Connect with us

Opinions

GOP congressman wants jail time for political activists

Published

on

GOP congressman wants jail time for political activists

Lately, it seems like our tyrannical overlords in Washington masquerading as representatives of the American people just can’t get enough when it comes to finding new ways to chip away at our constitutional rights in the name of safety. Using headline-grabbing tragedies to justify their actions, politicians in both parties continue moving us ever closer to becoming a post-constitutional America.

We used to believe that so-called conservatives within the GOP would be like the story of the little Dutch boy, sticking their finger in the cracks of the constitutional dam that protects our republic from the flood waters of despotism and tyranny. Instead, men and women sworn to protect and defend the Constitution pass laws and advance agendas that serve as the dynamite that blows the dam to smithereens.

With Republicans running the whole show, we’ve witnessed this disregard of the Constitution in every branch of the federal government.

Donald Trump attacks the First Amendment with his claims of “Fake News;” attacks the Second Amendment with threats to cease guns without due process; attacks the Fourth Amendment by renewing FISA702; and attacks the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by expanding civil forfeiture laws along with his gun seizure without due process threat.

Republicans in Congress have played its part over the years as bills have been introduced or passed into law, attacking the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. And the federal courts have become a source of judicial tyranny, most recently in the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision regarding freedom of religion.

But as I stated in the beginning of this piece, Washington is always on the lookout for new ways to destroy liberty.

In a bill titled the Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018 (HR 6054), Representative Dan Donovan (R-NY) is proposing 15-year jail sentences for wearing a mask while injuring, oppressing, threatening, or intimidating someone else who is exercising their constitutional rights.

While appearing to address criminal activity, the title of the bill reveals its true intent — shutting down a specific group of political activists who happen to oppose the GOP.

This measure is troubling due to its clear intention of silencing political opposition, but it’s also troubling for its vagueness. For example, who will decide what constitutes threatening or intimidating behavior?

In a statement confirming his biased motivation, Donovan said, “Americans have the natural right to speak and protest freely; it is not a right to throw Molotov cocktails and beat people while hiding behind a mask.”

Maybe I’m not as smart as Mr. Donovan, but I’m pretty sure people who don’t wear masks aren’t allowed to do those things either.

I’m not fan of Antifa, and I certainly don’t condone violence, but I absolutely oppose efforts by the government to keep me safe in exchange for my freedom. That’s takes us down the road to government oppression and tyranny.

For those who think I exaggerate, let me remind you of what happened after 9/11. Liberty died that day as the government used the tragic events of that day to create the TSA and expand NSA spying. It gave us the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II. And it transformed government of, by, and for the people into government over, above, and beyond the people.

These post 9/11 laws were supposed to be temporary, but as we learned from non-conservative Republicans like Rep. Steve King (NY) following a pipe bomb incident in December 2017, the only answer to terrorism and violence is throwing away the Constitution and letting Big Brother do whatever he wants in the name of safety.

As a Constitutional conservative, my attitude about liberty is the same as Thomas Jefferson: “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


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

Continue Reading
Advertisement
3 Comments

3 Comments

  1. Public Citizen

    July 28, 2018 at 6:09 pm

    There is a difference between Political Activism and the sort of Thuggery being perpetrated by groups like Antifa.
    When not just property but other people who don’t share your political perspective become a target for the misplaced anger of those engaging in “protest” they are no longer engaging in Political Activity but have gone rogue and become a Rioting Mob. They have chosen to obscure their features, in an attempt to thwart efforts to identify them as perpetrators and bring them to bar for prosecution for Lawless Acts.
    If you are incapable of understanding the difference between legitimate Political Protest and what ANTIFA and similar groups are perpetrating then you need to take about 6 months and spend all day every day studying the history of the rise of NAZISM in Germany and the Civil Rights Movement in the USA headed by Dr, Martin Luther King and other men [and women] of conscience.

    • David Leach

      July 28, 2018 at 7:29 pm

      I’m completely aware of the difference between activism and thuggery. I’m also aware that it takes place on both sides of the discussion. For a member of Congress to target only one side of the issue (which happens to be the side he’s opposed to), it is a threat to freedom for everyone.

      I’m also quite capable of understanding differences, which is why this is a threat to freedom. You reference Nazi Germany. How do you think Hitler started? By the rights of the people in the name of safety.

      • Public Citizen

        July 28, 2018 at 8:11 pm

        Your attempt to equate the discussion onto a member of Congress ~speaking~ in his official capacity with street thugs using the same tactics used by NAZI Brown-shirts [mostly street level thugs in it for the sanctioning of mayhem] to intimidate the citizens in Germany is a rather telling insight into your own psyche.
        Your remarks demonstrate that you have completely grasped the wrong end of the stick with respect to Hitler’s rise to power. Try reading some of the eye witness accounts of what actually happened, there are many of them and the eye-witness accounts tend to confirm each others perspective. Or are you just a propagandist for revisionist history?
        If ANTIFA and similar were serious political protesters and not just another gang of street thugs they would engage in their protests with faces naked to the world, just like the Civil Rights marchers in the 1960s

Leave a Reply

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

Entertainment and Sports

Of course an 8-team college football playoff system makes sense

Published

on

Of course an 8-team college football playoff system makes sense

In just over two weeks, we’ll get to see who’s going to play for the national championship in college football. It all happens in two games with the current playoff system; the winner of #1 vs #4 will play the winner of #2 vs #3. It’s simple, elegant, and so far it’s been working better than any previous attempt at crowning a national champion.

It’s also inferior to what it could be. An 8-team playoff system would be ideal.

Detractors (and there are fewer and fewer all the time) have two primary complaints. The first one isn’t really an argument. Traditionalists believe the playoff system in general harms continuation of the rich history of the old bowl system. This is true, and frankly there’s no going back at this point.

The second concern is about where it stops. If 8 is better than 4, is 12 or 16 better than 8?

Let’s put that one to rest now. No. 8 is the ideal number for the playoff system. It is fair enough to allow all the teams that deserve a shot without being so big that undeserving teams might sneak in and make a mess of things.

Today, there are seven teams who have a legitimate claim that they deserve a shot at the national championship. The four teams that are in – Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma – are the teams that had the best seasons this year. Oklahoma avenged its one loss in the Big 12 Championship game and the other three teams are undefeated.

Added to the mix are the three teams on the outside looking in. #5 Georgia had the two best losses of any team and is arguably the second best team in the country despite those losses. #6 Ohio State won the Big 10 Championship and has only one loss. #8 UCF is undefeated for the second year in a row. While #7 Michigan didn’t really have a shot at the top 4 after losing badly to Ohio State, they would round off a solid 8-team playoff if that system were in place today.

It would be perfect.

Not every year would end up like this one with 8 clear top teams, but even in disputed years where #9 or #10 complained, they would do so knowing they could have gotten in by winning. This year, Ohio State was penalized despite being the Big 10 Champion and having only one loss. UCF demonstrated it doesn’t matter how well they play for how long. Two undefeated seasons wasn’t enough to earn them a spot.

An 8-team playoff system with automatic bids for the champions of the five major conferences and three at-large bids would extend the season for one week, allowing the first round to be played on or around Christmas. It would make the whole bowl season more interesting and offer hope to teams like UCF who would otherwise need a perfect storm of major conference losses to earn a spot.

This really should be a no-brainer. ESPN won’t mind. Their contract lasts until 2026. They would happily expand to include another round of four games. Those who are making the decision should make it fast. We can get this up and running by the 2020 season.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Will the left finally admit that gun confiscation has failed to keep people safe?

Published

on

By

Will the Left finally admit that gun confiscation has failed to keep people safe

Shouldn’t the gun confiscation crowd admit that depriving the people of the right of self-defense hasn’t kept people safe?

That didn’t take long. In many cases it’s easy to predict how long a news story will stay in the headlines. Yesterday, December 11, 2018 a terrorist shouting “Allahu Akbar” attacked a Christmas market in the French city of Strasbourg.

French police release image of Christmas market attack suspect

https://news.sky.com/story/one-dead-in-french-christmas-market-shooting-11578206The killer, who opened fire with a handgun and used a knife to stab people, is still on the run after he was shot in the arm during a gunfight with police.

He escaped in a taxi and there are concerns he may have fled to Germany where vehicles are now being checked at the border.

Chekatt has 27 convictions in France, Germany and Switzerland, said prosecutor Remy Heitz.

In less than 24 hours, the story has almost dropped from the headlines. Had this taken place stateside, the liberty grabbers on the left would have exploited the tragedy for maximum political gain within minutes. The problem is this didn’t take place in the states, but rather in a locale with strict controls on freedom. The perpetrator also used a handgun and used a knife instead of an evil black rifle. Finally, the killer made his motives clear by what he shouted.

Therefore, it was adverse to the left’s ‘gun reform’ agenda of gun confiscation. Nothing that could be construed at least at present as being an ‘assault weapon’ or whatever the term is this week. Lastly, the evidence points to this being Islamic terrorism. Even though the manhunt continues as this is being reported, the point remains. This was an obvious failure of the left’s gun confiscation agenda and it shows the threat of Islamic terrorism so the story has virtually disappeared.

Location, location, location

Compare the coverage of this story with a similar situation of a shooting in the states. Most likely the refrain would have been this only happens in the states because of the NRA or GOA wants to keep liberty and the right of self-defense. Most assuredly, they wouldn’t have phrased it that way, since they still have to keep up the fiction that they are ‘liberal’ in some form or another. It would have been couched in terms of ‘gun reform’ or ‘gun safety’ or whatever the terms happens to be this week.

Liberty grabber plans after their take-over of the House of Representatives

Since we’re on the subject, take note of the plans of the leftist liberty grabbers to denigrate the common-sense human right of self-preservation come January when they take-over the House of Representatives. As reported in the Hartford Courant:

Gun control advocates optimistic new Congress will act on their agenda

https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-blumethal-murphy-newtown-guns-20181206-story.htmlBut now Democrats will seize the reins and plan to press for votes on measures that would tighten federal gun laws after the new Congress begins work in January. Once ignored, key proposals, including the expansion of FBI background checks of gun purchasers, are now likely to pass the U.S. House with its new Democratic majority.

On Thursday, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who hopes to be the next House speaker, said “we will pass common sense gun violence prevention legislation soon, and … it will be bipartisan.”

Why does a failure in government overreach have to mean even more government overreach? From now on, it should be incumbent on the politicians to carefully explain why they need even more control over our lives. They need to show their work in just how some new ‘solution’ is supposed to solve the problem. This would include citing examples of unbiased reportage on similar ‘solutions’ from other locations that have actually worked.

Rapid firing rifles, oh my!

Then in the same article, a chilling turn of phrase on the issue of ‘the rapid firing of rifles’:

Other bills that will be keyed up for votes include … bans on “bump stocks” that allow the rapid firing of rifles and “3D” guns made with special printers and limiting magazines to no more than 10 bullets.

[Our emphasis]

Did everyone catch that? They are no longer referring to terms that have specific definitions such as automatic or semiautomatic fire. They are now referring to the speed of the operation of a weapon, not its functionality in select fire modes. We already know that they want to push the issue down the infamous slippery slope of government overreach. This means that they are signalling a change in rate of fire as a way of controlling our basic human Right of self-defense, as predicted by those opposed to Trump’s ‘meaningless’ surrender on the ‘Bump-Stock’ issue.

In other words, now that Trump and the NRA gave up an important point for absolutely no credit from the Liberty grabber community, they will use that inch’ and take it a mile. Instead of discussions of Automatic or Semiautomatic fire, the talking point will be on the ‘Rapid firing’ of guns as being too deadly. It should be patently obvious were the Liberty grabbers on the left will take it from there.

The Takeaway.

For too long the Left has taken the ‘throwing…papers up against a wall technique’ hoping that something will stick i.e. something will finally work. Meanwhile, the extent of our Liberty shrinks each time.

There is always a cost to every new idea of the Left. For every piece of legislation, there is an accompanying cost in Liberty and dollars. For the case of Leftist steps to gun confiscation, we citizens have a right to know how these measures will supposedly keep people safe. For far too long the Left has taken credit for making everyone safer without actually proving it. We are rapidly reaching the tipping point to gun confiscation, so from now on they have to prove that their draconian controls will work as promised. If they cannot, they shouldn’t attain more control over our lives.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Why losing his Senate race was the best thing to happen to Beto O’Rourke

Published

on

Why losing his Senate race was the best thing to happen to Beto ORourke

When the next session of Congress begins, Beto O’Rourke will officially be an outsider. He will no longer be part of the swamp. He’ll be a private citizen because he lost his election bid to replace Ted Cruz as Senator in Texas. This loss will prove to be the best thing that could have happened to his political career.

Beto O’Rourke is on track to be one of the frontrunners for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

It seems like everybody on the left loves this guy. Despite his destructive far-left ideology, he was able to get closer than anyone would have expected to unseating a Tea Party Republican in deep-red Texas. He was also able to raise more money than anyone else in the midterm elections, raking in more money than the #3 and #4 on the money list combined.

Had O’Rourke won his race, he would have been held to his promise of not running in 2020. Even though his promise was stretched to include winning or losing in 2018, the narrative is quickly changing. With no campaign promise that could come back to haunt him in 2024 had he won his Senate race, backtracking on his no-run 2020 promise is easy.

A recent MoveOn poll actually has him ahead of the competition for the first time, edging out Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. He even got more votes than Senators Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar, and Cory Booker combined.

Beto O’Rourke narrowly tops wide-open MoveOn 2020 presidential straw poll; Biden is runner-up

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/beto-o-rourke-narrowly-tops-moveon-2020-presidential-straw-poll-n946501The most popular potential candidate was O’Rourke, D-Texas, who was selected by 15.6 percent of respondents, followed by Biden at 14.9 percent, and then Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., with 13.1 percent.

It’s another sign of O’Rourke’s surprising popularity among national Democrats and a potentially troubling indication for Sanders, whom MoveOn endorsed in the 2016 Democratic primary. That year, 78 percent of MoveOn members voted to back Sanders over Hillary Clinton

His popularity with the progressive far-left is evident, but he also has some mainstream Democrats turning to him as the best person to go up against President Trump in 2020. Now that he’s going to have free time on his hands, let’s look at three reasons why he should be considered the early frontrunner:

  1. Nationwide Appeal: He may be from Texas, but Democrats won’t hold that against him. If anything, it will have the opposite effect by giving him credibility for doing so well in a red state. It helps that he was in a punk rock band and brandishes a style that’s not stereotypical of any place in America. You won’t see him wearing a cowboy hat any time soon.
  2. Fundraising Prowess: Ted Cruz was the best GOP fundraiser during the 2016 primaries and Beto O’Rourke dominated him in 2018. The only person who could be considered in the same sentence with O’Rourke on the money side is President Obama. If they teamed up (and they will if he gets the nomination), they could draw some serious cash that will dwarf Hillary Clinton’s impressive 2016 haul.
  3. Time and Energy: No need to rush back to Washington for an important vote like the half-dozen Senators who are probably running for president. He also won’t be hampered by 70=year-old legs like Biden and Michael Bloomberg. O’Rourke, is young, energetic, and has nothing better to do than prepare his 2020 bid.

It’s discouraging to know this far-left, gun-grabbing progressive has an inside track to the Democratic nomination. The thought that he could be President should terrify every right-thinking American.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report