Alabama Scientist Breaks Ground in Cancer Research

When Dr. Hadiyah-Nicole Green receives invitations to be a guest speaker for professional groups, schools and nonprofit organizations, she almost never turns them down.

“Usually if there is an invitation to speak at a forum like that, I accept it because I feel like it’s a responsibility,” she said. “There are so few of us (black women in STEM fields) I don’t feel like I have the luxury to say I’m too busy.”

By many measures, Green has been extremely busy. One of fewer than 100 black female physicists in the country, she recently won a $1.1 million grant to further develop her patent-pending technology for using laser-activated nanoparticles to treat cancer.

A tomboy as a child, Green was crowned Homecoming Queen at Alabama A&M University (by a landslide vote), earned her master’s and Ph.D degrees at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and is now is an assistant professor in the physics department at Tuskegee University.

It’s tempting to see Green for all the ways that she is unusual – not the least for winning a large grant at a relatively young age, and for being black and female in a field dominated by white men – but it’s not something she said she thinks about in her day-to-day life. (Read more from “Alabama Scientist Breaks Ground in Cancer Research” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Big Short Movie Truth Spoiler: The Feds Masterminded the Banksters’ Implosion of the Housing Market

It is a good thing when Hollywood attempts a portrayal of the facts without overtly distorting history beyond recognition in the process. So, hats off to the creative team behind The Big Short. It is necessary, however, to fill in the gaps with facts that may not fit into a film’s limited timeframe. Real world events are always more unwieldy than a tightly knit movie script. There are no spoiler alerts in what follows. We all know the ending. It is how we got there that matters.

So picture this, if you will, as you go back in time and tap into the remnants of an article that I wrote in 2012 that revealed a real life disaster that was not made in Hollywood, but in Washington, DC.

Old news, except it isn’t. In regard to the devastating housing fraud that helped collapse the U.S. economy, a Reuter’s headline read: “U.S. Sues Bank of America for Alleged Mortgage Fraud.” According to Reuters, Barack Obama’s Justice Department “filed a civil mortgage fraud lawsuit against Bank of America, accusing it of selling thousands of toxic home loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that went into default and caused more than $1 billion of losses.”

That’s right, the banks did it. In reality, it is another glaring example of Barack Obama and the Progressive Democrats’ adeptness at avoiding culpability and deflecting blame. After all, to this date, they have fooled so many about their role in perpetuating the housing collapse that thrust the economy into a nose dive. They are counting on voters lacking enough information to connect-the-dots as they point accusingly at their partners in crime. Obama’s sycophantic media obediently reported that it was all the fault of greedy bankers, mortgage brokers and Wall Street derivatives. What they failed to report was that the Democrats set-up the alchemy, the opportunity for greed that bated the bad players into joint accountability.

The question the American people should ask is: Who were the svengalis of the economic collapse, the architects whose scheme worked so well that they virtually escaped the blame? Historically, it will go down as one of the liberal Democrats’ all-time big lies to the American people. Democrats led by Barney Franks (D-MA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Greg Meeks, (D-NY) are on video, in effect, in support of glutting the housing market with unsustainable mortgages in the form of bad loans.

In Capital, Azi Parbarah reported in 2011 that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg pointed the finger squarely at the Democrat-controlled Congress as instigating America’s financial collapse:

“If there is anyone to blame for the mortgage crisis that led to the collapse of the financial industry, it’s not the “big banks,” but Congress. [They] were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent. They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it’s easy to blame them and Congress certainly isn’t going to blame themselves.” Bloomberg added, “It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp.”

What Bloomberg failed to mention is that Obama, himself, adamantly demanded that banks make more loans to low-income borrowers. Subprime loans became the great American rip-off. Obama and the Democrats both enticed and strong-armed lenders to give loans to people who could not repay them. The plan? In exchange, grateful new homeowners would obligingly ply the Democrats with their votes.

The ugly and inevitable consequences forced the poor, mostly Hispanics and Blacks, out of their unaffordable houses through wide scale foreclosures. Home prices fell, construction workers lost jobs, the housing industry began a free-fall and America’s AAA credit rating was downgraded for the first time since 1917. The result: The worst economy in recent memory. Today, America bears the brunt of the Democrats’ manipulation of the housing market resulting in lost homes and lost jobs. Hawking for votes, Obama and liberal Democrats put politics over people.

Many harken back to former Democrat President Bill Clinton igniting the long fuse that led to the crisis when in 1998 he removed the barriers between commercial banks and investment banks. After Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, big banks suddenly had federally insured money to play with. Greed from Congress to Wall Street spread unabated.

Some claim Clinton’s deregulation of banks was not a factor. Yet, the Guardian reported a direct correlation as cited by economist Robert Kuttner in his testimony before Congress. Kuttner’s testimony revealed Clinton’s actions as both a cornerstone and an early catalyst that seeded the greed years:

“Since repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999, after more than a decade of de facto inroads, super-banks have been able to re-enact the same kinds of structural conflicts of interest that were endemic in the 1920s – lending to speculators, packaging and securitizing credits and then selling them off, wholesale or retail, and extracting fees at every step along the way. And, much of this paper is even more opaque to bank examiners than its counterparts were in the 1920s. Much of it isn’t paper at all, and the whole process is supercharged by computers and automated formulas.”

Obama and the Democrats counted on an already embedded need for greed. Some banks and lenders found policy and conditions enabling corruption to be irresistible. The lure of big money that was ill-gotten — crossed political and commercial lines and made bedfellows out of adversaries as deals were made and commissions increased to all-time highs. As financial institutions dove head-first into irresponsible behavior, Democrats looked the other way and feigned innocence during the housing and market collapse that followed.

All the while, two government-sponsored finance giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were reportedly hiding their role in the subprime and low-rate mortgage loan business. Harold Raines, former head of the Budget Office for Clinton and Fannie Mae’s CEO in the mid-1990s, told the Washington Post that Fannie Mae is “the equivalent of a Federal Reserve system for housing.”

Democrats were entrenched in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s top management. According to Bethany McLean of CNNMoney, “The same article noted that Fannie’s financial moves generated more than $100 million a year in fees for Wall Street firms …. guaranteed a stunning $1 trillion of mortgages and held $376 billion of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities on its own books.” A Security and Exchange Commission investigation uncovered accounting irregularities in Fannie Mae’s books and a false reporting of $9 billion in past profits. At the time of Raines early retirement from Fannie Mae, the Democrat reportedly earned $20 million in salary and bonuses.

What the film, The Big Short, was short on was the role the government played in short-changing the American taxpayer and the tragic aftermath on unqualified mortgage holders forced into foreclosures. Controlling the nation’s purse strings in Congress, the Democrats steered the economy toward the fiscal cliff. With the DEMS behind the wheel, some Republicans jumped on for the ride amid the financial melee.

Based on voter backlash against Obama’s handling of the economy, in the 2010 midterm elections the Democrats lost control of the House. In the 2014 midterm elections, still feeling the financial sting, voters took away the Democrats majority in the Senate. In addition to filling in the gaps of a Hollywood movie, this tale of greed, arrogance and deception at the expense of the American people should serve as a warning to both Democrats and Republicans in regard to the mood of a betrayed constituency come the 2016 elections.

Sharon Sebastian, author of the book, “AGING: WARNING– Navigating Life’s Medical, Mental & Financial Minefields,” is a columnist, commentator, and contributor in print and on nationwide broadcasts on topics ranging from healthcare, culture, religion, and politics to domestic and global policy. Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses are published nationally and internationally. Website: www.AgingWarning.com

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Men With ‘Ties To Terrorist Groups’ Just Apprehended By US – But It’s Where They Were Found…

By Maegan Vasquez. A letter from a San Diego congressman to the Department of Homeland Security says that several dozen Pakistani and Afghan men have come into the United States through a Tijuana since September, and two of those men have ties to terrorist activity, the San Diego Reader first reported.

In a letter from Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) to Defense Secretary Jeh Johnson, the two men in their 20’s were among those found during a recent increase of “military age” men “carrying U.S. cash” apprehended on the Tijuana-San Diego border. The letter says one individual had “associations with a known or suspected terrorist,” while the other was flagged for “derogatory information.”

The Reader reports:

“Until November, they would enter in groups and seek a federal agent to surrender to, according to union officials. It is believed that they did this because illegal entrants who are not Mexican citizens and who are deemed to not pose a significant threat are generally given a date to appear at immigration court and then released on their own recognizance.”

(Read more from “Men With ‘Ties to Terrorist Groups’ Just Apprehended By US – But It’s Where They Were Found…” HERE)

___________________________________

‘Military Age Men’ at San Diego’s Southern Border

By Marty Graham. Among the several dozen Pakistani and Afghan men who have entered the U.S. illegally, coming into San Diego from Tijuana, two were found to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a letter sent by U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter to the Department of Homeland Security.

Muhammad Azeem and Muktar Ahmad, both in their 20s, surrendered to U.S. Border Patrol agents in September, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. One was listed on the Terrorist Screening Database for “associations with a known or suspected terrorist. The other was a positive match for derogatory information in an alternative database,” according to Hunter’s letter.

Azeem and Ahmad are among dozens of men — described by Border Patrol agents as “military age and carrying U.S. cash” who began entering the U.S. through a Tijuana-based human-smuggling pipeline in September. (Read more from “‘Military Age Men”‘ at San Diego’s Southern Border” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Michigan Muslim Woman Releases Video Calling for This to Happen to All Jews… It’s Despicable

This Michigan woman must be one of those moderate Muslims we’ve been hearing a lot about. Scratch that, it’s the moderate Muslims she’s mocking. You know, the ones who don’t support stabbing Jews…

Allan disparaged Muslims who claim Islam does not allow stabbing attacks, accusing them of trying to be “muftis” and telling them to “go back to watching Turkish soap operas.”

Throughout the video, titled, “Is Stabbing Jews Haram [Forbidden]?” she notably used only the word “Jews” to describe the target of stabbing attacks, not “Israelis.”

Appearing to compare Jews to animals, she likened those who believe stabbings are prohibited under Islam to defenders of “animal rights – not human rights, but at best, animal rights.”

MEMRI reported that in 2012, Allan told Jordan’s Roya TV that she represented the State Department’s U.S.-Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) in the Jameed Festival in Jordan, a food and culture event honoring rural women.

The video appears to have been removed from YouTube, but you can see it here.

If you’re in the mood for a video that hasn’t been removed from YouTube, let us suggest Hammer Dropped: Ex-Muslim Woman BLASTS Government on Limiting Free Speech and Watch This Ex-Muslim Woman Utterly Destroy Islam.

Much like the story last week of the migrant rapist in Germany, the story here isn’t so much about what Lina Allen says, but the fact that she feels so freaking comfortable saying it publicly, on camera… with no fear of remorse. I know it makes us feel safer to think that this mindset is atypical in Islam, that it’s held by only a tiny, tiny, single-digit minority of Muslims.

It’s not.

This is not uncommon at all. But don’t take my word for it. Look to the laws of Islamic countries across the globe. Look to the statistics reflective of Muslim’s views on Jews and converts as a whole. Look at the statistics on Muslims who support Sharia law *(which, incidentally, isn’t all that friendly to the Jews). Let’s even assume for a second that only twenty percent of Muslims feel the way Allen does. That’s still a population that numbers in the EIGHT FIGURES! For contrast, the Westboro Baptist Church only has an estimated four and a half members.

Obviously, active terrorism is not mainstream Islam. Obviously.

But “moderate Islam” isn’t all that good either. Because what this woman espouses in this video, in contrast with even mainstream views in the Islamic world (in Islamic countries)… is actually still pretty damn moderate. Watch the video below to learn more about the myths and realities surrounding “moderate Islam.”

(For more from the author of “Michigan Muslim Woman Releases Video Calling for This to Happen to All Jews… It’s Despicable” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: A Pathetic Obama Cries, Cites Jesus in Speech Pushing Gun Control

By Mark Judge. In his announcement of several executive actions aimed at reducing gun violence, President Obama quoted Jesus. The passage is from the Gospel of John:

“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

The president used the passage in reference to the death of Zaevion Dobson, a 15-year-old who was killed in Tennessee in December while protecting three girls from gunfire. (Read more from “Obama Cries, Cites Jesus in Speech Pushing Gun Control” HERE)

_____________________________________

Obama Wipes Away Tears as He Calls for New Gun Measures

By Sarah Wheaton and Nick Gass. President Barack Obama wept openly Tuesday as he delivered a forceful defense of new executive actions on gun violence, a set of modest proposals to tighten loopholes that likely face quick legal challenges and could be vulnerable to reversal by a Republican White House.

The president ran through a list of mass shootings that have happened during his time in office, and teared up as he recalled the schoolchildren gunned down in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012.

“First graders in Newtown. First graders,” Obama said, pausing to collect himself. “Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad.”

Obama offered a new argument to counter gun rights enthusiasts, noting that mass shootings have taken place as Americans have tried to exercise other rights, such as attending worship services or watching a movie. The right to bear firearms is not more important than the right to worship freely or peaceably assemble, he said, and called upon Congress to be “brave enough to stand up to the gun lobby’s lies.”

“Every single year, more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns. Thirty thousand. Suicides, domestic violence, gang shootouts, accidents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost brothers and sisters or buried their own children,” he said, flanked in the White House East Room by family members of victims. (Read more from “Obama Wipes Away Tears as He Calls for New Gun Measures” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Clinton Just Took Credit for a Big Obama Plan – It Also Happens to Be One of His Worst

Hillary Clinton praised Obama’s executive actions on gun control, claiming that his plans were influenced by her own proposals.

“I am very proud of President Obama’s announcement today,” Clinton said of the president’s new series of executive actions. “In fact, I feel really good because I called for some of those measures a few months ago” . . .

Obama would use executive power to increase background checks and ramp up mental health treatment and reporting, both of which Clinton advised in her October plan.

On the campaign trail, Clinton often condemns the GOP for pushing back against gun safety legislation, which she describes as doing the National Rifle Association’s bidding under the guise of defending Second Amendment rights. (Read more from “Clinton Just Took Credit for a Big Obama Plan – It Also Happens to Be One of His Worst” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hamas in America: The Enemy Within

While Obama and his allies will focus their national security message on cracking down on so-called “assault weapons” and inanimate objects, they will ignore the true national security threat – the presence of “assault people” at the highest levels of government.

Last week, I noted that the Muslim Brotherhood represents the biggest threat to our homeland security and our survival as a civil society built upon constitutional freedoms. Although the political elites in both parties like to tell us we are at war, they fail to treat those in our country who support our enemies as traitors. In fact, many of these people have influence at the highest levels of our government, particularly the agencies dealing with homeland security. Today, I’d like to examine a case study to illustrate how deeply rooted this problem is in our own country — not just half away around the world in Syria.

A Muslim immigrant in the greater Chicago area named Kifah Mustapha posted the following on his Facebook account during the outbreak of the stabbing intifada in Israel:

لا يسمع دوي القنابل إلا من كان بعيدا عنها..أما الفائزون فيسمعون ترحيب الملائكة بهم..Only those far away from bombs would hear its explosionThe triumph ones would hear angels welcoming them

Posted by Kifah Mustapha ElMera'bi on Sunday, October 4, 2015

انتفاضة في الأرض المباركة ستعم ببركتها كل الثورات العربية إن شاء الله An uprising in the Blessed Land will reflect blessings on all Arab uprisings insha Allah

Posted by Kifah Mustapha ElMera'bi on Saturday, October 10, 2015

Unfortunately, that we have willingly imported large numbers of people from the Middle East who support our enemies, hate Israel, and praise terrorism is nothing new. Sadly, there are countless individuals we didn’t have to allow into our country who are now here cheering on Hamas and other Islamic terror groups. But Mr. Mustapha is not just any Muslim immigrant; he is the Imam of a large mosque in Chicago. He is also a community outreach leader for the FBI.

The FBI has a “Citizens Academy,” which “brings the community’s civic, business, and religious leaders together to experience firsthand how the FBI investigates crimes and threats to our national security and learn about the various tools and techniques we employ to carry out our mission.” As the FBI website notes, “[B]ecause of the classified investigative techniques discussed, nominees must also undergo a background check and get an interim security clearance.”

Guess who participated in this FBI training in 2010, security clearance and all?

Mr. Hamas himself, Kifah Mustapha. Here is a picture of the Hamas operative at our own National Counterterrorism Center!

So just who is Kifah Mustapha? He was the Illinois representative/fundraiser for the Holy Land Foundation, the Hamas terror financing arm that was the subject of the largest terrorism trial in American history.

Mustapha was also listed among the more than 240 unindicted co-conspirators in the HLF trial, according to Justice Department documents.

How in the world did a man who should have been indicted on terror charges and is free to engage in treason to this day obtain a security clearance? Why was he nominated to this position in the first place and who made the nomination?

Earlier in 2010, Mustapha’s behavior was repugnant enough that the Illinois state police fired him as a chaplain. When Mustapha filed a lawsuit, with the help of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated CAIR, even the Democrat Attorney General was appalled by him. Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a motion in federal court in 2013 noting that Mustapha “aided and abetted, or at least cheered for, terrorism” after he was caught on a video chanting “terrorist lyrics.”

In October 2010, Eli Lake reported in the Washington Times that then-Director of the FBI Robert Mueller was asked about the inclusion of the Hamas cleric in the FBI’s sensitive training program and he refused to answer the question, even as he admitted there are widespread terror links in the sphere of outreach groups they patronize.

Here are pictures of Mustapha meeting with officials from the Customs and Border Patrol at O’Hare airport. Could you imagine someone with the views of, say, David Duke — even without ties to foreign enemies — being treated as a community leader and given access to sensitive counterterrorism agencies?

How many more Kifah Mustaphas are there in our government with access to sensitive counter-terrorism information? How many other Islamic violent extremists are crafting our policies to “Counter Violent Extremism?”

How can we tolerate this for even one day?

The smart-set conservatives in Washington are obsessed with getting our troops involved in overseas civil wars between competing viper nests. Yet, they refuse to discuss the viper nest with access and influence to our agencies that are supposed to be fighting our enemy. In a major foreign policy speech in New Hampshire, Senator Marco Rubio blasted those who disagree with his Syrian intervention on behalf of Islamic rebels as “isolationists.” He spoke a lot about the vitality of Islamic interventions and the surveillance state but never uttered a word about the two most obvious threats to homeland security — threats for which the solutions don’t cost us a dime — Islamic immigration and the Muslim Brotherhood influence.

We have strong constitutional protections of free speech in this country. But as I noted last month, there is no affirmative right to immigrate, no right for non-citizen immigrants to remain in the country, and no right even for citizens to engage in treason and support our enemies or incite terrorism and violence. For those wringing their hands over a path forward in combating terror, maybe we ought to stop inviting onto our shores and into our most sensitive government offices. (For more from the author of “Hamas in America: The Enemy Within” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Republican Senator Tom Cotton ‘Endorses’ 2016 Presidential Candidate – I Doubt Anyone Would’ve Expected This

High-profile endorsements can sometimes help candidates, but Bernie Sanders recently received one that might not do him any good.

Speaking on an episode of “Arkansas Week: Special Edition” that aired on January 1, Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, offered tongue-in-cheek support for the Vermont senator in the Democratic presidential contest.

“For many months, I’ve been strongly in favor of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary,” Cotton said.

Cotton’s support would mark the first senator to back Sanders — 38 of his 46 Democratic colleagues have announced their support for front-runner Hillary Clinton. The remaining Democrats have yet to weigh in. (Read more from “Republican Senator Tom Cotton ‘Endorses’ 2016 Presidential Candidate – I Doubt Anyone Would’ve Expected This” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Gun Debate Illuminates the Broader Constitutional Crisis

We live in an era when one entire political party believes that what is in the Constitution is not in it and what’s not in the Constitution is really enshrined in the ever-evolving elastic document. What’s worse, the federal judges who align with this party, yet are sworn to uphold the Constitution, believe in the same backwards vision.

Consider the following: The Constitution doesn’t mention a word about gay marriage (or marriage at all), yet liberals believe it does. At the same time, the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined into our Bill of Rights in the most unambiguous language (“… shall not be infringed …”), yet they believe it can and should be infringed upon. Put another way, while states are now precluded from denying a positive privilege to gay couples — a privilege over which they had plenary power since the founding of our country — they have the power to take negative action against someone who peacefully bears arms.

The relevant clause of the Second Amendment assures “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

There are three observations that should automatically jump out at any student of the Constitution.

1. The Second Amendment was not merely expressed in a positive sense — “there shall be a right to keep and bear arms.” Were that the case, one could conceivably make the case for Congress or a state legislature limiting a number of options and conditions for gun rights as long as there were enough remaining lawful opportunities to fulfill those rights. Rather, it was expressed in the strongest negative terms directed at the government — that the right “shall not be infringed.” The notion that states can categorically ban numerous popular firearms and ammo and place substantial burdens on even purchasing and owning any firearm is preempted by the most unequivocal language afforded to any fundamental right at the federal level. Yet, it took 200 years for the Court to “discover” the most foundational of unalienable rights in the Heller and McDonald decisions to overturn full gun bans. [1] Even since those cases, however, the lower courts are upholding anything short of complete categorical bans and the Supreme Court is casually denying review of these precedents. [2]

I’m not one of those who believe we should rely on the courts to protect our rights, or that this was even the core objective of creating a judiciary. If, however, courts are going to discover all sorts of new super rights that are alien or antithetical to our founding values, and impose them upon the states, how can they sit idly while states violate the one right that is explicitly walled off with the impervious language of “shall not be infringed”?

2. The fact that the text of the amendment uses the words keep and bear arms demonstrates incontrovertibly that the authors’ intent was to protect the right to carry on one’s person at all times, not just in one’s home. This language was taken directly from the Virginia recommendation for a bill of rights, proposed by George Wythe, the first American law professor, at the ratifying convention in June 1788. In a letter to John Cartwright, Thomas Jefferson was unequivocal that “it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” He advised Americans that a “gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” It is appalling that so many states either prohibit or place a substantial burden on carrying a firearm or that people are restricted from carrying across state lines. It wasn’t until 2012 that a district judge in Maryland agreed to strike down the state’s anti-carry laws, but in Woollard v. Gallagher the 4th Circuit upheld the unconstitutional laws and the Supreme Court obnoxiously denied cert to the petitioners. [3]

3. The Second Amendment refers to gun rights as “the” right. This language was reserved for all of the fundamental, unalienable rights granted by God — the same language used for the freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. This is why many conservatives don’t like using the term “Second Amendment right” when referring to the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment didn’t’ create the right; it is God given and self-evident. It is for this reason that many of the Federalists, including James Madison, at least initially, were opposed to adding fundamental rights into the Bill of Rights. They feared it would give off the impression that A) these rights were granted by the Constitution and not God and B) these were the only rights reserved to the people. [4]

The right to self-defense is ranked among the most unalienable rights and is indispensable to protecting the foundational rights of life, liberty, and property. While most conservative originalists believe that not all clauses of the Bill of Rights necessarily applied to the states and that the 14th Amendment did not “incorporate” the states into the Bill of Rights, even a state government cannot harm a God-given right (as I noted last week with regards to religious liberty). Judge Timothy Farrar, who wrote the first and most respected post-14th Amendment constitutional treatise, seamlessly listed the right to bear arms among the unalienable rights that states cannot violate. [5] St. George Tucker, one of the earliest respected commentators on the Constitution, referred to gun rights as “the true palladium of liberty.” [6] The self-evident nature of the complete right to bear arms was such a given that there was virtually no debate on this part of the Bill of Rights when Madison introduced it in the House of Representatives. All of the debate centered on the phrase about the militia and whether Quakers could be drafted into such a force. [7]

Madison [in Federalist no. 46] referred to the right to bear arms as a right that “Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” It is why, until recently, we have done a better job preserving fundamental rights than any other nation. Not even a state government can infringe upon this right, yet we now have a president who thinks he can do so unilaterally without Congress at a federal level. The only question that remains is if we will let him. (For more from the author of “The Gun Debate Illuminates the Broader Constitutional Crisis” please click HERE)

____________________________________

[1] District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780 (2010)

[2] Espanola Jackson, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, California, Et al, No. 14-704 (9th Cir. June. 8, 2015); 76 U. S. ____ (2015) (cert. denied, Thomas, J., dissenting). Arie S. Friedman, et al. v. City of Highland Park, Illinois, No. 15-133 (7th Cir. Dec. 7, 2015); 577 U. S. ____ (2015) 577 (cert. denied, Thomas, J., dissenting)

[3] Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, 874 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 422 (2013)

[4] James Wilson said at the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, “If we attempt an enumeration, every thing that is not enumerated is presumed to be given. The consequence is, that an imperfect enumeration would throw all implied power into the scale of the government, and the rights of the people would be rendered incomplete.”

[5] T Farrar, “Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America” (Boston 1867) p. 145 § 118 [“The States are recognized as governments, and, when their own constitutions permit, may do as they please; provided they do not interfere with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or with the civil or natural rights of the people recognized thereby, and held in conformity to them. The right of every person to “life, liberty, and property,” to “keep and bear arms,” to the “writ of habeas corpus” to “trial by jury,” and divers others, are recognized by, and held under, the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be infringed by individuals or or even by the government itself.”]

[6] Tucker, St. George. Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 5 vols. Philadelphia, 1803. Reprint. South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1969. [“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty … The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes.”]

[7] Annals of Congress. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States. “History of Congress.” 42 vols. Washington, D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1834–56.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

U.K. Parliament Just Announced Something Major About Trump [+video]

The United Kingdom Parliament will debate banning GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump from the country later this month.

Ministers will consider whether or not to prohibit Trump from entering the country Jan. 18 after a petition to Parliament calling for a ban gained more than half a million signatures. “The UK has banned entry to many individuals for hate speech,” the petition reads. “If the United Kingdom is to continue applying the ‘unacceptable behaviour’ criteria to those who wish to enter its borders, it must be fairly applied to the rich as well as poor, and the weak as well as powerful.”

Suzanne Kelly, the freelance journalist who began the petition, welcomed the news. “However the debate goes, this exercise has brought many people together to speak out against hate speech and prejudice,” she said in a statement. “That is my reward, and one I’m very happy and moved by.” (Read more from “U.K. Parliament Just Announced Something Major About Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.