Since the midterm elections, we’ve seen some pretty crazy things happening in the Democratic Party. You have a small revolt against Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) with a handful of Democrats in Congress opposing her ascension to Speaker of the House. There’s a freshman Representative, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is already trying to get her followers to run against sitting Democrats in Congress. Then, there’s the posturing by Democrats wanting to run for President in 2020.

In all three circumstances, it’s the Democratic Establishment that is old and out of touch versus the young, aware new Democrats. Sometimes these new Democrats call themselves Democratic Socialists. Sometimes they lay claim to the Democratic Party as a whole.

The Establishment is supposed to be the “moderate” wing of the party while the Democratic Socialists are the far left. Here’s the problem with that notion. They both say pretty much the exact same things. There are nuances in how they say it, but the end results are the same. For example, they both promote healthcare for all. It doesn’t matter whether some call it “Medicare-for-All” and others don’t give it a name. When the chips are all on the table, they’ll end up in the same place.

Healthcare is just one example of top priorities listed by both “sides” of the Democratic Party. On gun control, they’re in lockstep. The only difference between the “moderates” and the far-leftists is the number of times they say they “respect the 2nd Amendment” in their speeches about the varying ways they want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

There are a few issues in which the money flowing to the Democratic Establishment keeps them quiet while the radical leftists go all out. Climate change, for example, can be easily misconstrued as an issue with a unified position within the party, but it’s far from it. Establishment Democrats push for a light version of environmental solutions that will make them appear tough on carbon without harming their benefactors. The left-wing takes it up a few dozen notches, calling for an end of fossil fuels in a decade.

But the environment is a small issue, despite the attention given to it by the leftists. I don’t mean the issue of climate change and the attacks on the energy industry by leftists are insignificant. I mean it’s a small divide between the opposing sides within the Democratic Party. One could be fighting the oil companies while the other is owned by the oil companies and they can still sit together for lunch in the Capitol Hill cafeteria.

Some would argue the Republicans are the exact same way, and to some extent this is true. But the ideological divide that separates the very small minority of true conservatives is much wider for one big reason. Establishment Democrats and far leftists are in total agreement that government needs to grow, especially at the federal level. Establishment Republicans agree. True conservatives vehemently disagree.

Unfortunately, there are so few limited-government Republicans in DC that it hasn’t really made an impact. Even under President Trump, budgets are through the roof, and while he’s cutting bureaucracy, more is being added in its wake.

This is important to understand because it means the leftward lurch we’re seeing in the Democratic Party is very different from the conservative push that spawned following the passage of Obamacare. Where conservatives failed at pulling the party to the right, leftists will succeed in pulling their party to the left.

Today and onward beyond 2020, we’ll see two things happen. The first is what we’re witnessing today with the artificial chasm forming between the old Democratic guard and the new leftist ideologues. This will grow as we see presidential hopefuls jockeying for the Bernie Sanders mantle. In fact, they’re going to try to out-Bernie the Vermont Senator himself. We’re already seeing Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris pull to the left of the party on the First Step Act. Their reason: it doesn’t release enough convicts back onto the streets.

Then, there’s Eric “Nukem” Stalwell. He’s unofficially launching his presidential campaign by threatening to confiscate guns.

This will continue until the 2020 Democratic nomination is decided. That’s when we’ll see stage two. This is where it gets dangerous.

The second thing that will happen is the bridging of the chasm in the party. Republicans solved it by bringing “conservatives” over to the mushy middle, making them embrace Establishment concepts for the sake of being practical. It’s why the ideologues won in 2015 by passing a clean Obamacare repeal, but the Establishment won in 2017 by pushing forward every Obamacare action they could think of without even considering a clean repeal. They only acted conservative when they knew President Obama would veto it.

Democrats will do the opposite. The old guard will see Ocasio-Cortez, Harris, Booker, Beto O’Rourke, and other far leftists doing so well with the base. Then, they’ll embrace them. Those who are too pragmatic to leave the Establishment will be shocked when they realize the Establishment merges with the far-leftists. When the chasm disappears and the dust settles, the Democratic Party will be firmly controlled by Democratic-Socialists.

This is why the divide is artificial. They’re not stupid. The Establishment sees the writing on the wall. They’ll fight it for as long as they can without making enemies, but they are well aware that their choices are to adapt or get booted.

As far to the left as Democrats seem today, we haven’t seen them fully unleash their lunacy. The moderate Establishment that gave them candidate Hillary Clinton is rapidly being replaced by the far-leftists. Democratic-Socialists are going mainstream.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sixteen Democrats who’ve opposed Nancy Pelosi’s quest to become speaker released a letter Monday saying they will vote for “new leadership” when the House picks its leaders in January, underscoring a significant threat to her effort to lead her party’s House majority in the next Congress.

The letter’s release suggests that rather than spending the next six weeks focusing on a fresh agenda to present to Americans, House Democrats could be consumed with a bitter and attention-grabbing internal leadership fight.

The battle pits the party’s largely liberal and diverse membership backing Pelosi, D-Calif., against a small group of mostly moderate male lawmakers. Of the 16 Democrats who signed the letter — which stops short of explicitly saying they will vote for an opposing candidate for speaker — all but two are men: Reps. Kathleen Rice of New York and California’s Linda Sanchez.

“We promised to change the status quo, and we intend to deliver on that promise,” the authors wrote, referring to campaign pledges by a number of Democratic candidates. “Therefore, we are committed to voting for new leadership in both our Caucus meeting and on the House Floor.”

Pelosi has activated an aggressive campaign for the job involving House colleagues, prominent outside Democrats and party-aligned interest groups. Her office distributed endorsements Monday from nine House Democrats who are military veterans and UnidosUS, a Hispanic civil rights organization.

Known as a precise vote counter with a keen sense of her caucus’ leanings, Pelosi is aided by the lack of a declared opponent and many weeks during which she can dangle choice committee assignments, rules changes and other goodies to help attract support.

“Leader Pelosi remains confident in her support among Members and Members-elect,” spokesman Drew Hammill said in a written statement. He said 94 percent of House Democrats declined to sign the letter, though Pelosi opponents said they expect others who didn’t sign to vote against her.

Though the mavericks’ numbers represent a handful of the 232 House Democrats elected, plus five races still undecided, they could still garner enough opposition to thwart her.

Pelosi seems certain to have enough support to become her party’s nominee for speaker when House Democrats vote by secret ballot on Nov. 28. She will need only a majority of Democrats in that contest.

But when the full House elects its new leaders Jan. 3, the speaker will need a majority 218 votes, assuming that no one votes “present” or misses the vote and Republicans oppose her en masse, as seems likely. At 232 seats, Pelosi could afford to lose just 14 Democrats and still become speaker.

The rebels’ letter to their Democratic colleagues praises Pelosi, 78, as “a historic figure” who helped win major victories. Pelosi was speaker from 2007 through 2010 when Democrats held the majority and has been the party’s leader since 2003.

“We also recognize that in this recent election, Democrats ran and won on a message of change,” they wrote. “Our majority came on the backs of candidates who said that they would support new leadership because voters in hard-won districts, and across the country, want to see real change in Washington.”

Pelosi’s critics say the party’s long-serving top leaders must make room for younger members. They say years of Republican ads portraying her as an out-of-touch liberal have made it hard for moderate Democrats to win in swing districts.

Pelosi allies counter that the party just won House control with their biggest gain of seats since the 1974 post-Watergate election. Many bristle at dumping her at a time when President Donald Trump and the #MeToo movement have helped attract female candidates and voters to the party.

Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland has been No. 2 House Democrat since 2003 and South Carolina’s Jim Clyburn has been No. 3 since 2007. Both are in their late 70s and are running, unopposed so far, for those posts again.

Of the letter’s signees, five are incoming House freshmen or hope to be. Two of them — Anthony Brindisi of New York and Ben McAdams of Utah — are in races in which The Associated Press has yet to call a winner.

Pelosi critics assert there are more Democrats who’ve not signed the letter who are prepared to vote against Pelosi. That includes Rep. Marcia Fudge of Ohio, who’s said she’s considering running for speaker.

Trump has tweeted his respect for Pelosi and offered to round up GOP votes to help elect her speaker. Pelosi’s office has said she will win with Democratic votes, and it seems a stretch to expect Republicans to help elect her speaker — a vote that could open them up to primary challenges in 2020.

Others signing were incumbents Jim Cooper of Tennessee; Bill Foster of Illinois; Brian Higgins of New York; Stephen Lynch and Seth Moulton of Massachusetts; Ed Perlmutter of Colorado; Tim Ryan of Ohio; Kurt Schrader of Oregon and Filemon Vela of Texas. Incoming freshmen were Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, Max Rose from New York and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey.

The Left can’t argue that you don’t need a gun because the government won’t turn tyrannical while threatening that the government will turn tyrannical.

In what has to be the ultimate and game-changing tweet, Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) threatened nuclear annihilation to anyone who refuses to give up their right of self-defense. The ensuing ‘fallout’ seeing him resort to damage control tactic of saying that thermonuclear gun confiscation was just a ‘joke’. After all, Who hasn’t chuckled at the prospect of the government going tyrannical with an H-bomb? One can easily see the bumper stickers now: Vote Swalwell 2020- or I will nuke your…

One of the Left’s favorite little tactics is to accuse those of the Pro-Liberty right of being ‘terrorists’ as their usual method of demonizing their opponents. Take note of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word Terrorist:

Adjective [attributive] Unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Origin
Late 18th century: from French terroriste, from Latin terror (see terror). The word was originally applied to supporters of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, who advocated repression and violence in pursuit of the principles of democracy and equality.

The long train of demands for gun confiscation

Perhaps Eric ‘Nukem’ Swalwell doesn’t realize his tweet was the ultimate in the listing of demands for gun confiscation by the Liberty grabber Left. A long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, as Thomas Jefferson termed it in the Declaration of Independence. That his erstwhile ‘joke’ he, Piers Morgan and others have made is the nuclear straw that broke the camels back. They, along with all the other Leftists who have demanded gun confiscation have initiated a sea of change in the debate over the common sense human right of self-defense.

The old approach by the Left that denied that confiscation was their ultimate goal

It used to be that the Left would hide behind a mask of support of the 2nd amendment. Never mind that each move they made was towards their final solution to the gun problem. Their tired refrain to most arguments about guns was that ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’ or ‘No one is talking about repealing the 2nd amendment’ or some variation thereof. This was a way to short-circuit the debate to one of incremental or ‘progressive’ steps negating any of their ill effects.

Pointing out that some new law would punish 120 million gun owners for the deeds of a few criminals would see the abject denial of ‘no one is being punished’ or ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’.

Mention that a new restriction on freedom infringing on the 2nd amendment and those who pretend to be Liberal on the Left would answer back ‘No one is talking about repealing the 2nd amendment’.

Talk about Intergalactic Background Checks [or Universal, enhanced or ‘Common sense’] would place government control over your personal property while acting as a stepping stone to confiscation would be met with the assertion that you must believe in conspiracy theories and that ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’.

The disturbing trend in Leftists demands for gun confiscation.

We have previously established that the Left wants to ban and confiscate all guns with over 70 documented instances of those demands. Leaving out the multiplying effect of the excerpting and reprinting of those demands.

This arduous task was under taken to prove a point, that the Left has dropped the mask on this subject. But it has also revealed a disturbing trend over the years. What began a few years ago as few and far between calls for gun confiscation has morphed into far more strident and frequent demands. Demands that were only made in obscure far-Left online publications have found their way into the mainstream and supposedly Liberal media sources. The rate on the number of demands made per ‘serious crisis’ have accelerated to the ultimate demand made by Eric ‘Nukem’ Swalwell. This has manifestly changed the debate in favour of the Pro-Liberty Conservative side.

Consider a sampling of these demands:

• May 2018 Esquire: Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns
• November 2017 Boston Globe: Hand over your weapons
• October 2017 Plan A Magazine: Ban Guns. Amend the Constitution.
• December 2015 New Republic: It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.
• May 2014 La Times: You say gun control doesn’t work? Fine. Let’s ban guns altogether.

What began as mere calls to amend the Constitution – removing a fundamental human right in the process – or banning certain ‘types’ of guns. Have become threats to turn over all of our guns or to ‘comprise’ and lose some of them with incremental steps.

Then the Left became impatient, unable to restrain it’s ‘collective’ hatred of Liberty.

For at least the past several years, to say that those two talking points [or a variation thereof] were a complete and total lie would be an understatement of epic proportions. But even now that hasn’t stopped Leftists from denying the obvious.

But now the Nuke comment has changed all of that, everyone is now seeing that the Left has been making their demands for gun confiscation in every corner of their echo chamber. This is part of the reason many have undertaken the task of documenting these demands such as Here, Here and of course here.

Their open demands for gun confiscation and for the suppression of other types of Liberty have changed the dynamic. It is now a question of Liberty versus tyranny – with the Left being on the side of governmental oppression to the tune of nuclear annihilation if one does not comply.

In part II we will examine the debate in terms of the new paradigm of Liberty versus Tyranny.