Blog

The Trump Administration Defends the Federal Ban on Interstate Handgun Sales

A couple of years ago, Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Donald Trump, caused a kerfuffle by erroneously reporting that his boss had bought a Glock pistol while visiting a gun store in Summerville, South Carolina. That claim was striking because it implicated Trump, who was then seeking the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nomination, in a federal crime: Since he was under indictment in state and federal court, he was barred from buying firearms. But even if Trump had not faced felony charges, the transaction that Cheung described would have been illegal because of federal restrictions on interstate handgun purchases.

As a resident of Florida, Trump would not have been allowed to directly buy a pistol from a South Carolina gun dealer. Instead, he would have had to arrange and pay for shipment of the weapon to a licensed dealer in Florida, who could have completed the transaction there, typically in exchange for an additional fee. A lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas takes aim at that rule, arguing that it is inconsistent with the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) says the ban on interstate handgun sales fails the constitutional test that the Supreme Court established in the 2022 case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

As president, Trump now controls the nation’s vast military might, including its nuclear arsenal. But because the dubious New York case against him resulted in felony convictions, he is not allowed to possess firearms, let alone buy new ones. And even if his convictions are overturned on appeal, he still won’t be allowed to buy a handgun in South Carolina or any other state he might visit. His administration, which is avowedly committed to protecting Second Amendment rights, nevertheless is defending that restriction against the FPC’s challenge, saying it “serves legitimate objectives” and “only modestly burdens the right to keep and bear arms.”

That argument sounds suspiciously like the sort of “interest balancing” that the Supreme Court emphatically rejected in Bruen. When a gun restriction affects conduct covered by “the Second Amendment’s plain text,” the Court said in that case, the government has the burden of demonstrating that it is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” That test typically requires identifying historical analogs that are “relevantly similar” in motivation and scope to a challenged law.

Keep reading

Governmental Self-Preservation: Why We’ll Never See The Real Epstein List

If there’s one characteristic that defines Donald Trump it’s his habit of switching his positions on a dime – Leaving many a critic looking rather foolish when they establish an argument against him today, only to discover he mostly agrees with them tomorrow. I’ve learned it’s best to wait a little while before commenting on the man’s policy decisions and allow time for the debate to ferment. After months of deflection and now retraction, the Jeffery Epstein controversy has turned especially ripe.

To understand the chaos surrounding the Epstein issue we have to first recognize that it’s the product of an inherent division within the MAGA movement that needs to be addressed. The campaign to support Trump is built on two groups that intersect but don’t always agree:

1) Average Republicans (and some moderates) who are most concerned with defeating the agenda of leftists and keeping woke activists out of government power.

2) Hardcore conservatives and libertarians from the “conspiracy” end of the movement who are most concerned with defeating the globalist cabal.

I find myself in rooted in both camps and I see both as essential, though it’s clear to me that the goals of the second group are ultimately more important.

To be clear, leftist saboteurs are a legitimate enemy that has been employed as a weapon against the rest of the populace. I’m growing especially tired of the laziness of libertarians who cry “False left/right paradigm!” while forgetting the living hell we all experienced under the reign of Joe Biden and Democrats. The differences between conservatives and leftists cannot be denied.

The country has at least been tolerable under Trump – No more “transing” or grooming of children in schools. No more pride month. No more pandering to DEI. No more open borders. No more federal accusations of conservatives being “terrorists” and a “danger to democracy”. If you can’t at least give some credit for these changes then you’re not a serious person and I have no time for you.

That said, in the end the threat of the political left pales in comparison to the threat presented by the globalists. These are people with a luciferian ideology of self worship and moral relativism and they are in positions of immense power (at least in financial terms). Though their political reputation in the US is faltering, they still have near total control of the narratives in Europe, Australia and Canada, not to mention invasive financial influence throughout most of the world.

Look at it this way: Have you ever heard of a globalist being punished or arrested for their attempts to manipulate and corrupt the social and governmental institutions of any given nation? How many globalist NGOs have been shut down in recent memory? Isn’t the US still pouring tax dollars into globalist institutions like the IMF, BIS (through the Federal Reserve), World Bank, etc.?

Political factions may battle for the minds of the masses and many times these fights are very real, but the globalists always remain in the background watching and waiting for another chance to push civilization further towards their dystopian vision. They don’t care what happens politically as long as their money and influence remain intact. No one ever aims their cannons at the whispering men lurking behind the curtain.

For conservative patriots, dealing with the evils of the political left serves the immediate purpose of treating symptoms, but not the disease. Globalists are a parasitic organism that feeds on humanity, spawning more and more decline and despair as they grow. They must be eliminated from the equation if our future is to ever improve.

Trump has openly admonished the globalists on many occasions and he ran his 2016 and 2024 campaigns on reversing the economic damage they have done. Defeating globalism was a big part of his election platform, it’s undeniable. The problem is, he has consistently backed away from any direct prosecution or punishment of said devils.

Keep reading

Secret Service Official Targeted in Swatting Call

A high-ranking U.S. Secret Service official was targeted by an anonymous swatting call on July 4.

The caller connected with the 911 system in the undisclosed community where the official lives, according to Axios, and claimed someone was running around the official’s home with a gun.

The incident was reportedly revealed on Thursday by Michael Centrella, Secret Service field operations assistant director, at a cybersecurity event in San Francisco.

Centrella told the Deepfake Resilience symposium participants that the Secret Service official is known to the local department where he lives. When the swatting caller described the man’s daughter as the one running around with a gun, local police knew immediately they had a fake call on their hands. He does not have a daughter.

But the issue remained that the caller knew the official’s name and correct home address.

These types of calls are typically intended to create chaos and confusion by prompting a large and well-armed response by police. SWAT (special weapons and tactics) teams are often deployed to respond to calls of someone with a gun, hence the descriptive name, “swatting.”

Swatting calls have been increasing, but so has law enforcement’s response. FBI Director Kash Patel posted about the increase in cases in March.

“The FBI is aware of this dangerous trend, and my team and I are already taking action to investigate and hold those responsible accountable.”

Keep reading

Ukraine Drone ‘Mega Deal’ Possible With US, Zelensky Says

President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky are negotiating what’s being widely dubbed a potential “mega deal” which allows for Ukraine to exchange its growing small drone arsenal and technology for more advanced American weapons.

Reports say that under the scheme the United States would purchase Ukrainian-made drones, while Ukraine would in turn buy American weapons, according to a Zelensky interview with the New York Post. “The American people need this technology—it should be part of your defense arsenal,” Zelensky told the Post.

Ukraine was never much of a drone-producer, but the war with Russia has resulted in the country’s transformation into a small-drone manufacturing powerhouse, now producing millions of small, cheap drones – amid a growing UAV and aerial war which over the past months has seen hundreds exchanged between Russia and Ukraine on a nightly basis.

Apparently US defense planners were impressed by Ukrainian UAVs’ reach and effectiveness particularly during ‘Operation Spiderweb’ – which involved nearly 120 Ukrainian drones disabling or destroying multiple Russian bombers across four different airbases.

The Pentagon recently emphasized the urgent need to scale up drone production, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also calling for more drone training across all branches of the US military. The defense budget for next year will also seek to ramp up America’s small drone warfare readiness.

As for the ‘mega deal’ being teased by Zelensky, it’s anything but certain the degree to which the White House will actually sign on to this. Trump’s emphasis of late has been for NATO’s European members to give up their US-made weapons and transfer them to Ukraine first.

It’s also clear that Ukraine doesn’t have much in the way of weapons or technology to offer Washington, and there are currently many military tech companies and defense contractors which are ramping up small drone production. The tech offered by American firms like Anduril Industries is also without parallel – given AI integration.

Keep reading

Military Bases in Indiana, New Jersey Will Be Converted to Migrant Holding Centers

The Secretary of Defense has confirmed that a military base in Indiana and another in New Jersey will be converted to house detained immigrants who are awaiting deportation.

Since Trump came into office this year, the administration has added sixty facilities to the list of those used to house migrants marked for deportation, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported.

Now, two more are being added to that list. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth supplied a letter to Congress to inform them that Camp Atterbury in central Indiana and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey will be available “for temporary use by the Department of Homeland Security to house illegal aliens,” the Indiana Capital Chronicle reported.

In the letter, Hegseth insisted that turning space over to immigration enforcement “will not negatively affect military training, operations, readiness, or other military requirements, including National Guard and Reserve readiness.”

The timeline to begin shipping migrants to the bases has not been determined.

Camp Atterbury already has facilities to accommodate 7,000 in its dorm-style housing for families, and open barracks for singles. The buildings are equipped with central heating and air conditioning, and bathroom facilities.

Keep reading

How Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence-Based Medicine

I. Introduction

Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) is a relatively recent phenomenon. The term itself was not coined until 1991. It began with the best of intentions — to give frontline doctors the tools from clinical epidemiology to make science-based decisions that would improve patient outcomes. But over the last three decades, EBM has been hijacked by the pharmaceutical industry to serve the interests of shareholders rather than patients.

Today, EBM gives preference to epistemologies that favor corporate interests while instructing doctors to ignore other valid forms of knowledge and their own professional experience. This shift disempowers doctors and reduces patients to objects while concentrating power in the hands of pharmaceutical companies. EBM also leaves doctors ill-equipped to respond to the autism epidemic and unable to produce the sorts of paradigm-shifts that would be necessary to address this crisis.

In this article I will:

  • provide a brief history of EBM;
  • explain how evidence hierarchies work;
  • explore ten general and technical criticisms of EBM and evidence hierarchies;
  • examine the American Medical Association’s 2002, 2008, and 2015 evidence hierarchies;
  • highlight the corporate takeover of EBM; and
  • explore the implications of these dynamics for the autism epidemic.

Keep reading

Senator Mitchell found guilty in burglary trial

Jurors have reached a verdict in the trial of a Minnesota State Senator accused of breaking into her stepmother’s home last spring. 

The jury found Senator Nicole Mitchell (D-Woodbury) guilty of both charges. 

Mitchell was charged with burglary and possession of burglary tools for the April 2024 break-in. Mitchell took the stand in her own defense, saying she was not planning to take anything, but drove to her stepmother’s home dressed in black in the middle of the night to check on her because her stepmother has Alzheimer’s. Prosecutors say she was there to steal, plain and simple. 

Mitchell’s lawyer Dane Dekrey told media after the trial concluded that he is proud of the case even if he disagrees with the guilty verdict. He also said he believes they lost the case due to the original statements made on body camera. 

In those statements made the night she was arrested, Mitchell told police she was at the house to retrieve items of sentimental value, including the ashes of her late father. 

Keep reading

Belmont University Rebrands DEI Program, Defies Trump Executive Orders

Belmont University is in the spotlight after videos surfaced showing top administrative officials discussing how they are defying President Trump’s Executive Orders ending official discrimination based on race and sex.

Townhall reports that it has obtained leaked video of officials at the Nashville, Tennessee-based university bragging that they’ve simply rebranded their Diversity, Equity and Inclusivity (DEI) program as the office of Hope, Unity and Belonging (HUB).

According to Jozef Lukey, Assistant Director of Student Success and Flourishing at Belmont, the secret to not getting caught skirting Trump’s executive orders is to keep everything as quiet as possible while working “to create as an inclusive space as possible.”

Lukey states in one of the videos that Belmont officials try to adapt to what’s happening around them but emphasized that this doesn’t mean that their efforts to promote DEI completely stop.

“No, we’re not going to be out in the news doing all these things, ‘this is how we stand and this is what we stand by.’ No, we’re not going to make any outward statements,” Lukey explained, tacitly admitting that Belmont is working from the shadows to violate the executive order.

However, the university’s name-changing ruse has caught the attention of Representative Andy Ogles (R-TN) represents Tennessee’s 5th Congressional district, which includes Belmont.

Ogles has penned a letter to Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, calling for a full investigation into the the school’s DEI sleight-of-hand as well as urging investigations into other schools that risk potential defunding over their defiance of the president’s orders reining in DEI.

In that letter, Ogles calls for an immediate compliance review, clarified guidance that mere name changes constitute non-compliance and could result in a loss of federal funding and asks the Department of Education to report to Congress on the prevalence of this type of rebranding.

Ogles tells McMahon that, “Belmont University, like all universities, must understand that if they persist in promoting racist DEI programs in violation of their students’ rights, they will be defunded.”

Keep reading

Meta refuses to sign EU’s AI code of practice

Meta has refused to sign the European Union’s code of practice for its AI Act, weeks before the bloc’s rules for providers of general-purpose AI models take effect.

“Europe is heading down the wrong path on AI,” wrote Meta’s chief global affairs officer Joel Kaplan in a post on LinkedIn. “We have carefully reviewed the European Commission’s Code of Practice for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models and Meta won’t be signing it. This Code introduces a number of legal uncertainties for model developers, as well as measures which go far beyond the scope of the AI Act.”

The EU’s code of practice — a voluntary framework published earlier this month — aims to help companies implement processes and systems to comply with the bloc’s legislation for regulating AI. Among other things, the code requires companies to provide and regularly update documentation about their AI tools and services and bans developers from training AI on pirated content; companies must also comply with content owners’ requests to not use their works in their datasets.

Calling the EU’s implementation of the legislation “overreach,” Kaplan claimed that the law will “throttle the development and deployment of frontier AI models in Europe and will stunt European companies looking to build businesses on top of them.”

A risk-based regulation for applications of artificial intelligence, the AI Act bans some “unacceptable risk” use cases outright, such as cognitive behavioral manipulation or social scoring. The rules also define a set of “high-risk” uses, such as biometrics and facial recognition, and in domains like education and employment. The act also requires developers to register AI systems and meet risk- and quality-management obligations.

Tech companies from across the world, including those at the forefront of the AI race like Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, and Mistral AI, have been fighting the rules, even urging the European Commission to delay its rollout. But the Commission has held firm, saying it will not change its timeline.

Also on Friday, the EU published guidelines for providers of AI models ahead of rules that will go into effect on August 2. These rules would affect providers of “general-purpose AI models with systemic risk,” like OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta. Companies that have such models on the market before August 2 will have to comply with the legislation by August 2, 2027.

Keep reading

The Protest-Industrial-Complex Isn’t Peaceful, It’s “Civil Terrorism” …

Ilya Shapiro and Jesse Arm of the Manhattan Institute authored an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on Thursday, unveiling a plan for the federal government to take decisive action against the rogue permanent protest industry—comprising some Marxist groups and professional agitators—waging continuous color revolutions that have brought chaos to American cities. 

“Americans instinctively understand that what happened in Los Angeles wasn’t peaceful organizing or messy democracy. Such unrest invites criminal mayhem and political violence, or what our Manhattan Institute colleague Tal Fortgang has described as “civil terrorism.” It’s often perpetrated by agitators who hide behind masks,” Shapiro and Arm wrote. 

What’s clear is that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to peaceful protest—it does not shield anonymous social justice warriors and paid demonstrators affiliated with anti-American, Marxist movements, some of whom are funded by dark money NGOs and even entities based in countries deemed foreign adversaries. These bad actors appear to be waging a form of hybrid or irregular warfare aimed at sowing chaos within the U.S. The two authors from the Manhattan Institute argue for “stronger enforcement of existing state antimasking laws and new federal action.”

Shapiro and Arm state the urgent need for modernizing antimasking statutes to criminalize masking while committing crimes or obstructing public order.

Their approach is outlined here:

  • First, the Justice Department should direct federal prosecutors to pursue enhanced sentences for masked criminals. Federal guidelines allow sentencing enhancements for obstruction of justice or premeditated conduct. A masked assault can lead to a two-level sentence increase, making it more likely that violent offenders serve real time.
  • Second, the Homeland Security Department should deploy Federal Protective Service officers to respond to masked protesters on federal property. DHS is already empowered to secure federal buildings and grounds. New regulations prohibit the use of masks to avoid identification while breaking the law on federal property. That authority now needs to be enforced aggressively.
  • Finally, the administration should make prosecution of federal crimes committed by masked offenders a priority. These offenses include assaulting a federalized National Guard member and damaging federal property. They already are federal crimes, but the added presence of a mask should be treated as a red flag and an aggravating factor. Prosecutors should move swiftly and law enforcement should make arrests public.

The two emphasized: “These measures wouldn’t criminalize protest, chill dissent or limit protected speech. They would send a clear signal: If you hide behind a mask to commit a crime or intimidate others, the federal government will hold you accountable.” 

They added: “Americans have every right to protest their government, but not to do so anonymously while terrorizing others and flouting the law.” 

Keep reading