Reader’s Links for July 17, 2025

Posted on by

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. The Substack is a different project in a sense. It is older videos that in the light of subsequent events, look different or of increased importance, Check it out now and again if you like.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

10 Replies to “Reader’s Links for July 17, 2025”

  4. (Richard: The Radical Left took over the Democrats in 1972 when they ran George McGovern for President, this was one of the reasons Nixon won that election. The list below is not complete but shows why so many of our so called leaders are working to destroy the US.)

    Born to Revolution: The “Red Diaper Baby” Roots of Zohran Mamdani and Today’s Leading Democrats

    The term “Red Diaper Baby” refers to children raised by parents dedicated to the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) or other radical leftist movements. “Red” denotes communism, while “diaper baby” emphasizes early exposure to ideological indoctrination.

    These children are often immersed from a young age in socialist, anti-American, and Marxist worldviews, frequently attending union rallies, radical schools, or political protests alongside their activist parents.

    Today, the term “Red Diaper Baby” has become a relevant lens for examining the intergenerational transmission of radical ideology within the Democratic Party’s leadership, many of whom have been molded by beliefs of radical parental figures. Before examining the case of Zohran Mamdani, let’s look at a few key figures.

    Kamala Harris: Kamala’s father, Donald Harris, is a self-described Marxist economist who taught at Stanford University and has frequently critiqued capitalism in support of democratic socialism.

    Click through for the rest of the list:

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/07/born-revolution-red-diaper-baby-roots-zohran-mamdani/

  5. “They Were Going to Come Kill Us!”: CBS Reporter Scott MacFarlane Says He Got PTSD From Trump Supporters Blaming Reporters for Trump Assassination Attempt at Butler Rally
    by Kristinn Taylor Jul. 17, 2025 11:45 am454 Comments

    A wild eyed Scott MacFarlane told Chuck Todd in a recent podcast that he took trauma leave from work as a CBS News reporter after being diagnosed with PTSD in the wake of the assassination attempt on President Donald Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania on July 13, 2024.

    When the shooting started, a stunned looking MacFarlane ducked under a press riser for cover.

    click through for the rest

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/07/they-were-going-come-kill-us-cbs-reporter/

  7. (Richard: There is a old saying from the taming of the west, “Whiskey’s for drinkin Water is for fightin)

    Nebraska sues Colorado over South Platte River water rights, Perkins County Canal
    ‘We’re going to fight like heck. We’re going to get every drop of water,’ says Gov. Jim Pillen

    LINCOLN — Nebraska state leaders filed a lawsuit against Colorado on Wednesday seeking to have the U.S. Supreme Court assert the Cornhusker State’s century-old water rights to the South Platte River that crosses state lines.

    Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, announcing the legal action at a news conference with Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers and other state and local officials, said, “Every drop of water matters.”

    Pillen and Hilgers accused Colorado officials of siphoning off more and more water every day, even as Nebraska had been “nice” with Colorado, which has seen increases in housing, agricultural and business development along the waterway.

    “We’re here to put our gloves on,” Pillen said, to defend what he called a “multi-generation investment” afforded under the South Platte River Compact that took effect in 1926.

    https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/07/16/nebraska-sues-colorado-over-south-platte-river-water-rights-perkins-county-canal/

  8. Seventh Circuit Says Illegal Aliens Have No Second Amendment Rights
    By Cam Edwards | 9:31 AM | July 17, 2025
    AP Photo/Michael Conroy, File

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but who makes up “the people” in the Second Amendment? Legal adults? Adults over the age of 18? Eligible voters?
    Advertisement

    The courts are fleshing out that question in a wide variety of cases; some of them filed by 2A advocates and organizations, and some brought by criminal defendants who are raising Second Amendment challenges to their prosecutions and convictions.

    Heriberto Carbajal-Flores is one of the latter. Carbajal-Flores was born in Mexico, but has lived in Chicago since he was ten years old. According to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Carbajal-Flores now claims to be a lawful permanent resident, but he was an illegal alien when he was arrested and convicted for shooting a gun at a car driving by him during the civil unrest and riots sparked by the death of George Floyd back in 2020.

    Carbajal-Flores maintains he was acting in self-defense, while the government contends he was the aggressor. Who’s right didn’t really matter to the Seventh Circuit, because the federal crime Carbajal-Flores was convicted of was 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which forbids illegal aliens from possessing a firearm.

    Carbajal-Flores raised a Second Amendment challenge to his conviction, and though a district court found the statute facially constitutional, he was successful in his as-applied challenge. As the Seventh Circuit explained:

    Laws disarming British loyalists did not apply to those willing to pledge their loyalty to the nascent American government. Once an individual disclaimed his loyalty to the British government, he was no longer considered dangerous or untrustworthy and could therefore possess a firearm. From this historical exemption, the district court reasoned that Congress may disarm only untrustworthy or dangerous illegal aliens. It then concluded that Carbajal-Flores is a trustworthy adherent to the law because, among other things, he is employed and has no felony convictions. So, as applied to him, § 922(g)(5)(A) violated the Second Amendment.

    Advertisement

    The Justice Department appealed that decision, and on Wednesday the Seventh Circuit issued its own ruling overturning the district court and affirming Carbajal-Flores’ conviction. In the court’s view, “even if the plain text of the Second Amendment presumptively protects Carbajal-Flores because he falls within ‘the people,’ a long tradition exists of disarming individuals, like illegal aliens, who have not sworn allegiance to the sovereign.”

    From the common law onward, aliens have historically been disarmed unless and until they swore an oath of allegiance to the sovereign. The way § 922(g)(5)(A) operates maps onto that tradition. The law precludes only illegal aliens—those who have necessarily forgone the naturalization process—from possessing firearms. But an alien who obtains citizenship by taking the oath of renunciation and allegiance, 8 U.S.C. § 1448, is entitled to keep and bear arms like every other law-abiding American. In other words, the same relief—pledging allegiance—exists today that has existed throughout history.

    Section 922(g)(5)(A) is thus sufficiently analogous to many earlier firearm regulations. Because the law “comport[s] with the principles underlying the Second Amendment,” we hold that it overcomes Carbajal-Flores’s facial challenge.

    Advertisement

    What about his as-applied challenge? The Seventh Circuit panel admitted that “the class of persons disarmed under § 922(g)(1) is potentially over inclusive” and “the historical justification for disarming some felons may not support disarming all felons.” When it comes to the statute dealing with unlawful aliens, though, the court says there’s no wiggle room for individuals like Carbajal-Flores.

    Section 922(g)(5)(A) does not present the same potential overinclusion problem. As discussed, our Nation’s regulatory tradition supports disarming aliens who have not sworn an oath of allegiance to the sovereign. The challenged statute extends no further than disarming people “illegally or unlawfully in the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). That is, people who have not naturalized and taken the oath of renunciation and allegiance.

    We express no views on whether criminal defendants may lodge as-applied challenges to other provisions contained in§ 922(g)’s various subsections. But district courts need not conduct individualized assessments of illegal aliens for purposes of § 922(g)(5)(A). The district court here accordingly erred in holding the statute unconstitutional as applied to Carbajal-Flores.

    It’s interesting to me that the panel put so much weight on an oath of allegiance to the sovereign when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, at least when it comes to aliens. I wonder if the panel believes that U.S. citizens could also become prohibited from possessing a gun if they refused to do so… but hopefully that remains a thought exercise and not an actual criminal case.
    Advertisement

    I consider myself a Second Amendment absolutist, but I didn’t have a huge problem with the Seventh Circuit’s decision here, at least immediately. While self-defense is a human right in my view, the text of the Second Amendment explicitly says the right to keep and bear arms in the United States belongs to “the people”. So why should that phrase apply to people who are in this country illegally?

    That’s where things get a little fuzzy. Illegal aliens can’t vote in federal elections. They can’t hold federal office. But they are required to register with the Selective Service, and they’re eligible to be drafted. It seems to me that if someone can be mandated to bear arms in defense of the country, they arguably should have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and others.

    If illegal aliens were prohibited from serving in the military and weren’t eligible to be drafted I don’t think I’d have a problem with the Seventh Circuit’s decision, and maybe that statute should be challenged in court going forward. But the inconsistency troubles me, and I think there’s a common sense (if not a Constitutional) case to be made that the appellate court erred when it essentially held that under no circumstances do illegal aliens have the right to keep and bear arms.

    https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2025/07/17/seventh-circuit-says-illegal-aliens-have-no-second-amendment-rights-n1229290

  9. Exposing What No One Else Will About Tucker Carlson | Axis of Truth
    JNS TV – July 8, 2025