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!

 

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.”

The Forthcoming Elimination of Americans' First Amendment Rights

A forthcoming denial of our foremost basic and precious God-given right, as specifically articulated in the first amendment of the United States Constitution, is soon to be eradicated by the same federal government that is sworn to uphold and protect that Constitutional right for all Americans.  President Obama’s administration has called, via the continuing implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), for all health plans to mandatorily cover contraceptives (including two abortifacients) and sterilizations as part of an upcoming expansion of “women’s services”.  The problem is that many people of faith find these “services” to be morally wrong and contrary to the dictates of their faith.

 

This is particularly the case with the Catholic faith.  In fact, this last Sunday a letter was read at Mass for nearly all of the parishes throughout the United States to explain the Church’s opposition to this law and how it directly contradicts the Church’s moral convictions regarding contraception and the sanctity of life.  Further, the Church called for Catholics to oppose the regulation and to fight to have it rescinded completely.

Within the first amendment to our Constitution lies the phrase, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.  I’ll begrudgingly grant that the federal government has reasonably protected the first part of that right, but they now have absolutely missed any semblance of protecting that right as regards the second part.  If an institution of faith, such as the Catholic Church, is forced to offer a health plan that MUST offer “services” which it finds diametrically opposed to the dictates of its faith, how is the government protecting the free exercise of their religion?  In fact, government becomes the very instrument that would cause the violation of that God-given right.  And indeed, as our founders knew and stated, all of our rights are endowed by our Creator, not by decree of the government.

Now it is true that our federal government has stated that these new regulations include an exemption for all “religious” employers; however, that employer must primarily employ people of its own faith, primarily serve only people of its own faith, and be primarily involved in the inculcation of the tenets of that faith; consequently, such a standard would not exempt Catholic hospitals, charities, and schools from this onerous and evil law.  Indeed, the exemption is so narrow that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated that even our Lord Jesus Christ would not qualify for it, as he tended and cared to those outside of the faith also throughout his life and ministry.

President Obama clearly stated during the drafting of the Obamacare legislation that there would be an adequately encompassing exemption within it that would allow people whose conscience or moral convictions were violated by the law to abstain from its requirements.  It would seem that President Obama was less than truthful here.  Indeed, President Obama’s Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced on January 20^th that the administration was proceeding with this new regulation which will take effect on August 1^st of this year.  She did grant a one year extension to “religiously affiliated non-profit groups” in order for them to figure out how to “adapt” to the regulation, as she put it.

When asked about this issue yesterday at a White House press briefing, spokesman Jay Carney stated, “I don’t believe there are any constitutional rights issues here.”  He continued, “The administration believes that this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventative services.”

The fact is that a health care provider not providing free access to artificial contraception does not condemn a woman to pregnancy any more than not providing free diet-pills would condemn her to obesity.  Further, the idea that pregnancy is an illness or disease that must be prevented or eradicated further shows the degradation of our culture in its valuing and cherishing of human life, particularly in a nascent form.  But that, again, is not the primary issue involved here.

Now there are many folks, sadly even within the Catholic Church, that disagree with the church’s teachings on contraceptives and even abortion, and thus think this law is good accordingly.  Well no one has asked that people outside of the Catholic faith to believe in this teaching, even though millions of others still do.  It is enough that we Catholics believe this as part of our faith.  What should concern every last single American is NOT whether contraception, sterilizations, and abortions are necessary or good, but rather that the Constitutional right of a group of people to believe contrary to that and wishing to live their faith accordingly are not being permitted to do so by force of law.  A constitutional right is being rescinded for the largest Christian group in America.  That is the issue at hand and one that should frighten every American.  If the government is allowed to curtail the free exercise of religion, what other constitutional right can it some day down the road renege its support and protection thereof that might affect you?

Many folks, myself included, are dumbfounded as to how such an egregious abuse of government power that usurps our most basic freedom is being allowed to happen at all, with nary a peep from the press or the public at large.  Frankly, I suspect the implementation of this pernicious regulation by the Obama administration is done absolutely by design and with full knowledge and intent of the ramifications of it.  President Obama knows, and the Catholic Church has now pretty much confirmed it, that the Church will NOT violate God’s law and their own moral convictions to satisfy man’s law.  The result will be, assuming that the government does not back down, that Catholic hospitals, charities, and schools will no longer offer health insurance to it employees and their families.  That means millions of uninsured people will be directed towards the coming exchanges and government healthcare roles.  THAT has been the design behind this regulation from the beginning.  It is, as Obama stated years ago, the necessary incremental implementation of a state-run and mandated health care system for all, for the common good, of course.

So what is an American of good conscience to do about the necessity of protecting our first amendment right to the free exercise of religion?  Well, the first thing would be to call your congressman, senators, and the White House.  Demand that congress passes HR 1179/S.1467 “Respect for Rights of Conscience Act”.   Further, you can sign a citizen-created petition on the White House web site (lower right hand corner of site at this link) telling President Obama that you do not approve.  Again, this is NOT an issue about contraceptives or abortion; it is about the exercise of one’s religious beliefs as articulated in the Constitution and given by God.

Indeed, Thomas Jefferson said it best in 1809 when he stated, “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”  He was right.  Hopefully millions of good folk, Catholic or not, will also be right and stand up against this pernicious constitutional violation against ALL Americans accordingly.