1. Intro (0:00) 2. Federal 2022 election – the corrupted AEC – volunteers (0:58) 3. Empower yourself – STAND UP! (10:03) 4. The ‘Golden’ future – collapsing the old system – WHO (11:43) 5. Community – detaching from the 3D lifestyle – Natural Health (13:42) 6. Recovery process – we’ve been attacked on every level (15:19) 7. Retribution – no excuses – the punishment must fit the crime (17:23) 8. US Second Amendment (19:57) 9. Military perspective as former SAS Soldier (20:27) 10. ADF medical experiments – Justice for (UK & US) Veterans (23:13) 11. Masonic penetration and criminal cover-ups (28:43) 12. Lifetime of LIES – the corporate pyramids (33:59) 13. The Spiritual journey – unlocking your truth (36:39) 14. The next 6 months – get prepared – building the Ark (40:43) 15. A1’s role – the educative process and 100-year plan (43:43) 16. WWI – the turn of an era and destruction of history (46:18) 17. Message to the Australian people (49:03) 18. What to do in the short-term – connect with local Community (55:33) 19. Strength of the A1 family (58:22)
Kris Kobach, the Republican candidate for attorney general of Kansas, told Breitbart News that, if elected as the state’s chief legal officer, he would file lawsuits against the Biden administration, end fees for concealed carry permits, and prosecute cases of election fraud.
“On day one, I would set up a special litigation unit to bring some of these lawsuits against the Biden administration,” Kobach said on Thursday’s edition of the Breitbart News Daily podcast with host Alex Marlow. “Texas is the model state. Texas is the one state that’s kind of carrying the rest of the country on its shoulders when it comes to bringing lawsuits against Joe Biden and his administration. They brought more than 20 lawsuits altogether.”
He continued, “Number two, one thing I intend to do is is to make concealed carry permits free. South Dakota did this in March, and I think Kansas and the other states should follow suit. You think about it. We don’t pay a fee to the state to exercise our First Amendment rights to have this discussion on radio. We don’t pay a fee to the state to go to church. Why should we pay a fee to the state to exercise our Second Amendment freedoms? You can still do the training, but not have to pay to exercise that freedom.”
“Another thing is prosecuting election fraud,” Kobach added. “When I was Secretary of State in Kansas, we had a bill that gave both the attorney general and the secretary of state the authority to prosecute election fraud at the state level. It’s the only state in the country that has this, and as attorney general, I would resume the use of that authority. … In the other 49 states, you only have that authority at the county level, and many county prosecutors either are politically unwilling, or because of their lack of experience in the area, unwilling to venture into that area of prosecution.”
Kobach described Kansas’s proposed constitutional amendment regarding abortion, which was defeated by statewide vote on Thursday, as a necessary correction to a previous decision by the state’s supreme court.
“The vote was on an amendment to simply say that there is no constitutional right to an abortion in the state constitution, and the legislature retains the ability to impose regulations on abortion,” Kobach explained. “The reason that was necessary was because in 2019 our very activist Kansas Supreme Court issued an erroneous decision, creating out of thin air an abortion right in our constitution, which is 170-years-old, that is even more extensive than the Roe v. Wade federal abortion right was, and the constitutional amendment of the people of Kansas in their legislature was necessary to correct that error.”
He continued, “Why did the result happen? It was about a 59-percent ‘no’ to 41-percent ‘yes.’ I believe the reason was the Vote No campaign. The pro-abortion side did a very skilled and effective job of confusing the issue. They were putting signs up that said, ‘Stop The Mandate.’ There was no mandate in this, but they were they were trying to play on the emotional response of the conservatives, and it worked. I know conservatives who were confused about what the amendment did. ‘Stop The Ban,’ as if there was a ban on abortion in the amendment. Of course, that was false, as well. One thing that’s true across the world is when there’s a referendum on some initiative or change, if you can confuse the voters, they will reflexively vote ‘no,’ and that’s exactly what happened here. So I don’t think the left should take this as some huge sign that America wants expansive abortion rights or that America is angry over the demise of Roe versus Wade.”
Kobach said former President Donald Trump’s successful nominations of justices to the U.S. Supreme Court and judges in other federal courts created opportunities for conservative litigators — particularly attorneys general — to contest the legality of many Biden administration policies.
“It’s not just the Supreme Court, which has handed down some truly amazing landmark decisions, but it’s the lower courts, as well,” Kobach stated of recent years. “President Trump’s greatest gift to the country, in my opinion, was the Supreme Court and lower federal judges that he appointed, and given the fact that we have a Biden administration that is actively undermining — or even breaking — the law on the case of immigration, ordering ICE agents and border patrol agents to break the law, we have a situation where the best resort we have — the one that is most effective — is to go to court and seek injunctions to stop the Biden administration.”
He went on, “That’s why I think these attorney general races are so critically important right now. Texas has brought more than 20 [lawsuits against the Biden administration], but there’s only so many lawsuits that one state can bring, and that’s why I’m hoping that if I’m elected as Kansas attorney general, Kansas can come, bring some reinforcements, not just for our two states, but for the entire country.”
“It is an exciting time to be an attorney, and as someone who used to teach constitutional law as a law professor, it’s an exciting time to be in front of the federal courts, and hopefully in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, because we have a court that’s willing to address these tough issues like Roe versus Wade, which was on our books for so long and so wrong,” he remarked.
He concluded, “Similarly, this awesome decision in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association case … really restores the Second Amendment to its status as not just any written right in the Constitution, but one of the most important rights in the Constitution. It’s a truly encouraging thing that we have a federal judiciary where we can vindicate our constitutional freedoms.”
As various states move to pass controversial new gun control laws after the decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, one such law was just enjoined by a federal court in Colorado. In Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Superior, District Judge Raymond P. Moore granted a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the law enacted by the town of Superior, Colorado to ban on the sale or possession of a wide array of guns.
Under Section 10-9-40, “Possession and sale of illegal weapons,” an “illegal weapon” is defined as “an assault weapon, large-capacity magazine, rapid- fire trigger activator, blackjack, gas gun, metallic knuckles, gravity knife or switchblade knife.” § 10-9-20. An “assault weapon” is then defined as including a semi-automatic center-fire rifle which has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and also has one of a list of enumerated characteristics, a semi-automatic center-fire pistol with any one of certain listed characteristics, a semi-automatic center-fire pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than ten (10) rounds, all semi-automatic shotguns with any one of a list of characteristics, any firearm that has been modified to be operable as an assault weapon, and any part designed to convert a firearm into an assault weapon.
Under the standard for a TRO, the burden is quite high. The challengers must establish
“(1) a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits; (2) irreparable harm unless the injunction is issued; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm that the preliminary injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) that the injunction, if issued, will not adversely affect the public interest.”
Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Jewell, 839 F.3d 1276, 1281 (10th Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted). Even under the standard, Judge Moore found that an injunction is warranted.
Moore, an Obama appointee and the former head Federal Public Defender for Colo. and Wyoming, correctly found that the law clearly ran afoul of the controlling precedent. The Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects arms that are “commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
Judge Moore held that “the Court is sympathetic to the Town’s stated reasoning. However, the Court is unaware of historical precedent that would permit a governmental entity to entirely ban a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether in an individual’s home or in public.”
The Court also notes that the law has bizarre contradictions and a failure to protect citizens who owned such weapons before the critical date or move to the area after the deadline. Accordingly, Judge Moore holds:
“As previously discussed, the Court concludes that the Second Amendment encompasses the conduct addressed by this provision. And, also as previously discussed, the Court is unaware of a historical precedent that would permit the Town of Superior to impose such a regulation that would, in reality, eventually ban all assault weapons. Therefore, despite the Town of Superior’s substantial and legitimate concerns, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim as to this provision.”
As I have previously written, the rush to pass such laws are likely to magnify court losses and expand precedent in favor of gun ownership. States like New York have been bottomless sources of such laws that ultimately curtailed gun control options. This is another example of such impulse-buy legislation that should be welcomed by gun rights groups as easy targets for challenges.
(TLB) published this article from Jonathan Turley with our appreciation for this perspective.
Header featured image (edited) credit: Injunction doc/www.flsa6.gov/injunctions
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, University of Chicago, and other schools.
After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
The hours of footage provides a further look at the chaotic response to the shooting where hundreds of law enforcement officers massed but then waited to confront the gunman even after a child trapped with the shooter called 911.
The footage was released along with an in-depth investigative report from the Texas House Investigative Committee (HIC). The more than 70-page report provides a detailed look at the timeline of the day of the shooting.
The gunman fired approximately 142 rounds inside the building — and it is “almost certain” that at least 100 shots came before any officer entered, according to the report, which laid out numerous failures. Among them:
No one assumed command despite scores of officers being on the scene.
The commander of a Border Patrol tactical team waited for a bulletproof shield and working master key for a door to the classrooms that may have not even been needed, before entering.
A Uvalde Police Department officer said he heard about 911 calls that had come from inside the rooms, and that his understanding was the officers on one side of the building knew there were victims trapped inside. Still, no one tried to breach the classroom.
After Eli Dickens stopped a mass shooter this weekend at an Indiana mall, left-leaning outlets began churning out pieces arguing that “good guys with guns” are rare. Now, I don’t know a single pro-gun advocate who claims constitutional carry is a panacea. The nihilistic mass-shooter problem is crying out for a holistic societal remedy. There is no one solution. But it’s clear from the very statistics offered in pieces like this one from the New York Times (which generously quotes me) that concealed carry saves lives.
1. Eli Dicken is an absolute badass. The 22-year-old reportedly took down the shooter with eight of 10 shots just 15 seconds after the incident began from 40 yards, showing more bravery and composure than the hundreds of cops milling around while students were being slaughtered in a Uvalde school.
2. The only reason Dicken was armed with a 9-millimeter at the Greenwood mall is that Indiana had recently passed a permitless carry law, which removed license requirements for handgun carriers (though gun buyers still go through the usual FBI background check, a fact omitted in many news stories.) One can assume that Dicken would not have brought any weapon with him had it been illegal to do so, but that the killer, Jonathan Douglas Sapirman, would have shown up with his 100 rounds, two ARs, and a pistol regardless of how forcefully the signs in the mall informed him that he was in a gun-free zone.
3. The New York Times refers to Dicken’s shooting as a “statistical unicorn.” But is it? “An examination of 433 active shooter attacks in the United States between 2000 and 2021,” writes the Times, “showed that only 22 ended with a bystander shooting an attacker, according to data from the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University.”
Only 22 of 433 incidents is 5 percent — which translates to a significant number of lives saved. Or, put it this way: The lives saved by bystanders taking down shooters are as, or more, effective than any Democrat-led policy effort on gun safety.
When The Washington Post fact-checkers looked at 41 of the most deadly mass shooting since 2015, they could come up with only two instances where “universal background checks” might have averted a shooting. The Post’s claim is debatable in both instances because unlike the shooters who are killed by bystanders, we have no idea what alternative actions would-be mass shooters might take. But, for the sake of argument, let’s concede that “universal background checks” stopped just under 5 percent of the worst mass shootings (there is no reason to believe the percentage rises with a bigger sample size). Would the Times categorize the policy’s effectiveness as a “statistical unicorn”? Unlikely.
4. But even the Times’ 5 percent number is misleading. Many, probably most, planned mass shootings happen in places where citizens are forbidden by law to carry guns for self-protection. How many of these rampages would be stopped — or more quickly ended — if teachers or movie theater patrons or mallgoers were allowed to legally carry weapons? The number is surely more than 5 percent. Maybe a lot more.
5. Adam Skaggs, chief counsel and policy director at Giffords, told the Times that good guys with guns are “exceedingly rare” and “the exception rather than the rule. The reality is that more people carrying guns means more conflicts escalating into deadly violence and more people being shot and killed.”
That is not the reality. There is little correlation between high levels of gun ownership and criminality. There are counties where gun ownership is widespread and there is little criminality, and there are urban areas where the percentage of gun ownership is low and there is exceedingly high criminality, and there are places with low gun ownership and low criminality. But the reality is guns exist in this country. Hundreds of millions of them. Society should be incentivizing responsible ownership and punishing irresponsible ownership. It’s unfathomable that we strip people of the ability to protect themselves.
Carl Paladino, a Republican congressional candidate in New York, is planning to file a lawsuit against Gov. Kathy Hochul and the state legislature to stop a new state gun law, which passed last week and which he said is “twice as bad” as the one the U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down.
The law prohibits gun owners from possessing a firearm in a long list of “sensitive” locations, including schools, churches, libraries, concerts, and protests.
The also law requires people who apply for firearm licenses to provide four character references and submit a list of their social media accounts from the past three years. The latter provision, however, could face challenges under the First Amendment as well as the Second Amendment.
“Can you imagine how the licensing entity could possibly investigate all that for the millions of gun owners that we have in the state of New York? Can you imagine the actual implementation of such ridiculousness? And they want you to disclose who your family members are. And they basically want to deprive you of your First Amendment right to free speech,” Paladino said, telling The Federalistthat he is funding the lawsuit himself.
Paladino said that after the Supreme Court declared New York’s previous gun law unconstitutional, Democrats “came back with a vengeance and passed a law that’s twice as bad as the original law.” In response to the ruling from the high court, the state legislature called an extraordinary session to pass the anti-gun bill, which Hochul signed into law on July 1.
Despite his criticism of the law, Paladino supports some of its increased restrictions, such as “training and more in-depth background checks,” which he called “reasonable under the circumstances.”
Olivia Hajicek is an intern at The Federalist and a junior at Hillsdale College studying history and journalism. She has covered campus and city news as a reporter for The Hillsdale Collegian. You can reach her at email@example.com.
In a bizarre move, Lake County State’s Attorney Eric Rinehart told the public and the press on Wednesday that he believes red flag laws in Illinois are “strong” even though the state with some of the strictest gun laws in the country failed to stop a 21-year-old shooter from murdering seven people at a July 4 parade and injuring at least 30 more.
While announcing seven counts of first-degree murder charges against Robert Crimo III for attacking paradegoers in Highland Park, Illinois, over the long weekend, Rinehart praised his state’s gun laws and called for a national ban on certain types of firearms.
“Illinois has a strong red flag law that keeps the community safe and respects everyone’s rights. We must vastly increase awareness and education about this red flag law called the Illinois Firearm Restraining Order,” Rinehart said.
According to Rinehart, the red flag law was designed to “ensure the safety of the individual and those around them” by confiscating guns and preventing certain people from buying guns.
“It allows individuals to stabilize their treatments — excuse me, stabilize their behavior — seek treatment, and access other resources that our community must invest in to give those who need help,” Rinehart continued. “Separate from these red flag laws, which are very powerful in Illinois, we should also ban assault weapons in Illinois and beyond.”
All the stereotypical warning signs designed to trigger some sort of intervention were there. Crimo had a troubled history of posting violent content online that “reflected a plan and a desire to commit carnage for a long time in advance.” He had mental health issues that culminated in an attempted suicide in April 2019. He also had multiple run-ins with local law enforcement, who, at one point, communicated their concerns about him to state police. Yet he still freely carried out a horrific act.
Rinehart’s anti-gun tirade doesn’t make sense unless you come to terms with the fact that his plea for national gun-grabbing is a solely political talking point, not one that is designed to effect change that would actually stop bloodthirsty villain wannabes in their tracks.
Even if “assault weapons” were magically wiped off the face of the earth, as Rinehart seemed to suggest, who is to say that a clearly disturbed individual such as Crimo wouldn’t have come at the July 4 crowd with a knife, dagger, sword or even a vehicle, like the Christmas parade massacre in Waukesha, Wisconsin?
After all, Crimo was in possession of 16 knives, a dagger, and a sword in September 2019 when he threatened to “kill everyone” in his home. Law enforcement confiscated those weapons before returning the knives to the then-teenager’s father who “claimed the knives were his and they were being stored in the individual’s closet for safekeeping.”
Crimo’s father went on to sponsor his son’s December 2019 application for a firearm owner identification card, which is required for gun possession by the state of Illinois, and the state police (yes, the same department that knew Crimo was deemed a “clear and present danger”) approved it.
But even if Crimo’s dad hadn’t sponsored the application or the state police had rejected it, there was nothing stopping him from purchasing more blades or seeking out guns from the gangs who sustain the massive weapons black market in the crime-ridden Chicago just 20 miles south of his residence in Highland Park.
The warning signs about Crimo were there but the truth of the matter is that no amount of “awareness” about red flag laws or bans on “assault weapons” will stop criminals with detailed plans to hurt, kill, and destroy.
Recall that 14 Republicans in the Senate and 14 Republicans in the House recently voted to push gun restrictions like those found in Illinois in other states. They claimed that these laws would make communities safer and prevent future tragedies like previous shootings Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas. But they were clearly wrong.
There’s nothing praiseworthy about red flag laws or gun control when one of the strictest firearm regulatory states repeatedly failed to stop Crimo from carrying out a tragic and fatal attack. Begging for the federal government to remove Americans’ option to protect themselves against freaks doesn’t stop shootings, it disarms law-abiding Americans and leaves too much room for bureaucratic error.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.