Connect with us

Politics

Will DHS reauthorization bring nationalized elections closer to reality?

Published

on

The summer of 2016 was an interesting and dangerous time for liberty-loving Americans. The Department of Homeland Security had become the preferred tool in Washington’s Constitution-killing toolbox to allegedly improve national security and keep the American people “safe.”

In June, then-DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson suggested that gun control “(had) to be a part of Homeland Security” in order to “minimize the opportunity for terrorists to get guns.”

In July, the GOP-controlled Congress responded by introducing a Constitutionally questionable bill that would have created a type of Minority Report pre-crime unit within DHS. Though it never became law, H.R.5611—which is still active—gave DHS authority to deny gun rights without due process based only on the possibility that someone might commit a crime.

Sounds like a bill Donald Trump would just love.

As primary season heated up in August, Johnson proposed that America nationalize elections with the DHS be used to “monitor” the process. Calling it “critical infrastructure,” Johnson believed that nationalizing would be the only way Washington could ensure an accurate vote.

Though Congress didn’t immediately address the issue, it looks like Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are preparing to give DHS exactly what Johnson proposed.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will consider a bill this week reauthorizing DHS, with added amendments providing for so-called reforms addressing cybersecurity. Specifically, the amendments are intended to bolster cybersecurity for voting systems. The House has already passed a similar bill.

Since November 2016, Trump and the GOP have already created a US Cyber Command within the NSA (an idea proposed by Obama), and they recently renewed FISA 702, a law that empowers the NSA to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans without a warrant (a power abused by Obama).

Based on those two facts alone, you’d think that ideas created during the Obama administration would at least get a good vetting in GOP-controlled Washington. But with a president who has more in common with Obama than he does with conservatives when it comes to policy, and with the GOP hijacked by Republicrats and Trumplicans, I’m not holding out much hope that our Constitutional rights will be protected.

Oh well. It’s not like Trump is creating a secret global spy network that reports only to him or anything. Right?

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Advertisement

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

How ‘Progressives’ are a small but vocal political minority

Published

on

By

How Progressives are a small but vocal political minority

The data shows that most people are in the rational majority while the Left is a small but vocal minority.

A recent video from Daisy Cousens makes the very important point that far-Left ‘progressives’ are an extremely vocal minority that dominates the media, culture and government indoctrination centres. Even though they are only 8% of the population, they take on the false pretense of representing everyone else.

Equally important is the fact that the data from the Hidden Tribes Study shows that the people trying to conserve Liberty on the Right have a lot more in common with the exhausted middle. This majority on one side of the issues, while the small minority of the far-Left on the other. As she points out, this is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the national socialist Utopia the Left would like to force on the rest of us.

This is a short description of the 7 groups identified in the study:

Progressive Activists (8 percent of the population) are deeply concerned with issues concerning equity, fairness, and America’s direction today. They tend to be more secular, cosmopolitan, and highly engaged with social media.

Traditional Liberals (11 percent of the population) tend to be cautious, rational, and idealistic. They value tolerance and compromise. They place great faith in institutions.

Passive Liberals (15 percent of the population) tend to feel isolated from their communities. They are insecure in their beliefs and try to avoid political conversations. They have a fatalistic view of politics and feel that the circumstances of their lives are beyond their control.

The Politically Disengaged (26 percent of the population) are untrusting, suspicious about external threats, conspiratorially minded, and pessimistic about progress. They tend to be patriotic yet detached from politics.

Moderates (15 percent of the population) are engaged in their communities, well informed, and civic-minded. Their faith is often an important part of their lives. They shy away from extremism of any sort.

Traditional Conservatives (19 percent of the population) tend to be religious, patriotic, and highly moralistic. They believe deeply in personal responsibility and self-reliance.

Devoted Conservatives (6 percent of the population) are deeply engaged with politics and hold strident, uncompromising views. They feel that America is embattled, and they perceive themselves as the last defenders of traditional values that are under threat.

What was truly interesting was that the nation’s Socialists on the far-Left have their own set of priorities, that just happen to centre around control of others:

The polarization of opinion between the opposing ends of the spectrum is very clear from the issues that different groups prioritize:

After the issue of poor leadership, Progressive Activists rank climate change (47%) and economic inequality (42%) next, both issues that rank high on the liberal agenda. These are both considerably higher than the average (18% and 12%, respectively).

While the majority Conservatives, Moderates and Liberals have their own priorities. They don’t explain how someone favourable to individual rights and freedoms would naturally buy into the strict controls on Liberty that go along with the authoritarian Left’s climate change agenda. Or that the forced wealth redistribution that would have to be a part of Leftists plans to address the economic inequality would square with individual Liberty.

It’s also important to emphasis this statement from the study:

The Politically Disengaged group resemble the Conservatives in their focus on jobs (56%), immigration (60%) and terrorism (59%).

[Our emphasis]

This is how we are in the majority, the Politically Disengaged resembling Conservatives on many important issues.

A very vocal minority is still a minority

While the majority of the country may quibble over some issues, they are still supporters of Liberty. The far-Left, socialist minority is in a world of it’s own, working actively against our rights and freedoms while hiding behind the Liberal label. Please take note of this when considering those who like to throw Liberals into the Leftist camp, incongruously conflating both sides as the same.

The Takeaway

Most people want to be free from the control of others. Most people want to be able to defend themselves and speak freely without constraint. Most people want to keep their earnings and property. This is the rational and largely silent majority that would just like to live their lives in peace.

Contrast this with the far-Left minority that preaches collectivism and control. People who openly want to banish what they deem to be ‘Hate- speech,’ ‘Assault weapons,’ the presumption of innocence and due process. It’s a small group obsessed with political power and denigrating freedom with far too many false labels.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Kevin McCarthy doles out political payback against conservatives

Published

on

Kevin McCarthy doles out political payback against conservatives

When he was still in Congress, John Boehner was a master at selling out conservative values to Barack Obama’s agenda, and he routinely did all he could to silence conservatives who dared to oppose him or the Republican Party.

Boehner’s capitulating cowardice in favor of Obama and the Democrats was so blatant that there was an attempt in 2014 to kick his progressive posterior to the curb as House Speaker, an attempt that failed in large part due to retaliatory threats leveled against those who dared to vote against his re-election for the job.

When another attempt to replace Boehner as Speaker started picking up steam in 2015, he not only re-issued his threats, but he picked up the endorsements of Democrats who were concerned that a TEA Party Republican might replace him.

When Boehner eventually resigned as Speaker late in 2015, Republicans settled on Paul Ryan, the man who reminded America of the song “Won’t Get Fooled Again” by The Who — meet the new boss, same as the old boss. However, before Ryan, there was another Boehner clone being considered for the job, Rep.Kevin McCarthy, the current minority leader after the Democrats retook the House in the 2018 midterm.

McCarthy was rejected in 2015 because he was too close to Boehner, and he was involved in Boehner’s personal vendetta against TEA Party and other conservative Republicans, along with being a participant in Boehner’s five-year sellout to Obama’s agenda.

McCarthy still carries this baggage today.

As the new Congress gets underway, McCarthy is channeling his inner Boehner and has begun retaliating against Freedom Caucus members who voted against him in favor of one of their own, Rep. Jim Jordan.

McCarthy and his partners in crime on the Republican Steering Committee began taking out their revenge by removing Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA) from the Armed Services Committee, and there will likely be more suffering Hice’s fate.

There were six Freedom Caucus members and affiliates who voted against McCarthy including: Hice, Justin Amash (R-MI), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), and Scott Perry (R-PA).

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows — notice his name wasn’t listed above — told The Hill.com that “removing any member from a committee solely because they voted according to their constituents’ wishes is viewed very poorly by the general public and is the kind of punishment politics that the American people hate.”

I don’t feel all that sorry over the plight of many on the Freedom Caucus. Having abandoned conservatism for Trumpservatism, people like Meadows have lost all credibility.

McCarthy’s deeds simply prove what we’ve known for many years now, the Republican Party is no longer the home of conservatives, and the sooner we realize that, the better.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Democrats

So-called Red Flag laws: An unconstitutional solution to a non-existent problem

Published

on

By

So-called Red Flag laws An unconstitutional solution to a non-existent problem

As with most Leftist affronts to Liberty, unconstitutional gun confiscation SWATing or so-called ‘Red Flag’ laws are based on a lie. The usual contention is that these laws that eviscerate basic constitutional protections of due process are desperately needed because there are no other means to deal with people who are alleged to be a danger to themselves or others. Our previous article on the subject dealt with this outright falsehood. There are laws and procedures for involuntary civil commitments already on the books to handle these extreme situations. In the case of Florida and the Parkland mass murder, the “The Baker Act” was already in place, but the authorities failed to take action in time. Other states such as Colorado already have procedures in place for Mental Health Holds.

The existence of these laws have been ignored in the effort to ‘enhance’ the government’s ability to confiscate guns. Its just another case of the Left exploiting a tragedy to ‘Rahm’ through new laws to deprive the people of their means of self-defense.

Laws built on lies

Most articles on what is supposedly the urgent need for gun confiscation SWATing or ‘Red Flag’ laws will make vague allusions there are no other ways of handling these situations to the point of asserting that the government has never had the authority to deal with these situations.

State governments clearly have these abilities, but the existing laws protect the Constitutional rights of the accused without having the primary purpose of confiscating guns – an intolerable situation for the authoritarian Left that sees 120 million gun owners as a threat simply because they are gun owners.

Why violate one human right when several can be attacked at once?

Leftists seem to be in some perverse competition to see which one of them can conjure up new laws to attack Liberty in as many ways as possible. For them, it’s a more efficient form of tyranny with one law doing the work of several. What better way to suppress Liberty than to confiscate guns because of someone exercising their right of free speech while destroying due process protections?

The dangerous implications to the 1st Amendment

These laws will have devastating consequences for the natural right of free speech. It will only take one concerned person in the group of people who can initiate these actions to decide an innocent gun owner is guilty of ‘thoughtcrime’ to have their property confiscated. The odds are that the Left will also expand who can initiate these gun confiscation SWATings and streamline the process.

This will only serve to further stigmatize gun owners and suppress their right of free speech. Talk too much about the human right of self-defense and the law-abiding could experience a knock on the door at 5:00 AM with property confiscation conducted at gunpoint. One would then have a protracted legal battle on their hands to prove they are innocent after being treated as guilty with all manner of legal costs and red tape just to have their property returned.

The 2nd Amendment – the primary target

In their ongoing efforts to rid the nation of Liberty, the Left has decided that it should be illegal to defend oneself. Thus they have expended copious amounts of digital ink in demanding the death of the 2nd amendment and the confiscation of guns. They are perfectly willing to do this one innocent gun owner at a time if they have to. Never mind that the common sense human right of self-defense is the bedrock of the Bill or Rights. They have no use for the limitations of their power afforded by the Constitution, much less the Liberty conserving provisions of the Bill of Rights.

But wait, there’s more – The 4th and 5th amendments also on the chopping block

These laws turn the presumption of innocence on its head, forcing the victim of one of these gun confiscation raids to have to prove they aren’t guilty of thoughtcrime before they can get their property returned. Not to mention the ‘ex parte’ nature of these proceedings depriving innocent of the critical right of due process and the right to face one’s accuser before these confiscations take place. Lastly, there is the takings clause applicable to the private property being taken for public use since not many innocent gun owners will have the means for a protracted legal battle with the government, resulting in the loss of private property.

Why the focus on firearms?-

The existing laws for Involuntary Civil Commitment are not only superior in protecting everyone’s civil rights. They also serve to keep people from harm by other means. The unconstitutional practice of gun confiscation SWATing only addresses the issue of guns, leaving the supposed danger to society free to use alternative methods to cause harm.

If safety is the point of the so-called ‘Red Flag’ or ‘ERPO’ laws, then why aren’t their proponents concerned about this issue? If someone has their guns taken away suddenly by unconstitutional means, what’s to stop them from using explosives – flour, etc.- from carrying out their deadly deeds? Suppose an alleged ‘danger to society’ no longer has their guns, but still has a motorized vehicle or the ability to make edged weaponry. What about that circumstance?

Well, if it were really the case in that these people are concerned about other people’s welfare to the point of having them committed, they would have to follow the rule of law and afford the target their right of due process, etc. They wouldn’t be able to take someone’s means of self-defense just on the word of some other aggrieved party. It wouldn’t serve their desire for gun confiscation and gun confiscation alone, so it has no usefulness for them.

Things aren’t going according to plan for the Liberty Grabber Left

The progression for the Left has always been one of control, registration and then confiscation. They used to think that it was just a matter of time before Intergalactic Background Checks would be put in place, then registration would be required – both of which would do nothing to keep people safe or ‘cut down on the carnage’. It was all supposed to happen as it did in the UK and Australia. Intergalactic Background Checks, registration, then confiscation.

But that isn’t happening, despite the baseless polling to the contrary, everyone isn’t clamoring to have the government control their private property. Most of the Pro-Liberty see the danger in this control, with it leading to registration, followed by confiscation. Most on both sides have already admitted that Intergalactic Background Checks don’t work, that the dirty little secret being that these have no other purpose than as a stepping stones to confiscation.

The Takeaway

As others have indicated, Leftists aren’t anti-gun, they are anti-Liberty. They love to see them in the hands of the ‘politically correct’, but cannot deal with them in the hands of the right people.

Leftists desperately want to deprive the Pro-Liberty Right of their guns. These firearms represent a vitally important and final check on unlimited governmental power. It’s the primary bulwark against them attaining government power to attain their wondrous utopia they desire. They are so desperate to remove it that they will confiscate them one innocent person at a time, without a care for its effects on safety or Liberty.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report