Biden Intelwars Juneteenth Legislation National holiday

Biden signs legislation making Juneteenth a national holiday

President Joe Biden signed legislation Thursday making Juneteenth, which is June 19, a national holiday commemorating the end of slavery in America.

What are the details?

“I’ve only been president for several months, but I think this will go down for me as one of the greatest honors I will have had as president,” Biden said at the signing ceremony for the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act. “Not because I did it. You did it, Democrats and Republicans.”

Federal lawmakers
overwhelmingly supported the bill, with the Senate passing it via unanimous consent and only 14 House members, all Republicans, voting against the measure.

The bill was hastened to make it to Biden’s desk ahead of this year’s Juneteenth, which is Saturday, but will be observed by the feds on the 18th — meaning most federal employees will now be off work on Friday.

NBC News reported that Juneteenth “is already celebrated as a state or ceremonial holiday in 47 states and the District of Columbia,” and “Texas became the first to make it a state holiday in 1980.” Juneteenth is also known as Black Liberation Day, Emancipation Day, and Jubilee Day.

What’s the history behind Juneteenth?

June 19, 1865, is the date when news finally arrived in Texas that slaves were free — nearly three years following the Emancipation Proclamation.

TheBlaze previously explained:

In those days, of course, information traveled slowly; but this news traveled slower than usual, even for back then. Without access to the reports in the east, slaves in Texas continued to serve their masters following both the Emancipation Proclamation and the Union’s Civil War victory on May 9, 1865.

In December of that year, the 13th Amendment was ratified, formally abolishing slavery in the United States.

2nd Amendment Constitutional Standards Intelwars Legislation Lindasue Smollen right to keep and bear arms

The 2nd Amendment is not outdated

A lawyer in Boulder, Colorado, has been buying billboard space attacking the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

One billboard reads:






This Ad Paid For by Lindasue Smollen

If you get angry reading Lindasue Smollen’s billboard message, please leave her alone. She has a right to freedom of speech and of the press. They are guaranteed to her by the First Amendment—also adopted in 1791. (Because she’s using a medium, a billboard, to communicate her message, her conduct is more properly an expression of freedom of the press than freedom of speech.)

My first reaction to this billboard was that Smollen was wasting her money: A key to effective billboard advertising is brevity. Drivers don’t have time to read lengthy messages.

But it turned out that she didn’t waste her money, because the liberal media megaphone did her work for her. It dutifully reproduced her billboard and its messages to the wider American public.

Have you ever seen mainstream media repeating any of the conservative, patriotic, pro-life, or religious billboards appearing on our highways? Of course not.

My second, probably sounder, reaction was that maybe Smollen should sue for a law school tuition refund. Obviously she was never taught the difference between ordinary legislation (such as traffic laws) and a general constitutional standard. Law professors traditionally employ Chief Justice John Marshall’s famous opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) to explain the distinction. But apparently, at her law school, they neglected to do so.

For those of you who didn’t attend a competent law school, here’s the distinction: Ordinary legislation (such traffic laws) are detailed to respond to specific conditions. The legislature readily alters them when necessary. But while constitutions often contain detailed provisions, they also feature many terms (such as the Second Amendment) written in broader, more enduring language. As Marshall explained in the McCulloch case, we interpret broad constitutional standards somewhat differently from ordinary laws. “We must never forget,” he wrote, “that it is a constitution we are expounding.”

Unlike traffic rules, the Constitution’s expansive provisions are crafted to accommodate changing conditions. For example, the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) doesn’t lay out detailed rules for trade by horse, ship, and barge. Rather, it grants Congress power to regulate commerce. The word “commerce” enables Congress to regulate trade by methods that didn’t exist when the Constitution was adopted, such as railroads, motor vehicles, aircraft, and telecommunications.

Similarly, the Second Amendment doesn’t protect “the right of the people to keep and bear muskets and swords.” It protects the right to “keep and bear Arms.” That’s why the Second Amendment protects the right to own and use modern “bearable” (portable) weapons, such as semi-automatic AR-15 style rifles.

In short, by comparing traffic laws to the Second Amendment, Smollen’s billboard compares apples to edibles.

The billboard message also suffers from the false assumption that changes in conditions necessarily require changes in the Constitution. Because of the breadth of constitutional language, this simply isn’t true.

In 2011, Time Magazine ran a front-page editorial that remains one of my favorite samples of constitutional illiteracy. The editorial sought to discredit the Constitution by pointing out that the Founders didn’t know about:

“World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.”

The author was right that the Founders didn’t know about those things. But sexting, miniskirts, and Lady Gaga (as important as they may seem to a trendy magazine editor) aren’t the sort of things that justify constitutional change.

A change in conditions merits a change in a constitutional phrase only if—

  • The change is relevant to the constitutional phrase; and
  • Knowledge acquired since the Constitution was adopted (including knowledge of the change) has destroyed the phrase’s value.

Consider relevance first: The Second Amendment was adopted partly to protect state militias. But it also was adopted to enable citizens to protect themselves against criminals, foreign invaders, and domestic tyrants. Traffic laws, radio, television, the internet, and modern medicine don’t undercut any of the reasons behind the Second Amendment.

On the contrary, you can argue that social changes call for strengthening the Second Amendment. Modern American cities probably suffer more violent crime than in 1791, rendering self-defense and arms training for law-abiding citizens more vital. Modern medicine makes it easier to remedy accidents arising from the legitimate use of weapons.

What about knowledge acquired since 1791?

We know that criminals sometimes use weapons to attack others and that armed citizens can stymie those attacks. But the Founders knew those facts, too. Recent international experience tells us that an armed citizenry can help resist foreign invasions and domestic tyrants. But the Founders knew that as well.

However, we have learned two lessons outside the Founders’ immediate experience. One is that even governments in “civilized” countries may slaughter their own people, and that they can do so only when the targeted portion of the citizenry is disarmed.

The 20th-century history of Germany is a case in point. The other recent lesson, as my Independence Institute colleague Dave Kopel has documented, is that the United States isn’t immune to terrorism against unarmed populations. The history of the Ku Klux Klan is a case in point.

So it’s clear that the Founders were right to adopt the Second Amendment. It’s even clearer that we need its protection today.

This essay first appeared in the May 4, 2021 Epoch Times. It is the seventh installment in a series defending the Constitution against slanders from “progressive” critics.

The post The 2nd Amendment is not outdated first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Congress Dan crenshaw Democratic majority Intelwars Legislation Us house

Dan Crenshaw highlights 10 radical bills the Democrat-led House passed, offers a look at what could happen if Joe Biden wins

Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw (Texas) warned in a video that Democrats would dismantle the country in a video highlighting radical legislation advanced by the Democratic majority in the House over the past two years.

“In two minutes, I’m going to tell you about all the radical Democrat policies that passed out of the House this session,” Crenshaw said in the video. “Ever wonder what it would be like if they had all three branches of government?”


Dan Crenshaw: Radical Democrat Policies

Crenshaw highlighted 10 bills that have passed in the House. If there were currently a Democratic majority in the Senate and a Democratic president, they could have become law.

Here are the 10 bills:

  • H.R. 1, the For the People Act, would overhaul the U.S. election system. It would impose new restrictions on lobbying that are so severe the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union blasted the bill as unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. The bill also would provide public funding for political campaigns. “They’re going to use your tax dollars to pay for political campaigns,” Crenshaw said. “Six-to-one match for small-dollar donations. That ends up being billions of dollars in taxpayer funding for bad political ads.
  • H.R. 3, the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, would impose foreign price controls on the U.S. market, lowering drug prices but also cutting into pharmaceutical company revenue that would otherwise be used to reinvest in research for new cures for disease. One study showed this policy would reduce the Medicare Part D revenues for U.S. companies by $358 billion over the next five years, a 58% reduction before interest and taxes. The study found that such a drastic reduction would reduce the number of new medicines brought to market by as much as 88% across the U.S. Crenshaw cited a Congressional Budget Office report that estimated eight fewer drugs would be brought to market in the U.S. between 2020 and 2029 and 30 fewer drugs over the subsequent decade.
  • H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, is a bill that would require universal background checks for gun purchases. Gun Owners of America has said the bill would criminalize private firearms sales that were not pre-approved by the government. The bill would outlaw the “transfer” of a firearm without a background check. “Transfer” is not defined in the bill, and Crenshaw suggested that borrowing your neighbor’s gun may be a felony if this bill were law.
  • H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act, is legislation that would grant amnesty to as many as 2.5 million illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as minors or who have been in the United States on temporary protected status. The legislation also would provide a path to citizenship and voting rights for those who qualify and cost $34.6 billion while providing no additional border security measures.
  • H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act, would force the Trump administration to reverse the president’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accords and require Trump to develop a plan to drastically cut U.S. carbon emissions by 2025. The Heritage Foundation conducted an analysis that found Obama-era regulations designed to meet that emissions target would raise electricity prices by between 13% and 20%.
  • H.R. 2472, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, is sweeping legislation to reform labor relations law that, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, would “preempt state labor laws, overrule three Supreme Court decisions, and transform the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from a remedial body to a punitive one.” “It actually forces workers to pay union dues, even if they don’t want to,” Crenshaw said.
  • H.R. 1644, the Save the Internet Act, would reimpose net neutrality regulations. Federal Communication Commission Chairman Ajit Pai killed the original regulations in 2017, and since then internet speeds have increased, while dire predictions from the left about greedy internet service providers taking advantage of consumers have not come true.
  • H.R. 5, the Equality Act, would make sexual orientation and gender identity a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act. Conservatives believe the anti-discrimination provisions of proposed laws like the Equality Act endanger religious liberty by being overly broad and inadequately defining what constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Protections for transgender Americans would also make it illegal to prohibit men who identify as women, for example, from competing in female sports. Crenshaw said the bill would give the government power to “federally enforce the ability of men to play in women’s sports, ending women’s sports forever.”
  • H.R. 582, the Raise the Wage Act, would raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, imposing new costs on businesses and, according to Crenshaw, eliminating 4 million jobs. “Remember, a business’ budget doesn’t change just because the government tells it to. It’ll just hire less workers,” Crenshaw said.
  • H.R. 51, the D.C. Admissions Act, would make Washington D.C. the 51st state. “Why?” Crenshaw asked rhetorically. “So the Democrats can get two new senators.”

“And that’s on top of defund the police, abolish ICE, make excuses for China, make excuses for Antifa, abolish the Electoral College, abolish the filibuster,” Crenshaw added. “It’s a dismantlement of our country of our country in America and her institutions. Remember that.”

bill Bryan steil Coronavirus Intelwars Kennedy Center Legislation

GOP congressman introduces bill to rescind $25 million for Kennedy Center

Wisconsin Rep. Ryan Steil (R) introduced legislation on Friday to rescind the $25 million Congress approved for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts from a $2 trillion coronavirus relief package, saying it was “inappropriate” for the funds to be included in the stimulus in the first place.

What are the details?

“Families and workers are struggling to pay rent, pay their mortgage, and buy groceries,” Steil said in a statement explaining his bill, reported by Kenosha News. “Americans need relief and assistance now which is why I supported the CARES Act. However, some in Washington felt it was important to spend $25 million of taxpayer dollars on the Kennedy Center when there are obviously bigger needs right now.”

He added, “This is frivolous spending in the midst of a national emergency.”

News of the Kennedy Center receiving funds outraged several Republicans, many of whom fought to have the funds excluded from the final coronavirus relief package. Hours after the CARES Act passed — with the Kennedy Center’s bailout funds intact — the Center informed the nearly 100 members of the National Symphony Orchestra that they would be laid off.

Rep. Steil told The Daily Caller he was against the pork going to the Kennedy Center as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act from the get-go.

“So we were negotiating this bill,” the congressman recalled. “[House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) holds up getting relief to Americans to try to get this and other things in the bill. And so the day that the House passed this bill, I drove from Janesville, Wisconsin, to Washington, D.C., to be there.”

“I spoke on the bill, spoke about how I thought the funding for the Kennedy Center was inappropriate,” Steil continued. “And then before I left Washington, D.C., to drive back home, the day we passed the bill, I dropped this bill into the hopper and introduced it to start day one. The moment after we passed a bill to begin the work of improving it and getting out of the bill, inappropriate funding.”

He added, “A handful of days later, after this passes and you find out that the Kennedy Center is laying people off. That’s almost the icing on the cake.”

Congressman Steil’s legislation to strip the $25 million from the Kennedy Center currently has 15 cosponsors, including House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.).

Abortion Intelwars Legislation pro-abortion Pro-Life ultrasound utah

Female state senators from both parties walk out of chamber as Utah Senate passes pro-life ultrasound bill

All six of Utah’s female state senators walked out of the Senate chamber Tuesday as lawmakers passed a bill that would make getting an ultrasound a requirement before getting an abortion.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, the women walked out in protest, leaving only the chamber’s male members to vote on the bill, which passed 16-7:

Spanish Fork Republican Sen. Deidre Henderson successfully amended the bill to prohibit the use of transvaginal ultrasounds under the bill, a more invasive procedure than transabdominal ultrasounds. But while the bill went too far before the amendment, she said, the amendment resulted in the bill going “a little less too far.”

Henderson and the other female senators, which included one other Republican, spoke in favor of the amendment and then exited the chamber as their names were called for a final vote on the bill, HB364.

“The six Republican and Democratic women of the Senate decided to walk out in protest,” Henderson later said in a statement, according to KSTU-TV. “It wasn’t planned, but a spontaneous decision to put an exclamation mark on our concerns regarding the invasive nature of the bill.”

“I am very pro-life, and always vote for pro-life bills. But I’m concerned that we are overstepping with government mandates of medically unnecessary procedures.”

Two of the Democratic legislators who walked out also posted about it on social media afterward.

“Love my sisters in the Senate,” Sen. Luz Escamilla (D) wrote. “A spontaneous decision not planned of sisterhood against the invasive nature of HB 364.”

“Thank you to these incredible women,” Sen. Kathleen Reibe (D) tweeted. “Invasive and unnecessary medical procedures are never best practice.”

An earlier version of the bill passed the Utah House last week by a vote of 47-20. In response to that passage, Planned Parenthood Action Council of Utah slammed the legislation as “yet another restriction in a long list of laws the Utah legislature has passed to chip away at the right to abortion,” and added that it “could add trauma to an already complex and often difficult experience.”

Contrary to the complaints about the bill, its proponents argue that the grave nature of abortion makes it necessary for women be properly informed before making the decision to end an unborn child’s life.

“If you are going to take the life of a child, if you are willing to terminate that life through an abortion, it seems appropriate that you get the best information about the development — the stage of development, heart beat,” Senate sponsor Curtis Bramble (R) told KSL-FM. “We are talking about a human being.”

Abortion Born alive abortion survivors protection act Born-alive Infanticide Intelwars Jim justice Justice Legislation life Northam Pro-Life Pro-life legislation Virginia West Virginia

Democrat-turned-Republican West Virginia governor signs ‘born alive’ bill into law: ‘An absolute no-brainer as far as I’m concerned’

West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice — who was elected as a Democrat but later switched to the Republican Party — signed a bill into law Monday that protects babies who are born following attempted abortion procedures.

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which penalizes physicians who don’t provide the newborn baby medical care, moved through the state’s House and Senate with near unanimous support before reaching the governor’s desk.

“This is an absolute no-brainer as far as I’m concerned,” Gov. Justice said. “I’ve said for a long time, even back before I took office as governor, that I would support measures like this because every human life — born or unborn — is precious and truly a gift from God.”

What’s the background?

West Virginia’s newly signed law is nearly identical to the federal “born-alive” bill that was blocked by 41 Democratic senators in a vote on Capitol Hill last week.

The legislation, both in West Virginia and in D.C., came in response to comments by Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam last year that indicated an openness to abortions after birth, or infanticide.

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” Northam said while discussing a controversial state-level abortion bill in a radio interview last year. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

Pro-life lawmakers took Northam’s comments and the surrounding discussion as a sign that the Democratic Party had moved radically to the left on the abortion issue, and that further protections needed to be made.

‘It’s just common sense’

“If I had my way, I would stand up here and say I stand for life in all cases, all the time,” Gov. Justice said in a ceremonial bill signing at the state Capitol. “It’s unbelievable that we even have to go through this process for something that seems like it’s just common sense. But, at the same time, we should be really proud that we’re defending the lives of our most vulnerable.”

“So today we’re going to put a stake in the sand that says for us, for us at least, we stand for life and we stand for the right stuff,” he added.

anti government banned blocked Censorship demands Facebook false Headline News Intelwars kill free speech legally compelled Legislation singapore

Facebook CENSORS Anti-Government Page On Behalf Of Government

Social media and mainstream media outlets are bowing down to those in government and taking on the role of censoring those who call out authoritarianism.  The message of ending humanity’s enslavement will now be much harder to get out thanks to companies like Facebook.

On February 18, Facebook blocked the page of an anti-government website in Singapore following a demand from authorities.  The social media giant then claimed to be on the side of free speech by slamming the “disproportionate” use of a controversial law against online misinformation. The widely criticized legislation gives ministers the powers to order Internet platforms and websites to put warnings next to posts they deem false, and also order pages be blocked in the tightly regulated city-state, according to the Star. 

In other words, the government has given itself the power to make commands to censor information and internet companies must comply. Shocking right? Those in power just gave themselves more power…

Thanks to these new laws, governments can now order others to censor information.  A dangerous precedent has been set, and all we can do now is hope people start to stand up to the powers that should not be. When will people and businesses stand up for humanity against those who have already enslaved the majority of the tax cattle?  Not likely any time soon.

Political website States Times Review (STR) – which regularly posts articles critical of the government – was repeatedly accused of circulating falsehoods but refused to comply with official demands to put up corrections. 

Authorities this week ordered Facebook to block the page for Singapore users. While they have ordered corrections be put up next to posts on several occasions, this was the first time they sought to have access to a page disabled.

Confirming it complied with the order, Facebook said it was “legally compelled” to restrict access to the page in Singapore.

But a spokesperson added: “We believe orders like this are disproportionate and contradict the government’s claim that (the law) would not be used as a censorship tool.

“We’ve repeatedly highlighted this law’s potential for overreach and we’re deeply concerned about the precedent this sets for the stifling of freedom of expression in Singapore.” –The Star

Censorship is always used to silence to dissent and to ensure those who have objections to their enslavement by government are not heard.  It’s a disturbing precedent set by Facebook to self-enforce instead of standing up to the authoritarians.

Hillary Clinton: “Facebook Intends To Reelect Trump” So We NEED Censorship!

SILENCED! Facebook Vows More Censorship Leading Up The 2020 Election

Facebook and Google have become the internet’s police. And that’s not a good thing.

Democide: Government Killed Over 260 Million in the 20th Century, Poised to Kill Billions More in the 21st

The updated paperback edition of HATE dispels misunderstandings plaguing our perennial debates about “hate speech vs. free speech,” showing that the First Amendment approach promotes free speech, equality, and societal harmony. As “hate speech” has no generally accepted definition, we hear many incorrect assumptions that it is either absolutely unprotected or absolutely protected from censorship. Rather, U.S. law allows the government to punish hateful or discriminatory speech in specific contexts when it directly causes imminent serious harm. Yet, government may not punish such speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or vaguely feared to possibly contribute to some future harm. “Hate speech” censorship proponents stress the potential harms such speech might further: discrimination, violence, and psychic injuries. However, there has been little analysis of whether censorship effectively counters the feared injuries. Citing evidence from many countries, this book shows that “hate speech” is at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. Therefore, the best way to resist hate and promote equality is not censorship, but rather, vigorous “counterspeech” and activism.

Democracy has always been somewhat of a bad joke played on the masses.  While most people have been conditioned to think it’s fine, others want no part of any system that operates on the premise that their rights don’t exist if they are in the minority.  And that’s exactly what the scam of democracy has always been.

People don’t want to hear the truth; they never do. They wanna live in some kind of fantasy. –Paul Mooney

assault weapons ban ban commonwealth criminalize disarm the enemy Emergency Preparedness follow laws H.B. 961 Headline News house innocent people turned felons Intelwars Laws Legislation opposition Police State tyranny Virginia

Virginia House Passes Draconian “Assault Weapons” Ban

The House of Representatives in the state of Virginia is quickly ramming liberal legislation down the throats of innocent people.  They have passed an “assault weapons” ban, which would criminalize thousands of people who haven’t committed a crime.

On Tuesday, Democrats continued their quest to disarm the civilians and advocate for a series of gun control measures in what has become the epicenter of the nationwide gun debate.

Self-Defense Is A Basic Human Right: A Website That ENDS The Gun Control Debate For Good

The 51-48 vote in the House of Delegates moves H.B. 961 (the assault weapons ban) to the state Senate. Passage among senators could be in jeopardy, however, as Democrats only have a two-seat majority, meaning they can only afford to lose one vote should all the Republicans oppose the bill.  But don’t assume it’s passage won’t happen.  Taking away guns is essential for tyranny. But the propaganda is all about safety:

“This legislation, just like other bills passed by the House this year, is intended to make Virginians safer every day,” House Democrats said in a statement after the vote. –Fox News

This is to make tyrants safer against those they want control over. This is obvious to anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of history.

Virginia has become ground zero in the national gun debate as Democrats have made gun control the cornerstone of this year’s legislative session after capturing a full majority for the first time in two decades.

Democide: Government Killed Over 260 Million in the 20th Century, Poised to Kill Billions More in the 21st

Virginia Governor Declares “State of Emergency” Ahead of Human Rights Rally

The Virginia Gun Rights Conflict: Best And Worst Case Scenarios

Fully prepping for tyranny is difficult because it takes relying on history for evidence of just how far humans will go to enforce laws on those who haven’t done anything wrong.  But if the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are any gauges, Virginians could be in big trouble.

Understanding that the police state is here, and there will be humans willing to enforce these laws is the first step. Constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead has written a powerful book about the police state we are living in in the United States. Battlefield America: The War On The American People details how our towns and cities have become battlefields, and we the American people are now the enemy combatants of the government; to be spied on, tracked, frisked, and searched. For those who resist, the consequences can be a one-way trip to jail or even death. Battlefield America: The War on the American People is a terrifying portrait of a nation at war with itself. In exchange for safe schools and lower crime rates, we have opened the doors to militarized police, zero-tolerance policies in schools, and SWAT team raids. The insidious shift was so subtle that most of us had no idea it was happening. This follow-up to Whitehead’s award-winning A Government of Wolves is a brutal critique of an America on the verge of destroying the very freedoms that define it. Hands up!?the police state has arrived.