Each day at just after midnight Eastern, a post like this one is created for contributors and readers of this site to upload news links and video links on the issues that concern this site. Most notably, Islam and its effects on Classical Civilization, and various forms of leftism from Soviet era communism, to postmodernism and all the flavours of galloping statism and totalitarianism such as Nazism and Fascism which are increasingly snuffing out the classical liberalism which created our near, miraculous civilization the West has been building since the time of Socrates.
This document was written around the time this site was created, for those who wish to understand what this site is about. And while our understanding of the world and events has grown since then, the basic ideas remain sound and true to the purpose.
So please post all links, thoughts and ideas that you feel will benefit the readers of this site to the comments under this post each day. And thank you all for your contributions.
This is the new Samizdat. We must use it while we can.
For those interested, please check out https://vladtepesblog.substack.com/ as an another avenue of expression.
Navy Seal and Blackwater founder assesses the assassination attempt and the response by security:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/massive-secret-service-failure-led-nearly-successful-assassination-donald-trump
The Kuhner Report – Live
Broadcasting on location at the RNC Convention – 6-10am ET
https://www.iheart.com/live/wrko-7750/
Kremlin’s comment on assassination attempt:
What is bounded choice?
Some people in the medical freedom movement have echoed the words of those that coerced so many into taking the clot shot. They say, “Nobody forced you. Coercion is not force.” But there is something called “bounded choice” and it was the topic of a doctoral dissertation by Janja Lalich in 2004. Bounded choice is the name of coercive control and it is not a free choice.
When the cult members of the Jonestown massacre drank the “cool-aid” they were at the point of a gun and would have been shot if they had not complied with the demand to drink the poison. They faced a bounded choice.
Sure, there should have been more resistance to the psyop, and people are frustrated, but adopting the language and the lies of the abusers is not an effective expression of that frustration. I’m looking at you, Naomi Wolf.
https://www.lalichcenter.org/what-is-bounded-choice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_Choice
(Richard: This no only throws out the Trump indictment it throws out the indictment and conviction of all of the J6 people.
I hope she has a real good US Marshals Service protective detail.)
BREAKING: Judge Cannon Dismisses Classified Documents Case Based on Unlawful Appointment of Jack Smith
thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/breaking-huge-news-judge-cannon-dismisses-classified-documents/
Jul. 15, 2024 9:05 am
From left: Special Counsel Jack Smith, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen M. Cannon and former President Donald Trump.
From left: Special Counsel Jack Smith, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen M. Cannon and former President Donald Trump. (@axios / X screen shot)
From left: Special Counsel Jack Smith, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen M. Cannon and former President Donald Trump.
From left: Special Counsel Jack Smith, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen M. Cannon and former President Donald Trump. (@axios / X screen shot)
Judge Aileen Cannon has dismissed the high-profile classified documents case, citing the unlawful appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith.
This decision comes as a significant blow to the Biden regime and the Department of Justice, raising questions about the integrity of the entire investigation.
Attorney General Garland violated the Constitution by appointing Jack Smith to conduct this politically motivated persecution against President Trump.
The decision effectively halts the prosecution led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland.
In her ruling, Judge Cannon wrote:
Former President Trump’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment Based on the Unlawful Appointment and Funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith is GRANTED in accordance with this Order [ECF No. 326]. The Superseding Indictment is DISMISSED because Special Counsel Smith’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S.
Const., Art. I, $ 2, cl. 2. Special Counsel Smith’s use of a permanent indefinite appropriation also violates the Appropriations Clause, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 7, but the Court need not address the proper remedy for that funding violation given the dismissal on Appointments Clause grounds.
The effect of this Order is confined to this proceeding.
The court found that Smith’s appointment did not adhere to the Appointments Clause, which requires that principal officers of the United States be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
The Special Counsel’s use of a permanent indefinite appropriation was also deemed a violation of the Appropriations Clause, although the court did not address the remedy for this funding violation given the dismissal on Appointments Clause grounds.
The case, which stemmed from a grand jury indictment on June 8, 2023, charged Trump with 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information and additional conspiracy and concealment charges against Trump and his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira. The indictment was later expanded to 42 charges in a superseding indictment.
President Trump previously filed a motion to dismiss Jack Smith’s classified documents charges based on the “unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel.”
Day one of the expanded evidentiary hearing was held last month.
According to NBC News, President Trump’s lawyers “argued that an officer like the special counsel must be appointed “by law” and that the special counsel should be categorized as a “principal officer” and subject to Senate confirmation. The statutory text cited by the special counsel’s office “does not authorize” the U.S. attorney general’s appointment of the special counsel, his lawyer, Emil Bove, argued.”
Cannon did question whether Attorney General Merrick had any oversight role in seeking the indictment against Trump.
Jack Smith’s prosecutor James Pearce refused to answer and claimed it would be against policy to answer the question.
“Why would there be any heartburn to answer whether the attorney general signed off on the indictment?” Cannon asked.
Recall, Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned Jack Smith’s authority as special counsel in his concurring opinion on the high court’s presidential immunity ruling.
Trending: WHAT?! Trump Shooter Appears to Be Featured in 2023 BlackRock Ad (VIDEO)
Last month, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Trump has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers. Former presidents are entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts.
The Supreme Court ruled that there is no immunity for unofficial acts.
Clarence Thomas questioned Jack Smith’s authority because he was a private citizen when he was tapped as a special prosecutor.
“I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President — he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President,” Clarence Thomas said.
Clarence Thomas argued that no other former US President has been prosecuted for official acts despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that would argue constitutes crimes.
“No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding,” Clarence Thomas wrote.
Thomas also argued that Jack Smith is not senate confirmed (Trump’s lawyers are also using this argument before Judge Cannon).
“The Constitution sets forth how an office may be created and how it may be filled. The Appointments Clause provides: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Department.” Art. II, §2, cl. 2. The constitutional process for filling an office is plain from this text. The default manner for appointing “Officers of the United States” is nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate. Ibid. “But the Clause provides a limited exception for the appointment of inferior officers: Congress may ‘by Law’ authorize” one of three specified actors “to appoint inferior officers without the advice and con-sent of the Senate.” NLRB v. SW General, Inc., 580 U. S. 288, 312 (2017) (THOMAS, J., concurring). As relevant here, a “Hea[d] of Department”—such as the Attorney General—is one such actor that Congress may authorize “by Law” to appoint inferior officers without senatorial confirmation. Art. II, §2, cl. 2.
Thomas once again reiterated that a special prosecutor must be senate confirmed.
“Before the President or a Department Head can appoint any officer, however, the Constitution requires that the underlying office be “established by Law.”1 The Constitution itself creates some offices, most obviously that of the President and Vice President. See §1. Although the Constitution contemplates that there will be “other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,” it clearly requires that those offices “shall be established by Law.” §2, cl. 2. And, “established by law” refers to an office that Congress creates “by statute.” Lucia v. SEC, 585 U. S. 237, 254 (2018) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see also United States v. Maurice, 26 F. Cas. 1211, 1213 (No. 15,747) (CC Va. 1823) (Marshall, C. J.).”
In her detailed opinion, Judge Cannon emphasized the importance of the separation of powers and the role of Congress in the appointment process. She highlighted that none of the statutes cited by the Special Counsel—28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, and 533—provided the Attorney General with the authority to appoint a Special Counsel with the full powers of a United States Attorney.
“The Appointments Clause is a critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of powers, and it gives to Congress a considered role in determining the propriety of vesting appointment power for inferior officers,” Cannon wrote.
“The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative authority, transferring it to a Head of Department, and in the process threatening the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers,” she added.
Read the ruling below:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/plugins/pdfjs-viewer-shortcode/pdfjs/web/viewer.php?file=https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/judge-dismisses-trump-documents-case.pdf&attachment_id=1178715&dButton=true&pButton=true&oButton=false&sButton=true#zoom=auto&pagemode=none&_wpnonce=e60d96af16
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/breaking-huge-news-judge-cannon-dismisses-classified-documents/
The Optimistic Conservative
Israel should not be stuck with a “fair fight” against Hezbollah
This fight must be to win.
Even more “opening” caveat: As I prepare to post this article, former President Trump has just been shot at his rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. He appears to have been hit – grazed – just above his right ear. He got up on his own, fist pumped the crowd, and went offstage surrounded by his Secret Service escort.
Trump being shot at is fresh and powerful evidence that the war on both the U.S. and Israel is being fought for keeps. This isn’t a war to preserve the status quo. The aggressor-opponent is fighting to take down the stabilizing, freedom-protecting power of both nations. With all their warts, Trump and Netanyahu are the men whose guiding hands the enemy wants to eliminate.
Please keep that in mind as you ponder the peremptory, take-no-prisoners nature of the non-lethal measures I propose in this article: measures to ensure Israel doesn’t have to wage a “fair fight” alone. We’re not in a situation of stability now. Stability has already been breached. Fighting to a draw isn’t an option. This fight must be to win.
Update: It’s now 14 July, and I assume readers are as caught up as they want to be on the attempt against Trump. I will pause only to be thankful that he survived, apparently by a miracle. My prayers go up for the family of Corey Comperatore, a fireman and former fire chief who was killed by one of the shots from the shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks. He left behind a wife of over 20 years and two daughters.
Opening caveat (original): Yes, I know the U.S. under Joe Biden could not execute any of this in any use of mere natural, observable conditions. Please don’t bother making that point. I wouldn’t trust Biden’s team to execute it. Nevertheless, we need the bracing touchstone of what could be done, and afterwards what could have been done. We are in an extraordinary situation at the moment, and ordinary thinking must not drive our conclusions about it. If we think “Biden” is an executive entity equipped as and reacting like other post-World War II American presidencies, our starting point is wrong and everything else will be too. The suggestions for American policy here are not what Biden could do, but what America could do, with different leadership.
Never lose sight of the difference.
It’s an excellent axiom to never put your citizen soldiers into a fair fight if you can help it. To the extent preparations, planning, and timing are up to you, you should always seek the maximum advantage going into war. This doesn’t just spare your own people’s lives. It spares the opponent’s death toll as well, both military and civilian. The greater the initial advantage, the faster a war can be won, if the will is there to do it. Where military advantage prevails quickly, the grim toll of attritional stalemates and the pile-up of fatalities can be minimized.
Israel, I propose, should not have to be in a fair fight with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the U.S. could help.
The Canada-based site Honest Reporting, which offers news and opinion from a pro-Israel perspective, on 20 June 2024 published a feature article on the topic “What All-Out Israel-Hezbollah War Would Look Like.”
https://theoptimisticconservative.wordpress.com/2024/07/14/israel-should-not-be-stuck-with-a-fair-fight-against-hezbollah/#more-9371
If a genuine Zionist org recommends a piece from the NYT, I’ll check it out – if I find a way to avoid giving the Slimes a click.
This one is Must-Read Stunning:
How Hamas is fighting in Gaza: Tunnels, Traps and Ambushes
https://archive.ph/tScxY
Asymmetric war, you can defeat the enemy but it takes time. There is a training manual on the net about how to defend a city against a numerically superior foe.
I will try to track it down for you
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/?p=584853#ixzz8g42mMdTJ
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
Major Case Movement in Non-Violent Felons Reclaiming Their 2nd Amendment Rights ~ VIDEO
Ammoland Inc. Posted on July 15, 2024 by F Riehl, Editor in Chief
YouTube video player
The recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has sent ripples through the anti-gun community. This court, covering Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, has called for supplemental briefing in the landmark case of Range v. ATF/Garland. This case revolves around 18 USC 922(g)(1), which concerns the disarmament of individuals convicted of felonies, even if they are non-violent. Let’s explain why this is such a big deal for Second Amendment supporters.
Understanding the Case
The central figure in this case is Brian Range, who was convicted of a non-violent felony related to welfare fraud two decades ago. Under current federal law, anyone convicted of a felony—violent or not—is prohibited from owning firearms for life. The controversy lies in the broad definition of a “felony,” which can include crimes that don’t involve violence or harm to others.
The Court’s Stance
The Third Circuit had previously ruled that non-violent felons should not lose their Second Amendment rights. They emphasized that historical regulations only disarmed individuals who posed a physical threat to themselves or others. This view aligns with a commonsense understanding of public safety: disarm those who are dangerous, not those who made a mistake without causing harm.
The Importance of the Rahimi Decision
The Supreme Court’s recent Rahimi decision is crucial here. It reaffirms that only those who are violent threats can be disarmed under the Second Amendment. The Third Circuit is now reviewing the Range case in light of Rahimi, but there is little in Rahimi that contradicts their earlier decision. This means the court is likely to reaffirm that non-violent felons, like Brian Range, cannot be stripped of their gun rights for life.
Why This Matters
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL DOWN TO CONTINUE READING
If the Third Circuit stands by its initial ruling, it sets a significant precedent. It means that non-violent felons across the nation could regain their right to bear arms. This is a huge victory for gun rights advocates who argue that the current laws are overly punitive and do not serve public safety.
The Bigger Picture
Attorney General Merrick Garland is expected to seek Supreme Court review if the Third Circuit reaffirms its decision. This could bring the issue back to the Supreme Court in the 2024-2025 term, providing a definitive ruling on this matter.
What’s Next?
The Court has ordered that supplemental briefs be filed within 21 days so we can expect developments by early August 2024. The final decision could come as early as September, and it is likely to spark further debates and legal challenges.
Non-Violent Felons Reclaiming Their Second Amendment Rights
The Range v. ATF/Garland case is pivotal in the fight for gun rights. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, it’s crucial for gun owners to stay informed and active in supporting their rights. The next few months will be critical in determining whether non-violent felons can reclaim their Second Amendment rights. Let’s hope for a decision that upholds the principles of justice and the Constitution.