The “Real ID” Nightmare: Now Available at Your Local DMV

 

Ah, the Real ID. A shiny little card that screams, “Papers, please!” Because nothing says “land of the free” like standing in line to pay your own government for the privilege of being tracked like a package.

Let’s rewind. After 9/11, the government slapped us with the “Patriot Act”—a title so cynical it might as well have been written by Orwell’s ghost on Ambien. It wasn’t about patriotism. It was about ripping the spine out of privacy and hanging it on a wall.

Then Edward Snowden dropped the bomb. Turns out, the NSA was already playing Big Brother’s Greatest Hits—recording, storing, and analyzing every digital breath we took. It wasn’t hypothetical. It wasn’t future tyranny. It was already here. And our leaders? They took a long, deep breath—and did nothing.

But the real villains? The cheerleaders of compliance. The “I have nothing to hide” crowd. Bless their hearts—they think innocence is armor. Meanwhile, the government is pumping out new laws like candy from a Pez dispenser. You break them daily without knowing it. Ignorance isn’t just bliss—it’s compliance.

Let’s be honest: you’re not a citizen. You’re a data point. They know your transactions, your routes, your social circles, your bedroom habits. Every swipe, every tap, every late-night text—catalogued. You didn’t opt in. You were born into it.

Freedom? Orwell warned us. But even he didn’t imagine we’d voluntarily fund our own surveillance, cheer for it, and livestream the moment we handed over our rights.

Then came COVID—sorry, the China Virus. The virus may have had a mortality rate, but the government’s response had a motive: obedience. They shuttered your businesses, your churches, your schools. Not to save lives—but to see how far you’d bend. The answer? Far enough to break.

And we learned something dark: people will obey anything if you scare them enough. Tell them it’s about “safety,” and they’ll crawl into the cage themselves—and bolt the door from the inside.

So here we are. Smiling for DMV cameras. Paying for IDs we don’t need. All so the government can know exactly where we are, what we do, and who we are—at all times.

We joke about Nazis. We cite 1930s Germany like it’s ancient history. But remember: that wasn’t a horror story—it was a bureaucracy. With paperwork. With ID cards. With death.  All with total obedience.

And history doesn’t repeat. It just updates the interface.

So go ahead. Smile for the camera. Pay the fee. Get your Real ID.

The state thanks you for your cooperation!

How a One-Sided Supreme Court Case Twisted and Taxed the Second Amendment

Prior to the post-prohibition, National Firearms Act of 1934 Americans could simply go to a hardware store and buy military surplus Browning automatic rifles, Thompson submachine gun, sound suppressors, and even hand grenades. This became the most serious infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

In 1939, the Supreme Court ruled on The National Firearms Act in United States v. Miller, a case that helped justify decades of federal gun control. But here’s what most people don’t know: it was a broken case from the start—no defense, bad facts, and judges with no military education or experience ruling on military weapons.

The result? A misinterpretation of the Second Amendment that still echoes today.

The Setup: A Shotgun, a Tax, and a New Law

Jack Miller and Frank Layton were busted for taking a sawed-off shotgun across state lines without registering it or paying the punitive tax required by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).

The NFA didn’t ban weapons outright. It used taxes and infringements to control them—targeting short-barreled rifles and shotguns, machine guns, and suppressors. Miller and Layton were charged, but the federal court in Arkansas dismissed the indictment, calling the law unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The government appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court: One Side Shows Up

By the time the case reached Washington, Miller had been murdered. Layton had taken a plea. Their lawyer? Nowhere to be found. No defense brief. No oral arguments. No one to speak for the accused.

That left the Supreme Court hearing only the government’s side.

The Ruling: No Evidence, No Protection

The Court ruled against Miller. Their logic?

“In the absence of any evidence that a sawed-off shotgun has militia use, it’s not protected by the Second Amendment.”

They decided that only weapons with a clear military purpose are protected. And since no one provided evidence that a sawed-off shotgun met that test, the Court let the law stand.

The Problem: They Were Flat-Out Wrong

Here’s the thing: sawed-off shotguns were absolutely used by the military. In World War I, U.S. troops carried 12-gauge trench guns in brutal close-quarters trench combat. These shotguns were so effective, Germany protested their use.

But the justices didn’t know that—because no one told them. The defense wasn’t there. And the justices? Not one of them had military experience. They ruled on a weapon they didn’t understand, using a standard they made up on the spot.

From Right to Regulated Privilege

Miller opened the door for the federal government to treat gun ownership as a regulated privilege, not a right. If a court doesn’t see militia value in a weapon, it can be taxed, restricted, or banned.

This flipped the Second Amendment on its head. The burden shifted to citizens to prove they deserve a right the Constitution already guarantees.

The Fallout: One Case, 80 Years of Confusion

For decades, Miller was the go-to precedent for gun control. Its militia-based logic let lawmakers justify bans and restrictions with minimal constitutional friction.

It wasn’t until District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and NY State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen (2022) that the Supreme Court corrected course—affirming that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, not just collective militia service.

Still, Miller hasn’t been overturned. And its ghost lives on in debates over AR-15s, suppressors, and short-barreled rifles.

Bottom Line

United States v. Miller was decided:

• Without a defense
• With zero understanding of the weapon in question
• By justices who had never served or studied military weapons

And yet, it reshaped how America views the Second Amendment for nearly a century. It remains a warning: a constitutional right is only as strong as the court that interprets it.

Let’s talk about the black-robed political activists masquerading as judges in America—especially the ones ruling on elections and gun rights.

 

These so-called “guardians of the Constitution” are about as loyal to the actual Constitution as a crocodile is to its prey. At the federal, state, and local levels—especially in those magical geographic cesspools like New York, L.A., and Chicago—judges don’t serve the law; they serve their political tribe. Forget blind justice—these folks are laser-focused on keeping their robes, their prestige, and the applause of their cocktail party peers.

And when it comes to defending constitutional rights? Don’t make me laugh. They fold faster than a lawn chair in a hurricane.

Take the 2020 election—a masterclass in gaslighting the public. The evidence of fraud was mountainous. But what did every single judge do when asked to examine it? They slammed the door shut and ran for cover. Why? Not because there wasn’t fraud—but because the legal challenges had to be filed exactly where the fraud occurred. And wouldn’t you know it—those jurisdictions were run by the very people benefiting from the scheme. The judges weren’t going to risk losing their political backing or their invitations to the next donor brunch. Inspection of ballots? Chain of custody? Forensic audits? How dare you question the holy sacrament of their rigged election!

They stood there like modern-day Pontius Pilates—staring into the eyes of a roaring political mob, and instead of standing on principle, they washed their hands of it all and gave the crowd what it wanted. “Let the Constitution be crucified—just don’t hold me responsible.”

Now shift to gun rights. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court finally made it clear: you cannot trample the Second Amendment just because it’s trendy in blue states. But what did the judges in those liberal fortresses do? They ignored the ruling, twisted the language, and upheld the very same unconstitutional restrictions the Court just struck down. Why? Because they’re not loyal to the Constitution—they’re loyal to their echo chambers. Obedience to the mob has replaced fidelity to the rule of law.

In these jurisdictions, the judges don’t interpret the Constitution—they interpret local polling data. Their job isn’t to protect citizens from government tyranny; it’s to enable it—so long as it aligns with their political team’s agenda.

America doesn’t have an independent judiciary anymore. It has a political enforcement wing in black robes, bowing like ancient cowards to the mob, pretending that washing their hands absolves them of guilt.

And the Bill of Rights? Just a nuisance—an outdated scroll to be ignored, shredded, or redefined on command.

Performers, Athletes, and Other Overpaid Complainers: Keep Your Politics in Your Locker or Dressing Room

There was a time—not that long ago—when art, music, theater, and sports brought people together. These were our common escape from the insanity of politics and division. But now? Every performance risks being hijacked by some overpaid, self-obsessed narcissist using their spotlight to shout political slogans instead of doing the job they’re paid handsomely to do.

Want a history lesson in how it should be done? Look no further than Jesse Owens—the ultimate class act. In 1936, he walked into Nazi Germany, stood in front of Adolf Hitler and a roaring crowd cheering for the so-called “master race,” and then systematically dismantled their propaganda by winning four Olympic gold medals. No protests. No drama. Just raw American excellence that shut down racism and fascism with a pair of track shoes.

Owens didn’t need a microphone—he had greatness. He didn’t throw tantrums, kneel, or scream about injustice. He let his performance do the talking and humiliated Hitler in his own backyard. That’s what real heroism looks like.

Compare that with today’s crop of political performers and athletes who can’t get through a single show or game without making it about them. Nobody bought a ticket to hear you cry, rage, or deliver your “brave” political TED Talk. We came to see you perform, not preach. If you want to be an activist, run for office. If you’re on a stage or a field, do your damn job.

Theaters, sports leagues, and concert venues need to put their foot down. Enough with the political sideshows. There are thousands of hungry, talented people who would give anything to stand in your shoes—and they’d do it without turning every spotlight into a campaign rally.

So here’s the deal: be like Jesse Owens. Rise to the moment. Represent with excellence. Leave the drama in the dressing room and the whining on Twitter. If your politics are more important than your performance, don’t expect an audience to stick around.

Because we’re not clapping for your opinion. We’re clapping for greatness. Either deliver it—or step aside.

Artificial intelligence and the legal community are set for a major collision

I recently asked ChatGPT what the current and near future impact of artificial intelligence on the legal community would be. The answer? Something law schools, bar associations, and currently licensed attorneys absolutely do not want to hear.

Right now, AI already empowers reasonably intelligent individuals to research case law, generate legally sound documents with proper citations, and construct persuasive legal arguments. We’re not talking about vague suggestions or boilerplate forms—AI can now provide targeted strategies tailored to specific jurisdictions and court procedures. And it’s improving by the second.

So what does the near future look like? A full-scale disruption. AI is poised to dismantle the gatekeeping structure that’s kept legal services outrageously expensive and out of reach for most people. The monopoly that lawyers and law schools have enjoyed for generations is cracking. The high costs of litigation—once the exclusive domain of licensed professionals—are about to be slashed, giving ordinary citizens unprecedented access to the courts and legal remedies.

What we’re seeing is the beginning of the democratization of law. For the first time in history, legal empowerment is being handed directly to the people—no JD required. And that’s precisely why the legal establishment is panicking.

The predictable future of AI in enabling self-representation in court is evolving at warp speed—and disruptive. Here’s where it’s headed:

1.  AI as Legal Copilot for Pro Se Litigants

AI will soon provide near-instant access to legal templates, procedural guidance, motion drafting, and real-time courtroom strategy—leveled up by tools like ChatGPT. A reasonably intelligent person with decent reading skills could be coached, step-by-step, to file motions, conduct discovery, and argue basic points, especially in civil and lower criminal courts.

2.  Virtual Legal Assistants Will Become Commonplace

Apps powered by AI will scan legal documents, summarize opposing arguments, and generate counterpoints. They’ll integrate court calendars, deadlines, and filing instructions, giving pro se litigants a toolkit once reserved for attorneys.

3. Courts Will Struggle to Keep Up

Many courts are not prepared for the wave of AI-assisted litigants. Judges will face more polished pro se motions. Clerks will see filings that look professionally drafted. This may blur the line between licensed and unlicensed practice—pushing courts to either clamp down or adapt.

4.  Access to Justice Will Dramatically Expand

The legal system will no longer be strictly pay-to-play. Middle-class and working-class litigants—especially in landlord/tenant, family law, small claims, and administrative hearings—will use AI to stand their ground against better-resourced opponents.

5. Bar Associations Will Panic (and Try to Regulate)

Expect aggressive lobbying by lawyers’ groups to limit how far AI can go—raising unauthorized practice of law (UPL) concerns. But like Uber vs. taxi unions, the tech will outpace the gatekeepers.

6. Eventually, AI Representation Will Be Officially Recognized

We’ll likely see licensed “AI legal navigator” systems sanctioned by the courts. Some jurisdictions may even create hybrid legal-AI representation models or limited-scope licenses backed by AI, similar to how nurse practitioners function beside doctors.

Bottom Line:

AI will not just help smart people represent themselves—it will compete with lawyers on routine tasks. The predictable future is one where intelligence and diligence, augmented by AI, may let the average citizen walk into court and fight with precision.

Locked and Loaded at the Supreme Court: Snope v. Garland and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island Set to Explode into Landmark Second Amendment Rulings

Let me predict that the Supreme Court’s ultimate gunfight is set to restore the Second Amendment. 

The United States Supreme Court has a habit of saving its biggest constitutional thunderclaps for the end of term—and this year is no exception. Two high-stakes Second Amendment battles—Snope v. Garland and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island—are locked in at SCOTUS, and the justices are not letting them go quietly.

Rather than issuing a routine denial or grant of certiorari, the Court has relisted these cases again and again in conference—an unmistakable signal to seasoned court watchers that the justices are circling something explosive. This pattern strongly suggests that the Court may be preparing to grant certiorari and use these cases to reaffirm and perhaps expand on the principles it laid down in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022).

In Bruen, the Court made it abundantly clear: the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. Any law that restricts firearm possession must be deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition. That precedent alone puts state bans on so-called “assault weapons” and standard-capacity magazines on thin constitutional ice.

Now, in Snope, which challenges federal bans and interpretations under the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act, and Ocean State Tactical, which attacks Rhode Island’s ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, the stakes could not be higher. These cases may answer the critical question: Can governments ban the most popular arms in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes?

The Court’s extended deliberation and repeated relisting of these cases strongly suggest that a majority is weighing how best to write the next chapter in Second Amendment jurisprudence—a chapter that may strike down broad weapon bans and reaffirm that the right to keep and bear arms includes arms that are effective, reliable, and widely owned.

Unfortunately, unless the court decides very quickly to grant CERT and fast track this case which is very unlikely we are going to have to wait at least a year for the Supreme Court to deal with the briefing schedule and oral arguments it’s doubtful we are going to get any relief until 2026

Watch this space—because when the Court finally pulls the trigger, it could redefine the limits of state and federal power over armed self-defense in America.

The New Face of the Second Amendment: Democrats and Women Are Arming Themselves

I saw it first-hand at the Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show in Las Vegas—a tidal shift that couldn’t be ignored. Women weren’t just browsing. The days of the “good old boys” club are over—firearms are now firmly in the hands of millions of strong, determined women who refuse to be victims.

And then there’s the unexpected surge: Democrats. Yes, the same crowd that once championed every gun control measure they could dream up are now quietly arming themselves. Why? Some are convinced that the country’s political divisions are about to send them to the gulags. Fueled by their own Trump-era dystopian fears, they’re skipping the classes and heading straight for the gun counter. It’s ironic—but real.

Women, however, aren’t just buying guns—they’re mastering them. They understand, perhaps better than anyone, what’s at stake. They’ve looked evil in the eye—whether in the form of a stalker, an abuser, or a stranger in a parking lot—and said “Not me. Not anymore.” They’re not waiting for permission. They’re taking control.

Meanwhile, the anti-gun zealots—the loudest voices in the gun control crusade—are quietly falling away from the cause. Maybe it’s that creeping realization that if the unthinkable ever does happen, their last thought might be, “If only I had a gun.”

What’s truly remarkable is that every time someone shouts “gun control,” thousands more begin to see the truth: the Second Amendment isn’t about politics—it’s about survival. Americans are waking up to the cold reality that calling 911 simply means asking someone else with a gun to show up… hopefully in time. But too often, they arrive too late—and they have to play the dangerous guessing game: who here is the attacker, and who’s the victim?

The truth is finally piercing through the fog: self-defense isn’t optional. It’s not a luxury. It’s a duty. And you can’t outsource that to a stranger with a badge and a clock ticking down.

As for so-called assault weapon bans the United States. Supreme Court is holding onto two cases and they are expected to rule possiblybefore the end of the current term.  It is expected that they will follow the letter of their earlier Bruen decision.

A sign at a times is how 29 states have gone so far as to allow ordinary people to carry concealed weapons without any form of permit.  I will give you that list.

As of May 2025, 29 states allow carrying a concealed handgun without a permit—commonly referred to as “constitutional carry.” These states do not require a license or permit for law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm, although some still issue permits for reciprocity purposes.

Here’s a breakdown of the current constitutional carry states:

1. Alabama
2. Alaska
3. Arizona
4. Arkansas
5. Florida
6. Georgia
7. Idaho
8. Indiana
9. Iowa
10. Kansas
11. Kentucky
12. Louisiana (recently enacted)
13. Maine
14. Mississippi
15. Missouri
16. Montana
17. Nebraska (effective 2024)
18. Nevada (recent law, confirmed 2025)
19. New Hampshire
20. North Dakota (residents only)
21. Ohio
22. Oklahoma
23. South Dakota
24. Tennessee
25. Texas
26. Utah
27. Vermont (no permit ever required)
28. West Virginia
29. Wyoming

A blast from Chicago’s past! Black robes and soiled souls.

Judicial corruption in Chicago was a way of life.  You could not be a judge there unless you were a Democrat. As a cop I knew at least nine of these judges and was friends with two that wound up on this list.  Many other tainted judges were never caught in these roundups by sheer luck.  Operation Greylord and Operation Gambat were extensive federal investigations in the 1980s and early 1990s that uncovered widespread judicial corruption in Cook County. 92 officials were indicted, including 17 judges, 48 lawyers, eight policemen, 10 court bailiffs, eight court clerks, and one state legislator. Nearly all were convicted, most of them pleading guilty. Below is a detailed list of just the Cook County judges who were indicted during these operations, along with their sentences and outcomes:

Judges Indicted and Convicted in Operation Greylord

1. Reginald Holzer
   
• Position: Circuit Judge
• Charges: Accepted over $200,000 in bribes from attorneys.
• Sentence: 18 years in federal prison.
• Outcome: Served time; deceased.  

2. Richard F. LeFevour
   

• Position: Chief Judge of Traffic Court
• Charges: Convicted on 59 counts, including mail fraud and racketeering.
• Sentence: 12 years in prison.
• Outcome: Served time; disbarred.  

3. Wayne W. Olson (friend)
   
4. Position: Circuit Judge

• Charges: Mail fraud, racketeering, and extortion.
• Sentence: 12 years in prison.
• Outcome: Died in federal prison in 1988.  

5. John McCollom
   
6. Position: Circuit Judge

• Charges: Accepted nearly $300,000 in bribes to fix DUI cases.
• Sentence: 11 years in prison.
• Outcome: Served time; released.  

7. John F. Reynolds
   
8. Position: Circuit Judge

• Charges: Racketeering, mail fraud, and tax fraud.
• Sentence: 10 years in prison.
• Outcome: Served time; released.  

9. John J. McDonnell. (Friend)
   

• Position: Circuit Judge 
• Charges: Racketeering, extortion, obstruction of justice, and tax evasion.
• Sentence: 6 years in prison.
• Outcome: Served time; released.  

10. Michael McNulty
    

• Position: Circuit Judge
• Charges: Accepted bribes to fix cases.
• Sentence: 3 years in prison and fined $45,000.
• Outcome: Served time; released.  

11. Allen F. Rosin
    

• Position: Circuit Judge
• Charges: Under investigation for accepting bribes in divorce cases.
• Outcome: Committed suicide in 1987 before charges were filed.  

12. Raymond Sodini
    

• Position: Circuit Judge
• Charges: RICO violations.
• Outcome: Convicted; sentence details not specified.  

13. Adam N. Stillo Sr.
    

• Position: Circuit Judge
• Charges: Racketeering; accepted bribes to fix cases.
• Outcome: Indicted; further details not specified.  

Judges Implicated in Operation Gambat

1. Thomas J. Maloney
   
• Position: Circuit Judge
• Charges: Accepted bribes to fix murder cases.
• Sentence: 15 years in prison.
• Outcome: Served 12 years; released in 2007; died in 2008.  

2. David J. Shields
   

• Position: Chief Judge of the Chancery Division
• Charges: Accepted $6,000 in bribes to rule favorably in a civil suit.
• Outcome: Convicted; sentence details not specified.  

Summary

In total, Operation Greylord led to the indictment of 17 judges, with 15 convictions. Operation Gambat further exposed corruption within the judiciary, leading to additional convictions. These operations highlighted systemic issues within the Cook County judicial system and prompted significant reforms to restore public trust. My question is do you really think that this ended judicial corruption? Not a chance!