Biden Administration: On a Collision Course with National Disaster

If I were leading President Joe Biden’s central committee and my goal were to destroy America as founded and ensure that it lose its distinction as the world’s freest and most powerful nation, I doubt I could concoct a superior strategy than adopting the Biden administration’s message and policy agenda.

The administration is creating total societal chaos, fomenting disorder and undermining the rule of law at every turn. As the first duty of government is to protect and defend its citizens, we might be alarmed to consider that the administration is engaged in a multipronged strategy to do the opposite. It is shrinking our military, which defends against foreign threats. It is at war with law enforcement, which ensures domestic tranquility, and it is destroying our southern border. It is systematically destroying our liberty and prosperity. . .

While our Democrat-controlled cities are descending into craven crime centers, much of the Democratic Party is doubling down on the police-bashing-and-defunding policies that created this anarchy. Their inflammatory racial rhetoric is obliterating race relations in the cities and harming most the people they pretend to protect. Almost laughably, their leaders are now pretending they aren’t the ones who clamored for defunding, exposing themselves as liars and revealing they now realize how utterly ludicrous their policies have been. . .

While our border is a now a Biden-charged magnet for the infusion of millions of illegal aliens, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris brazenly attempt to blame it on former President Donald Trump and daftly suggest we explore “root causes” for the mass migration, as if we don’t know the exact, direct and proximate cause of this disaster and as if we can solve this by throwing money at liberty-deprived and corrupt nations. Does anyone really believe the reckless nonsense our pseudo-leaders are mouthing? Have they no shame, self-awareness or capacity for embarrassment? . . .

I know I’m not the only one who feels this way and who is seeing this nightmare with eyes wide open. In fact, I’d bet that most Americans sense something is drastically wrong and that this nation is rapidly slipping away right before our eyes as we squander the legacy of liberty bequeathed to us by preceding generations of patriots who toiled and bled to secure and preserve for themselves and us the things that we once knew matter most.

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

It’s Clear Now Anthony Fauci Isn’t A Fool, He’s A Villain

A trove of thousands of emails released as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request show that, since the beginning of COVID-19, Anthony Fauci has been just as mendacious as some of his worst critics have alleged. . .

It was clear from almost the beginning that Fauci was not just a benevolent science bureaucrat “trying to figure it out,” not just a bumbling idiot, but someone willing to put the entire nation through a punishing social and medical experiment, to gaslight the public time and time again to keep it going, and then bask in the sycophancy of Democratic Party lawmakers and the media while millions suffered needlessly. That’s the sort of thing we expect from the villains of political thrillers, not well-intentioned public servants who are just trying to “follow the science.”

Students 100 years from now might be forgiven for thinking Fauci was an invented boogeyman. Deceit is a classic character trait of fictional antagonists, and Fauci is, as one popular (now Twitter-banned) lockdown skeptic put it, a “one-man highlight reel of mendacity.”

Besides his lies about the well-supported lab origin theory for COVID, Fauci misled the public about asymptomatic spread being a major driver of the outbreak, as a Feb. 4, 2020 email revealed. He lied about masks working, as “the virus is small enough to pass through the material,” according to a Feb. 5, 2020 email. (Read more from “It’s Clear Now Anthony Fauci Isn’t A Fool, He’s A Villain” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

FOR ONCE AND FOR THE WRONG REASONS, THE LEFT WAS RIGHT: The Supreme Court Was and Still Is Illegitimate

Introduction: Conflicting Perspectives

Although the left and right have opposite definitions of “legitimate,” like the proverbial stopped clock that is right twice per day, with one caveat, leftists were right on one point, judicial illegitimacy. The caveat involves time. When leftists screeched that confirmation of Donald Trump’s nominees would make the judiciary illegitimate in their eyes, what really concerned them was that confirmations would convert the judiciary from practices the right thought were illegitimate to what the right thinks are legitimate.

For decades, leftists relied upon dishonest Supreme Court authoritarians to impose unwanted policies on an unwilling public. In Equal Justice for Victims,* I documented why the Supreme Court has been “the last best hope of democracy’s losers” (214) – “miserable merchants of unwanted [and unsold] ideas,” to use the words of Justice Douglas. Thus, if Trump’s judicial nominees were confirmed, leftist ideologues feared the judiciary would cease to be in their pocket; they would no longer achieve undemocratically what they could not achieve in the marketplace of ideas. That is their notion of legitimacy.

As in the past, leftists lost the battles but won the wars. (Does anyone remember David Souter?) It did not take long for Trump’s Supreme Court appointees to validate two of the central points of my book: (1) The United States Supreme Court is an illegitimate, destructive institution unworthy of public respect; (2) The harm it has done cannot be remedied – or further harm prevented – by appointing so-called originalist judges.

On December 11, 2020, a mere 45 days after Amy Coney Barrett took office, she, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined leftists to declare that a President of the United States lacked “standing” to have a day in any court. They manifested contemptuous disrespect in a brief 51-word Order stating an unelaborated and unexplained conclusion without the full opinion often accorded the most cruel and depraved rapists and murderers. The justices did not, because they could not, address any of the detailed arguments presented by some of the country’s best lawyers. Trump’s justices not only stabbed their benefactor in the back and, more importantly, his 75 million voters; they also enabled shredding of the remnants of the very Constitution they took oaths to apply and defend.

Denying a sitting President a day in court reveals the Ugly Naked Truth. The Supreme Court and the entire judicial system are rife with dishonesty, corruption and hypocrisy. Moreover, Justice Scalia, after but six months on the Court, realized “[t]he irony … that [unknown, un-affluent, unorganized individuals suffer] injustice at the hands of a Court fond of thinking itself the champion of the politically impotent.”

And so it remains today. The judiciary protects the strong against the weak; the unlawful against the lawful; vicious predators against their prey; those who inflict suffering against the suffering; 300-pound rapists against the 8-year-old little girls they rape; the greedy against the generous; the corrupt against the honorable; the politically powerful against the politically powerless who have no one to fight for them; etc.

Rich as he is, Donald Trump understood and fought for the “little guy” and will continue to do so, hopefully for a long time.

Legitimacy: In the Eyes of the Beholder

A substantial part of Equal Justice for Victims documents the “utter illegitimacy of the Supreme Court” (194). But leftists need not have worried. Their iron grip on the judiciary is as strong as ever; the judiciary remains illegitimate.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton, what is “legitimate” depends on one’s definition. To secure its unpopular agenda, the left sees it as legitimate for dictator-judges to ignore and misstate facts, and to rewrite and disregard law written in plain, even pellucid, English. A “legitimate” leftist court undemocratically and unconstitutionally rams through policies that the left cannot persuade the public to support in fair, open debate and elections. The left relies upon judges to vitiate “democratic self-government” and design a Constitution for an unrecognizable country.

The right’s idea of legitimate adjudication is honest application of written law to honestly stated facts. In this view, a legitimate judge decides cases based on the Constitution, law and evidence rather than politically or personally desired outcomes.

For those on the right, a legitimate judiciary is a judiciary that applies the law faithfully, as written by the people who have the Constitutional authority to write the law. Outcome-oriented leftists believe that “the end justifies the means”; for the right, a legitimate judiciary is an honest judiciary – regardless of results.

The following are examples, from Equal Justice for Victims, show what leftists consider legitimate and those on the right see as illegitimate:

With nary a second thought, judges routinely sacrifice the lives of the innocent to save the lives of the guilty (109).

U.S. Supreme Court justices repeatedly lie about the Constitution, the law and the facts (e.g., 37-41; 225).

Most people probably would be aghast if they knew that, after 19 decades, five justices abruptly claimed (178-181) that

(1) some rapes are “unharmful”;

(2) the Framers, as a reward exclusively for the most depraved criminals in our midst, precisely because they are the most depraved, created a Constitutional right to commit rape and other depravity without any punishment whatsoever; and

(3) Any five lawyers on the Supreme Court could find Constitutionally “unacceptable” and ban criminal punishments legislated by the People’s elected representatives, a power grab Justice Scalia found “laughable.”

Five justices have turned capital sentencing review over to anti-death penalty psychiatrists (251).

The Supreme Court’s role in creating and promoting massive illegal immigration has received little notice (342-343).

Finally, while clearly guilty murderers live for decades (257-321), with judges endlessly splitting hairs over death sentences in lengthy opinions, and while most Americans have been raised to believe that “everyone is entitled to a day in court,” seven US Supreme Court justices, as noted, used but 51 words to make a significant exception for the President of the United States, who could not get federal judges to hear his federal case.

Trump’s Gallery of Federalist Society Judicial Rogues

Notwithstanding former President Trump’s dedication to appoint originalists, he failed. The unrestrained judicial assault on American values, documented and explained throughout Equal Justice for Victims, will continue. If he had succeeded, his appointees would have applied the original Constitution – and he would still be the president. The 2020 election is just the latest example of leftist “miserable merchants” using corrupt judicial dictators to force upon the American people what they do not want.

In his February 28 CPAC speech, the former president accused Supreme Court justices of lacking “guts” and “courage.” But he omitted his own role. Had his three appointees joined dissenting Justices Alito and Thomas, Trump would now be president and the left would not be on a manic mission to destroy the American Greatness he had restored.

Amy Barrett has not been a justice long enough to come to a firm conclusion. It surely would be understandable if she decided not to put her large family at risk of harm by violent leftists (to use a redundancy) without support by Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. But the latter two have been around long enough to say they are unmitigated disasters.

If, as Trump told CPAC, “[t]hey should be ashamed of themselves,” he owes his voters an apology for appointing them.

It is widely accepted that Trump would not have won in 2016 without: (1) the Supreme Court’s dishonest defiance of and flagrant contempt for representative self-government (now likely to continue); and (2) Trump’s vow to appoint judges from a list prepared by the ostensibly originalist Federalist Society.

While the Federalist Society list may have contributed to Trump’s 2016 victory, it surely cost him victory in 2020. In my view, if the former president ever miraculously returns to the White House, he should avoid Federalist Society nominees like the plague. Two points are noteworthy:

Bad Federalist Society advice did not start in 2016. Many judicial scoundrels have had Federalist Society support. I well remember conservatives’ elation over the John Roberts nomination. They have been disappointed repeatedly by this politician posing as an impartial judge (211).

Three months before Election Day, a Federalist Society co-founder joined the years-long Trump-Deranged leftist drive to impeach the object of their hatred.

As a businessman lacking detailed knowledge of judicial skullduggery, Trump relied on “experts.” He thought he was appointing honest originalists who, unlike conservative-turncoat-politician John Roberts, would apply the law as written, But the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh betrayals were predicted and no surprise.

In September 2019, Gorsuch gave his first public interview as a justice; he stressed his two rules: (1) “Don’t make it up — follow the law”; (2) even under enormous pressure to disregard rule #1.

However, in June 2020, Gorsuch wrote an opinion on behalf of the Court’s leftist politicians. Justice Alito dissented, describing Gorsuch’s opinion as “deceptive … legislation” that could not get through Congress. Alito also accused Gorsuch sailing under a false flag like a pirate, in an opinion that would have been “excoriated” by Justice Scalia.

In April 2018, Gorsuch joined the sure leftist Court cadre (Kagan, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Breyer) to rescue from deportation an alien felon whom even the Obama Administration wanted to throw out of the country. His vote not needed by the Court’s leftist politicians, Roberts dissented, supported by Justices Kennedy, Thomas and Alito.

Significantly, conservatives, who have a habit of wishful thinking, were warned in advance about Gorsuch’s leftist potential. His flimflammery is partially documented here.

Celebrating Kavanaugh’s confirmation, one conservative Supreme Court activist declared that “[A]fter decades of judicial rule …, democracy is effectively pushing back through the judicial appointments ….” (Emphasis added.) I disagree.

As noted, there were warnings before his confirmation. Conservative Joe Miller revealed Kavanaugh to be what he turned out to be on the on the Supreme Court: a “lackluster” hypocrite who, as a prosecutor, abused power and an Establishment-Bush acolyte. In addition, Kavanaugh once clerked for, and was sworn in by, Justice Anthony Kennedy (346), who joined four leftist justices on multiple occasions and whose opinions once caused Justice Scalia to contemplate hiding his head in a bag (41). Above all, when Kavanaugh approved the denial of a remedy for election theft, he pushed back against democracy’s “pushback.” (Before confirmation, in his defense, I allowed my hopes, that Justice Kennedy’s clerk would not emulate his former boss, to cloud my judgment. I was wrong; I apologize.)

Good Cop-Bad Cop; Don’t Be Fooled by Conservative Poseur Role-Reversals

Equal Justice for Victims (41ff.) explains how, to fool the public into believing they are “moderate conservative” or conservative, duplicitous left-leaning judicial politicians frequently vote with truly honest justices when their votes are not necessary to help leftist ideologues win. John Paul Stevens was a master (41). Chief Justice Roberts has been another example, pretending to be a non-political neutral umpire who does not favor either side. Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have joined him, as they back or strongly dissent from various prevailing leftist rulings. When needed, they often join the sure votes (42) for leftist causes: Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. But, like the hyper-political Chief Justice, they also write strong dissents to burnish their “originalist” reputations. Prior to Justice Ginsburg’s death, only one “conservative,” usually Kennedy or Roberts, was needed to join leftists. The other was free to write or support strong dissents. Without Ginsburg, the Court’s leftist ideological politicians can often count on getting two or even three “conservatives.” Leftist-at-heart Roberts likely will less often be able to pose as a conservative. For an example of his duplicity, compare here (vital to 5-4 leftist majority) and here (“conservative” when leftists lacked the votes).

Justice Thomas joined Alito’s June 2020 dissent accusing Gorsuch of false-flag piracy. However, his vote unnecessary for the leftists, Justice Kavanaugh wrote a separate dissent, less harsh than Alito’s but agreeing that Gorsuch usurped the legislative function that belongs to elected representatives. This deprived the winners of democratic victory, Kavanaugh contended.

No one should fall for last June’s Kavanaugh dissent from Gorsuch’s pirate opinion. On March 25, 2021, Kavanaugh joined Roberts and the pro-criminal leftists to provide a necessary fifth vote to vacate a lower court pro-victim ruling. Predictably feigning fealty to the meaning of words, Gorsuch wrote a vigorous dissent. (Barrett did not participate.)

On April 5, Kavanaugh joined Gorsuch (and Roberts) to reverse a lower court ruling against leftist Google. As unanimously agreed, Google simply stole what it could not buy. Had Gorsuch and Kavanaugh sided with Justices Thomas and Alito, the lower court decision would have stood; and had Roberts joined them, the Court leftists would have lost on the merits. (Again. Barrett did not participate.) In any event, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh supported what Thomas called a “fundamentally flawed … analysis … to eviscerate Congress’ considered policy judgment.”

Too many good cop-bad cop examples exist to analyze now. But for a few more, compare here and here; here and here; and here and here.

No Day in Court for a Sitting President

That “everyone is entitled to a day in court” is a principle deeply embedded in American values and culture. Even after the presidency was stolen with the approval of Trump appointees, a major fake-news, anti-Trump network referred [19′:42″], to a lawyer defending an unpopular client as “doing … a very noble thing … He believes everybody deserves their day in court.” “Everybody,” that is, but Trump!

On February 3, 2021, having voted to deny a sitting President a chance to present his case in court, Kavanaugh joined the leftists and Roberts, casting a critical deciding vote to grant appellate review to an unknown litigant. Four justices pointed out that the “doubly incorrect” grant was based on an irrelevant statute. This appellate review grant came nine days after Kavanaugh had doubled down and 19 days before he tripled down to deny Trump any hearing at all, even initial review.

Why did Trump’s justices vote to violate one of the most fundamental tenets of American law and culture? Only they know for sure. But speculated possibilities are fraught with irony.

(1) If Trump’s justices feared seeming political, they failed to realize the irony that any decision to avoid a political image is itself a political decision.

The 2020 election offered one of the sharpest political choices in American history: between (a) those who love and are proud of their country and think it is exceptional; and (b) those who are ashamed of their country and will do (and are doing) all they can to make their county unexceptional. When the judiciary sided with the latter, they made the ultimate in political choices. In any event, for a long time, the United States Supreme Court has been stacked with politicians (42-47) who do not hesitate to make political decisions. To quote Andrew McCarthy: “Let’s Drop the Charade: The Supreme Court Is a Political Branch, Not a Judicial One.”

(2) If justices cowered in fear of “Court-Packing,” sooner or later, probably sooner, they will be repeatedly tested. Und this threat, they will be forced to confront multiple challenges to the constitutionality of the Biden-Schumer-Pelosi march toward the total evisceration of self-government. The ultimate irony would be if the “court packing” threat succeeds without actual leftist enactment of court-packing.

Mummification Spurned: Structural vs. Harmless Defects

Nothing could better illustrate the hypocrisy and dishonesty of federal judges than their leftist disregard of a 30-year-old precedent in order to reject a day in Court for a President of the United States, while giving decades in court to all manner of vicious villains (246-249, 302). Justice Arthur Goldberg (96) surely would have labeled as “liberal” this disregard of long-standing precedent.

Equal Justice for Victims includes a section (221-227) arguing that the conservative judicial obsession with adhering to erroneous “precedent,” solely because it is precedent, is nothing but “The Mummification of Justices’ Constitutional Fairy Tales.”

According to Senator Susan Collins, Brett Kavanaugh was “the first Supreme Court [justice] to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition but rooted in Article III of our Constitution itself.” Kavanaugh is thus the first justice ever to assert that dishonestly invented judicial precedents – fairy tales – are part of the United States Constitution.

Even so, Kavanaugh had no trouble disregarding valid precedents in order to stab in the back the President who strongly supported him during the smear campaign he suffered. Thirty years ago, the Supreme Court – including the real Justice Scalia rather than the current fake-Scalia, Justice Gorsuch – distinguished between harmless errors and “structural defects” that so affect the “entire conduct” of a proceeding as to make the outcome unconstitutionally unreliable. Although the 1991 case involved a criminal trial, it clearly applied to the 2020 election.

Perhaps the oldest cited structural defect is the right to an impartial judge. James Madison famously wrote: “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and … corrupt his integrity.” On this ground alone, Trump’s rogue justices were cowardly and dishonorable. They were derelict in their duty to provide a remedy for the blatantly unconstitutional insistence, by the federal judge-sister of a feral Trump opponent, upon deciding Georgia election litigation. If Trump’s sister, also a federal judge, had obstinately decided a case involving her brother, we would never hear the end of it.

Kavanaugh (and fellow “conservative” rogues) also disregarded well-established precedent that fraudulent votes “debase or dilute” lawful votes.

Trump’s campaign had enormous evidence of fraud (stopping vote-counting simultaneously in eight states while Trump was leading by a huge margin; ejection of all his poll watchers from witnessing fraud; affidavits and videos showing massive dumping of out-of-state paper ballots; ballots lacking signatures; Biden and other Democrats boasting of vote-fraud plans for election theft using mailed paper ballots; myriad paper ballots confined to presidential votes; brazen recusal refusal; etc., etc., etc.)

Despite all this evidence, Democrats and their judicial puppets denied Trump and his voters a day in court on the ground that there was no evidence. While focus here is on Supreme Court rogues, Third Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, another Federalist Society Trump appointee, deserves dishonorable mention.

With the characteristic (334) pompous (187-188) arrogance to be expected from many, if not most, federal judges, Bibas condescendingly lectured: “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require …. proof … [we don’t have].” It apparently did not occur to Bibas and dishonest Trump Supreme Court justices that the purpose of providing a day in court is precisely to allow presentation of evidence.

Judges often dismiss evidence as “insufficient,” but only after hearing that evidence. However, Trump was not allowed to submit evidence on the ground that he had no evidence to submit. That is arrant nonsense.

Although evidence of massive 2020 election fraud continues to mount, in the end, evidence adequacy is a red herring. There was one glaring indisputable fact making moot the entire issue of fraud: enough states to enable Biden’s henchmen to steal the election so fundamentally violated the Constitution as to render the election inherently (i.e., structurally) unconstitutional and its purported results unreliable. The Supreme Court’s cowards should not have allowed electoral votes from states that violated the Constitution. The high court has reversed myriad decisions for far less egregious violations.

Conclusion: The Federal Judiciary Is Still Illegitimate

Notwithstanding former President Trump’s determination to appoint conservative originalists, he failed spectacularly. If he had succeeded, Trump would still be president because his judicial appointees would have applied the original Constitution as written.

Federalist Society appointees will solidify leftist judicial illegitimacy for decades. Its unrestrained assault on the American way of life and American values, documented and explained throughout Equal Justice for Victims, will continue.

The 2020 election was structurally unfair and its results unreliably inaccurate. An illegitimate Supreme Court politically ratified an illegitimate election and saddled the nation with an illegitimate President. Trump’s rogue justices, together with the rogue Chief Justice, illegitimately violated Constitutionally guaranteed rights they had sworn to uphold: (a) to a due process day in court; (b) to the impartial adjudication essential to due process; and (c) to presidential electors selected in a manner prescribed by state legislators – in other words, what Justice Hugo Black called “the most fundamental individual liberty …to participate in … self-government ….”

*Available here. Unless otherwise indicated, all numbers in parentheses are page numbers in Equal Justice for Victims.

Due to computer malfunction, links to government documents (e.g., court opinions) do not work. The author requests that anyone interested contact him directly.

____________________________________________________________________

Lester Jackson is author of numerous articles about capital Punishment, the Supreme Court and American politics. The full title of his book is: Equal Justice for Victims: A Blueprint for the Rightful Restoration of Capital Punishment.  Reviews are here.

Copyright © 2021 by Lester Jackson, Ph.D.

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

How to Dispel the Second Amendment Without Confiscating Guns

The sheriff in my county told a Gannett reporter in March that his department’s cost per round of ammunition has risen about 25 percent over the past year. He was paying 23 cents last year, so we can estimate his 2021 costs at about 29 cents per round.

Reporter Isaiah Seibert wrote cryptically that government ammunition customers “have their own suppliers shielding them from the worst effects of the shortage,” and apparently he was right: is anybody else getting their ammunition for 29 cents per round?

The owner of the main indoor shooting range in our city said his cost for ammunition is up “two to three times” (100 to 200 percent) over the previous year. He has had to give up on his conventional suppliers and jump between online brokers or, in a pinch, to arbitrage ammunition he buys at retail.

“My normal vendors that I had before, all of our distributors, they’re all dry.”

What about this discrepancy between private prices and government prices for ammunition?

It’s not necessarily a scandal for manufacturers and distributors to make sure their best customers stay happy with them. They would be foolish to alienate a dependable buyer like a government agency. I would expect price breaks and privileged delivery schedules for the kind of customer who can make or break a supplier.

But what if a customer can make or break the entire industry? What if a customer can see to it that most other customers are slowly starved of ammunition, making an abundance of firearms irrelevant?

The government is not merely a consumer of firearms and ammunition, of course. It is a regulator and a legislator with leverage that no other consumer can muster. It has secondary tools of hardball financial and corporate intervention.

And so government purchases are not merely a hemorrhage from the private supply of ammunition, but an irresistible incentive for manufacturers and distributors to play ball. It’s a carrot they can’t refuse, or had better not.

I have an entrepreneurial relative in a distant state who saw opportunity in the ammunition shortage last year. He crunched some numbers and concluded that he could sell a lot of ammunition at a reasonable price. There were eager buyers in abundance. He got his licenses, bought machines and leased facilities.

But as quickly as he got his brand new machinery humming, he ran out of components, whether primer, casings or projectiles. Eventually he learned that major ammunition manufacturers had cornered the market on components, and were preventing new competitors from entering the market by depriving them of any reliable supply of components.

These monopolists were not making ammunition out of the components, just hoarding components and pressuring their suppliers to deprive potential competitors of the necessary raw ingredients of production.

How does a business organization that no longer produces anything nevertheless wield the cash reserves to monopolize an industry? I’m afraid we’ll have to hope for clarification by some future Wikileaks dump or Project Veritas investigation on that. The Deep State recently demonstrated in the Arizona legislature’s election audit that it reserves the right to destroy evidence and defy lawful subpoenas.

Suffice it to say that only an anti-Second Amendment person or entity of vast wealth, probably not the American government, is capable of writing that kind of check in opaque and unaccountable secrecy.

Yet it appears that the U.S. government played the central role alienating major ammunition manufacturers and distributors from the loyal private customers who put them on the map. Like a flashy homewrecking Lothario, government buyers waved flash rolls that persuaded ammunition executives their penny-pinching retail customers were more trouble than they were worth.

On the website OpenTheBooks.com, you can see that our federal government spent nearly a billion dollars ($944.9 million, adjusted for inflation) from 2015 through 2019 on guns, ammunition and military-style gear for federal employees who are not in the Department of Defense. It is, at least in part, a militarization of the federal workforce. Having established executive supremacy, the Administrative State is now arming to defend its gains.

The Internal Revenue Service had 1,200 fewer Special Agents than in 1995, but the agency purchased 4,500 firearms and stockpiled 5 million rounds of ammunition for its remaining 2,159 agents.

But the Internal Revenue staffing is the exception, rather than the rule: the nonprofit American Transparency estimates that there are now more federal civilian employees with firearms authority than there are U.S. Marines.

Some of the expenditures were surely justified. Various federal law enforcement agencies were included. But some appeared absurd. The Veterans Administration had no police department when I first started going to its doctors. But they staffed up quickly about 15 years ago and, by 2008, they had 3,957 police officers. They purchased 11 million rounds of ammunition, approximately 2,800 rounds per officer.

It’s not clear how much ammunition is purchased by state and local law enforcement agencies, but the federal government has certainly ensured that they’ll have something to shoot it with.

The Department of Defense has transferred 5.56mm and 7.62mm rifles, .38 cal., .40 cal. and .45 cal. pistols, 12-gauge shotguns and grenade launchers as well as sniper scopes and stun devices to state and local law enforcement. Also helicopters, airplanes and underwater vehicles.

The top state recipient of this federal firepower is California.

Of the current inventory of state and local law enforcement agencies, about $1.8 billion is military gear contributed by the Defense Department. As woke urban Democrats defund civilian police departments, state and local police dependency on Pentagon generosity will only increase.

This will provide Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin with greater leverage against state and local agencies that might otherwise resist lawless immigration policies or attempts to disarm the American people. Austin has already demonstrated his willingness to put leftist ideological purity before mission accomplishment in his own organization; we should expect no different in his dealings with state and local civilian agencies.

All of this points toward a chronic, ongoing, perhaps permanent ammunition famine in America. Without ammunition, firearms cannot deter tyranny or violent crime, or restrain mobs. The Second Amendment is impotent without ammunition. And so it’s urgent that we restore robust manufacture and distribution of it.

Kudos to Sen. Josh Hawley for calling Republicans to the ramparts against monopolistic social media censors. May his tribe increase. But I hope the anti-monopolists will also call public hearings and conduct investigations of the ammunition monopoly and its anti-competitive practices.

Who is writing checks to these idle monopolists to suffocate manufacture and distribution of ammunition? Is it the same people who tried and failed to win legislative action against lawful gun owners? The mainstream media have no inclination to find out, but we deserve to know.

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

Biden Is Keeping Migrant Kids In Horrible Conditions. Where Is The Outcry?

. . .When President Biden came under fire in March for the humanitarian crisis unfolding at the border, his administration scrambled to transfer the record number of migrant children being held in crude, jail-like facilities run by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, more than 5,700 at one point, into the care of the Department of Health and Human Services. According to federal law, minors aren’t supposed to be held by Border Patrol for more than 72 hours. Many were being held for weeks. . .

But instead of thousands of migrant children packed into tent-like facilities along the border, the Biden administration has dispersed them to tent-like — and wholly inadequate — emergency facilities all across the country, hidden from reporters and cameras thanks to Biden’s media blackout.

Until now. A handful of lawyers authorized to visit these facilities and interview the kids there are speaking to the media about what they’ve seen. . .

One of the lawyers who has been visiting these emergency shelters, Leecia Welch, told the Times that conditions at Fort Bliss are “much worse in every respect” than Tornillo. The tents reek of body odor, the bedding is not washed regularly, the children do not have clean clothes and “generally describe not feeling cared for and a sense of desperation.”

Welch also visited an emergency shelter set up in a warehouse in Houston that abruptly closed in mid-April because of subpar living conditions. Welch interviewed 16 girls who stayed there, and she told CBS News that they reported being constantly hungry and thirsty, being served undercooked chicken and expired food, and having limited access to showers and laundry. Some said they had only showered twice in 15 days. There were no educational activities, no access to the outdoors, and nothing to do during the day. (Read more from “Biden Is Keeping Migrant Kids In Horrible Conditions. Where Is The Outcry?” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

It’s Time For Christians To Stand Up And Proclaim We Will Never Stop Worshipping

Last weekend the world saw a fearless man of God, Pastor Artur Pawlowski, arrested for leading a church service. This faithful pastor, who escaped the iron fist of communist rule in Poland as a child, was handcuffed on the streets of Canada and thrown in jail for refusing to shutter his church.

Not too long ago, this shocking display of repression would be unheard of in the western world. But over the last year, government efforts to curtail our freedom to worship have become all too common, and it has uncovered an uncomfortable problem in our church. . .

We cannot stop praying! We must not stop worshipping! For 2,000 years the Christian church has gathered, prayed, and worshipped through pandemics and persecution. And I believe that is the call of today.

The church is ready for a revival. Since pandemic orders locked down our communities more than a year ago, I’ve worshipped with hundreds of thousands of believers in 87 cities, and have witnessed a rising revival across America. We will not be stopped.

The church will no longer be pressured by the world into hiding our light under a bushel. We won’t be cowered by politicians to forsake our mission to gather, pray, and worship the God who saved us. (Read more from “It’s Time For Christians To Stand Up And Proclaim We Will Never Stop Worshipping” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

A 4,600 Mile Army Airborne Message Drop to Russia

The U.S. military illustrated on Friday why America remains the instrumental global force for freedom.

It did so by delivering the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 82nd Airborne Division 4,600 miles from its Fort Bragg home base to Estonia. Without stopping to rest or refuel, approximately 750 paratroopers were dropped into northern Estonia in a simulated forcible entry operation. Once on the ground, they were just 70 miles from the Russian border and 150 miles from Vladimir Putin’s home city of St. Petersburg. The U.S. paratroopers jumped alongside B company, 2nd Battalion of the British Army’s Parachute Regiment.

In war, supported by an allied air campaign and as in 1944 in Normandy, the American and British paratroops would be outnumbered and surrounded by the enemy. They would be tasked with delaying Russian forces in their advances to Estonia’s capital, Tallinn, and buying time for NATO armored and mechanized forces to launch a counteroffensive. Theirs would be a high-risk, bloody operation. Put another way, an operation in the finest tradition of the Airborne Infantry.

In this case, the 3rd Brigade was acting as the Army’s Immediate Response Force. Under that contingency, one brigade of the 82nd Airborne is always deployable on 18 hours’ notice. No other nation can match this speed and scale of flexible response. It’s not just about the airborne troops. It’s about the logistics, mobility, intelligence, and field headquarters assets that go with them. (Read more from “A 4,600 Mile Army Airborne Message Drop to Russia” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

Black People Apparently Promote White Supremacy by Smoking Menthol Cigarettes

Pretty much everything about “systemic racism” and “institutionalized racism” in the United States is a lie, a way to guilt normal, middle-class people into handing money and power to whoever is telling it (Democrats and liberals).

To get a sense of just how absurd it gets, the Washington Post on Wednesday reported on President Joe Biden’s expected proposal to ban cigarette companies from using menthol in their product because black people have a preference for those types of cigarettes, and using them is exacerbating health problems in that population.

The report said that anti-smoking advocates “became more optimistic about a possible federal ban in recent months amid President Biden’s repeated vows to reduce health disparities made glaringly obvious by the coronavirus pandemic, and efforts by the Black Lives Matter movement to focus on institutionalized racism.”

Wait a second. If black people are choosing to smoke cigarettes that disproportionately affect the black population, wouldn’t that mean that they themselves are perpetuating “institutionalized racism”? (Read more from “Black People Apparently Promote White Supremacy by Smoking Menthol Cigarettes” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

Why I Won’t Be Getting the Vaccine

1. Vaccine Makers Are Immune From Liability

The only industry in the world that bears no liability for injuries or deaths resulting from their products are vaccine makers. First established in 1986 with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act,1 and reinforced by the PREP Act,2 vaccine makers cannot be sued, even if they are shown to be negligent. . .

2. The Checkered Past of the Vaccine Companies

[A]ll major vaccine makers (save Moderna) have paid out tens of billions of dollars in damages for other products they brought to market when they knew those products would cause injuries and death — see Vioxx,5 Bextra,6 Celebrex,7 Thalidomide8 and opioids9 as a few examples.

If drug companies willfully choose to put harmful products in the market, when they can be sued, why would we trust any product where they have NO liability? In case it hasn’t sunk in, let me reiterate: Three of the four COVID vaccine makers have been sued for products they brought to market even though they knew injuries and deaths would result. . .

3. The Ugly History of Attempts to Make Coronavirus Vaccines

After 2000, scientists made many attempts to create coronavirus vaccines. For the past 20 years, all ended in failure because the animals in the clinical trials got very sick and many died, just like the children in the 1960s. You can read a summary of this history/science here. . .

4. The ‘Data Gaps’ Submitted to the FDA by the Vaccine Makers

When vaccine makers submitted their papers to the FDA for the emergency use authorization (Note: An EUA is not the same as a full FDA approval), among the many “data gaps” they reported was that they have nothing in their trials to suggest they overcame that pesky problem of vaccine enhanced disease. They simply don’t know — i.e., they have no idea if the vaccines they’ve made will also produce the same cytokine storm (and deaths) as previous attempts at such products.

(Read more from “Why I Won’t Be Getting the Vaccine” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

Revealing Biden’s Hatred of Humanity and Religion

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021, President Biden and his administration filed an appeal in federal court seeking to force all doctors and hospitals in the United States, regardless of religious conviction, to provide transgender surgeries to all patients who request such services. . .

This is not just a story about the Democratic Party’s undeniable disdain for religion and its ongoing war against Judeo-Christian morality. It is not just another sad tale of the progressive left’s relentless attack on our Constitution and its enumerated First Amendment rights. No, this is not just another chapter in the ongoing saga of cultural elites presuming to push their moral nihilism on all of American society. There is another common theme here that is even more disturbing and sinister. . .

At its core, Mr. Biden’s attack on Christian doctors and Catholic hospitals is a story about the left’s hatred of people. It is a story about misogynists who deny women are real. It is a story about misandrists who declare all men to be toxic. It is a story about misopedists who seek to disavow children of their innocence and even take their lives. At rock bottom, this is a story about misanthropy: the general hatred, dislike and contempt of the human species, so much so, that you will deny the very definition of what it means to be a human being.

It is now an irrefutable fact. The Democrats and their socialist Squad hate humanity. They hate boys so much that they teach them it’s better to be a girl, and a little nip and tuck can make it so. They hate girls so much that they tell them they can no longer have their own showers, toilets and sports. They hate women so much that they deny the female is even a fact. They hate men so much that they declare masculinity to be a social disease. . .

Maybe these champions of science should stop denying science, and maybe in their march against hate, they should admit it’s nothing short of hateful to force Christian physicians to castrate little boys and Catholic hospitals to sexually mutilate adolescent girls. (Read more from “Revealing Biden’s Hatred of Humanity and Religion” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.