Concealed Carry Permit Wait Time:

Several states, all governed by Democrat administrations, have demonstrated clear resistance to the United States Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.  The extended delays in processing concealed carry permit applications, often lasting several months, appear to be a calculated strategy designed to undermine citizens' Second Amendment rights. The pattern of delay tactics across these states suggests a coordinated effort, which is unlikely to be coincidental. Furthermore, these jurisdictions have imposed excessive fees on concealed carry permits and continuously devise additional bureaucratic hurdles, reflecting a deliberate effort to enforce their unconstitutional disarmament policies.

It is evident that the concealed carry permit process in these states serves more to disarm law-abiding Americans than to reflect any principles aligned with the Second Amendment. In response, civil disobedience becomes the only means to confront these unjust restrictions. Citizens should stand firm in asserting their right to bear arms, challenging these obstructions in court, where the constitutionality of these actions can be tested. The Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches should shield law-abiding individuals from invasive scrutiny, while the Second Amendment guarantees their right to defend themselves and their loved ones, despite the fascist policies of certain state governments.  I say don’t bother with the permits in these states, simply take your gun and carry it and if you need it, use it.  

Artificial Intelligence and Your Future

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been around for some time, but many have regarded it as a technology of the future. However, the future is now. If you're not engaging with AI, experimenting with it, or leveraging its transformative capabilities, you risk being left behind.

Two professions that are particularly vulnerable to the rise of AI are radiologists and lawyers. Radiologists, among the highest-paid medical specialists, interpret images from x-rays, CT scans, MRIs, and ultrasounds to make critical diagnoses. AI has the potential to analyze these images more accurately and efficiently than even the best radiologists.

Similarly, AI is set to disrupt the legal field. With the advent of personal computers, lawyers began drafting their own documents, reducing the need for support staff. Now, AI can perform legal research and write briefs with a level of precision that rivals top attorneys, potentially making the need for extensive legal support even less critical.

AI has applications across nearly every industry. Understanding and utilizing AI will determine your employability in an increasingly tech-driven world. The rapid pace of technological advancement means that adapting to AI is no longer optional.

Politicians are becoming increasingly concerned about AI’s potential misuse, which could be weaponized in ways that threaten them. In response, they are drafting extensive legislation in an attempt to regulate something that may ultimately be uncontrollable.

AI platforms are proliferating at an unprecedented rate. Understanding how to navigate and utilize these tools is becoming as essential as basic literacy. Embrace AI now, or risk being left behind in a rapidly evolving world.

Liberals Are Finally Waking Up to the Reality: Guns Save Lives!

Los Angeles, CA—With over 100,000 prisoners set loose and cash bail requirements thrown out the window, crime is skyrocketing while the police are defunded and left powerless. Criminals now roam free, facing almost no risk of arrest or punishment. The public has come to realize that calling the police, reporting crime, or demanding prosecution is often a complete waste of time. Meanwhile, politicians brag about "crime being down" thanks to their creative underreporting of actual crimes. Anyone living in a Democrat-run city knows that’s pure bullshit.

Liberals are starting to wake up and realize they can’t rely on the police to protect them. They’re buying guns like never before, seeking training, and rejecting the false notion that the police can or will come to their rescue. They’ve learned the hard way that, more often than not, police show up just in time to write the report, not to stop the crime.

I’ve taken countless liberals to the gun range to show them firsthand that they can defend themselves and save lives. When the worst happens, they don’t have to wait on an unreliable 911 system. They can take immediate action. That kind of empowerment is life-changing.

The truth is simple: the Second Amendment wasn’t meant to protect inferior or ineffective arms. It safeguards our right to bear powerful weapons of war. Despite unconstitutional laws to the contrary, criminals have no trouble getting their hands on every kind of weapon and using them without hesitation.

Gun control advocates are living in the past. Modern technology like CNC machining and 3D printing has made it easier than ever to produce high-quality firearms. Trying to control them is now a futile task.

If more people were armed, we’d undoubtedly be living in a safer society. Criminals would think twice before committing their cowardly acts if they knew their victims could fight back.

The relentless push for gun bans and restrictions is doomed to fail. States that have restored gun rights aren’t clamoring to go back to draconian laws. The tide is turning, and people are finally understanding that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens mean less crime and a safer society.

Is Sean Diddy Combs the tip of the iceberg?

Hollywood, CA— There is no question that the combs indictment allege so many disturbing things.  Simultaneously the department of justice has been building a case against the New York mayor and several other people within his administration.  I remain convinced that the two investigations are part of a much bigger combined picture.

If prosecutors can even convict combs 1/3 of what he charged with he will never live long enough to see freedom.  I have no independent knowledge of facts.  However, if there is a group involved in the alleged crimes Combs should not stand alone.  If there is any truth to all of the charges in the indictment Combs is in a unique position to bring down a lot of people, including politicians and other celebrities.  This also could provide a way for combs to limit the time he has to spend behind bars.  I even suspect that the justice department has floated that idea to Comb’s defense team.  

I actually have a novel idea to get Combs released on bail to home confinement that would guarantee combs is not a threat to the public.  I will save that idea for his attorneys if they contact me.  

We will have to wait and see how this story unfolds.

Our Bill of Rights is under constant attack by the political left.

Our Founding Fathers were truly a brilliant group of young men. After breaking free from the oppression of the King’s soldiers and using the Magna Carta as a guide, they created a representative republic for the people and by the people. Above all, the Bill of Rights was established to protect Americans from excessive taxation, ensure freedom of movement, safeguard the right to privacy through the Fourth Amendment concerning search and seizure, and, of course, guarantee due process of law before penalizing anyone for legal infractions. Consequently, anyone holding a government position of authority must take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

The term “democracy” is often misused by those who don’t truly understand it. A democracy allows a simple majority to impose its will on the minority. In contrast, our Republic is designed to protect the liberties of everyone, including the minority.

The political left despises our Constitution and our form of government. They seek rights that were never crafted into the Constitution, such as what they call “reproductive freedom”—the ability to kill babies in the womb. At the same time, they push for more control over our speech and thoughts. They loathe the Second Amendment, which allows people to keep and carry arms, and they never encounter a tax they don’t adore.

To push their agenda, the political left has concocted the theory of a "living, breathing Constitution" that changes over time based on the whims of politicians. However, the Founding Fathers wisely understood that our Constitution might need adjustments and created a legitimate process requiring a two-thirds majority of the population to make those changes. If Americans genuinely want to make abortion a right, they are free to use the proper political process to achieve that. The same goes for restricting the right to keep and bear arms or limiting our First Amendment rights to free speech.

Despite their massive efforts, the political left has been unable to gather a sufficient majority to amend the Constitution as they would like. Instead, they ridicule, vilify, and despise Americans who want to preserve the Bill of Rights as it was originally written. Our politicians frequently and blatantly violate their oaths to protect and defend our founding document. Rather than following the lawful process to amend the Constitution, they continually pass laws that undermine the Bill of Rights.

Regarding the Second Amendment, the political left initially argued that it only granted the right to keep and bear arms to government militias. This was absurd, as the government already has the authority to wield whatever arms it chooses. Their next tactic was to suggest that the right was a collective, not an individual one.

Former Senator and Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater put it best: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

Let me say this unequivocally: if our Founding Fathers were alive today, they would round up the political left and try them for treason. The real extremists are those attacking the Constitution and our precious Bill of Rights.

Want to Get Out of Jury Duty? Here’s a Foolproof Method!

Let's start with some background on courthouse security. On August 7, 1970, a deadly incident took place at the Marin County Courthouse in California. Judge Harold Haley was killed when Jonathan Jackson, using guns allegedly supplied by Angela Davis, attempted to free three inmates, taking several hostages in a violent escape attempt.

Another serious courthouse event occurred on September 22, 1971, at the Cook County Criminal Courthouse in Chicago. I was actually in the building, two floors below, when it happened. Convicted murderer Gene "Iceman" Lewis, during his court appearance, grabbed a gun left for him on a bookshelf by a lovestruck lady court clerk. He then disarmed the chief bailiff and took two hostages. He was quickly shot and killed by three police officers. After this incident, Presiding Judge, Joseph A. Power issued an order requiring every person entering the courthouse to be physically searched by Sheriff’s Police. This was the first courthouse in the country to implement such security measures, and soon after, courthouses nationwide followed suit.

Initially, Sheriff’s Police had to conduct hand searches, as metal detectors were not yet in use. For the first few months, they averaged 30 arrests a day for illegal concealed weapons until word got out. Eventually, court bailiffs took over these duties, and metal detectors are now standard.

So, you want to know how to get out of jury duty?

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, stating: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Court orders requiring searches depend on you voluntarily waiving your Fourth Amendment rights before entering the building. The truth is, you don't have to submit to these searches. Of course, security won't let you in without complying, but this is where your strategy comes in.

When you receive your jury summons, write a letter to the presiding judge of the court. Politely state that while you are willing to serve on a jury, you are not willing to waive your Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Indicate that you will not voluntarily submit to a search like a common criminal. Conclude by saying that you are happy to serve, provided they can ensure you are not subjected to any search of your person or property when entering the courthouse.

The court has no legal way to force you to waive your constitutional rights. They certainly won't want to set a precedent by making exceptions. As a result, they will excuse you from jury duty.

If I need you, I’ll page you! Ouch!

Beirut, Lebanon—In a turn of events that even Hollywood couldn’t script, Hezbollah just got a mouthful of their own medicine. Israel has been making waves, laser-targeting Hamas and other terror leaders by exploiting cell phone vulnerabilities like a hacker in a spy thriller.

To dodge these high-tech takedowns, the terrorists thought they'd outsmart the system by dusting off some 90s relics—pagers. Yes, you read that right. Apparently, pagers are “unhackable,” but there’s one little hiccup: they’re one-way communication devices. Not exactly cutting-edge, but hey, it allowed them to shoot off a mass page and summon their foot soldiers for military action. Low-tech and effective... until it wasn't.

In a desperate rush, Hezbollah bought up a batch of pagers. Now, where they found these ancient gadgets is anyone’s guess—eBay? A RadioShack that never closed? But credit goes to some real Einstein who figured out a way to booby-trap them. These pagers came with a “special delivery”—an explosive surprise rigged with buckshot. One mass call later, a series of pager bombs wiped out Hezbollah’s finest in the blink of an eye. Eight top fighters were turned into history books, and another 3000 were maimed, some beyond recognition.

Medical resources? Completely overwhelmed. Terrorists? Benched—some permanently. Talk about a tactical takedown!

No one’s claiming responsibility for this inventive military strategy, but all eyes are on Israel. Hezbollah is vowing revenge, but with most of their fighters now wearing hospital gowns, good luck with that!

Adding insult to injury, paranoia has gripped the ranks. Who’s going to trust any communication device now? The mere thought of checking messages could trigger their newly acquired PTSD. Fighting a war without communications? That’s like playing chess blindfolded.

And let’s be real: Iran might want to sit this one out. Israel's got a nuclear hammer, and Iran’s looking pretty light in the arsenal department. 

So You Want "James Bond" Style Silencer? It’s Easier Than You Think!

Dallas, TX— Silencers or suppressors have often been glamorized in movies, exaggerating their effectiveness in quieting firearms. While once legal, the National Firearms Act of 1934 introduced a $200 transfer fee, heavily taxing ownership rather than banning them outright.

Until recently, buyers of suppressors had to wait months for approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE). However, reports now indicate that BATFE is processing applications in just days, perhaps because of impending court rulings that may eliminate their control over these devices. Three ongoing court challenges could remove suppressor regulations altogether.

Despite their mystique, suppressors can’t defy the laws of physics. Bullets traveling faster than 1,100 feet per second still produce a sonic boom. While suppressors reduce sound levels, they’re not as whisper-quiet as Hollywood suggests. Instead, they primarily protect the shooter from hearing damage, a significant issue—especially among military personnel. In fact, the VA purchases more hearing aids than any other entity worldwide.

Currently, eight Democrat-controlled states and the District of Columbia ban suppressor ownership. While legal challenges are ongoing, BATFE still restricts these devices in those areas. 

States currently prohibiting civilian ownership of suppressors include:

1. California

2. Delaware

3. Hawaii

4. Illinois

5. New York

6. New Jersey

7. Rhode Island

8. Massachusetts

9. The District of Columbia

Local cops using LPR Data captured would be presidential assassin Ryan Wesley Roth.

 

Martin County, FL—An anonymous bystander played a pivotal role in the capture of would-be presidential assassin Ryan Wesley Routh. Using his phone, the individual snapped a photo of Routh’s license plate and quickly alerted authorities. Police utilized License Plate Reader (LPR) technology to track and arrest the suspect.

LPRs are high-resolution cameras that capture license plates, along with the time, date, and location of a vehicle. These devices are either stationary on roads or mounted on vehicles. In this case, a network of LPR cameras in the area helped localize the suspect.

LPR technology is becoming an essential tool in modern law enforcement. It can place a suspect near a crime scene or miles away, offering crucial evidence in trials. Data from LPRs, far more reliable than eyewitness accounts, are increasingly used in court to either incriminate or exonerate suspects. Along with other data related surveillance tools, LPRs have significantly increased crime-solving efficiency.

While the use of LPR technology and operators is protected under the First Amendment, it raises privacy concerns, as it can track individuals without their knowledge. However, its applications extend beyond crime-solving; LPRs have been used in cases of infidelity and other personal investigations. As LPRs proliferate, their impact on both public safety and privacy continues to grow. For those interested in deploying this technology, LPR systems are readily available for purchase on platforms like Amazon.

This incident highlights both the power and the privacy implications of LPR technology, which is becoming more prevalent in law enforcement and personal use.

The Rise and Fall of New Times Founders, Michael Lacey and James Larkin

Michael Lacey and James Larkin

Phoenix, AZ— When I moved to Arizona, I came across an interesting free newspaper—an alternative publication filled  with articles by incredibly talented writers. The paper offered long-form articles that you just don’t see in the daily newspapers across the country. The New Times had no hesitation when it came to exposing government waste, fraud, and corruption. Sadly, today’s media offers very little in terms of criticism aimed at the government, perhaps because journalists fear becoming victims of political retaliation.

The New Times was founded by Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin. While I don’t know much about Larkin, Lacey was a highly regarded journalist with a significant public profile.

Together, the duo expanded their New Times brand, creating numerous publications in various cities. These papers have won countless awards for their outstanding journalism.

During this time, newspapers across the country failed to notice the growing competition from Craigslist. But they certainly noticed when their advertising revenue started shifting to the new online platform. In response, the New Times began accepting ads from massage parlors, escorts, and others selling sexually suggestive services. 

Lacey and Larkin made hundreds of millions of dollars from the ads on their Backpage.com. Not bad for a free publication.

The federal government eventually went after Lacey and Larkin, not because of the ads themselves, but due to the illegal activities of those placing them—pimps, human traffickers, and desperate individuals, including women forced into prostitution to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads.

Historically, humans have always found ways to profit from sexual services, including child trafficking. I don't believe Backpage did anything illegal, but that didn’t stop authorities from arresting Lacey and Larkin and charging them with a mountain of criminal offenses. They were forced to wear ankle monitors throughout the lengthy pre-trial period. When the case finally went to trial, the jury failed to reach a verdict, resulting in a mistrial. The government wasted no time in seeking a retrial.

As their attorneys prepared for the retrial, Jim Larkin tragically took his own life, seemingly overwhelmed by the ordeal. When the case returned to court, the new jury only reached a verdict on one count of money laundering. Successful companies often hire accountants to creatively handle their finances, particularly to minimize tax liability. Was this guilty verdict merely a compromise to satisfy the prosecutors’ efforts?

Lacey was ultimately sentenced to five years in prison and ordered to pay a $3 million fine. Meanwhile, most of the sex-related charges could potentially be retried for a third time, dragging this costly case through yet another chapter of a taxpayer-funded legal Odyssey.  

Lacey, now 76 years old, which coincidentally is the average life expectancy for American males. He’s been ordered to report to prison this month, and if the government moves forward with a third trial, he’ll be dragged out of prison to face it. At this point, another trial seems as pointless as beating a dead horse.   

American gun prohibitions were not born out of public safety fears, but abject racism.

 

In the United States Supreme Court , Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (60 U.S. 393, 417): Chief Justice Roger B. Taney made remarks that implicitly referenced the right to bear arms as one of the fundamental rights that would have been extended to African Americans had they been recognized as citizens. While the case is primarily known for its rulings on citizenship and slavery, Taney's opinion lists several rights that would have followed from recognizing African-Americans as citizens. One of these rights included the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Here is the relevant passage from Chief Justice Taney's opinion:

“It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

This part of Taney's opinion suggested that one consequence of recognizing African Americans as citizens would be granting them the constitutional rights associated with citizenship, including the Second Amendment right to bear arms. He used this as an argument against recognizing African Americans as citizens, as it would entitle them to the full protection of the Bill of Rights.

The language here reflects the mindset of the time, where extending these fundamental rights to African Americans was seen by Taney as undesirable and inconsistent with the legal and social norms of the era.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. famously applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon in early 1956, shortly after his house was bombed during the Montgomery Bus Boycott in Alabama. At the time, Dr. King and his family were under significant threat due to his leadership in the civil rights movement. 

The incident that prompted Dr. King to consider arming himself occurred on January 30, 1956, when a bomb exploded at his home in Montgomery, Alabama. Fortunately, no one was hurt, but this attack deeply alarmed Dr. King and his supporters. In response, Dr. King sought a permit to carry a firearm for self-defense. However, despite the heightened threats against him, his application for a concealed carry permit was denied by local authorities. Alabama, at the time, had a discriminatory system that made it difficult for African-Americans to legally carry firearms.

Mahatma Gandhi made a notable remark about the British policy of disarming the Indian population in his work, "An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth"(1927-1929). Here is the exact quote: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” This statement reflects Gandhi's belief that disarming the Indian populace was a grave injustice. 

Make no mistake: early American gun laws were rooted in permit systems specifically designed to prevent Black people from owning or carrying firearms. These gun control measures quickly spread up the East Coast like wildfire. When they reached New York, the issuance of permits depended largely on which ethnic group held the majority at the time. Throughout U.S. history, it became common practice for local sheriffs to sell gun permits for cash, turning the process into a tradition of corruption.