot. And pounding our chest about the damage our nuclear forces could do would do nothing to reverse the carnage that has already been done.

Starvation, a lack of drinking water, death on a biblical scale is not out of the question.

If I were on the other side, this is what I would do. So, let’s get rid of the military and accept our coming defeat and destruction. What is the military “protecting” if there really aren’t borders, and therefore really not a country.

That, or get the damn border sealed and under control and rid ourselves of all these recent invaders. It is a rather binary choice and for those who love the country there is only one option.



Elon Musk says Twitter is limiting how many posts a user can read




 Twitter is currently limiting the amount of content its users can access per day, according to a tweet from owner and chairman Elon Musk.

Musk announced Saturday that the app is “temporarily” putting a cap on the number of posts a user can “read,” initially saying that verified users would be able to access 6,000 posts per day and unverified users would have access to 600 per day, with any “new unverified” users only being able to read 300 posts per day, Musk tweeted.

He later amended those numbers in an update, saying the rate limits had been increased to “8000 for verified, 800 for unverified & 400 for new unverified.”

Musk did not indicate how long the limitations would be in effect, but only that they were enacted “to address “extreme levels of data scraping & system manipulation.”

His post also did not specify if “reading” a tweet was the same thing as scrolling past a tweet. Some users further questioned what he meant by “data scraping,” but that was not clarified.

Musk’s announcement came after thousands of users reported being unable to access the site on Saturday morning. DownDetector indicated users having issues with both desktop and app versions of Twitter, with reports beginning to spike around 8 a.m. EST.

“Twitter down” also began trending around the same time. Some users reported seeing the note “rate limit exceeded” when attempting to use the application.

Later in the day, both “RIP Twitter,” “damn Twitter” and “wtf Twitter” began trending on the platform, with users expressing frustration and confusion at the new limitations.

“Damn twitter ruined fr fr now i need myspace to comebacc,” one user wrote.

“It’s almost like he wants to drive his own company out of business,” another said. “I just have to wonder why. Why would that make sense to him? Surely he has a reason, even if its not a sound one.”


https://www.woodtv.com/news/nexstar-media-wire/elon-musk-says-twitter-is-limiting-how-many-posts-a-user-can-read/?fbclid=IwAR0Wl0-RQ8re9XySBSisNp_nm3vDM8DTUU0wibAwqFBZsLKs2tXI8PZmX00

Affirmative Action Is Another Nonsense Leftist Position We’ve Been Conditioned To Take Seriously

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent is an extension of all the other nonsensical, offensive arguments made by the left.



It’s often incredibly surreal to remember that concepts and arguments from the left are at all taken seriously in this country. Reading Justice Ketanji “Black Girl Magic” Brown Jackson’s dissenting opinion in the college race-based admissions case is truly one of those times.

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against institutions of higher education using race as a factor in the admissions process, which prestigious ones like Harvard have been doing for years in order to artificially boost black and Hispanic enrollment, at the expense of white and Asian applicants.

In essence, the court determined that it violates the 14th Amendment for colleges and universities to prefer some races over others, a concept traditionally known as racism. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”

And then there’s Jackson, who professed to believe in the opposite. “Our country has never been colorblind,” she said in her dissent. She said that in reality, because race-based admissions “help to address” past discrimination against blacks, they are actually “to the benefit of us all.”

Hear that, Asian applicants? Losing a spot at Harvard to someone of lower academic achievement is actually to your benefit! You should be saying thank you.

Jackson then chronicled every way in which blacks are at a disadvantage — including in fictional ways — asserting that the only way to remedy the matter was to then compensate black Americans with preferential treatment. “The only way out of this morass—for all of us—is to stare at racial disparity unblinkingly,” she wrote, “and then do what evidence and experts tell us is required to level the playing field and march forward together, collectively striving to achieve true equality for all Americans.”

It’s unclear whether Jackson knows that she’s a sitting justice charged with determining whether policies are constitutionally sound and not an academic theorizing on what a perfect world might look like.

“If the colleges of this country are required to ignore a thing that matters, it will not just go away,” she continued. “It will take longer for racism to leave us. And, ultimately, ignoring race just makes it matter more.”

It just does!

We’re told to take this person seriously, just like we’re told to take it seriously that a man who says he’s a woman is actually, literally indistinguishable from any other woman.

People like Jackson say things like, “If we aren’t allowed to discriminate based on race, racism will get worse,” and we’re expected to consider it a legitimate and logical argument. Up is truly down and the quickest way from point A to point B is to zig-zag and take a break at the halfway mark.

Covid might have leaked from a virology lab.

That’s racist!

It definitely came from the primitive Chinese tradition of filthy wet markets with exotic sea creatures.

Thank you for the respect.

Dump another trillion dollars into America’s oversaturated welfare economy. We’ll call it “inflation reduction”!

Earlier this month a Marine vet saved New York subway passengers from an erratic vagrant screaming about death. The intellectual response from the left was that it was an act of white supremacy.

Legalizing crime makes everybody safer, freer, and happier.

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent is an extension of all of that tripe. A confident declaration that is on its face ridiculous and offensive for insulting the intelligence of anyone made to consider it.



Twitter applies temporary reading limits for all users, Elon Musk announces

 

Twitter has applied temporary daily reading limits to address "extreme levels" of data scraping and system manipulation, Elon Musk has said.

In a tweet, Musk said verified accounts have been temporarily limited to reading 6,000 posts a day.

Unverified Twitter accounts have been limited to reading 600 posts a day, while new unverified accounts can only view 300 posts a day.

Depending on how many tweets you've viewed today - and whether or not you're verified - you might be able to read his message here.  


However, if you're one of the Twitter users seeing a message stating "rate limit exceeded", you can see his post here.  


The announcement soon led to RIP Twitter and #Twitterdown trending on the social media site.

Musk, who is also the chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX, has not said how long the temporary limits will last for.   

People started reporting problems shortly after midday UK time, according to problem and outage monitoring site Downdetector. By 6pm, the website had received thousands of reports.

The latest move comes after Twitter previously announced that it will require users to have an account on the social media platform in order to view tweets, a move that Musk on Friday called a "temporary emergency measure".


https://news.sky.com/story/twitter-applies-temporary-reading-limits-for-all-users-elon-musk-announces-12913108?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter    





DeSantis Campaign Goes Full Westboro Baptist Church in Raving Campaign Ad Against Gays


People are trying to figure out exactly what the DeSantis campaign were thinking when they created what appears to be an attack ad against Donald Trump, gay people and a host of others.  [published on twitter] It’s really quite a wild story.

Following on the heels of Ron DeSantis saying he intends to start shooting Mexicans at the southern border, a policy position -I might add- that reveals the uniparty agenda because the media completely ignore it, the DeSantis team now release a video highlighting their anger and hatred toward gays, lesbians and Donald Trump.

The video [see below] highlights how President Trump defended the LGBTQ community against targeting by identified Muslim hate groups.  The video is supposed to present Trump’s policy about gay people as a negative against Donald Trump. The video then evolves into a weird production of Ron DeSantis as the destroyer of gay people.

The ad is even more bizarre when you think about all the time and energy Ron DeSantis put into denying the Florida law against sexualizing children was really a “don’t say gay law.”

This might have sounded good in the echo-chamber of a toxic media network organized by Christina Pushaw, but the end result is something that only makes the campaign look more ridiculous.   See Tweet Video below:


Sorority Kicks out Woman Because She's Also a Man

Sorority Kicks out Woman Because She's Also a Man

Alex Parker reporting for RedState 

“What’s the password?” — it’s a question found in spy stories, but the idea now applies to a plethora of societal situations.

For instance, if a male solicits admittance to a female locker room, in many cases, the password is “I am a woman.” But if the submitted words lack adequacy, welcome will elude the seeker.

A similar scenario seems to have played out at New York’s St. Lawrence University, where a hopeful student came up calamitously short. Last fall, 22-year-old biological male Fabián “Fa” Guzmán rushed for membership to a ladies-only sorority. Subsequently, the senior was accepted into iconic girl-group Chi Omega.

Fa frolicked and squeezed the Charmin of sisterhood. Unfortunately, in early June, the sorority girl got the boot — but not because of biology.

Speaking to The 19th News, Fa reminisces on the rapture of induction:

“The feeling of happiness was indescribable because, for me, honestly, I always felt attracted to the idea of being part of a sorority, but I never thought it was going to be possible. To receive that call and hear them say, ‘You’re a part of us and you’re able to join’ was one of the happiest days of my life.”

Neck-deep in Chi Omega, Fa’s stupendous status was swiftly erected. Per 19thNews.org, “[G]uzmán was a beloved sister, slated to be the recruitment chair.” But the womanly bond would soon be whacked. And it started with the school wanting to frame Fa as a tale of feminine success:

In the spring of 2023, the St. Lawrence alumni magazine was set to run a story about Guzmán’s leadership on campus. Not only was Guzmán the first nonbinary student to rush and pledge a sorority at the university, but [he] had almost immediately risen to a leadership position in [his] sorority. Guzmán reached out to Chi Omega’s national office to let them know, following Chi Omega’s policy to get approval before naming the organization in any outside media.

The situation snagged upper-management attention. And in the end, Chi Omega cut Fa loose. As it turns out, the organization offers two avenues to eligibility:

[O]n June 2, [Fa was] notified via email that [his] membership would be voided immediately with no chance for an appeal.

“The selection criteria in the policy on membership includes ‘females and individuals identifying as women,’ which, by the chapter’s own understanding and your indication through the process, it is clear you did not meet the criteria at the time of joining,” the email read. “We are bound by our governing documents, and your membership must be voided.”

That secured a fail for Fa, as the student is not only a woman, but also a man:

Guzmán describes themselves as gender fluid, meaning that they identify as a woman within their gender identity. Their identification with womanhood as a concept was not only what made them want to be a part of a sorority, but led them to believe that under Chi Omega’s policies, they were fully within their rights to be included as a member.

Today, Guzmán feels confused and hurt.

“I’m able to connect with women and womanhood, why is there any issue for me to not be able to join?” Guzmán wondered. “I don’t identify solely as male, I’m just here being both at the same time.”

[Respectfully, in lieu of the pronoun “they” — which may confuse readers due to its indication of multiple individuals — this article’s use of pronouns arbitrarily errs on the dual-identifying subject’s scrotal side.]

To add insult to gender-identity injury, Fa feels he’d accomplished something in the name of nonwhites:

What had once felt like “this great opportunity for the nonbinary and trans community to just feel included in these spaces that stereotypically are only for cisgender White women who are rich” now has become an experience laced with pain, they said. But Guzmán and their fellow sisters aren’t giving up.

Alas, at present moment, the erstwhile Chi-O is KO’d. Yet, there is hope — Fa has fashioned a Change.org petition. In it, he bashes Big Greek’s bigotry:

Chi Omega’s reactionary void of my membership was blatant transphobia and bigotry. They fill their organization with hollow messages of inclusivity and equality while enacting unbiased policies of hate through an improperly structured organizational hierarchy. Additionally, I find their decision to void my membership during Pride Month intentional. Let’s remember that we, non-binary and trans folks, are not existing with the purpose to make Greek life co-ed or invade safe spaces. On the contrary, we want to feel we belong by joining a group that aligns with our gender identity and where we feel supported and validated.

As pointed out by Fa, Chi Omega’s creed craps on pomposity:

To live constantly above snobbery of word or deed…

Was Fa’s snub snobby? Surely many will deem it so. And to those, Fa is asking for aid:

Please help me spread the word about Chi Omega and the anti-LGBTQIA+ policies that they have intentionally enacted during Pride Month 2023, and hopefully together raise our voices to create inclusive change.

Many voices might well be raised. As a result, will he be reinstated? Will Chi-Omega update its policy to include students who say they’re 99-percent-or-less women? Only time will tell; but if the past few years of social evolution is any indication, the part-lady, part-gentleman crowd has an excellent chance of comprising America’s future sorority girls.



ProPublica’s Smearing Of Conservative Justices Is Part Of The Left’s Ploy To Destroy The Court

ProPublica’s ‘reporter’ and ‘ethics officials’ are all funded by the same left-wing organizations with an agenda to radically reshape the court.



A foray of attacks on Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, and Neil Gorsuch by left-wing publications and the radical left echo chamber is nothing more than a political campaign to destroy the court because it is no longer acting like super-legislature imposing left-wing policies. These political attacks, masquerading as journalism, are all funded by uber-wealthy left-wing donors and are marching to those donors’ agendas.

Take ProPublica, which has published several dishonest stories smearing Justices Thomas and Alito regarding trips they have taken. ProPublica is worse than your typical corporate media organization, like The New York Times or CNN, which bring a clear bias and agenda to their reporting. Calling itself “nonpartisan” and “independent,” ProPublica is directly funded by left-wing billionaires who fund other organizations that support court packing and prefer a court that engages in liberal judicial activism to impose a radical left agenda on the American people.

ProPublica is funded by the top far-left billionaires in the country. The Sandler Foundation is a left-wing group founded by Herbert Sandler, a billionaire who enriched himself with shady lending practices that many say fueled the 2008 housing crash. It has given ProPublica more than $40 million. The Sandler Foundation also funds Demand Justice, a left-wing group, headed by Hillary Clinton’s former adviser, which has called for court packing. The Sandler Foundation isn’t alone. ProPublica also receives millions in funding from the Foundation to Promote an Open Society, which is backed by left-wing billionaire George Soros, and others.

ProPublica published a dishonest story alleging that Thomas violated federal ethics laws by not disclosing trips with his long-time friend Harlan Crow on his financial disclosure forms. (Disclosure: I was also on some of these trips). It omitted that these same allegations were submitted to the Judicial Conference by 20 members of Congress and two left-wing groups in 2011. The Judicial Conference ruled that “no evidence had been presented” that supported these allegations. The Judicial Conference is the governing body to implement the federal ethics law for the judiciary, and it reviews and approves every disclosure form filed by a justice. How could ProPublica omit this critical fact?

Instead, ProPublica cites a left-wing “judicial ethics expert,” Kedric Payne from the Campaign Legal Center (CLC), which also happens to receive millions in funding from the Sandler Foundation and the Soros-funded Foundation to Promote an Open Society. Consistent with his funders’ agenda, Payne opined that Thomas had violated the law. This is a conflicted and dishonest article.

During testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Payne initially denied retweeting a post that stated “John Roberts is a disgrace.” When confronted with the tweet, he later corrected his testimony to admit he had. He also initially denied retweeting a post that claimed “Justices are for sale” but backed down at the hearing from this slanderous claim and admitted (rightfully) that no justice was for sale. Does this sound like a fair and neutral witness?

In its story, ProPublica also cited officials from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the American Constitution Society (ACS) for their supposedly nonpartisan “judicial ethics” opinions. But ACS has received millions from the Sandler Foundation, and CREW receives millions in funding from the Soros-funded Foundation to Promote an Open Society, among other left-wing donors. This is not fair and impartial; it’s downright partisan and dishonest. The “reporter” and the “ethics officials” are all funded by the same left-wing organizations with an agenda to radically reshape the court.

ProPublica smeared Alito with a similar story. ProPublica alleged Alito broke ethics laws by not disclosing a fishing trip to Alaska, again citing left-wing “judicial ethics experts,” including a CREW lawyer. To make the story even more misleading, ProPublica waits until nearly the end of its very long story (the 73rd paragraph!) to disclose that a Judicial Conference financial disclosure staffer had advised another federal judge who had been on a similar fishing trip to Alaska two years earlier in 2005, that he did not have to disclose the trip on his disclosure form. The judge even provided ProPublica with contemporaneous notes.

It does not matter at all what CREW, ACS, or CLC left-wing partisan activists say or what false narrative ProPublica wants to manufacture for its donors. The Judicial Conference is the governing body, and its actions have made it clear that the justices previously did not have to report these trips. In March 2023, the Judicial Conference amended its guidance to require disclosing private plane rides on similar future trips. By making this change, the Judicial Conference clearly acknowledged that such trips were previously exempt. News coverage reported as much.

ProPublica is hellbent on destroying this court because it is now a court faithful to the Constitution. It’s not about ethics. No one had a problem when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg accepted a trip with Israeli billionaire Morris Kahn in 2018 to three countries in the Middle East. She listed this trip as a reimbursement and did not disclose its value. And this trip came shortly after the Supreme Court issued a favorable ruling for Kahn’s company. No one claimed Ginsburg was being rewarded for the court’s action. Similarly, no one had a problem when Justice Breyer flew on billionaire David Rubenstein’s plane in 2013 to attend a wedding in Nantucket. Breyer also listed this flight as a reimbursement and did not disclose its value.

There is not a shred of evidence that any of the trips Thomas or Alito took affected their rulings or opinions in any way whatsoever. Much of the criticism is that Thomas and Alito were provided nice accommodations on a trip, whether they disclosed the trip or not. There is nothing wrong or unethical with justices traveling, and this criticism shows why the left is disingenuously using these “travel” issues to smear Thomas and Alito.

Ginsburg and Breyer traveled frequently to Europe and other international destinations for weeks at a time that were paid for by third parties. Ginsburg put together a trip in 2002 paid for by Hofstra Law School that allowed her to travel for nearly three weeks (July 6-24) to Nice, France, and London, England. I am certain she stayed in very nice hotels and dined at very nice restaurants in two of the most beautiful cities in the world. Between 2004-2021, Breyer went on 233 trips, including 63 international trips, all paid by third parties. During the same time frame, Ginsburg went on 157 trips, with 28 international trips.

There is nothing wrong with this, but if the left is going to scream about Thomas or Alito enjoying a nice trip and having a third party “subsidize” their lifestyle, disclosed or not, Ginsburg and Breyer traveled the world on trips paid for by third parties a great deal more.

ProPublica and its fellow left-wing-funded advocacy groups’ attacks on Thomas and Alito are dishonest and intended to undermine the American people’s trust in the court. There is no ethics problem with the justices. These despicable attacks won’t work, and ProPublica needs to be called out for them.



Restoring Rights or Endangering Lives? Federal Judge Rules Against Law Barring Violent Felons From Owning Guns


This is huge. A federal judge recently ruled against a law that bars violent felons from owning firearms after they have served their time. The debate over whether violent felons should be able to keep and bear arms after paying their debt to society has raged for years. Regardless of which side one is on in this particular issue, this ruling further illustrates the profound impact that the Supreme Court’s decision in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen has had on gun rights.

In the new ruling, U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves dismissed a gun possession case against a convicted felon, arguing that felons have a Second Amendment right to own a firearm. Judge Reeves criticized a Supreme Court precedent from 2022 that expanded gun rights, but still abided by the ruling.

The case involved Jessie Bullock, who had served 15 years for a manslaughter conviction and was later indicted for possessing a firearm in his home. Judge Reeves noted the lack of historical evidence presented by both the government and Bullock, and suggested that state bans on firearms possession might be more defensible under the principles of federalism. Here is how it played out:

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves in Jackson ruled on Wednesday that permanently prohibiting Jessie Bullock from owning a gun because of a felony conviction would violate the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it was not consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation.

But Reeves harshly criticized that standard, established last year by the Supreme Court in its landmark New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling, saying it offered “no accepted rules for what counts as evidence” in analyzing the historical tradition.

The judge said his ruling applied only to Bullock’s case, and did not strike down the federal law barring felons from owning guns. Judge Reeves specifically targeted the 2008 Heller decision authored by Justice Scalia, stating that the Court engages in “law office history” to fit their ideological priors. Despite his disagreement, Judge Reeves acknowledged that the standard set by the Court in the Bruen case must be enforced, and in this instance, the government failed to meet its burden to convict Bullock.

Although he agreed in this case with Bullock, Judge Reeves did so with biting criticism for the new historical method of interpretation espoused by the high court in Bruen and the justices’ “broad definition of the right to bear arms,” which the judge says began with the District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008:

Authored by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Heller held that one is guaranteed the right to bear arms in one’s home for self defense. In his opinion, Judge Reeves criticizes the Heller decision as well as the current justices’ methods for reaching their conclusions.

“Justice Scalia knew firsthand the risk of cherry‐picking briefs to support one’s ideological priors,” Judge Reeves declared. “Yet it appears that the Court continues to engage in ‘law office history’ — that is, history selected to ‘fit the needs of people looking for ammunition in their causes’ — in Constitutional interpretation.”

As stated previously, the issue of whether a convicted felon should have their Second Amendment rights restored after serving their time has been a contentious one. Those who believe these individuals should not be allowed to own firearms might argue against Reeves’ ruling, stating that it sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the efforts to maintain public safety.

These folks might suggest that by claiming that convicted felons have a Second Amendment right to own firearms, Judge Reeves is disregarding the reasonable restrictions and safeguards that exist to prevent individuals with a history of violence from accessing deadly weapons. According to them, allowing convicted felons to possess firearms poses a significant risk to society and disregards the well-being of potential victims.

On the other hand, those who favor the restoration of gun rights would assert that even convicted felons have a Second Amendment right to own firearms. They would view Reeves’ ruling as a bold and necessary step towards upholding individual rights and challenging the Supreme Court’s flawed interpretation of the Constitution.

As a liberty-minded person, I support the idea that self defense is a natural right that should not be forfeited after one has served their time. Even violent felons who engaged in criminal activity in the past have the right to defend their lives and property. On top of that, we have seen, time and time again, that if a violent felon wants to use a firearm to commit a crime, laws prohibiting them from doing so aren’t going to stop them. For those who have turned their lives around, it makes no sense to deprive them of the right to keep and bear arms.

In my estimation, this was the right ruling on the part of Judge Reeves, regardless of what he thinks about the Bruen decision.