WND Exclusive – 2nd Amendment: What does ‘bear Arms’ really mean?

from Brent Smith for World Net Daily:

Well, our vaunted United States Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case regarding the Second Amendment.

This is pretty uncommon, but it does happen – mostly because the Supremes over the years haven’t dared to actually do their jobs to the fullest, so their decisions seem to encompass a narrow scope and half-measures, never fully putting to bed that the Second Amendment clearly gives the right of an individual to “keep,” which means to own, and “bear,” which means to carry, arms on one’s person.

The Second Amendment makes no distinction between open and concealed carry, and thus any argument against either is moot. Nor does it make mention of licenses and/or permits, which is what this upcoming case is about, so these, too, are moot. read more

A Perilous Precedent has been Set by the Supreme Court

by: Brent Smith

I agree 100% with the author, Jerome Michaels, regarding this topic. It does seem that our United States supreme Court has abandoned us, and more importantly, abandoned their sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution. Because of their non-decision regarding the 2020 election States vs States case, our nation may be irreparably harmed.

And all, in my opinion and his, to avoid making the right choice to at least hear what the plaintiff States had to say for themselves. But no, they punted instead, or more appropriately, as referees, just called the game entirely before the clock even ran out.

But hey, look at size of their building. Must be plenty of places to hide!

from the American Thinker:

A Supreme Court in Hiding is Dangerous for Our Country

In accordance with Art VI of the Constitution, every sitting Supreme Court justice has taken an oath swearing that he or she will “support this Constitution.” The Constitution the justices have sworn to protect is predicated upon free and fair elections so that the government reflects the will of the People. When the justices refuse to protect election integrity, they are violating their sworn oath and putting our constitutional republic at grave risk. read more

Illegals Will Not be Counted for Congressional Redistricting

by: Brent Smith

How is this even a thing – the fact that we would even consider counted illegal aliens for Congressional redistricting.

And the fact that the Supremes just tossed the democrat appeal instead of just ruling that illegal immigrants, are by their name, illegal, and should not be in the country, which means they can’t be counted for anything and anytime.

So, while this is good news, it ain’t great news.

from the Daily Caller:

Supreme Court Rules Against Counting Illegal Immigrants For Congressional Redistricting

(Photo by Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images) read more

Unconstitutional Election Fraud – Brought to you by the State of Pennsylvania

by: Brent Smith

For anyone, like me, who considers themselves a “constitutional” conservative, this election has been infuriating. We can hear and see the fraud. We know none of this passes our smell test. But possibly the most frustrating is the State of Pennsylvania.

Officials and courts, including even the Pennsylvania supreme Court, committed fraud against the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by changing the rules of how elections must be run, when they are to be and what a “legal” vote is. This is indisputable.

Mark Levin discusses the many fraudulent facets of this most recent election, and that despite the left’s insistence upon safety due to COVID, most of these violations and usurpations of the State and federal constitutions were instituted well before anyone knew there was such thing as this coronavirus.

from Mark Levin:

read more

If it Happens – Fear Biden’s First 100 Days

by: Brent Smith

The first 100 days – road sign

Decision Desk HQ and Business Insider called the presidential race for Joe Biden on Friday morning, after declaring Biden the winner of Pennsylvania.

They said the reason they called it is they simply followed the data.

I agree. The hard data should be followed. And under normal circumstances this would be fine. If Biden won fair and square, than that’s it.

But there has been just too much crap going on to simply trust “the data.”

I’m sure we’re all familiar with the term “garbage in – garbage out” – that the results of, say a computer model, is only as good as what is inputted. read more

What was it that Ginsburg said?

by: Brent Smith

Let’s play a “did she say it” game. Ready?

Number one:

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being the president in his last year,” Ginsburg said in a 2016 New York Times interview in which she called for Merrick Garland to receive a confirmation vote in the Senate.

She then added as to whether the Senate should take up a vote on Garland, Ginsburg said at the time, “That’s their job.”

And now number two:

“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed,” Ginsburg told Clara Spera in the days before her death, NPR reported.

“Is this a trick question,” most would say. I mean, it says right there that Ginsburg said them both.” read more

Levin is Right (Again) – He is a Disgrace

In one respect, this kind of isn’t news – or at the very least, nothing new. John Roberts has been an enemy of the Constitution for years. My opinion is that he is more of a political animal than a judge.

from the Daily Caller:

‘He’s A Disgrace’: Conservatives Turn On Chief Justice Roberts

  • Conservatives are turning against Chief Justice John Roberts after the Supreme Court justice sided with liberal judges in a monumental abortion ruling.
  • Roberts sided with liberal members of the Court in the close 5-4 ruling, saying “the Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons.”
  • “Roberts has destroyed any credibility the Court may have had,” tweeted talk show host Mark Levin. “He’s a disgrace.”

Conservatives are turning against Chief Justice John Roberts after the Supreme Court justice sided with liberal judges in a monumental abortion ruling.

Roberts sided with liberal members of the Court in the close 5-4 ruling, writing that “the Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons.”

Pro-lifers and conservatives alike had anxiously awaited Roberts’s decision on the landmark abortion ruling, worrying that Roberts might side with the liberal justices based on his votes earlier in June. read more

Video Podcast – Racism Must be Eradicated – We’ve Flipped 180 Degrees – Supreme Corruption

by: Brent Smith

The nation seems resigned to ridding itself of all offensive history. So down come the Statues and portraits. But what about president Obama? Shouldn’t he then also be wiped away? After all, he has slave owners in his family tree. If they’re serious, Obama must also go.

The nation, it seems is experiencing a total polar shift, but it’s not North is South. It’s bad is good, good is bad, criminal is victim, victim is criminal, man is woman, etc.

This is what the left and now the BLM/Antifa movement have done. And we’ve allowed it. We’ve allowed a tiny slice of radical America to control a silent majority.

And it’s our fault. We, through our silence, our cowardice and virtue signaling, have allowed this other virus to flourish. And the only vaccine is to stand up, throw away your white guilt and just say no – we will not be a party to it.

John Roberts is at it again – telling the president what he can’t do with the authority clearly granted to the executive. He can’t rescind DACA, because five justices say so.

But what Alexander Hamilton, the musical hero of the left have to say about the judiciary’s power?

Let’s find out.
read more

Turns Out Gorsuch is Just Another Black-Robed Legislator

from the American Thinker:

Et tu, Gorsuch?

Et tu, Gorsuch?  A little over three years into a lifetime appointment, and he’s already speaking for Justice Ginsburg when it comes to matters of transsexualism and forgotten all about Justice Scalia’s textualism.

No matter how hard we try, our “conservative” judges belly-flop into “strict constructionist” poseurs and weak-kneed judicial activists faster than Chief Justice Roberts can rewrite Obamacare into a tax.  I mean, you try to keep these “originalist” jurists on a philosophically sound path.  You teach them “right” from “wrong.”  You instill in them a respect for the law and the importance of always telling the truth.  You can’t be with them all the time, though.  You know they’re being tempted by strange leftists to rule by emotion and always let the “ends justify the means,” but you tell yourself, “we can count on a judge described by many as Justice Scalia’s natural successor, right?”  Right? read more

Embarrassingly Supreme Disappointment

from Conservative Review:

Horowitz: Conservatives get massacred by fake ‘conservative’ SCOTUS

U.S. Supreme Court

Phil Lewis | Getty Images

Within 35 minutes today at 10 a.m. Eastern, what some thought was the most conservative Supreme Court of all time concocted a fundamental right to transgenderism in the context of labor law, erased the Second Amendment, and interfered with a state death penalty case, but declined to interfere with a California law that criminalizes law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration agents.

Taken in totality, the “conservative” legal movement, which has promoted the idea of “appointing better judges” rather than fighting the entire concept of judicial supremacism, has failed miserably. This was its Waterloo. read more