Why Republicans Shouldn’t Cave To Democrats On Guns

Girls With Guns HD Wallpapers – wallpaper202

Image via wallpaper202.blogspot.com

It’s not only to prevent a Democrat landslide in 2020. It’s because Democrats will settle for nothing less than gun confiscation.

The Federalist

It has been said that Republicans are the “party of stupid” and Democrats the party of something worse. In their reaction to Democrats’ demand for gun control several weeks ago, President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appeared ready to prove the comparison about the GOP.

Soon after the multiple-victim murders in Dayton and El Paso—the former by a Democrat and self-described leftist supporter of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the latter allegedly by someone who, for the sake of the environment, theorized “if we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can be more sustainable”—Trump and McConnell said they were considering two elements of Democrats’ decades-old civilian disarmament agenda: “universal” background checks and a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, including those for handguns.

If Trump and McConnell, encouraged by Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham, who supports susceptible-to-abuse “red flag” gun confiscation laws; Rick Scott, who as governor of Florida signed legislation prohibiting young adults from buying firearms; and Pat Toomey, co-sponsor of a version of “universal” checks, cave to Democrats on guns, they might alienate enough voters to assure that Democrats re-take the White House and Senate, and hold the House of Representatives in the 2020 elections.

However, there are more important reasons Republicans should reject Democrats’ demands on guns.

Continue reading

Wanna See A Real Constitutional Crisis? Here It Is!

https://www.history.com/.image/t_share/MTU4MTAwNDU3MzYzODc1NjA5/us-constitution.jpg

Image via history.com

 

DC Clothesline

The Common Constitutionalist

 

For as long as Donald Trump remains president, Democrats will not stop trying to remove him from office. They will never admit defeat and will never cease trying to undermine the president at every step.

And, because of this, a new precedent has been set in the political arena. We said early on in Trump’s presidency, that everyone will eventually be forced to pick a side. Neutral bystanders will no longer be allowed to exist. Partisanship will be forced upon all the citizenry.

Shortly after Trump was elected, the attacks on him started to ramp up. So nakedly egregious is the injustice of the left that people who were not previously Trump supporters are beginning to come to his defense.

At first, many conservatives defended Trump regarding policy alone, but now, it’s just full-throated defense of a president who deserves none of the slings and arrows being hurled his way. The attacks are so virulent that they now threaten our republic. The attacks against Trump are no longer just directed at him, but at the very office itself.

Continue reading

Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing reveal Brennan was the mastermind of the Russia hoax

American Thinker

By Thomas Lifson

Anyone closely following the Russia hoax and its collapse understands that D.C. super-lawyers Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing have by far the best track record in accurately calling out the nature of the scandal and identifying the coming revelations.  I do not know either of them and have not communicated with them personally, but judging from their public statements, and inferring from their career histories, they must have very highly placed sources talking to them about the case — and quite possibly asking for advice or acting as sounding boards — about future actions to ensure that the facts are properly aired and the persons responsible for the abuses are held to account.  All of this is in the face of the fiercest possible resistance by members of the Deep State embedded in law enforcement, intelligence agencies, the DOJ, and the media — and maybe even in the White House staff.

Yesterday, they spent an hour with Sebastian Gorka on his Salem Radio syndicated talk show and gave us a preview of sorts about where the scandal is headed next.  The entire show is available on YouTube, minus most of the commercial breaks, and well worth a listen.  If you haven’t got much time, I suggest you start at about 20 minutes into the video and follow through to the end, 15 minutes later.


YouTube screen grab.

 

The most important bombshell they released is that they believe that John Brennan, then head of the CIA, was the core of the conspiracy.  Victoria Toensing added that this is because Clapper is too dumb to pull off such an operation.

They also revealed that Admiral Mike Rogers is happily willing to testify about the abuses he uncovered, which actually triggered the initiation of the Russiagate plot.  Recall that when he was head of the National Security Agency (NSA), which comprehensively monitors telecommunications, he discovered that political appointees in the White House were using its database on a huge scale to monitor political opponents and acted to cut off that access.  Suddenly cut off from their ability to spy on political opponents, and almost certainly fearful of public exposure should Hillary Clinton be defeated, the wheels were put in motion (with Brennan in the lead) to generate the Steele dossier and the FISA warrants to both spy on and tar the threat of a Trump presidency.

Continue reading

Electoral College scheme: Grounds for civil war?

Renew AmericaBy Alan Keyes

 

Though all members of Congress are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, it’s hard to believe that the Democrats among them have any intention of honoring that oath. In their bid to establish dictatorial, totalitarian, socialist rule in the United States, Democrats all over the country are pushing a plainly anti-constitutional scheme to erase the constitutional method for electing the president of the United States. Before considering their scheme, however, we need to remember why the people of the founding generation rejected the idea of electing the president by means of a national plebiscite, in which the people of the entire nation would vote, en masse, to decide the election.

 


People who in one form or another favor schemes for socialist dictatorship push the notion that “democracy” demands simple one-man, one-vote majority rule, in which the mass of the people divides against itself to make choices for the whole. But the leading lights of America’s founding generation rejected this approach in light of the fact that schemes for democratic government based on this approach have invariably failed. Within one or two generations, they declined through the cycle by which democracy declines toward tyranny through the machination of ambitious demagogues.

Demagogic tyranny, by encouraging the machinations of conspiratorial oligarchic cliques, declines toward the tyranny of one or another of the cliques, supplanting, neglecting and usurping democratic means. Oligarchs’ warlike competition impels them to rely more and more openly on violence, and thence on organized military forces. The authoritarian character of their strategic competition shifts power toward the force organized and directed by the most effective military genius. The conspiratorial rule of oligarchs is thus supplanted by the imperial military rule of the force inspired by that genius, military rule that uses it to rule over oligarchs and the people, as a whole.

This cycle of tyrannical regimes has mostly dominated the experience of humanity, punctuated by occasion intervals in which some balance of opposing powers enforces mutual respect for some semblance of right and justice informed by the voice of reason and goodwill. During the colonial period, however, the good people of the United States were encouraged by the potential for self-government discovered by their experiments in Christian polity. Their success encouraged them to believe that people inspired by faith to accept the wholesome self-discipline that Christianity demands of individuals could establish and maintain a form of government in which the occasional respite from the cycle of governments empowered by force and fear could be made permanent. They could transform the accidental balance of powerful forces into a permanent equilibrium of self-disciplined interests.

Instead of opposing forces temporarily stymied by their mutual opposition, that equilibrium would be sustained by the goodwill of individuals, self-consciously avowed to respect a common standard of God-endowed right and justice. That standard would, in turn, inform the measures (laws) they agreed upon to maintain and support their relations with one another. Moreover, as the habit and good fruits of that deliberate cooperation confirmed its worth, these people of goodwill would continually perfect the union born of their common sense of right and justice.

This vision of government of, by, and for the good people of the United States is a far cry from the forced notion of democratic dictatorship, based on the power of the masses. This individual-minded vision assumes that people are just that – human beings, not lumps of stone or clay. It assumes that they are motivated, as individuals, by a decent sense of right and wrong. It assumes that they have a conscience that impels them to see beyond the passions of the moment, in order to appreciate the good of the whole they comprise together, and from which they draw mutually supportive aid and good fruits. Above all, it assumes the activity of individuals, informed by a common sense of God-endowed right, who act in concert deliberately, not in mindless response to the pricks and goad of fear, grievance, or prideful passion.

With this in mind, consider the method of electing the president of the United States known to our history as the “Electoral College.” It involves voting by the whole people of the United States. But in the first place, that whole is divided into individual states. In the individual states, it is divided into individual districts. And in the individual districts, it focuses on the selection of individuals who best represent the whole people of each district.

The resultant vote is national in scope. But in substance, it reflects the diverse judgments of an array of districts. The individuals in those districts are not called to choose for the whole nation. They are called to choose, from among individuals living in their own area and general circumstances, someone who will represent their area’s overall spirit, mind, and circumstances, and will take them into account when making a judgment about the whole nation. But it must also be someone they trust to make that judgment with the care and concern they themselves have for the nation’s welfare.

Because the electors are chosen state by state, each state contributes to the outcome. Because their number reflects the total representation of the state in the national legislature, each state contributes to the result according to its weight in the national councils. The balance of diverse areas, interests and concerns is reflected in the process. It is not just a matter of numbers, but of distribution. No states are neglected, and each is given its due. Even as we describe the process, the description brings to mind the equilibrium the Constitution was crafted to maintain.

Now consider what the Democrats propose to do. They want a vote by the masses in each state. They then want all the states’ electoral votes to be cast for the candidate who wins a majority of votes nationwide. This would, in some cases, nullify the votes of the people of the state, imposing the national result on them regardless of their preference. Though the liars promoting it claim that this would count every vote, it actually means this: In states that have seceded from the Constitution, if the Democratic presidential candidate wins the national vote, all the states’ electoral votes will go to the Democrat, regardless of how the people of each state or district voted. Voters in non-Democratic districts will send no electors forward to cast their votes according to their preference. Their votes will, therefore, count for nothing, contrary to the Constitution’s intention.

Because the Democratic Party is now openly committed to the imposition of socialist, totalitarian dictatorship, they have no use for the equilibrium of interests the Constitution was framed to maintain. They want domination to result from the force of democratic power, not from a balanced account of the people’s goodwill. The result will reignite the cycle of tyrannical regimes the U.S. Constitution has helped the United States to avoid. It will put us on the path of perpetual tyranny, alternating with periods of bloody conflict, characteristic of human history, and of the totalitarian dictatorships that have blasted the prospects of all the nations socialists have conquered.

Fortunately, the result they aim to achieve cannot be achieved without a constitutional amendment. The states have no lawmaking power to alter the authority of electors chosen by the people. States can regulate the manner of choosing the electors, but they cannot dictate the terms of their vote, as if the electors themselves do not exist. Such legislation is not a law; it is an act of rebellion against the duly constituted government of the United States. If they pretend to claim power as a result of this anti-constitutional scheme, their rebellion will properly be the signal for civil war.

© Alan Keyes