The True Authoritarianism of the Left

As I have stated repeatedly in the past, there is a distinct difference between Democrats and leftists.  Democrats, historically, have been for the common man.  While they usually have had a more expansive view of government, the social safety net, and taxes, they believe in the rule of law and the Constitution.  They love America and want what is best for her.  I have even been known to vote for a Democrat or two in many years past.

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 6^th.  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 14^th, 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!

 

Rick Sexton Against "Gun Control"

The Continuation of Disarming American Citizens

United States Marine Corporal Joshua Boston recently penned a letter expressing his anger at Senator Dianne Feinstein which was posted in the CNN iReport last month on December 27.  It evidently got the attention and support of many Americans who felt similarly because it has since been widely circulated around social media sites.  Personally, I think Corporal Boston was right on the mark.  Considering the fact that the hypocritical Senator from the state of California is putting forth legislation to ban many firearms from being sold or even manufactured anymore in an effort to gain support with those that think that inanimate objects are what are responsible for killing people, I have to admit that I share Corporal Boston’s anger.

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.  I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.  I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.  I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.  We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Boston

Cpl, United States Marine Corps

2004-2012

Feinstein famously admitted to having a concealed carry permit and weapon as far back as 1995, and yet she wishes to deny that same right to other law abiding Americans, assuming that their choice of firearm doesn’t meet her criteria of what is acceptable and less scary to her.

“I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me." 

           ~ Senator Feinstein 

Such is Senator Feinstein’s right to carry a weapon as an American citizen.  The fact that she would deny the rest of us that same right is shameful. 

Following is a summary of the gun control legislation she wishes to introduce now, which I pulled from her senate website:

Summary of 2013 legislation

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

·         Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

o    120 specifically-named firearms;

o    Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and

o    Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

·         Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

o    Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;

o    Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and

o    Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.

·         Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Yep, she touts that she exempts over 900 specific firearms from her ban as if that will pacify those that are okay with the “common sense” infringements on our 2^nd amendment right.  Never mind the fact that those of us Americans that currently own any of the weapons on her “banned list” will be required to have another background check, be fingerprinted, register those weapons with the local and federal authorities and then pay a $200 tax per weapon.  Not going to happen for a lot of folks, I suspect. 

 Luckily, it is unlikely that this legislation will ever make it to the president’s desk, but then again I never expected to see Chief Justice Roberts declare Obamacare to be constitutional through his contortionist illogic, nor did I ever expect a majority of Americans to give up their liberties for free stuff and reelect Obama.  So what is foolish and patently unconstitutional legislation that should be killed quickly in congress, may indeed have a fighting chance if enough senators and congressmen fail to abide by their oaths to defend and protect the Constitution.  I’d hate to bet my life against our 2^nd amendment rights being safe in their care anyway.

It really doesn’t affect them personally regardless though, including the pernicious and hypocritical Senator Feinstein.  She, like many other politicians, realize that the laws they pass are not intended to be applicable to those in the politburo (oops, I mean congress) but rather only to us comrade citizens.  I for one stand in solidarity with Corporal Boston, and I hope an overwhelming majority of Americans feel similarly on this matter.  We will all know very shortly.

Disarming Americans is Not the Answer

Emotions are running high throughout our troubled land right now, and understandably so, in light of the horrific massacre of twenty innocent young children and seven adults at the hands of a mentally deranged gunman last Friday at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.  I have had decidedly very un-Christian thoughts regarding the evil done at the hands of this killer myself.  That said, there are many people that are letting emotion overcome their sense of reason.  That can only serve to exacerbate an already terrible problem.

Already there are well-meaning, if not well-informed, people that are petitioning for greater gun control from our White House, as if that would have prevented this problem.  And of course, there are the opportunistic and cynical politicians that are abiding by Rahm Emanuel’s dictate to “let no good crisis go to waste”. 

I even saw a blog listing various Facebook posts from some despicable people calling for the murder of the NRA president and its members as their proposed solution to this gruesome problem.  Evidently those geniuses are unaware of the fact that the National Rifle Association has always adamantly supported that felons and the mentally ill not have access or ownership of firearms and have worked with law enforcement accordingly. 

There have also been a slew of people calling for the repeal of the second amendment.  I cannot help but shake my head in sadness and some disgust that these likely well-meaning people would want to disarm themselves thereby making even greater evils a possibility on down the road.

The second amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

Now there is a very good reason why our founders placed this amendment as the second one to our Constitution.  The people, that means individual Americans, have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of and by necessity to “secure a free State” and the Supreme Court clearly ruled that this is an individual right in supporting that understanding. 

Many gun-control advocates have argued that the second amendment is a now-archaic right and was written so that the federal government could arm citizens for the national defense via militias and was not ever intended as an individual right.  After all, we have a standing army now, so there is no need for private citizens to be armed, right?  This is nonsensical because if such had been the intention of the framers of the constitution, they would have said as much in the body of the constitution where the rights, duties, obligations, and restrictions on the federal government were listed.  The fact that the right to bear arms is listed in the Bill of Rights along with the other rights guaranteed to The People, clearly indicates that this was always intended to be an individual right, and so it absolutely must be. 

  

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."  - Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

  

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.” -- George Washington

  

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

 

Disarming law-abiding citizens via more stringent gun-control legislation is hardly the answer to curbing such massacres.  As long as there are people in our society that are bent on doing evil of their own free will, or because of mental illness, they will find a way to do so.  Indeed, last week in China (a land where private ownership of firearms is illegal) a deranged man with a knife stabbed 22 children. 

Even with this horrible crime in Connecticut last week, the very tough gun control laws already enacted and the “gun-free zone” signs on the elementary school did not dissuade this person bent on committing evil.

Putting aside any emotional aversion one might have towards firearms, think how different an outcome there might have been in Sandy Hook Elementary and how many kids could have been saved if only the Principal or one of the teachers had been carrying a firearm.  Creating gun free zones like schools, or the theater in Aurora, Colorado where the evil  person killed twelve people earlier this year, only ensures that the perpetrators’ victims will be unarmed and easier targets accordingly.

Indeed, overshadowed by this horrific slaughter last week was the sad, but not nearly as tragic killing of two people at the Clackamas Towne Center mall in suburban Portland, Oregon that previous Tuesday.  The person that was responsible for those killings was well-armed with an AR-15 and had a bullet proof vest on at the time.  How come this man who had thirty round magazines was unable to kill more than two people in a very crowded mall of Christmas shoppers?  It is because one of the patrons at the mall, Nick Meli, was legally carrying a concealed fire arm.  When the shooting started, he drew his weapon and the evil perpetrator saw him.

“He was working on his rifle,” said Meli.  ”He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side.”  The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.  “As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them,” he said.  Meli took cover inside a nearby store.  He never pulled the trigger.  He stands by that decision.  “I’m not beating myself up cause I didn’t shoot him,” said Meli.  “I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.”

The gunman knew that there was a citizen that was armed and wasn’t going to be an easy victim.  All of a sudden, his plans for massacre were curtailed.  He now had to worry about being killed himself before fully implementing his plan.  Nick Meli saved untold lives in that mall last week simply by drawing his weapon and not even firing a shot.  How come this profound lesson is not being reported in the media? 

Back in 2007, a lone shooter entered the “gun-free” Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City and opened fire.  He killed five people and managed to injure many others.  The only reason why there weren’t more deaths or injuries is because an off-duty police officer was eating dinner at one of the mall restaurants with his family.  When he heard the shooting, he quickly secured his family, drew his firearm and managed to pin down the assailant until other police arrived.  Had an armed person not been there to stop this evil man, dozens more people could easily have been killed – all in a gun free “safe” area.

In 1997, a sixteen year old boy bludgeoned his mother to death and then drove to Pearl High School which he attended.  He shot and killed his girlfriend that had broken up with him and one other person.  The assistant principal, Joel Myrick, went to his vehicle, retrieved his legally owned .45 pistol, and subdued the evil shooter until police arrived.  Again, an armed citizen prevented the likely killing of many more innocent people accordingly.

Perhaps it is time we start talking about real solutions to these too-common mass killings.  Outlawing firearms in violation of the second amendment is not the answer.  Indeed that will only inflame an already horrible problem and ensure that future people will more likely be victims without the ability to defend themselves.  I know the pain and outrage that many Americans are feeling because of this horrific evil.  I share that with them.  We need to work to decrease the likelihood of these problems and not react in knee-jerk fashion to disarm those citizens that are law-abiding so that they are unable to adequately defend themselves and their loved ones. 

Benjamin Franklin understood it quite well: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”