Leftists, on the other hand, want an expansion of socialist/Marxist causes and programs and don’t seem to give a damn about how they achieve these goals. Riots, cancel culture, intimidation, and outright lying are all tools that they happily employ to further their perfidious agenda. They ignore the law and the Constitution when they can, and twist it to fit their cause when they cannot. Sadly, most of the “Democrat” leadership in our federal government, including Speaker Pelosi, Senator Schumer, and even Biden and Harris have all slipped off the veneer of their Democrat titles and have become full-fledged leftists now.
This is seen in the rancid authoritarianism, often blatantly counter to the Constitution, that we see them advocating today. It is ironic that the left thinks that authoritarianism was something conducted under President Trump and the right, but after only weeks in office, we can clearly see the true authoritarianism of those that have seized power.
This egregious anti-Constitutionalism is especially displayed in four major areas that include attempting to de-platform non-leftist media, expansive gun control measures, solidifying election fraud, and an attempt to eliminate the senatorial filibuster.
I. De-platforming of media counter to the leftist agenda in circumvention of first amendment rights
Leftist representatives Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney, both of California, demanded answers from cable television providers on the role they play in the "spread of dangerous misinformation" this week. Their letter released to the press this last Monday, targets only conservative-leaning outlets, including Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN. On Wednesday, the House subcommittee on Communications and Technology of the Committee on Energy and Commerce held a hearing on disinformation and extremism in media accordingly.
Cable service companies such as Comcast, AT&T, Spectrum, Dish, Verizon, Cox, and Altice all received the same letter on Monday pressing for answers on policies related to the spread of disinformation, rumors, and conspiracy theories on networks they carry. Of course, the letter only indicts conservative news networks such as Fox News, OANN, and Newsmax as it accuses them of broadcasting misinformation on topics such as Covid-19, the recent presidential election, and the capitol riot on January 6th. These leftists asked these cable and satellite platforms if they plan to renew contracts with these companies at the end of their current contract. Of course, the perpetually inaccurate and left-politically-biased CNN and MSNBC are given passes in this letter.
It is bad enough that big tech companies such as Amazon Wireless Services, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter all colluded to have truly free speech companies like Parler, de-platformed for supposedly allowing Americans to exercise their constitutional rights to free speech. They couched it as a safety issue since some capitol rioters used Parler to communicate and coordinate their misdeeds. I call bovine excrement on this, as Parler was used only a fraction as much as Facebook and Twitter for this, even despite the censoring algorithms employed by them. This was not about safety. It was a ploy monetarily to shut down strong upstarts that actually allowed free speech from the left and right. Parler didn’t simply tow the leftist line, in other words, and they cut into the social media darlings’ profits.
II. Gun Control measures to restrict or disarm Americans in circumvention of second amendment rights.
Joe Biden, on February 14th, announced his gun control plan which he envisions as containing the following provisions:
· Licensing for citizens before they can purchase a firearm
· Universal background checks
· A ban on modern sporting rifles and original capacity magazines (i.e., scary AR-15’s and the like)
· “Smart gun” technology
· Repeal of legal protection for firearms makers from harassment lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry
· One-gun-per-month restrictions for law-abiding gun owners
· Mandated “safe storage” of firearms
· Penalize adults for allowing minors access to firearms
· Expand so-called “red flag” laws
· Extend the background check period from three to at least ten days
Leftist Representative Sheila Jackson Lee’s H.R. 127 bill proposes many of the same provisions plus some additional restrictions. Like a good socialist, she sees the bill as a means to confiscate tax dollars as well.
· Require licensing for possession of firearms and ammunition (fee not specified);
· Require additional licensing (cost not specified) to display an antique firearm in the home;
· Require additional licensing (cost not specified) for possession of "military style weapons”;
· Require firearm liability insurance with a yearly fee of $800 payable to the U.S. attorney general.
· Establish a detailed federal firearm registration system to which the public, all federal, state and local law enforcement, all governments, and all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces would have complete access.
Under Rep. Jackson's proposed firearm licensing requirements, gun buyers/owners must be 21, undergo a criminal background check, and complete a minimum 24-hour training course approved by the U.S. attorney general.
Gun owners also would have to undergo a psychological evaluation, and so would other members of the gun owner's household. The psychologist (who would charge a fee, not yet specified) would have to be on a list approved by the U.S. attorney general.
Jackson's bill includes criminal penalties for people who sell, loan or give a firearm or ammunition to another person, unless the person has notified the U.S. attorney general of the sale, loan or gift.
It would be unlawful for a person to transfer a firearm or ammunition to an unlicensed person; unlawful to possess ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater; large capacity ammunition feeding devices would be outlawed.
A firearms registry and licensing are the first steps to federal gun confiscation. I have been assured by our resident leftist on this site that the government is not coming for our guns, if I actually owned any, but somehow these leftist dream list measures sure seem to say otherwise.
We already have the NICS background check that is required for all firearm purchases currently in effect to ensure that those with criminal backgrounds, restraining orders, or disqualifying mental issues do not legally acquire firearms. All Biden and Jackson-Lee’s proposals will do is to ensure that law abiding Americans cannot get or keep many of their existing firearms. The criminals will still get their guns through the streets and theft.
Biden stated, “I am absolutely convinced I can get [gun-control legislation] passed. The way we did it last time is we included it in a larger bill.” See, if you put the legislation into critical funding bills, you can get anything passed as we creep ever closer to an authoritarian but utopian leftist state. How many of those have you ever seen work throughout history?
III. Solidifying Election Fraud
HR 1, dubbed the For the People Act, and its companion bill in the Senate, S 1 are being offered by the leftists in congress to enshrine those leftists under the guise of the Democrat party to hold onto “elected” power indefinitely. This altruistic sounding bill is the very antithesis to the Constitution and its desire for free and fair elections. Some of the components of this travesty are:
1. It forces taxpayers to finance political campaigns. When it passes, Americans will pay for the campaigns of all politicians seeking federal office, including self-professed socialists like Bernie Sanders and AOC. H.R. 1 will also allow politicians to double dip and take a second salary from their campaigns.
2. It eliminates the ability of states to control their own elections in contradiction to the Constitution. H.R. 1 forces states to enact same-day voter registration, automatically register voters, implement online voter registration, allow voters to cast ballots outside of their precinct, keep ineligible voters on voter rolls in perpetuity, register voters without verifying eligibility, and allow people to vote without showing any identification.
3. It further undermines our 1st Amendment rights. H.R. 1 unconstitutionally increases government censorship over political campaigns, activity, and speech. Using a very vague standard, the bill regulates any speech that is deemed to impact an election (which is almost anything).
H.R. 1 would also force political nonprofits to publicly disclose donors, but don’t be fooled, this isn’t about transparency. This is about making it easier for the militant left to dox conservatives, threaten their families, and get them fired from their jobs.
IV. Leftists want to eliminate the Senate’s filibuster
There is nothing in the Constitution regarding the filibuster; however, the senate does have the right to set its own rules. The filibuster has been a time-honored part of those rules that makes the upper chamber of congress a more deliberative body that often requires compromise to move legislation forward. Removing the filibuster would simply lower the senate to a glorified version of the House of Representative where a simple majority rules on every piece of legislation. This very idea used to be an anathema to Democrats before they morphed into leftists.
President Obama (and former senator) said in April of 2005, “If the majority chooses to end the filibuster – if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate – then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.”
Joe Biden (former senator) as reported on C-SPAN said on May 23, 2005, “At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill, it is about compromise and moderation. That is why the Founders put unlimited debate in.”
Current Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer said on February 28, 2005 that “[Eliminating the filibuster] makes the Senate into the House of Representatives. We are no longer the cooling saucer.”
And last, current Senator and former leftist presidential candidate Cory Booker stated in January of 2019, “We should not be doing anything to mess with the strength of the filibuster. It’s one of the distinguishing factors of this body. And I think it is good to have the power of the filibuster.”
So, I ask, if this is the way that all of these current and former senators saw the filibuster, what has changed now? The answer is simple. They have gained power in the Senate. By changing senate rules, the Left will be able to forward leftist and often extra- or un-constitutional legislation on a simple majority vote, with the tie breaker going to former senator and now VP Harris.
This is a perfect storm for the Left to advance their agenda. They have seized all of the major levers of power with willing accomplices in the media and social media platforms. America as we knew it will suffer greatly under this leftist takeover. As we have already seen and given examples of above, “leftist principles” is an oxymoronic statement evidently. It is all about consolidation and enshrinement of power for the left. Any means to accomplish this is acceptable. And the constitution can be damned!
Republicans and Democrats should be very afraid!
15 comments:
In recent past the Supreme Court held that a ban on automatic weapons was Constitutional. It also held that certain gun accessories could be banned. The 2nd amendment is subject to Congressional restrictions and Court decision. The Democrats are trying to do something about gun murders in our country, which a problem. You obviously disagree with their choices and the Court will decide if those choices are Constitutional. Some are over the top and some are rational provisions. Gun people think ANY restrictions are unconstitutional, which is wrong based on past Court decisions.
The Supreme Court over the decades have found voter legislation to be Constitutional in protecting the rights of voters. The law on this issue has advanced since the writing of the Constitution in order to further protect voter rights. I don't understand why any American would be against protecting voter rights and make voting easier for all Americans.
As I have said before, the Constitution is for "we the people."Which justifies government programs that benefit the people. The Supreme Court has ruled programs like Social Security and welfare benefits to be Constitutional.
The Senate makes its own rules that they proceed by. It's no secret that the majority in power has the power to set those rules. I for one, do not want to kill the filibuster, but then neither does Biden. And Schumer made an agreement with McConnell (in their power sharing agreement) that Democrats would not kill the filibuster and have not attempted to. So what's the issue? There is no issues about the filibuster.
You seem to have a talent for creating issues out of nothing. Issues that have already been decided by the courts, or issues that do not exist.
You seem to think that only Democratic policies are evil. That goes both ways. And it's not evil, it's a difference of opinion.
First, thanks for your comment, Jerry.
Regarding automatic weapons, they are already illegal for citizens to have, unless you have a special permit which is difficult to obtain. I am fine with that restriction. Further, I have no problem with background checks to ensure that criminals, abusers, and the mentally ill do not get a firearm through legal means. Most 2nd amendment people agree with this.
What I DO have a problem with is when leftists want to remove immunities from lawsuits for manufacturers of constitutional products to be continuously sued with nuisance lawsuits that they must defend which ultimately bankrupts the companies. The current law allows lawsuits for negligence and and defects and so forth.
What I DO have a problem with is licensing and registries of firearms so that the government knows right where to go for confiscation.
What I DO have a problem with is mandatory psych evals and mandatory firearm insurance. All of these measures are put in place to make the exercising of a constitutional right difficult or impossible for ordinary American.
Next, regarding voter rights, I absolutely want every legal American to have the ability to vote. I do NOT want inaccurate voter rolls that cannot be purged, people voting without determining eligibility or identification, or the federal government dictating to the states how they must conduct their voting. The constitution gives the power to the state legislatures to determine their voting laws. If we want to change this, then we need to amend the constitution accordingly.
Oh, and I don't like the thought of my taxes going to fund political campaigns and salaries of any candidate.
As for the filibuster, there has been much saber rattling from the usual suspects on this for months. I would sincerely hope eliminating it does not come to pass, but I would not be surprised considering the rapacious need for power that some leftists have.
Last, I don't think Democrat policies are evil, Jerry. I find LEFTIST policies that entrench their power in contradiction to the constitution to be evil. Eliminating or restricting or diluting our rights regarding the first and second amendment fall in line with that. Diluting legitimate votes by allowing the possibility of myriads of fraudulent votes is an assault on our democracy. These are not trifling things, my friend, and certainly not issues made up out of nothing, sir.
Supreme Court decisions on voting were aimed at the States because States were violating the rights of people to vote. That set precedent for the federal government to set basic laws on voting for all Americans. States still have the right to set voting rules as long as they don't violate the rights of voters. I find that totally rational and Constitutional.
There are restrictions and regulations on everything in this country and most of them come from corporations like insurance companies. It amazes me how people never question the rules and regulations put upon Americans by corporations, but scream bloody murder when government does it. If you disagree with corporate rules you can try another company, but most all companies have the same rules. If you disagree with government rules you can vote for someone else and there is a process to get politicians out of office without the vote. Try getting rid of the CEO of some corporation.
Just because we have a right to own guns under the Constitution doesn't mean the manufacturers of those weapons are free from law suits. If Colt builds a weapon that is defective and that defect causes deaths, they should be liable, just as the courts have found cigarette and automobile manufactures liable. I don't believe that if some mad man kills with a weapon, that weapon manufacturer should be held liable. Since the Supreme Court is slanted conservative, I don't understand why people are worried about losing their gun rights. I predict the Supreme Court will not hold gun manufacturers liable in such cases.
The processes of government in a country of over three hundred million people are not perfect and never will be. If you have problems with voter roles, that is a State problem, not federal. If you want people to present an ID to vote (something I am not against) that is again, a State issue. If dead people are voting, complain to your State authorities. States contract for voting machines and processes, not the federal government. But if a State only has one voting place for 3 million people that is a process that obstructs voters because it can not provide that all voters can vote. That is something the federal government can investigate and bring charges against the State.
Having people go through steps, is not the same as denying rights. The Courts will decide if those steps are denying rights.
Killing the filibuster is a non-issue. Some people just want to make it an issue. And yes, Democrats are making Republicans jump any time they infer it. Don't fall for such political games.
Jerry, there is much of what you just wrote with which I absolutely agree. There are also some things that need clarification.
Of course the courts should step in when disenfranchisement of voters is done by state legislatures. Poll taxes, literacy tests and such have all been deemed illegal accordingly. If certain districts do not have polling places available commensurate to the population, that too should be illegal and immediately addressed.
All of that said, it is the STATE Legislatures that should be constitutionally making those rules. Not judges (barring any of the aforementioned illegalities) and not governors, secretary of states, or unelected bureaucrats. That was the very basis of the Texas lawsuit that SCOTUS refused to hear. Their case was an excellent one that specifically spelled out how the arbitrary manipulation of various states' voter laws changed at the last minute by unauthorized parties infringed on other states rights when it came to their legal votes being potentially diluted and diminished through the fraudulent activities of other states. The cowardice of SCOTUS not wanting to address this issue is disturbing. Even if this did nothing to change the outcome of the presidential election, the silence from SCOTUS allowed the illegalities on the states levels to stand in violation of the constitution.
I find myself agreeing with you largely when it comes to corporations making the rules. The insurance companies had huge sway when it came to the affordable care act for instance. There are myriads of other examples of course.
As for gun manufactures, the current law the left wants to repeal does not protect them from negligence or manufacturer defects. They can still be held liable for those issues. It simply protects them from lawsuits in the cases where a madman illegally uses their legal products for evil means. It ensures that nuisance lawsuits do not have to be defended, as the left hopes to bankrupt legal businesses through these means.
I appreciate your thoughts and insights, Jerry.
Your arguing of points in a civil and thoughtful manner should be an example to all of us, sir!
In the Texas case you cite, the Court found there was no merit to that case. As 61 other courts around the country found no merit to Trump's allegations about improper voting procedures.
No doubt there is improper acts occurring in every election, and if you want to go back in time (because I am old enough) those abuses were worse and much more up front. It's true that JFK operatives were literally handing out cash to people to vote for JFK in Chicago, not to mention Chicago was famous for having a Democratic driven voting process. It's true LBJ was playing many dirty tricks in Texas to sway the vote for JFK. That's important when we remember how close that election was. Reports of improper voting procedures over the decades is exactly why the federal government gets involved and investigates and why new federal laws were enacted to protect against those abuses. In the past, it was not illegal to pay a person to vote for a certain candidate, it is now. Most rules and regulations started with good intentions to address a certain behavior found to be abusive.
Of course it is State legislators who should be making voting rules for their State and even a Governor cannot overrule the State legislators laws. The case in Pennsylvania would have been a good one except the Court found it was the State legislators who made a last minute change to the laws, not any executive branch member of the State. That is the legislators right and the people can address their dissatisfaction with those legislators at the ballot box.
I note here that I don't believe in term limits. The vote is a term limit and if people don't vote then they get the leadership they vote, or don't vote for.
I would also note that as I type I am listening to CSPAN and the FBI director is being questioned by the Senate about the January 6th incident. He has stated 3 times in the last hour that there were no leftist involved in that incident. That's after hundreds of arrests and investigations. He said the investigations are on going. He also stated that currently the most dangerous groups in America today are the right wing groups who are also much more violent than the left wing groups.
As I wrote before, I believe the Supreme Court will not hold gun manufacturers liable for the acts of mad men. The Democrats can make whatever law they want, that doesn't mean it's Constitutional and that kind of law would have to come before the Court.
I find gun laws in this country pretty liberal. You can own a tank if you want to, IF you go through and pass the steps to be approved, and yes, I believe there should be approval steps to get a tank, or other highly dangerous weapons. I see nothing unconstitutional about background checks for regular weapons like handguns, or hunting rifles, or shotguns. I don't think it's unconstitutional that the Supreme Court might find certain weapons can be banned from public purchase. It depends on the circumstances and what kind of weapon. I don't think this current Supreme Court will ban the purchase of any weapon.
On Texas Independence Day, Texas Gov. Abbott Lifts Mask Mandate And Reopens Businesses 100 Percent!
Watch Texans die!
Anonymous #1, Texas has the right idea, I do think.
Anonymous #2, Yep, some Texans may die, but how many more would die and livelihoods destroyed by continuing a lockdown that frankly seems to have minimal effect. Leave it up to the people to decide if they should venture out among others or not.
People don't die because they go bankrupt. Successful people have gone bankrupt more than once in their careers.
When you go against the science, you take dangerous risk. Not smart for business people trying to succeed. Of course it's their risk, but the governor is taking that risk on behalf of every citizen in Texas. So what about the millions of Texans who think that risk is dangerous? They have no choice in the matter. Choice is freedom. Take away choice, take away freedoom.
No bankruptcy doesn't cause death; however, bankruptcy can eliminate jobs and livelihoods for people that still have to pay the rent and put food on the table. Have you noticed that it is primarily large corporations that are still open, while "non-essential" mom and pop businesses are closed? (To speak nothing of churches and schools where many Americans are dependent upon for their sense of well-being and community.) Do you wonder why that is?
Suicide rates have been through the roof for people, and especially for kids with school closures.
Covid is real and we need to be smart and take precautions, however, the Fauci science seems to be all over the map and changing from day to day, often dependent upon Fauci's desires. Masks are BS and unless you are wearing a N95 mask or better, you are only giving yourself a false sense of security and thereby possibly endangering your health by doing things you otherwise wouldn't because your asinine cloth mask will "save" you.
Do you remember in the very beginning of the pandemic when we were told NOT to wear masks? Then two weeks to flatten the curve. Now Biden wants us to wear masks for the first 100 days of his administration. If these cloth masks were working so well to slow the spread, why are we still having to wear them? If they aren't working as expected, why are we still having to wear them?
N95 masks for everyone is the only way to actually make a difference.
Texas is choosing the better path, in my opinion.
The primary benefit of mask wearing is to reduce the spread of infected droplets expelled by infected people.
The secondary benefit is for protection of the wearer.
This was proven back during the 1918 flu pandemic.
But who wants to pay any attention to an "authoritarian leftists who hates America", amirite?
Helloooo...
Is there an echo in here?
I see you're STILL rejecting the scientific reality that masks are important in REDUCING the spread of infectious droplets.
Conservatives prefer to politicize masks out of sheer hostility, ignoring the real value of wearing them.
The primary benefit of mask wearing is to reduce the spread of infected droplets expelled by infected people.
The secondary benefit is for protection of the wearer.
This was proven back during the 1918 flu pandemic.
But better to "own the libs" and side with ignorance
There is no one answer and solutions change as the character of the virus changes. To do nothing as an option is stupidity and flies in the face of what we know about the spread of viruses for the last 150 years.
Thank you for not canceling my comment on masks. I hope you stop saying they are "silly" and ineffective. Tons of research and history prove they do work in mitigating the spread of viral infections.
I was quite aggravated when Dr. Fauci didn't promote masks at the outbreak. But I understand why he didn't want a public rush to hoard masks that would have deprived direct care workers of their protection.
Lockdowns and other limits on public gatherings are certainly up for debate. We need a functioning economy and jobs. We also need to deal with covid. I don't know if any easy answers exist, apart from the science based common sense of masks, social distancing and hygiene.
I know my snarky style of rebutting your political opinions annoys you. And I know it's easier to state your opinions than it is to defend them. That's cool. I get it.
You might consider why I am as annoyed as you, when you falsely accuse me, or other people who disagree with you, of hating America.
This demonizing smear tactic has a long history of being employed through authoritarians' timeless anti-intellectual contempt and intolerance for journalism, public education, science, and dissent.
The radical Right wants to make it illegal to protest racist police violence, and legal to run over and kill protesters in the street.
It's like the hateful sociopaths are inspired by the racist who plowed into anti-Nazi counter-protesters in Charlottesville.
When they continue to be loyal to the man who incited a Coup Klux Klan insurrection, they are telling us exactly what they are.
Just don’t call them fascists.
Post a Comment