Bill Mitchell reveals his phony conservatism on constitution

Many legitimate conservatives follow Bill Mitchell on Twitter. I don’t think less of them for it, because often times he talks the talk. And when someone has over 100K tweets, it’s hard to pick up on the inconsistencies. I don’t follow him, nor do I retweet him these days, out of an unexplainable distrust towards people like him. I guess I thought he was a Mike Huckabee, a poor spokesperson for conservatism or rather Trumpism. To me, he’s no different than the “Never Trump conservatives” who refuse to acknowledge things are much better than if Hillary had won. Bill Mitchell took some time to show us why we shouldn’t trust him. In a span of an hour he tweeted a contrary position on guns as follows.

The .0001% of the population that gets excited about bump stocks will be upset with Trump's position to ban their sale. It's an easy giveaway in exchange for what he REALLY wants – better health care checks.

And spare me the "slippery slope" argument. No one NEEDS a bump stock.

— Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii) February 24, 2018

I will be strongly pushing Comprehensive Background Checks with an emphasis on Mental Health. Raise age to 21 and end sale of Bump Stocks! Congress is in a mood to finally do something on this issue – I hope!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 22, 2018

Bill Mitchell retweeted this.
https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/967466561383686144

Elections are won in the middle and unless you win, you can't govern, I don't care how pure your principles are.

Trump GETS that. I wish more did.

— Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii) February 24, 2018

Exactly. By staking out the middle on the big positions, Trump is actually WINNING and doing more to further the Conservative agenda than any President since Reagan.

It's about #RESULTS, not purity tests. https://t.co/mxlIXvO0WH

— Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii) February 24, 2018

The Second Amendment says nothing about hunting. It talks about defending our citizens from our own government. https://t.co/fkFIOSFknT

— Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii) February 24, 2018

He begins by stating that no one needs a bump stock and then concludes by supporting the idea that the 2nd Amendment was intended for defense against the government. Which is it? Is it possible to believe one and not the other? Another question arises. Does he support Trump’s position or does he think its beneficial in the long run to (his version) conservatism? Both can be true in this instance?
Mitchell is one of those annoying people that believes Trump is playing 4D chess when, in reality, he’s caving under political pressure, a topic worthy of another article. Trump supports infringing upon the Second Amendment, and Bill Mitchell is on his knees like a dog smiling at his master. It’s quite pathetic for him to support Trump in this as if the GOP is really in danger come midterms. Our 2nd Amendment rights are not some pawn in a chess match against a fabled Blue Wave. Those of us who think that rights aren’t negotiable are more than the 0.001%. Mitchell is as he says in one instance: he’s not a purist. And if you’re not a “purist” on the Second Amendment, you have no business claiming conservatism, let alone having a large platform among conservatives. It’s the same as Tomi Lahren on abortion. But the 2nd Amendment isn’t the only part of the Bill of Rights that Mitchell regards little.

5th Amendment

As expected, McCain associates are claiming the 5th to avoid testifying on the Steele Dossier. I've never understood why we even have the 5th? It's like a get out of jail free card. https://t.co/fkFIOSFknT

— Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii) February 24, 2018

Apparently, Bill Mitchell questions why we have a 5th Amendment. Allow me to cite the entirety of it:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It’s a pretty packed full amendment. So because he didn’t specify the nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, we should take his statement at face value. Major crimes require a grand jury indictment. The government can’t have a do-over if you’re acquitted. Why would one oppose that? The government is barred from forcing someone to self-incriminate. This means tortured confessions are inadmissible as is sodium pentothal and any confessions made while the accused has been denied a lawyer. This right matters! It flows right into the next clause which is due process, something we conservatives highly regard. The 5th Amendment concludes with eminent domain which is a topic where conservatives and Trumpist disagree.

I get that Bill Mitchell’s followers don’t like the injustice allowed by politicians pleading the fifth, but they are exercising their rights. The 5th Amendment was written as protection for the rights of the accused. I would rather political scumbags get away with things than us regular people lose this freedom.

Takeaway

There are really only two possibilities for why he holds these positions. The first one is stupidity. He believes that the 5th Amendment is unimportant because he’s too stupid to realize its worth. The second one is that his head is so far up Trump’s rear end that he doesn’t know left from right or up from down. Both of these show that he holds no real regard for a limited government. Nor does he think that individual freedoms are to be esteemed high. The Bill of Rights are co-equal protections from the government. Bill Mitchell’s views do not reconcile with this core tenet of conservative and federalist beliefs. Thus, conservatives should look elsewhere for political commentary.