Connect with us

Democrats

Trump runs amok on the Bill of Rights

Published

on

In a stunning display of a lack of understanding or care for the Constitution, President Trump today, during a bi-partisan meeting of key lawmakers, announced that he would like “to take the guns and then go to the courts for due process.”

Vice President Pence was outlining a vision in which local authorities would be empowered to go to the courts and petition the legal system to seize firearms from those who were credibly deemed to be a threat to themselves or others (also known as the system presently in place) when the President interrupted him. President Trump made it clear that he wanted to seize guns from those the police deemed a threat and only then go to the courts for due process. The President cited the recent shooting in Parkland, Florida as an example. He further accused Republican lawmakers of being afraid of the NRA, despite the fact that the NRA’s political contributions are a tiny fraction of that of other organizations.

The problem with President Trump’s scenario is three-fold.

1. In Parkland the local authorities in the form of the Broward County Sheriff’s Department not only didn’t even TRY to go through the proper legal procedure, but ignored more than two dozen calls warning that the future shooter was dangerous.

2. The Bill of Rights is non-negotiable. They aren’t there to protect people when it is convenient. It is there to protect innocent citizens from having their rights trampled on by the government, which is exactly what the President seems to have been proposing. The President’s statement, while possibly having been made in the heat of the moment, was to the left of many Democrats, and gives credence to many of the accusations of being a wannabe tyrant.

3. This creates huge political and electoral problems for the President. In a mid-term election year, even Democrats outside of New York and California will run away from gun control knowing they cannot get re-elected if they anger their blue-collar and middle class constituents by trampling on their right to self-defense. Further, the President just yesterday announced his re-election bid and his campaign manager for that effort. In order to win re-election the President will need significantly more votes than he received in 2016 since Democrats are not likely to stay home in the numbers they did the last time. While many who refused to vote for Trump last time have been impressed with many of the things he’s done thus far (myself included) the President can forget winning in 2020 if he attacks the 2nd Amendment in any way.

Republicans reactions across the country were decidedly skeptical.

Shane Hazel, running for the GOP nomination in the Georgia 7th, said, “I will always uphold the Constitution and Americans’ inalienable, God-given right to protect themselves, their families, and property as they see fit and fight for their right to due process.”

When asked for his opinion, Austin Petersen, running for the GOP nomination for Senate to run against Claire McCaskill, a holder of an “F” rating from the NRA, said, “That’s not how the 5th Amendment works, and that’s not how due process works.”

THE TAKEAWAY

The President has done some damage to himself today, and he needs to walk this back right away. Suffice it to say Sarah Huckabee Sanders will have her work cut out for her tomorrow. His people had already walked back his previous statements on wanting to raise the age to buy long guns to 21, but this new gaffe may be harder to spin. 2nd Amendment advocates are rarely single-issue voters, but you CAN lose their votes if you go against gun rights. A Republican going against gun rights has the same chance of being elected as a Democrat who comes out against welfare. President Trump’s team has some serious damage control to do on this issue, and considering Trump’s long history of not exactly being the most pro-gun man in the world, he can’t afford any more gaffes on this.

 

Advertisement
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. Public Citizen

    February 28, 2018 at 9:20 pm

    #2 is a mis-characterization of the Nature of the Bill of Rights
    The Bill of Rights is intended to hedge about the Federal Government a fence, the crossing of which triggers reprisals by the States and the Citizenry.
    It isn’t a “granting of rights” to the citizens but a ~statement~ that these Rights Are Among Those That Are Inalienable, and not subject to the control or regulation by ~any~ government authority.
    As to POTUS Trump’s statement, it is either a very disturbing warning or an example of something that Trump has demonstrated great skill with in the past, that being the utterance of a statement that serves to smoke out the opposition and demonstrates what their true position and objectives are.

  2. ed

    March 1, 2018 at 2:24 pm

    Trump’s true positions have been exposed on numerous occasions through his own unsolicited words in both tweets and interviews.

    As a result, as a life-long Republican voter and staunch conservative, my votes in 2018 and 2020 will be for anyone that opposes Trump and his agenda – even if that means voting for the Democrat (any Democrat) that will oppose Trump).

    The constant media kow-towing to and brown-nosing for Trump as well as Trump’s “unofficial” thought-police (red-cappers) spreading hatred and division have convinced me that Trump and all those that support him need to removed from office and positions of power at any cost.

    Only with the removal of Trump and the cancer that he has encouraged and supported within the GOP (OR with the creation of a new 3rd party) can a viable opposition to the leftist ideology emerge on our national stage.

    Trump is nothing more than the progressive movement’s maintaining their corrupt control of our federal government (with the apparent aid of Russian and Chinese agents and money). Removal of that influence is a pre-requisite for any growth or return to US civility which is itself a pre-requisite to US ascendency and regaining our lost US culture.

Leave a Reply

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

Democrats

16 states hit 9th Circuit to sue President Trump, as expected

Published

on

16 states hit 9th Circuit to sue President Trump as expected

It was one of the most replayed parts of President Trump’s announcement regarding his national emergency declaration last Friday – a sing-song moment as the President predicted the declaration would be made, Democrats would sue, they’d go through the 9th circuit, and their decision will hopefully be overturned by the Supreme Court. So far, he’s been absolutely correct as 16 states have filed against the declaration.

New York, California, 14 other states sue Trump in Ninth Circuit over emergency declaration

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-york-california-sue-trump-in-ninth-circuit-over-emergency-declarationThe attorneys general of California, New York, and 14 other states on Monday filed a lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit against the White House’s recent national emergency declaration over border security, claiming President Trump has “veered the country toward a constitutional crisis of his own making.”

President Trump sarcastically had predicted the lawsuit last week. He’s slammed the Ninth Circuit multiple times as “disgraceful” and politically biased.

My Take

This is their right, and while it may annoy those who support building the border wall, it would be a mistake to condemn these states for trying to stop it. This is part of the way our nation is intended to operate. If one or more states feel the need to challenge the authority of Washington DC, they should be able to make their case before the courts. If the courts make decisions based on the Constitution, then the end result will be the accurate and righteous one.

That’s how this was all intended.

I’m not suggesting the 9th Circuit is going to treat this fairly, nor am I confident the Supreme Court will make its decision solely on the Constitution, but until things are changed, this is what we’ve got. Attempts to subvert any component of this system from the President’s right to declare the emergency to the states’ rights to challenge it to the courts’ responsibility to make a ruling about it all would be to denounce the foundation upon which this nation was built.

There was a way this could have been avoided. Had the President and the GOP decided to have the debate over the wall while they had power over the House, Senate, and White House, they would have been in better position to get the wall going by now. Unfortunately, they an improper political calculation to hold off on the wall debate until after the midterm elections, and now it’s costing the American citizens. It costs us money to sit here through the shutdown and the legal battle over the national emergency declaration. It’s costing us time; the wall should be much further along by now. It may end up costing us the wall altogether if they aren’t able to make a strong case before the Supreme Court.

We are in the midst of a crisis at the border, one that has been going on for decades. Let’s not exacerbate the crisis by adding a Constitutional crisis on top. This needs to play all the way out.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Leftist media pushes back on Green New Deal criticism

Published

on

Leftist media pushes back on Green New Deal criticism

It’s been an up-and-down couple of weeks for proponents of the Green New Deal. Before details were released, it was already being heralded as the greatest thing since President Obama’s election. Then, the details came out and even many on the left were taken aback by the ambitious and incoherent provisions of the deal as detailed in a FAQ section on Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s government web page.

But that was just a draft. They took it down. At least that was the story.

Unfortunately for proponents, they were caught a little flat-footed as questions started pouring in about, well, all of it. Even if we dismiss the less-draconian concepts such as eliminating air travel or the less-sane ideas like taking care of those who are unwilling to work, the left is still stuck with a proposal that the most frugal estimates put at costing around $7 trillion while other’s consider the decade-long cost to be in the HUNDREDS of trillions of dollars.

This is, of course, ludicrous. There’s not enough money in the entire world to pay for the proposal if its cost is somewhere between the lowest and highest estimates, but that hasn’t stopped leftist media from regrouping. Now that the dust has settled a little bit, they’re doing everything they can to recommit to this concept. It’s not that they suddenly believe in this fairy tale. It’s that they don’t want this to be the issue Republicans attack in the 2020 elections.

One article in particular that I read from CNN (yes, sometimes I need to see what the other side is thinking) really struck me for its honesty about the situation. Though I stopped reading it in paragraph two when it referred to “non-partisan” PolitiFact, I went back to it just now to digest the awfulness fully (see the sacrifices I make for our readers!).

To be clear, much of what this article says is correct. It asserts the GOP will take the tenets of the Green New Deal and use it to scare voters into thinking it’s even worse than Obamacare. From 2010 through 2016, Republicans attacked Obamacare incessantly and it worked, giving them the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014, and the White House in 2016. Unfortunately, they stopped there and didn’t actually go after Obamacare with the same fervor they held in their campaign rhetoric and now the Democrats have turned the issue on its head.

But here’s the thing. Obamacare may have been bad, but the Green New Deal truly is worse. It’s not even close. Even if we take at face value the notion that the Green New Deal is simply an ambitious framework around which real legislation can be forged, we have to look at the core issues entailed in order to see the true damage it can do. This is a socialist document. It’s a call for the same levels of insanity that drive the Medicare-for-All movement. Within its frivolous attempts to change perceptions of air travel, cows, and job creation is a deep-rooted desire to convert Americans to needing more government.

NOQ Report needs your support.

The Green New Deal represents the far-left’s desire to make more American dependent on government. At the same time, it aims to increase the levels of dependency for those who are already in need of assistance. It wants Democrats to latch their wagons on the notion that if we become a militantly environmentalist nation, that will serve the dual purpose of giving us fulfillment while saving the planet.

I believe most leftist journalists understand this, but they see in the ridiculous framework a path through which Republicans can be defeated wholesale in 2020 as long as the left can control the narrative surrounding the Green New Deal. They fear another Obamacare counterinsurgency that would wipe out the anti-Trump gains they made in 2018, so they’ve adopted a stance that the Green New Deal isn’t as bad as Fox News says it is. Meanwhile, they’re doing everything they can to say, “look over here and not at the Green New Deal.”

The politics behind what the Green New Deal represents is more in play than the tenets of the proposal itself, at least in the eyes of leftist media. It’s not that they want to promote the concept. They simply don’t want the concept to derail their party in the next election.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Louis Farrakhan refers to Ilhan Omar as ‘sweetheart,’ prompting zero outrage

Published

on

Louis Farrakhan refers to Ilhan Omar as sweetheart prompting zero outrage

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan referred to Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) as “Sweetheart” as he addressed her during a speaking engagement on Sunday. He apparently caught his faux pas and immediately justified the remark, but at that point the moniker which many consider to be sexist or misogynistic had already been noted.

Nevertheless, it didn’t cause the stir one might expect. As a far-left progressive, Omar is known for being a feminist icon on Capitol Hill even though she hasn’t been in office for a full two months yet. As our EIC noted, the lack of a rebuke was because of the source, not because she now feels it’s okay to refer to her as “sweetheart.”

The statement came as Farrakhan was telling Omar she shouldn’t be sorry for the statements she made last week about Israel, AIPAC, and Jewish influence in Washington DC, particularly over Republicans.

In a world where consistency was still considered a virtue, followers of Omar would be wondering why she’s not expressing outrage over the belittling reference from a powerful man. But the world isn’t consistent and Farrakhan always gets a pass.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report