A major gun owners’ civil rights victory in court!  Here’s the overview from Second Amendment Foundation executive director Alan Gottlieb: .

Professor John Lott had a piece of that action.  Here is Dr. Lott’s commentary: .

Another voice for truth and justice in this matter was my fellow Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network Advisory Board member Emmanual Kapelsohn.  He writes,

If you haven’t already done so, check out the decision by U.S. District Judge Benitez in the Becerra case, outlawing California’s so-called “Assault Weapons” law. The full decision is available to read on the internet. This is a major 2nd Amendment case. I was a key witness against the law, and my testimony is mentioned about 15 times in the Court’s decision. Thank God for an intelligent, clear-minded and BRAVE judge! Now let’s hope his decision stands up in the appellate courts. The Judge’s reasoning is excellent and legally sound, and should be upheld by this Supreme Court if the State of California’s appeal gets that far.   — Manny Kapelsohn

This case isn’t over, but it has come to a strong and promising position.


  1. It is telling to know that the State of California will do anything to overturn this decision, but at the same time do nothing to address the homelessness, illegal immigration, and violent crime that are forcing people to flee the state.

  2. Judge Benitez certainly kicked the firearms-prohibitionists in the teeth with his ruling. The Anti-American media is buzzing like an overturned beehive. if you do a web search, you will already find hundreds of so-called “news reports” and “opinion pieces” (decrying his ruling) posted by the propagandists of the media.

    Even the left-wing Guardian (of Marxist Doctrine) in the UK is buzzing about it. See this link:

    They are all “up in arms” because there is a Federal Judge who takes the 2nd Amendment seriously as a protected Constitutional Right. How DARE HE?

    They are all out howling at the moon over it.

    The leftists are so used to always having their own way that they go “crazy” if anyone dares to spear one of their “Sacred Cows”. The doctrine that modern sporting rifles (labeled as “assault weapons” by the Left) are effectively “weapons of mass-destruction” and “ought to be banned off of the face of the Earth” is one such sacred cow to which every gun-grabber swears allegiance.

    The true facts about such firearms, which (as the Judge noted) contradicts such hyperbole, matters not a whit to them. Their left-wing fantasy world trumps the real world every-time.

    Facts have never mattered to ideological zealots!

    • The most interesting thing to me about those “hundreds of so-called “news reports” and “opinion pieces” (decrying his ruling) posted by the propagandists of the media” is what they say vs. what they DON’T say.

      They’ve all glommed onto Judge Benitez’s Swiss Army Knife comparison and are falling over themselves screaming about how “an AR-15 is NOT a Swiss Army Knife”, and completely missing the metaphor.

      However, looking at the opinion, that comparison is literally the first sentence, on Page 1. The rest of the ruling is extremely thorough, citing known facts, statistical analysis, academic research, and good old-fashioned Constitutional law. He even correctly cites the spirit of U.S. v. Miller!

      (In essence, Miller states that weapons suitable for militia use are explicitly protected by the Second Amendment. Miller’s error was finding that the specific SBS in question was NOT suitable for militia use and therefore not protected. The Left’s claims that militia-suitable weapons aren’t protected, misquote the ruling.)

      But by not addressing all that red meat and limiting the analysis and commentary to the first sentence, the freedom-hating Left is exposing that they likely haven’t read any of the ruling past that first line.

      Alternatively — but not any more promising for the future of “gun control” — they read the rest but cannot refute it. All they can do is try and ridicule it.

      Personally, I suspect this was intentional on the part of Judge Benitez. What better way to make enemies of liberty self-identify as having not read the ruling, than by putting something “outrageous” in the first line that they can focus their hate on?

      But that’s just my opinion, worth every penny you’re paying for it. 😉

  3. Hello, Mas.

    Shortly after the very positive news of your appointment as President of the Second Amendment Foundation following the significant loss of SAF founder Joseph Tartaro , I invested in a SAF life membership based entirely in my confidence in your leadership, experience and perspective on the topic.

    If it’s not too much trouble, could you share how much of a lifetime membership fee and any additional contributions are used for these types of meaningful second amendment protections(legal fees) of our freedoms as opposed to unrelated overhead cost?

      • Got it for you. Audit shows the following disbursements for Second Amendment Foundation:
        Public Education 49.48%
        Legal Action 23.25%
        Fund Raising 21.63%
        Management 5.64%

  4. This may seem off-topic but, really, it is not.

    I recently watched an old western on TV. It was “The Missouri Breaks” from 1976, It is one of the “revisionist” westerns that started to appear in the 1960-70’s. About the time that the American Left truly assumed total control of Hollywood.

    One characteristic of these revisionist westerns is the corruption of the characters in their plots. For example, there is not a single decent human-being depicted in The Missouri Breaks. The leader of the local ranchers is depicted as an egomaniac fascist who takes the law into his own hands. Basically, what the American Left imagines President Trump would be like as a rancher if he had lived 135 years ago. This rancher is plagued by “rustlers” so he hires a “regulator” to control them. This regulator is a cold-blooded murderer and a psychopath. The rustlers are depicted as bungling thieves and robbers who stoop to cold-blooded murder themselves. The women in the film are all depicted as prostitutes or sluts.

    As I noted, there is not a single decent human-being in the entire film.

    Prior to the Left assuming total control of Hollywood, westerns used to have a clear moral stance. It was good versus evil. After the Left took over, it was pure evil everywhere. Why is that?

    It is because the western shaped the view of America by Americans and by much of the rest of the World. Americans were “Good Guys” who fought against evil. The American Left represents pure hatred. Hatred of America. Hatred of the American People. Hatred of the common man. Even when the Left claims to champion a segment of the population, say African Americans, they actually hate them. There has been no group of people, on Earth, more abused and degraded, by the Democrats and the American Left, then African Americans. From slavery to the KKK to Jim Crow to the current welfare state/destruction of African American family life, the Democrats have had their knee on the neck of African Americans for almost 200 years. So long, in fact, that an abusive relationship has developed. Like a wife consumed with a desire to cling to and serve her abusive husband, most African Americans cling to and seek to serve, with their votes and support, the Democrat Party.

    If, as the Good Book says, “God is Love” then the “American Left is Hate”. The Leftists even hate themselves. This is why their Hollywood movies are always filled with loathsome, despicable characters. Their movies are a mirror. A reflection of their own, hate-filled souls and their own corruption.

    In practical terms, the American Left hates the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it is an obstacle to their assumption of total power. However, they also hate it because they hate America, and the 2nd Amendment is a core “American” Right. It is a Right that you will not find anywhere else in the World. Not in the Constitutions of other countries nor in the declarations of the United Nations. The Left’s hatred of the 2nd Amendment is a part of, and a cornerstone of, their hatred for America itself.

    Having watched the American Left in action all the long decades of my life, I can honestly say that I have never seen (nor can I imagine) a more hate-filled people then the segment of the American Population that forms the American Left.

    The fires of their own hatred will eventually consume the American Left. History shows that all such hate-filled regimes (like the Nazis) are eventually consumed by their own hatred. My worry is that, when the American Left goes down in flames, they will set America on fire too even as they fall.

    • Sounds like all the bad characters in that movie must be white people 🙂 I may have to do the chameleon thing and change my color so I won’t be cancelled by The Squad and their Communist cronies.

      • @ Tom606 – “Sounds like all the bad characters in that movie must be white people.”

        You are correct! Every character in this movie is white and every one is despicable.

        Hollywood has always been racist, but they are not consistently so. They shift targets over time. At various times, Hollywood has given us racist depictions of African Americans, Native Americans, Jews, and Latinos. During WW II, racist depictions of Asians, particularly Japanese, reached a peak.

        Since the Civil Rights Movement and the associated Left-Wing PC Movement, of the 1960’s, the racists in Hollywood have had to be more careful about their target selection. So, for about the last 50 years, they have vented their poisonous, racist hatred at the only safe target remaining: The White Race.

      • TN_MAN:

        I could see it now, the new, revised Lone Ranger being a black or Hispanic dude, while Tonto could remain an Indian or maybe an Asian guy, or even a tattooed lesbian. Every evil villain and slutty saloon whore would be white. I’m still waiting for the darker Superperson to arrive on the big screen. Welcome to the New Follywood Order.

    • What I remember best about that movie is the moral of jack Nicholson shooting another bad guy in both feet and not following up, which of course backfires on old Jack in the end. Hoping that certain of our low officials in high places have seen the movie, learned the moral of not just wounding lethal, sworn enemies by shooting in the feet from ambush, and do not recommend foot-shooting as a policing tactic.
      I was on the ground floor to see the considerable flow of criminals from Cuba among the Jimmy Carter/Mariel boat lift people in 1980. The current invasions look like magnitudes of greater difficulty for our security people, and too likely for the rest of us.

  5. The little on the opinion I was initially able to find online seemed to show that the Judge hewed closely to the heightened scrutiny of rights infringement SCOTUS cited in Heller/McDonald (little confusion on my part on which case that appeared in). As he did in striking down the magazine capacity limit, he seems to have followed Justice Alito’s reasoning closely and documented how his reasoning followed that decision. Strictly on legal grounds, should be hard to overturn.

  6. This ruling will be appealed by CA as far as possible to get it reversed. However it ends up, the factual statements made by the Judge are now in the public domain. That in itself is a major victory.

  7. I encourage everyone to read the full decision. Read more than just the sound bites we are so familiar with in the news.

    It is heartwarming to see it all laid out in such detail. And most with easily understandable language and clear suporting examples.

    Every time I thought he missed something it showed up a bit further on …

    I expect the 9th (in spite of recent additions) will not let it stand. Why bother waiting? Give them a buy.. Just have SCOTUS afirm or deny now, if the care.

    The answer is a chance stack the court to program for liberal success while the 9th mules around with it. (Well, in addition to the usual mundane factors of legal protocal and giving the ‘esteemed’ 9th their theoretically unbiased crack at analysis of the legal and other minutiae)

  8. I note in passing that Judge Benitez is senior United States District Judge, appointed by George W. Bush in 2004. The interesting part is that he was born in Havana, Cuba.

    Maybe he knows something about freedom others don’t?

  9. Re: “Heightened scrutiny”. If the the courts consistently held Second Amendment cases to a ‘strict scrutiny’ standard of examination – the standard to which all the other rights amendments are held – *all* firearms laws and regulations would be unconstitutional. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

  10. HALLELUJAH! I applaud Judge Benitez for having the courage to stand up against the Left and the cancel culture. Hopefully, God and good citizens will protect him against the slings and arrows which are sure to be aimed at him now.

    This is indeed a victory, but it doesn’t change our stance. If the courts rule in our favor, we hang on to our guns. If the courts rule against us, we still hang on to our guns.

  11. Most Americans, indeed most ordinary people around the World, don’t have a clue about what is really going on here in the 21st Century.

    Perhaps this article will open some eyes:

    Note that this article contains links to two videos. The first (by Tucker Carlson) is short but makes a good point.

    However, the really important video is the second one done by the Dutch woman. It is a fairly long video (45 Min.) but it contains CRITICALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION about what is actually going on behind the curtain of media lies and propaganda. The woman, narrating this video, is Toto and she grabs the curtain in her teeth and gives it a good pull so that you can see the wizard behind it!

    I URGE every reader of this blog to read this article but, especially, to take the time to view the second video. This video will open the eyes of anyone who does not already possess a closed mind.

    • Being Toto in this case may be very dangerous. Nancy Pelosi, aka the equally ugly W.W.W. would say, “I’ll get you… and your little dog too!”

      • @ Tom606 – The full quote from the W.W.W. is, perhaps, even more telling:

        “Very well — I’ll bide my time — and as for you, my fine lady, it’s true, I can’t attend to you here and now as I’d like, but just try to stay out of my way….. — just try! I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little dog, too!”

        This dialog would fit any one of the Left’s Witches – Pelosi, Harris, any member of the “squad” or, of course, the Hildabeast! 🙂

      • Yup, that sounds like Nancy and her fellow harpies and witches. Grendel’s mother has nothing over them.

    • Here is another article that makes an interesting point. It is also “eye opening” to anyone who has not been brainwashed, by the Anti-American Media, to consider any type of non-PC thinking as being just another Right-Wing conspiracy theory:

      Something is seriously WRONG folks! How much more will it take before the American People will wake up and hear the alarm bells?

  12. LA Times
    Overturning California’s assault weapon ban was wrong. But it may be on solid legal ground
    George Skelton
    Mon, June 14, 2021, 5:00 AM·5 min read

    Gavin Newsom

    Roger Benitez
    A TPM Arms LLC California-legal featureless AR-15 style rifle is displayed for sale at the company's booth at the Crossroads of the West Gun Show at the Orange County Fairgrounds on June 5, 2021 in Costa Mesa, California. – Gun sales increased in the US following Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns. On June 4, a San Diego federal court judge overturned California's three-decade old ban on assault weapons, defined as a semiautomatic rifle or pistol with a detachable magazine and certain features, but granted a 30-day stay for a State appeal and likely future court decisions on the constitutionality of the ban under the Second Amendment. An industry of California legal "featureless" or "compliant" AR-15 style rifles developed for California consumers, adapting to the law with design changes to the popular rifle. (Photo by Patrick T. FALLON / AFP) (Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images)
    A TPM Arms LLC California-legal featureless AR-15-style rifle is displayed for sale at the company’s booth at the Crossroads of the West Gun Show on June 5 at the Orange County Fairgrounds in Costa Mesa. (Patrick T. Fallon / AFP via Getty Images)
    Gov. Gavin Newsom thinks the federal judge who tossed out California’s assault weapons ban is “a wholly owned subsidiary of the gun lobby and the National Rifle Assn.”

    Last year, the same judge blocked California’s attempt to require background checks for ammunition buyers.

    The fact that San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez chose National Gun Violence Awareness Day to release his latest pro-gun ruling “says everything about his character,” the governor asserted last week at a San Francisco news conference as state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta served notice he’s appealing the case.

    “Shameful. Shameful in every way, shape or form.”

    OK. Those are harsh words — unusually strong by a governor attacking a judge. They vented steam and pleased gun control advocates at a time when Newsom is trying to shore up his liberal base to fend off a conservative-led recall attempt.

    But the tough rhetoric is essentially powerless.

    The judge’s written opinion, although it began with a nutty comparison of a Swiss Army knife to an AR-15 assault rifle, may be on solid ground concerning a basic point: that what we call assault weapons have become so commonplace they now are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

    “The banned ‘assault weapons’ are not bazookas, howitzers or machine guns,” the judge wrote.

    “Instead, the firearms deemed ‘assault weapons’ are fairly ordinary, popular modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.”

    Despite the state’s three-decade ban on the sale of assault weapons, the judge wrote, an estimated 1 million exist — 5% of California’s total 20-million private firearms arsenal.

    “There are probably more modern rifles in circulation than there are Ford F-150 pickup trucks,” the judge wrote.

    That assault weapons are commonplace is important, Benitez explained, because in a landmark 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case — District of Columbia vs. Heller — the majority’s test for a modern rifle’s 2nd Amendment protection was whether it is “commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for a lawful purpose.”

    “For the AR-15-type rifle, the answer is yes,” the judge ruled.

    In the Heller case, the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that individuals have a constitutional right to bear arms unrelated to militia use.

    But in his 94-page ruling, Benitez failed to quote one key caveat of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion:

    “The right secured by the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited…. The right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

    Newsom contends that the AR-15 is “nothing more than a weapon of war.”

    If so, it presumably wouldn’t be constitutionally protected for private use.

    Benitez himself referred to “a modern rifle” as a military weapon, writing it “can also be useful for war. In fact, it is an ideal firearm for militia service.”

    The AR-15, when equipped with a high-capacity magazine, is a military-style weapon. But it doesn’t quite rise to the Army’s M16 killing capabilities.

    The civilian rifle is semiautomatic, requiring a new squeeze of the trigger for each bullet fired. The military rifle is capable of automatic fire — commonly three-round bursts with one trigger squeeze.

    UC Berkeley law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a widely respected constitutional scholar, believes that the Supreme Court has only protected firearms that were common when the 2nd Amendment was adopted in 1791.

    In a recent Times opinion piece, Chemerinsky quoted the Heller ruling as stating that this constitutional limitation is “supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

    “No one can argue that AR-15-style weapons existed, let alone were in common use, in 1791,” Chemerinsky wrote. “Nor can it be denied that they are very dangerous weapons. This type of semiautomatic weapon has been used in many of the worst mass shootings.”

    But UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, who focuses on the Constitution and 2nd Amendment issues, strongly disagrees with Chemerinsky.

    Winkler interprets both the Heller opinion and a 1939 court ruling — United States vs. Miller — as broadly protecting firearms currently in common use. That ruling regulated sawed-off shotguns and machine guns.

    “Benitez’s opinion was unnecessarily provocative,” Winkler says. “If nothing else, it was totally tone-deaf comparing Swiss Army knives to rifles.”

    But the opinion’s conclusion was “certainly plausible,” Winkler continued. “It’s an opinion that’s likely to win over a number of justices on the Supreme Court.

    “Really, these weapons weren’t commonplace 20 to 30 years ago — and when California’s law was first enacted. But military-style rifles have become quite common.”

    The Supreme Court has presumably become more pro-gun with three appointees by former President Trump. Conservatives now hold a 6-3 majority. Also, the once-liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — where Benitez’s ruling is being appealed — has become more moderate, with several justices named by Trump.

    “It’s likely that the Supreme Court is going to expand 2nd Amendment protections in coming years and that means striking down gun laws,” Winkler says.

    That would mean more gun violence in California, statistics show.

    “What we see is really, really clear,” says Robyn Thomas, executive director of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “States with the strongest gun laws have the lowest gun death rates. It’s indisputable.”

    California’s gun laws are ranked No. 1 by Giffords. The state’s gun death rate is ranked-seventh best — seven fatalities per 100,000 people. Mississippi is ranked last in firearms laws, and its gun death rate is the second-worst — 24 per 100,000.

    “Gun safety saves lives, period, full stop,” Newsom said. “We need to call this federal judge out.”

    Fine. But the judge could have the last word.

    And if he does, it still won’t make a pocketknife equivalent to an assault weapon.

    This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

    • Of course, most left-wing members of the Anti-American Media, like the LA Times, are going to favor a basic, Anti-2nd Amendment stance. A stance to limit the scope of the 2A by any and ever argument that they can muster.

      Of course, they are going to cherry pick the Heller Decision to show (out of context) Anti-2A language and, of course, they are going to misrepresent the meaning of the Miller Decision to suggest that firearms most suitable for War (and, therefore, militia use) are NOT protected by the 2A while Miller actually said the opposite. Miller said that firearms, in common use by civilians, and which were well suited for militia use WERE SPECIFICALLY protected by the 2A. That fits modern AR-Style rifles to a “T”.

      Miller found, despite the use of “Trench Shotguns” in WW I, that a sawed-off shotgun was not suitable for militia use. (One suspects that the SCOTUS court who wrote Miller actually knew little about the use of shotguns in warfare. Sawed-off shotguns were used by some Southern Cavalry Units during the Civil War).

      As for the argument that only firearms in common use when the Constitution was written, more than 200 years ago, are protected by the 2A, it is so ludicrous that I am surprised that the LA Times did not feel foolish in publishing it. Modern computers and the internet did not exist then either. Does that mean that the LA Times no longer has 1st Amendment protections since they now use these modern tools to publish their paper? Does it mean that the Church of the Latter Day Saints has no religious protection, under the 1st Amendment, because that religion did not exist at the time the Constitution was written? Give me a break!

      In fact, the Decision released by Judge Benitez is on very solid legal ground. If the 9th Circuit Court overturns his decision, they will really have to REACH way over to the LEFT to do so. Maybe that will reach and hope that the SCOTUS does not take the case to review.

      Nevertheless, if this case does make it to the SCOTUS, I think that the reasoning of Judge Benitez has a good chance of being found to be correct and on solid Constitutional grounds.

    • RE: Judge Benitez’s “Swiss Army Knife” comparison:

      I’ve said (including here, I think) that I suspect Judge Benitez included that as an intentional troll of the anti-gun/anti-2A/anti-freedom media. He gave them something marginally questionable and outrageous to cling to, so much that not one member of the mainstream media is commenting on the rest of the ruling, which contains a LOT of red meat.

      ALL the Left is talking about is how “an AR-15 is NOT a Swiss Army Knife”. They’re sticking to and ridiculing that one sentence — literally the first sentence in the 94-page ruling — but not even addressing the rest…

      … which makes me think they haven’t read any of it, they were so offended by that one sentence.

      And they’re self-identifying as people who at best read it but can’t refute it, and at worst didn’t read any of it past Page 1.

      I can’t think of any way to get the anti-freedom crowd to self-identify, and at the same time render them unable to substantively respond, than that “Swiss Army Knife” comparison in the first sentence.

      But that’s just my opinion.

      • If the United Nations and the World Community had their way, all guns and knives will be confiscated from the Swiss people, and their citizen army will be issued pepper spray and loud whistles.

  13. Way back on 20JAN2021, I wrote the following words in the blog entitled: A Matter of Trust. This comment was in connection to the so-call “Insurgency and Riot” of January 6th:

    “The Capitol Police had minimal security because they were ordered to do so. This was on purpose. The Left had inserted “Agent Provocateur’s” into the crowd and the minimal security was put in-place to allow them to do their work. Once they provoked the so-call “insurgency and riot”, the Anti-American Media-propaganda machine stepped in to “set the narrative”. The pro-Trump supporters were 99.9 % peaceful but they were “played” by the Left to set the narrative that Trump supporters are dangerous and to provide justification for yet another impeachment push against Trump.”

    Some of the brainwashed pushed back at the above thought. One response was:

    “So the whole Capitol riot was organized by the “Left?” Well that theory is good for a laugh, or a good cry, I don’t know which.”

    Since I can never seem to resist a good opportunity to say “I told you so!”, I feel an overwhelming need to share this story with the readers of this blog:

    I keep hoping and praying that my dire predictions about the totalitarian evil of the Democrats, American Left and Globalists are just paranoid delusions on my part. It would be comforting to think that the problems that I see are limited to just the inside of my own skull.

    Unfortunately, I continually learn that I am (if anything) underestimating the evil and deceit of these totalitarians.

    • Crooked Joe is still spewing out the debunked blatant lie that people who “broke into” the capitol on January 6, 2021 murdered the police officer (who actually died of natural causes the next day). He said this again while in Geneva in a so called press conference after a private meeting with Putin which prevented the public from seeing him verbally beaten like a dirty rug by the Russian dictator. The world is laughing all the way to the bank, at the stupid Americans who put this senile old fool in the White House, with the help of the liberal media and billionaire tech censors.

  14. Boy, I can’t help but be correct today! Here is another “I told you so” moment. Back on 24APR2021, in a blog entitled “More on the Chauvin Case”, I made the following comment:

    “Notice, however, that this is not necessarily the story with the McCloskey couple. They were fairly wealth and, likely, had pretty good political connections. They have managed to get the insane persecutor (excuse me, I mean Prosecutor) removed from their case. Their case has now been re-assigned to a Special Prosecutor who is a professional in the law. See this link:

    Want to bet that, after a suitable cooling off period (to allow this case to drift off of the public’s and the Left’s radar), this Special Prosecutor decides to drop the case without filing charges?”

    I guess that we have “cooled off” enough because, today, we see this:

    One slight variation in my prediction. The Special Prosecutor did not totally dismiss the charges. I guess he felt that would have been too big a step for the Leftists to swallow even if they have cooled a bit. Instead, he dismissed the felony charges and let the McCloskeys plead to a minor misdemeanor charge. So, with a little slap on the wrist, it is all over now. The McCloskeys can now go their merry way. In fact, Mr. McCloskey is hoping to leverage his fame, from this incident, to run for the Senate.

    The rich, well-connected elites are like the family cat. They always land on their feet when they get dropped!

    So far, my crystal ball has been operating on “High Beam” this year! 🙂

    Too bad that my main prediction is for the SHTF in the USA as the Leftists drive us over a cliff during the current Obama/Harris/Biden regime.

    • TN_MAN:

      Don’t fool yourself into thinking you’re a prophet like the benevolent, all knowing Mohammed with your accurate predictions 🙂 You just happen to keep up with current events and have a lot of common sense.

      • @ Roger Willco – To which “ugly truth” do you refer?

        The ugly truth that President Trump’s own FBI, after excusing the criminal actions of Hillary Clinton, conducting illegal surveillance on President Trump (during his campaign and after he was sworn into office), attacking and setting up President Trump’s supporters (Flynn, Stone, etc.) and trying to drive him out-of-office with a phony Russian Hoax investigation, also used undercover agents and informants to lure unwise Trump supporters into criminal actions (entrapment) so that the media could tar all Trump supports as traitors and push for one last impeachment effort?

        Or the ugly truth that the McCloskeys ,after bravely standing up to a Mob that was intent on damaging their home and property, used their “protected status” as wealth elites, to work the System to duck the punishment that the American Left tried to throw their way? In fact, they are seeking to ride their fame to even more political power and wealth.

        Honestly, I don’t blame the McCloskeys all that much. If life hands you a bunch of “lemons” then the wise course is to try to turn them into “lemonade”. All throughout human history, the rich and well-connected end up doing well while the regular “Joe” on the street gets the shaft. There have been a few exceptional periods where, for a short space, this was turned on its head but it is the typical pattern.

        So, which ugly truth? Or did your comment mean to cover both?

Comments are closed.