Get one for yourself HERE…or I may just hex you.
NEW Design in the Merch Shop!
Blog
Supreme Court calls out state for violating TWO constitutional amendments with one law
The Supreme Court has called out the state of Hawaii, after an earlier law that essentially made it impossible to get a license to carry a firearm was struck down, for replacing it with a similar demand that accomplished essentially the same thing.
That law, too, now has been banished.
The court ruled 6-3 that Hawaii’s newest gun ban was unconstitutional under the Second and 14th Amendments.
The majority opinion was a major win for gun rights activists as it threw out Hawaii’s insistence that it could require gun owners to get “permission” to carry firearms on any private property that is open to the public in the state.
The opinion pointed out that “For years, the State of Hawaii made it almost impossible to obtain a license to carry a firearm. Four years ago, however, this Court held in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry hand guns outside the home for self-defense.
“Hawaii responded by replacing its old law on carry permits with new laws that achieved a similar result,” the court said.
The fight this time is over the state’s “law that prohibits firearms on private property open to the public without the express and affirmative consent of the property owner.”
The court found the law a burden.
“When these permit holders leave home, not only must they take care to avoid all the territory where the possession of a gun is prohibited outright, but they may also be barred from entering many places that people routinely visit in the course of their daily routines, such as gas stations, restaurants, and stores.”
The ruling said Hawaii officials were flipping the default rule at common law, “under which anyone has an implied license to enter property held open to the public unless the property owner withdraws consent.”
The opinion cited both the earlier Heller and McDonald rulings, which struck down gun limits imposed by extremists.
Obama Judge Permanently Blocks Trump’s Proof of Citizenship Requirement to Vote
A federal judge on Wednesday permanently banned Trump from implementing his executive order that required proof of citizenship when they register to vote.
Boston-based US District Judge Denise Casper, an Obama appointee, said the Constitution “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.”
The DOJ will immediately appeal.
“A federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing most of his first executive order on elections, part of which sought to require people to show documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote. The judge agreed that the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to regulate elections, and that Trump’s requirements violated the separation of powers,” the Associated Press reported.
In March 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14248: Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.
“Free, fair, and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion are fundamental to maintaining our constitutional Republic. The right of American citizens to have their votes properly counted and tabulated, without illegal dilution, is vital to determining the rightful winner of an election,” the executive order said.
Moscow Oil Refinery Faces Six-Month Shutdown After Relentless Ukrainian Drone Attacks
Moscow’s largest oil refinery is expected to remain out of service for at least six months after suffering significant damage in a series of Ukrainian drone attacks this month, according to Reuters, citing sources familiar with the matter, after Zelensky earlier vowed to bring the war to Russian territory. Kiev and the West are flirty with massive Russian retaliation at this point, which is precisely what Putin has vowed.
The refinery is located on the southern outskirts of the Russian capital and a major fuel supplier to the whole region. It was struck at least twice before this month – as dramatic and intense eyewitness videos captured – forcing operations to halt. Meanwhile via Newsquawk:
Russia has reportedly asked for 50k tonnes of gasoline from Kazakhstan to help ease domestic fuel shortages, according to sources.
“Repairs will take at least six months,” one source said, describing the extent of the damage at the Moscow Oil Refinery.
The Gazprom Neft operatd facility processed 11.6 million metric tons of crude oil in 2024 and produced roughly 2.9 million tons of gasoline and 3.2 million tons of diesel fuel, according to public data.
It comes at a sensitive moment Russia continues to grapple with fuel supply challenges. At the moment, the Crimean peninsula is witnessing unprecedented government restrictions on selling gas to civilians, as well as half the population suffering an electricity blackout due to major Ukrainian drones strikes on Kerch port, and in particular damage to the large thermal power plant there.
Also, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said this week that Moscow is considering a ban on diesel exports to stabilize domestic markets amid emerging shortages.
Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) previously claimed responsibility for a June 16 strike that reportedly damaged the refinery’s primary oil-processing unit, described by Ukrainian officials as the plant’s “heart.” That’s when the facility first reportedly suspended operations following the attack.
Two days later, Ukraine launched another large-scale drone assault on Moscow. Russian authorities reported hundreds of drones targeting the capital, resulting in fires at multiple locations.
Since international crude oil prices surged following the war in the Middle East centered on Iran, Russia has boosted its oil revenues as not only prices have jumped – but Russian oil was made desirable in India again – thanks to American waivers for sales of Russia’s crude already loaded on tankers in connection to easing the global crisis due to the Iran war.
Maryland Protests Data Center Costs
A group of 80 Maryland state lawmakers are backing a complaint at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over the PJM Interconnection’s cost allocation for transmission lines that support data centers.
Driven by the way PJM spreads transmission costs, Maryland ratepayers will pay $1.6 billion over the next decade for transmission projects that were approved in the grid operator’s last three regional transmission expansion plans that are designed to mainly serve out-of-state data centers, Maryland’s ratepayer advocate — the Office of People’s Counsel — said in its May 7 complaint.
“While PJM’s rules are unfair for many PJM states, they impact Maryland disproportionately simply because Maryland sits next to Data Center Alley in Virginia,” the Maryland lawmakers said in a Wednesday filing at FERC. “Given the projections of massive data center growth — more than 80,000 megawatts over the next 20 years — PJM is likely to bill Maryland customers billions more for future data center-driven transmission costs.”
The complaint at FERC comes amid an intense focus across the United States on how data centers can affect the electric bills of existing ratepayers through increased generation and transmission costs. The complaint centers on the transmission side of the equation. It contends that FERC is barred from approving transmission cost allocation methodologies that assign costs to ratepayers that won’t gain “roughly commensurate” benefits.
PJM’s cost allocation methodology assigns half of certain regional transmission projects based on a load-ratio share across its footprint, which assumes that all transmission built will benefit the entire grid, according to the ratepayer advocate’s complaint. The other half of transmission costs are assigned via a “solution-based distribution factor analysis,” which fails to capture certain reliability issues caused by data centers, the ratepayer advocate said.
Spreading data center-driven transmission costs across PJM’s footprint could lead to overbuilding, according to the complaint.
“By socializing data center-driven transmission costs to all ratepayers, it insulates states and utilities that attract speculative load growth from overbuilding and stranded asset risk while shifting those risks to neighboring states’ ratepayers,” the ratepayer advocate said.
Further, state-level large-load tariffs fail to address, and may make worse, the misallocation of transmission costs caused by PJM’s transmission cost allocation methodology, according to the complaint.
Also, recent FERC-approved utility “transmission security agreements” between utilities and data centers are “often confidential, highly variable, and fail to protect existing customers,” the ratepayer advocate said.
The agreements leave ratepayers exposed to transmission costs caused by data centers, according to the ratepayer advocate. “Moreover, they carry potential legal consequences that may prove difficult to unravel,” the ratepayer advocate said. The ratepayer advocate said FERC should order PJM to revise its cost allocation methodology so that data centers pay for the transmission projects that they cause.
As a start, PJM should be required to assign the costs of transmission projects that are designed to serve data centers and other large loads to the grid operator’s zones where the data centers are located, according to the complaint. That would allow state-level large load tariffs to address those transmission costs, the ratepayer advocate said.
“The upstream leakage of a substantial portion of data center driven costs at the regional level to other zones through the current operation of the PJM tariff creates an unjust subsidy for that data center load,” the ratepayer advocate said.
The complaint calls on FERC to order PJM to re-study the baseline reliability projects approved in its last three regional transmission expansion plans to determine the costs caused by forecast load growth from data centers.
FERC has extended the comment deadline on the complaint to July 27.
Look at How the Liberal Media Has Tried to Spin for the Antifa Terrorists Recently Sentenced in Texas
As the Gateway Pundit recently reported, multiple members of Antifa were just sentenced to a collective 450 years in federal prison for the 2025 attack on an ICE facility in Texas.
Eight members of the group were sentenced to 50 years each. The ringleader got a sentence of 100 years.
People on the radical left are outraged about these sentences because they are not accustomed to seeing their side held accountable by law enforcement, but the media spin has been something to behold.
The same media that called the Tea Party dangerous and racist back in 2010 are now actively trying to spin this major news about Antifa.
See some examples below.
The Washington Post described the Antifa members as ‘alleged’ members of Antifa and called the incident a protest. This was not a protest. A law enforcement officer was shot.
Trump DOJ to California: Drop the Glock Ban or Get Sued
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon advised Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) and California AG Rob Bonta on Wednesday to drop their Glock ban or face a lawsuit.
Dhillon posted to X: “Today, I notified Newsom and Bonta to drop the unconstitutional restrictions on law-abiding citizens’ rights to purchase legal firearms before the ban goes into effect, or we will sue. Stay tuned!”
Breitbart News reported that Newsom signed California’s Glock ban into law on October 10, 2025. It is set to take effect on July 1, 2026.
The ban was sponsored by Democrat lawmakers and fashioned as a response to the use of “Glock switches,” which are already illegal. “Glock switches” are federally prohibited plastic pieces that can be affixed to the rear of a Glock slide to make the pistol shoot full auto.
Such switches are wildly popular with gangs and street criminals — therefore California Democrats are banning new sales of one of the most popular handguns ever made, the Glock pistol.
On May 12, 2025, Breitbart News pointed to the language of the Glock ban legislation, noting that Democrats secured passage of the ban by labeling Glocks as “machinegun-convertible pistol[s].”
Newsom and Bonta are now on notice that the DOJ will take action if they allow the ban to go into effect.
Congress Is Preparing To Surrender American Sovereignty on the Eve of America’s 250th Anniversary
The United States Congress, on the very eve of the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence from Great Britain, is preparing to formally diminish American independence and sovereignty through a proposed merger and long-term integration of executive functions throughout the government, coordinated by the Department of Defense.
Treacherous provisions in the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) mandate that the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Commerce Department, and the heads of other relevant Federal departments and agencies cooperate with their Israeli counterparts for the purpose of consolidating U.S. and Israeli military activities in order to align efforts and avoid duplication.
The greatest threat to American sovereignty rarely arrives wearing the uniform of a foreign army. It often arrives through the complacency, expediency, or poor judgment of elected officials who fail to recognize the long-term consequences of the powers they surrender.
Whether motivated by political convenience, misplaced loyalty, or simple inattention, such actions can erode constitutional self-government just as surely as deliberate acts of betrayal.
No foreign nation, regardless of whether it is Israel, Britain, Canada, France, or Japan, should be integrated into permanent executive, military, technological, intelligence, and research structures in a manner that diminishes American sovereignty and democratic accountability.
The Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) recently identified Israel as a counterintelligence threat.
Under ordinary circumstances, such a finding would prompt heightened scrutiny, caution, and congressional oversight. Instead, Congress has continued advancing provisions in the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would deepen military, technological, and strategic integration between the United States and Israel.
The legislation specifies Israel-U.S. coordination with America’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Missile Defense Agency, including the Golden Dome initiative, the United States Space Command, directed energy programs, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and other critical technologies that will shape the future distribution of power.
Of all the areas mentioned, artificial intelligence and biotechnology may have the greatest long term implications. These technologies will shape privacy, surveillance, predictive policing, digital identity systems, biosecurity, human enhancement technologies, and information control.
The Founders could never have imagined artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, or biotechnology directed by algorithms. Yet they understood a timeless truth: power must remain accountable to the people. The danger of our age is not merely that authority may concentrate in governments, corporations, or military institutions. It is that decisions of profound consequence may increasingly be delegated to technological systems that operate beyond the understanding and oversight of those whom the Constitution entrusts with governing.
Denmark Moves to Ban Islamic Call to Prayer, Minister Says Country Should Not Sound Like Pakistan
Denmark is considering a nationwide ban on the Islamic call to prayer, with the country’s immigration minister saying it should not be heard “over Danish rooftops.”
Morten Bødskov said the government will reopen an investigation into whether the noise can be legally prohibited across the country.
“The call to prayer should not be heard over Danish rooftops,” Bødskov told Danish news agency Ritzau.
“It has no place in Denmark, and you shouldn’t be in any doubt whether you’ve ended up in a suburb of Islamabad when you walk around Denmark.”
The Adhan is traditionally recited five times a day to call Muslims to prayer. In some countries, it is broadcast through loudspeakers attached to mosques or minarets.
Bødskov said the review will examine whether a ban can be introduced while complying with Denmark’s constitutional protections for religious freedom.
How Government ‘Affordability’ Turns an $18 Antibiotic Into $2,500
Nothing makes anything less affordable than a government promise to make something more affordable, and a Texas pharmacist revealed this week how an $18 generic antibiotic gets listed for $2,500. But from there, things get so seriously stupid that you just know there must be a government program involved.
Brad Hart, along with his wife Glenda, own Forest Park Pharmacy in Fort Worth, so he knows a thing or two about how the system works — and just how dysfunctional it is.
“A family came in wanting to transfer their kid’s antibiotic to us,” he posted to X earlier this week. “The child had already STARTED the course. Then, mid-treatment, the insurance company decided the last 14 tablets suddenly needed a ‘prior authorization’ before the other pharmacy could hand them over.”
All this for Linezolid, a generic antibiotic that costs Forest Park $18.
Why all the fuss for something so inexpensive?
Hart explained, “Insurance and the PBMs [Pharmacy Benefit Manager] behind them price drugs off a number called AWP — ‘Average Wholesale Price.’ People in my industry have another name for it: ‘Ain’t What’s Paid.’ It’s a benchmark number, not a real-world cost. On paper, the AWP for just those last 14 tablets is about $2,500.”
“The system that’s supposedly ‘protecting’ this family from cost is the same system that inflated an $18 medication into a $2,500 line item, then slapped a prior auth on it to “review the expense” THEY invented,” Hart continued. “They manufactured the problem, then billed everyone for the privilege of solving it.”
PBMs and AWPs were unfamiliar to me, so I asked Grok to explain how they work and why they exist.
The short version is that Washington’s tax incentives and Affordable Care Act (thanks, Obama!) mandates push everything into third-party insurance, disconnecting patients from real costs. Medicare Part D (thanks, W!) and weak transparency rules empower PBM middlemen (another Washington creation) to profit from fictional AWP benchmarks, delaying care and sucking up tax dollars while also overcharging sick people.
You get robbed coming and going.
Really, what the insurance companies do here is play arbitrage games enabled by government meddling in the name of affordability. That’s why Forest Park Pharmacy doesn’t take insurance and just sells medications at a market-rate markup from their wholesale cost.
One solution — and this is exactly what I used to do — is to buy bare-bones high-deductible health plans with catastrophic coverage and pay cash for everything else. But I can’t do that anymore because Obamacare made those plans mostly illegal or unobtainable.
Why, it’s almost as though the entire system were geared for price-gouging.
You must be logged in to post a comment.