Pistol Permit Recertification  by Tom Reynolds

As you should know, the new Hochul laws on recertifying your pistol permit take effect on September 1^st.   (Next Thursday.)  They’ll make the process horrendously onerous, time consuming and expensive.  In addition, there is all kind of confusion about its implementation. 

Since the law does not take effect until September 1^st, several SCOPE members have tried recertifying early, to see what would happen. For example, their recertifying due date might have been December 31, 2022, which is after the September 1, 2022 effective date of the new law and thus would be subject to that law.  Instead, they tried recertifying early on August 20^th.  It worked!  The recertification is good for 5 years instead of the 3 years under the new law.

The only drawback is that the recertifying date is now August 20, 2027.  So, they lost a couple months of time but picked up five years before having the expense and time of the new law when recertifying. 

We don’t know how far in advance one could successfully recertify.

What we don’t know is if NY will try to strike back at people who avoided the new law when they recertified early.  That effort seems unlikely, but Kickback Kathy and her minions really hate legal guns.  (Illegal ones don’t seem to bother her as her efforts are aimed at legal ones.)

Adding to the confusion, the permitting section of the law is being challenged in the lawsuit Antonyuk v Bruen (which is sponsored by GOA-NY and to which SCOPE has contributed financially).  A decision from the judge is anticipated next week – before September 1^st.  It is hoped that the judge will stop implementation of the law.  But it’s complicated.  The judge could put a temporary stop or a permanent stop on the law and in either case NY State will appeal.  In addition, the stop might apply to the entire law or only part of it. 

Since it won’t cost any more to recertify early and might delay the cost for five years if the law should stay in force, the only drawback is losing time on the recertification date.  Each gun owner will have to decide for themselves what that means to them.

Propaganda About the Recent Special Elections

The liberal propaganda mill is trying to “make hay” out of the two NY Congressional special elections held on August 23rd.  But they can’t get facts straight and, as usual, you should not believe what they say - there’s more to it. 

Republican Joe Sempolinski won the special election in the current NY 23^rd Congressional District by 53% to 47%, a 6 point victory.  But several media have painted this as a defeat for Republicans since they incorrectly say the district is rated R+12, which would mean Sempolinski underperformed expectations by 6% points.  However, Sempolinski was running in the current 23^rd which is only R+4.  So, he overperformed by 2 points.  After redistricting, it’s the new 23^rd that is an R+12.  Apparently, the liberal media can’t get their facts straight.  Surprise!  Surprise!

In the NY 19^th Congressional district, the Democrat Ryan won 51% to 49%, a 2 point democrat victory.  The district is rated R+2 so the Democrat flipped expectations by 4 points – on the face of it - and the liberal media is trumpeting it as a repudiation of any “Red Wave” in November. 

The R rating comes from the average of the last two presidential elections and that is the monkey wrench in the 19th.  Trump won the district big in 2016 while Biden won small in 2020.  The average of the two elections is Republicans by 2 points because of the size of Trump’s victory in 2016.  But the district was moving left by 2018; a Democrat has held that congressional seat in the last two congressional elections and won by 12 points in 2020.  In reality, the district had moved left. A 2 point victory for the democrat – down from 12 points in the previous election - might indicate the district is swinging back Republican, especially since special elections have low turn outs that may not be reflective of all voters. 

Does it mean much on a national basis?  Probably not.  But the left’s propaganda machine wants to “psych out” Republicans and it needs to be answered.

New York State is a Gun Free Zone  by Tom Reynolds

Effective September 1, 2022, Gov.  Hochul and the NY State legislature effectively declared that all private property in New York is a gun free zone.  (And most non private property, too.)

Private property would generally include homes, farmland, businesses, Rod & Gun Clubs, etc.

Not want to be a gun free zone?  Private property owners must affirmatively take action to declare firearms are welcome in order to NOT BE a gun free zone.  Otherwise, anyone bringing a firearm, rifle, or shotgun onto the property may be charged with Class E felony.

You affirmatively take action by posting “clear and conspicuous signage” or if the owner gives their “express consent”.  (It is not known what constitutes “Express Consent”?) 

The law says:

A person is  guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in a restricted location when such person possesses a firearm, rifle, or shotgun and enters into or remains on or in private property where such person knows or reasonably should know that the owner or lessee of such property has not permitted such possession by clear and conspicuous signage indicating that the carrying of firearms, rifles, or shotguns on their property is permitted  or has otherwise given express consent.

Firearm possession on non-signage private property is a class E felony.

The following is a link to the actual text of the bill.

Bill Text: NY S51001 | 2021-2022 | General Assembly | Introduced | LegiScan

There are lawsuits filed that challenge this law but they have not yet been decided.  Will they be decided before September 1st?  That’s anyone’s guess.

There are numerous unanswered questions about this. For instance:

- If you post one sign outside, does it cover grounds and buildings?

- If you have more than one building, do all require a sign?

- What happens in a mall where different businesses take different positions on declaring gun possession?

- Who decides on apartments, the lessor or lessee?  What if renters disagree, as in the mall example?

Attached is a sign that you can download and post.  Feel free to use it – or not.  But remember, as the law stands today, you will have to post something or anyone carrying a firearm onto your private property as of September 1st is a felon. 

Either way, remember this new law when you vote this November.  And in case this issue doesn’t persuade you, fill up your gas tank just before you vote!

Legal Carry Permitted Here sign

YOUNG V. STATE OF HAWAII  by Tom Reynolds

President Andrew Jackson said about the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court has made its decision, “…now let him enforce it.”  (Andrew Jackson was a Democrat.)

In three decisions, Heller, McDonald and NYSRPA, the Supreme Court came down clearly that the 2^nd Amendment is not a secondary right.  With New York and the federal government leading the way, Democrat politicians have echoed Jackson’s words through their deeds; they have ignored the “law-of-the-land”.

Unfortunately for the United States and our Constitution, several courts have also ignored the “law-of-the-land”.  Sometimes lower courts ignore the Supreme Court, outright, and other times they use bureaucratic subversions to delay implementation of Supreme Court rulings.  An example of both is “Young v. State of Hawaii”.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit (the 9^th) has jurisdiction over the “Left Coast” including Alaska and Hawaii. Federal trials are held in U.S. District Courts and the 9^th hears appeals on those district court decisions.  The only higher court than the 9^th is the Supreme Court of the U.S.  Historically, the 9^th is the circuit court most reversed by the Supreme Court. 

The state of Hawaii has a “May Issue” clause for pistol permits, much like New York State had until NYSRPA V Bruen ruled it unconstitutional.  Hawaii generally requires gun owners to keep their firearms at their “place of business, residence, or sojourn.” Section 134-9 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes contains a limited exception which allows citizens to obtain a license to carry a loaded handgun in public, either concealed or openly.

In 2011, George Young applied to the County of Hawaii for a pistol permit and was denied for failing to satisfy the subjective exceptions in 134-9. Mr. Young has not been discouraged by a decade of rejections of his appeals to the judicial system.  (Well…maybe discouraged but he never quit.) Young finally appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court granted Young’s petition and remanded his case to the 9th for further consideration, citing the Supreme Court’s NYSRPA v Bruen opinion.

An eleven-judge panel of the 9^th heard Young’s latest appeal, prompted by the Supreme Court decision.  A majority of seven judges punted and sent the case back to the district court - without a reversal based on NYSRPA or guidance. 

Four judges dissented and Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote the dissent and explained the issues well. 

The 9^th “…shied away from its obligations to provide guidance to the lower courts and to answer the straightforward legal question of whether Hawaii’s ‘may-issue’ permitting scheme violated the Second Amendment right of a responsible law-abiding citizen to carry a firearm for self-defense outside of the home. Bruen held unconstitutional a “may-issue” permitting scheme for public carry of handguns, much like the law challenged in this case…Instead of remanding without explanation or justification, the court should have reversed the district court in an opinion holding…that the “may-issue” permitting scheme was unconstitutional… If we issued such an opinion, we would ensure that Bruen is applied uniformly in our Circuit in future cases. And in this case, we would save the parties and the district court the time and expense of continuing to litigate issues that we could resolve easily.” (Emphasis added.)

Two things the left does not worry about are time and expense since they are operating on the taxpayer’s dime.

O’Scannlian continued: “…Young has waited over ten years to exercise his constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. Because we opt not to decide this simple case, we force Young to wait even longer.“

Optimistically, O’Scannlian wrote: “Someday, Young will finally be vindicated. Someday, our Court must issue an opinion that respects the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment. “

As far as the left is concerned, “someday” will be a cold day in hell.

Judge O’Scannlain made a scathing but true statement about the 9^th:  “…the majority seems to reveal a hidden rule in our Circuit: Second Amendment claims are not to be taken seriously.”

Young v Hawaii demonstrates the strategy Kickback Kathy Hochul and her Democrat cronies applied in passing their latest group of anti-2^nd Amendment laws: ignore the law and force citizens to sue – at the citizens time and expense.

 Martin Luther King Jr. wrote "justice too long delayed is justice denied".  Little would King have suspected that he was giving marching orders to today’s democrats.

One Damn Thing After Another  by Tom Reynolds

In his book “One Damn Thing After Another”, twice former Attorney General William Barr wrote about violent crime increasing dramatically because of, “…the prevailing liberal dogma that criminals were society’s victims rather than the victimizers.  During this time, as violent crime soared, the incarceration rate dropped…This surge in violent crime posed as serious a problem as we have faced as a nation.”

Pretty good analysis of our current situation.  Except…Barr was referring to the period from the 1960’s to the 1990’s! 

“Those that do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.”

In the early 1990’s while serving as Assistant Attorney General, Barr analyzed the situation and concluded, “…the problem of predatory violent crime was the problem of the chronic violent offender…a tiny fraction of the population were habitual violent offenders who committed most of the predatory violence in our society.”

He continued, “The identity of these career offenders was not a mystery. They started committing crimes as juveniles – for which they were never held accountable – and kept on committing crimes as adults.  They continued committing crimes whenever they were let out of prison on bail, parole or probation.”

Barr concluded, “The government’s highest duty…is to protect its citizens from the predations of violent aggressors…A government that can’t or won’t spend sufficient resources to prevent habitual violent criminals from continuously preying on peaceful citizens breaches its most fundamental obligation.” 

The way to do this was to, “…identify, target and incapacitate this hard-core group of offenders by making them serve adequate sentences dictated by the imperative of public safety…”  In other words, put them in jail where they cannot harm the law-abiding public.

As Barr’s then boss Attorney General Richard Thornburgh put it, “Before we can be kinder and gentler, we need to be rougher and tougher on crime.”   Before the government could create “enterprise zones” and other economic, social and educational opportunities, it had to stop crime. 

As Attorney General, Barr began some tough on crime initiatives that were successful.  And as he describes, “… the predictable naysayers became louder…spend more on social programs to address the ‘root causes’ of crime…We don’t need more police, we need more social workers.” 

Sound eerily familiar?

Barr answers, “…while strong law enforcement may not be enough on its own to solve all of society’s problems, it is the necessary prerequisite for any social progress…safe neighborhoods – must be the foundation upon which all else is built.”  

Unfortunately for all of us, our current governments waste money on economic, social and educational programs before they weed out crime, and then wonder why their programs fail.  (In fairness, success was never their goal.  These programs met the government’s real purpose of buying votes from those who are most victimized but only see the liberals “good intentions” and not the inevitable result.)

Almost 40 years since Barr was first Attorney General, the lessons he learned and implemented are being ignored and crime is surging.

Today’s liberals undermine and defund law enforcement.  They are soft on crime and refuse to hold criminals accountable for their actions and they treat criminals as victims of society.  Their bail reform lets criminals free to commit more crimes, often before the paperwork from their original crime is processed.  Prisons are being closed, which also is happening to law abiding businesses in cities where those that should be in prison roam free to burglarize and terrorize businesses.  And let’s not forget immigration policies that create an open door to criminals, drug smugglers and terrorists.

Liberals will say they are addressing the criminals with their “Red Flag” laws.  But like most liberal laws, their real purpose is to create a broadly defined law that can be used and abused against their opposition.  Broad “Red Flag” laws give liberals the opportunity to deny people their constitutional rights before that person has committed a crime.  And it’s not just the 2^nd Amendment they are going after; the right of Free Speech is on their radar.

The left never dies.  Their policies and programs are eventually shown to not work, but they only go into hibernation and eventually reemerge from their dens.  In 1994, an Assault Weapons back was passed.  In 2022, like The Terminator - it’s back.  Bad timing makes it our turn to fight the left, again.  We must not shirk our duty.

Smith & Wesson  by Tom Reynolds

The House Oversight and Reform Committee under Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (a New York City Democrat) recently sent a subpoena to Smith & Wesson.  It’s well worth reading S&W’s response.

Mark Paoletta, a lawyer representing Smith & Wesson also responded in a much longer letter.  Some highlights worth noting:

The firearms company cannot track deaths or injuries, crimes attempted or carried out with semiautomatic rifles.

“…Congress recently proved that it does not need such very specific information about exact units sold and revenue to do its job...On July 29, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives (the House) passed a ban on what you erroneously call ‘assault weapons.’ This only confirms my prior argument that the Committee does not need ‘every scrap of potentially relevant’ information to legislate.” 

The Supreme Court has said, “Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to ‘punish’ those investigated are indefensible.” 

“There is no basis in Heller for drawing a constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semiautomatic rifles.” 

In another case the Supreme Court said, “The Court…is unaware of historical precedent that would permit a governmental entity to entirely ban a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether in an individual’s home or in public.”

Unfortunately, the Swamp does not believe Supreme Court decision apply to them.

Given the Swamp’s recent attempts to intimidate Donald Trump and anyone who associates with him or votes for him, it’s nice to see someone standing up to the bullies in Washington.

Hanlon’s Razor  by Tom Reynolds

On Thursday, I theorized that the raid on Trump’s home was a message from the D.C. Swamp that they will use the power of the government to try to destroy anyone who dares oppose them and even an ex-president is within their reach. 

We know that Trump lives rent-free in the heads of the left.  Two impeachments, one of which was unconstitutional and occurred after he left office, the January 6^th “kangaroo court” and the Russia hoax all prove that.  Even with that in mind, invading Trump’s home seems so politically mindless that one has to wonder what the Biden administration was thinking? 

The answer is a theory called Hanlon’s Razor which says: “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

Biden once described his son Hunter as, “…the smartest man I know”.  Obviously, Biden travels in circles where the bar on “smartness” is really low, which might explain why his administration invaded Trump’s home. 

The leftist media is trying desperately to justify the Mar-a-Lago invasion, which may well be ranked alongside the Bay of Pigs Invasion as Democrat disasters. 

The current state of the Democrat Party is much like Wylie Coyote chasing the Roadrunner.  Wylie and the Democrats are desperate for anything that will derail their adversary.  The democrats want to stop Trump from becoming the Republican candidate in 2024, but everything they try backfires.  Inspired by the January 6^th kangaroo court, the looney left (including the media) has put tremendous pressure on Attorney General Garland to do something – anything – and thus the raid.

Since Franklin Roosevelt, the D.C. Swamp has been increasing and consolidating its power.  They now seem so confidant in their absolute power that they will use it in unprecedented ways without fear of reprisal.

Senator Ted Cruz recently pointed out that the FBI is using symbols of possible violent extremism as a reason to begin investigating groups such as 2^nd Amendment defenders and patriot groups.  Among these symbols are such extremist phrases as Molon Labeand Come and Take it as well as the Gadsden flag and the Betsy Ross flag.  By the way, two Betsy Ross flags flew behind Biden at his inauguration!

Several polls have Trump losing, if he runs in 2024.  But the left seems totally obsessed by the thought of Trump running again and they must prevent it by any means.  That indicates that the polls are wrong and the democrat elite live in fear of a Trump victory.

Given the audacity that the D.C. Swamp is now showing, a question that needs to be asked: if a Republican wins the Presidency in 2024, and especially if Trump is that person, will the D.C. Swamp allow a peaceful transition of power?  Remember, while the left condemns January 6^th incidents, it stood by for months and allowed cities to burn.  History shows us that when tyrants believe their hold on power is seriously threatened, they will resort to any tactics to maintain power and control.

Deeply Democrat states have their own version of the Swamp and they are growing equally bold in ignoring laws they don’t like, (such as the recent Supreme Court decisions on the 2^nd Amendment), and even bolder in enforcing only those laws that they choose to enforce.  Luckily, there aren’t many of these states but, unluckily, New York is one of them.

Which brings us back to the need for a 2^nd Amendment.

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely  by Tom Reynolds

While writing Tuesday’s Email to SCOPE members, the Biden administration was busy putting an exclamation point on it.  I wrote about how Biden and the Swamp could use the big increase in I.R.S. staffing to harass and intimidate their opponents, especially gun owners.  At that same time, the F.B.I. was invading the Florida home of former president Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago.

Commentators on TV have been busy spouting theories about why it happened.  But it wasn’t about unequal justice or classified documents.  It was a raw message from the D.C. Swamp and the Democrat Party that you had better not mess with them because even a former president is not safe from retribution.  The denizens of the D.C. Swamp can and will use the power of the government to try to destroy anyone who dares oppose them!

Since Trump was elected by the people of the United States, there has been a never-ending attempt to overturn the will of the people and remove him from office and to use the power of the federal government to punish him and anyone who dared to work with him.  Punishment started with General Michael Flynn and George Popodopoulos and was capped by the raid on Mar-a-Lago.  Compare that to the treatment of Obama officials, Hillary Clinton’s emails, Biden’s son Hunter or the rioters in major cities.

Our Founding fathers knew that big government was the enemy of rights and freedom.  The founders set up a constitution that only gave the federal government certain powers and built-in checks and balances to restrain the use of that power.  And if the Constitution wasn’t clear enough, they added a 10^th Amendment to be certain there was no confusion. 

A national police force like the F.B.I. scared them.  Commentators put all the blame for the Mar-a-Lago raid on the politically appointed heads of the F.B.I. and praise agents who are “just following orders”.  Sound familiar?  We heard that same excuse about “just following orders” at the Nuremburg trials.

Right here in New York State, we recently had another example of the arrogance of power.  An unelected governor, plagued with scandals involving her and her husband and with the cooperation of the Democrat Party has said, in effect, the rulings of the Supreme Court do not apply in NY State, if she doesn’t like those rulings.  She and her Democrat cohorts ignored three clear Supreme Court rulings on guns and passed laws flying-in-the-face of those rulings.  You don’t like it?  Too bad!  Sue her.

The founders knew what they were doing.  Even before Lord Acton said it, the founders knew: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” irrespective of the race, creed, color or sex of those in power.

The interesting thing is that academia, the media and other supporters of leftist politicians have been aiding and abetting the left.  If they had learned from history, they would realize that once absolute power is established,  people will lose their usefulness and are discarded.  In the play “A Man for All Seasons”, Thomas More described what happens when laws are discarded by those in power: "This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast…and if you cut them down…d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?”  Apparently, supporters of these would be tyrants believe they are wind proof.

Many gun owners don’t vote or get involved in politics since they don’t believe the government is coming for their guns.  But this is bigger than just gun rights.  Politicians may come and go but the Swamp has eternal life and they believe the Constitutional restrictions on legislative, executive and judicial branches don’t apply to them.  They will preserve their power, and the perks that go with it, at all costs. 

Upcoming elections are usually referred to as the most important in our lifetime, but this coming one certainly is!  In an evenly divided country, the left has said that those who oppose them have no rights.  If the left gets approval of their actions over the past two years, by being reelected, they will take it as approval to do even more to destroy the Constitution and cement their power.  And if conservative candidates should take back control, we the people need to force them to make changes that neuter the Swamp and punish those that used the power of the government to put the American people in fear of their government.

The left has declared war on American values, traditions and the Constitution.  But unlike other wars, this one can be won or lost at the ballot box.  To win it, we only need to vote.

Every Gun Owners Own Personal IRS Agent  by Tom Reynolds

Joe Biden’s Build Back Better plan became the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.  It passed in the Senate, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote. It now heads to the House where members are expected back from vacation on Friday and could begin to debate and vote on the bill.

If passed, tens of billions of dollars from the bill would go toward hiring 87,000 new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agents.  Just think, you will have your own personal IRS agent!  And you probably will.  The new bureaucrats could be used to target conservatives and – dare I say it – gun owners and 2nd Amendment defense organizations.

No!  Say it couldn’t happen under that champion of the middle class, Scranton Joe. But in 2013, under Barack Obama and Vice President Scranton Joe, the IRS delayed and added extra scrutiny to the processing of nonprofit tax status applications of conservative organizations. The IRS even apologized and admitted that it did it.  (But they claimed it was all lower level people in Cincinnati!)  Amazingly – or perhaps not so amazingly - after a two-year investigation by one branch of the Swamp (the Department of Justice) the DOJ announced it was declining to seek criminal charges against another member of the Swamp. By the way, the person generally considered to be at the center of the plot, Lois Lerner, is past president of the Council on Governmental Ethics Law – and that explains a lot.

Remember those Founding Father’s “antiquated” ideas about the dangers of big government?

In addition to new IRS agents, the bill spends $370 billion on a litany of Democratic Party spending priorities such as climate change, green energy and Obamacare. 

You may remember Scranton Joe’s campaign promise: no one making $400,000 or less should see increased taxes.  The Joint Committee on Taxation concluded that the new bill would increase tax revenue by $16.7 billion on Americans earning less than $200,000 a year.  I’m not an economist but I’m pretty sure $200,000 is less than $400,000

But this is an Inflation Reduction Act and inflation is the number one problem for many Americans!  Despite the name of the bill, it's unclear if the legislation will have any meaningful impact on inflation reduction.  In a rare agreement with conservatives, Bernie Sanders referred to the bill as the "so-called" Inflation Reduction Act, and acknowledged that it would have "minimal impact" on reducing inflation.

Why no decrease in inflation in spite of its name?

Last year’s American Rescue Plan was $1.9 trillion and the Infrastructure bill was $1.2 trillion.  This Inflation Reduction Act is ONLY $430 billion.  Oh yeah, before these bills, the annual budget deficit was in the hundreds of billions.  Where is all that money coming from?  The Federal Reserve is going to print it and then loan it to the federal government.

One major cause of inflation is more demand than supply.  Put another way, more dollars to spend than products available to buy.  Printing money increases dollars to spend which increases demand and increases inflation.  Oops! 

The Federal Reserve is raising interest rates to slow down borrowing and reduce the money supply in order to slow inflation.  So, while the Federal reserve is trying to reduce the money supply, Scranton Joe and Chuck Schumer are increasing the money supply.  Seems like the government is working against itself?  Remember, these are the same people who brought you the Afghanistan withdrawal.  

Trying to put a positive spin on these things; why worry?  Kickback Kathy Hochul’s new gun laws will probably make many gun owners into felons and inflation is not a problem for people in prison. 

Lots of gun owners don’t like politics and like economics even less, so they don’t vote (which leads to the above) and they probably don’t read this email. But if you DO care that even a so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” will be turned into another open invitation for abuse of gun owners (and anyone effected by inflation), you might consider a quick note to your congressperson expressing your opinion.

Seems reasonable.  If you’re dead you shouldn’t vote.

The law requires registrations to be cancelled when voters fail to respond to address confirmation notices and then fail to vote in the next two general federal elections. In 2018, the Supreme Court confirmed that such removals are mandatory.

In July, Judicial Watch filed a federal lawsuit against New York State and New York City election officials for failing to remove potentially hundreds of thousands of ineligible voters from New York City’s voter registration rolls - as federal law requires. The lawsuit details how New York City removed only 22 names over six years. In all, “more than 600,000 voting-age citizens, per year, are estimated to have changed residence in New York City during the five-year period from 2016 through 2020.”

And NY City must be the healthiest place in the world since almost no one appears to have died and needed to be removed from the voter rolls.

Judicial Watch notes that “Yates County, one of the smallest counties in New York, with a current total registration of about 14,500 voters” made 1,251 removals under this NVRA provision during the same six-year period.

Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections, and New York City’s rolls are some of the dirtiest in the country,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

New York City’s may be “some of the dirtiest” but not the only one.

In February, 2022, Judicial Watch announced that it settled its lawsuit against North Carolina and two of its counties after they removed over 430,000 ineligible names from the voter rolls.

A 2020 letter from Judicial Watch to Allegheny County, Pennsylvania led to the removal of 69,000 outdated registrations.

Kentucky began cleaning up hundreds of thousands of old registrations in 2019 after it too entered into a consent decree in 2018 to end another Judicial Watch lawsuit.

California also settled a NVRA lawsuit with Judicial Watch that requires the removal of as many as 1.6 million inactive names from Los Angeles County’s voter rolls.

In October 2020, Judicial Watch released a study that found 353 counties in twenty-nine states had 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible voting-age citizens.  (More voter registrations than citizens old enough to vote, i.e., counties where registration rates exceed 100%.)

Bloated voter rolls don’t automatically mean voter fraud but they indicate that the opportunity for voter fraud is there.  In the 2020 election, adding bloated voter rolls to the practice of ballots being mailed to all registered voters further compounded the opportunity.

Even though New York City intentionally ignored the NVRA, the ethics of the political bosses in New York City – such as former mayor Bill DiBlasio - are so beyond question that they would never have taken advantage of this gigantic opportunity for voter fraud in 2020.  (Sarcasm intended.) Ditto for the political bosses in Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Newark NJ, etc.

Pulitzer versus Nixon  by Tom Reynolds

What do you suppose the reaction of the New York Times and the Washington Post would be if some politician was awarded the “Richard Nixon Good Government Prize” for outstanding public service?  Outrage?  Screaming editorials demanding the award be refused?  How could anyone accept an award named after Nixon?

But those same papers (and others) cannot stop bragging about receiving Pulitzer Prizes.

Is Joseph Pulitzer the newspaper equivalent of Richard Nixon?  Does a bear…?

Yellow Journalism is variously defined as: sensationalism; tantalizingly lurid; crude exaggeration; biased; scandal mongering; little or no legitimate well-researched news; using eye-catching headlines for increased sales.  Everything the free press is NOT supposed to be.

And the two uncontested fathers of Yellow Journalism are William Randolph Hearst and…Joseph Pulitzer.  Yes, that Joseph Pulitzer.

Competing in the NY City market, both founded, practiced and encouraged all the above adjectives applied to Yellow Journalism. Pulitzer and Hearst both aligned themselves with the Democrat Party – the party of Tammany Hall and of New York City corruption.  Both spread sensational and fact-free accounts that helped involve the United States in the Spanish American War.  Obviously, not candidates to be icons of the free press!

So, why is Pulitzer enshrined while Hearst is largely forgotten or negatively remembered?

Hearst outlived Pulitzer by more than three decades and spent his considerable fortune on wine women, song, multiple mansions and a Hollywood actress mistress. 

Pulitzer left part of his fortune to award this prize (and $15,000 - tax free).

Since journalists write the books and articles and profit by the prize, guess who gets the better press?  If you have any doubt, read the history of Yellow Journalism and see how both are labelled the fathers but Pulitzer gets “kid glove” treatment while Hearst’s sins are front-and-center. 

Does the left leaning media put their biases aside when awarding the prize?  The 19-member Pulitzer Prize Board is comprised of major editors, columnists and media executives in addition to six members drawn from academia and the arts.  Lots of conservatives in that group? 

In 1962, Citizen Hearst: A Biography of William Randolph Hearst by W. A. Swanberg was highly recommended for the Pulitzer Prize in Biography, but denied by the board. Its subject was not an "eminent example of the biographer's art as specified in the prize definition."  In contrast, a New Yorker writer’s autobiography about his surfing days and At Home with the Marquis de Sade were “eminent examples” of biographies awarded prizes.

In 2003, the Pulitzer Board refused to revoke the award won by former New York Times reporter Walter Duranty denying the Ukrainian famine in the Soviet Union. The New York Times itself called his work “some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper." (Not a tough bar to jump over.)

The 2018 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting was awarded to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their reporting on what is now known as the Russia Collusion Hoax.  The Pulitzer Board refused to recall the prize, even after it was proven to be a hoax.  The New York Times and Washington Post decided that if they won an award, there is no reason to give it back. 

Given its history, the Pulitzer Prize is an apt name for the award as it reflects both the donor and the recipient’s ethical commitments to journalism.

The next time you see someone being lauded for the Pulitzer Prize, now you know the story.  Has anyone ever asked the award recipient: how can you accept an award in Joseph Pulitzer’s name?

Perhaps, after a long life, Donald Trump will leave money for “Trump Prizes in Reporting”.  Can you imagine…can you just imagine the media reaction!