Connect with us

Democrats

Congress launches new round of tyrannical attacks on Second Amendment

Published

on

Congress launches new round of tyrannical attacks on Second Amendment

One of the priorities identified by Nancy Pelosi in her campaign to become Speaker of the House following the Democrat’s historic victory in the 2018 mid-term election was gun control. So, it should come as no surprise that the House will vote on, and likely pass, two major pieces of anti-gun-rights legislation this week.

The first bill is the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 — aka H.R.8 in recognition of the eighth anniversary of the shooting of the former Rep. Gabby Giffords in January 2001. The bill was co-sponsored by five Republicans:

Under the BBCA, a federal background check will not only be required on all gun sales, including private sales, it will also be required for the private transfer of firearms. Have a friend or relative who would like to borrow your firearm for an upcoming hunting trip? That will no longer be legal without a federal background check.

The second bill is the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019 (H.R.1112), a bill that eliminates the requirement that background checks be completed in three days and extends it for up to twenty business days. Due to some confusion with the fine print in this bill, along with some mushy provisions in the Fix NICS law that Trump and the GOP buried within the March 2018 omnibus, this measure will give the federal government unfettered power to block public and private gun sales and transfers.

While Trump, the GOP, and their friends at FOX News will chalk this up as further evidence of Far-Left extremism, the simple fact remains that they support Pelosi’s anti-gun agenda. In a White House meeting held just after the mid-terms, Trump endorsed the increasingly popular Red Flag Law, telling Democrats that the government should be able to take guns from private citizens “whether they have the right or not” and if necessary, government should “take the guns first, go through due process second.”

When it comes to Red Flag Laws — aka Extreme Risk Protection Orders or ERPOs — Republicans in the Senate have been working to expand government’s power to seize the weapons of law-abiding citizens without due process.

Sen. Lindsey Graham co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Richard Blumenthal that would federalize ERPOs and give the federal courts jurisdiction over the states. And Sen. Marco Rubio recently re-introduced the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Protection Act, a bill that would use federal funds to pay states to pass ERPO laws.

Whether the two background check bills make it through Congress or not is irrelevant. The real issue we should be focusing on is how such laws are being considered in the first place … and how there is so little resistance to tyranny in Washington.

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

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

0

Democrats

Hunter Biden’s interview a strategic move ahead of the Democratic debate

Published

on

Hunter Bidens interview a strategic move ahead of the Democratic debate

Hunter Biden went on ABC News this morning to answer questions about his tenure on the boards of Ukrainian and Chinese energy companies. The jobs have been a source of campaign fodder for President Trump while also prompting the current impeachment inquiry by Congress after the President asked Ukraine to continue their previous investigation into Biden’s company. But the timing is conspicuous.

It was a strategic move, regardless of what former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign says. They claim the timing wasn’t up to them and ABC had a tight schedule. That’s a lie. If Hunter Biden walked into the studio in the middle of a news broadcast to do the interview there and then, they would have let him. No, this was a very clear and blatant attempt to hijack part of tonight’s Democratic Debate and establish up front one important campaign narrative.

They want Joe Biden to be the victim. They want this established at the beginning of the debate so they can set that tone ahead of anticipated attacks by fellow candidates. And most importantly, they want it to be clear that President Trump is going after Biden exclusively because he’s the one the Trump campaign fears the most.

In reality, he’s a weak candidate. It won’t be apparent until after the nomination process is over if he does win it, but currently the general consensus about Biden within the Democratic Establishment is that he’s still the best bet to take on President Trump. He’s the one who can lure Independents and moderate Republicans, by the DNC’s reckoning. He’s the safe bet.

Whether that’s true or not is for a future discussion. Hunter Biden is the topic of the day, bringing the spotlight onto him and his father ahead of the debate and insuring there will be questions posed to Joe Biden early. It’s a perfect setup for Biden who is great at playing the victim card. He’ll passionately defend his son, probably lobbing out an attack or two against President Trump’s children like, “I’d trust Hunter in a situation like he’s been in before I’d ever trust one of President Trump’s children.”

It will also allow him to point out how scared the Trump campaign allegedly is about a Biden nomination. He’ll say something like, “The President is hoping someone else gets the nomination because the one thing he can’t compete with is common sense.”

The radical progressive wing of the Democratic Party will be on the attack all day on social media. But his competitors on the debate stage will be very careful not to use any of the President’s talking points about Biden, including his attacks on Hunter. Such things are anathema for candidates.

The Democratic debate is going to be interesting. Tom Steyer will be introduced to many who have no idea who he is. Tulsi Gabbard will attack someone. But the Hunter Biden interview adds a new dimension. Will Joe Biden be able to make a move as a result?

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

They don’t want your guns, they want your doctrine

Published

on

They dont want your guns they want your doctrine

Beto O’Rourke may in fact be the most honest of the Presidential candidates. He may have gone full Swalwell in an attempt to revive a disastrous campaign; however in recognizing his present shortcomings, Beto O’Rourke has gone the AOC route of revealing the poorly hidden secrets of the Democrat Party. For years, the right was (falsely) accused of using a straw man fallacy with gun confiscation, but Beto O’Rourke has now been unabashed in championing the policy. O’Rourke merely confirmed what we already knew: the socialists want to confiscate our guns. They want the monopoly on force, so they can upend our way of life.

But this upheaval, revolution, is not about redistributing the wealth, fixing the climate, or reducing violence. Beto O’Rourke’s latest Freudian slip is all the more telling. At the gay town hall hosted by CNN, Beto O’Rourke said that the government should strip away tax exemption from churches that refused to partake in the gay agenda, which includes but is not limited to the performing of marriages, removal of ministry standards that prohibit (blatant) non-Christians, and permitting men to pee with little girls. Put more concisely, Beto O’Rourke wants to use the government to coerce the doctrine of the church.

Blatant unconstitutionality aside, if the socialists have their way, we will be at the mercy of the courts, legally speaking, who have an entrenched precedent of conjuring their own law. There have long been talks by atheist about taxing churches, a less unconstitutional means of persecuting the church. The atheist Freedom From Religion Foundation erroneously claims that we pay more in taxes because churches pay nothing, ignoring the history of the income tax in America. The Supreme Court touched on this issue in 1970, ironically close to Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court maintained in Walz v Tax Commission of the City of New York that:

Obviously a direct money subsidy would be a relationship pregnant with involvement and, as with most governmental grant programs, could encompass sustained and detailed administrative relationships for enforcement of statutory or administrative standards, but that is not this case. The hazards of churches supporting government are hardly less in their potential than the hazards of government supporting churches; each relationship carries some involvement, rather than the desired insulation and separation. We cannot ignore the instances in history when church support of government led to the kind of involvement we seek to avoid.

The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

Even a Supreme Court devoid of Christians would have agreed that the Establishment Clause is best maintained through the financial insulation of church and state, that history showed that when the church supporting the state was as threatening to freedom as the reverse. But what Beto is suggesting is a next level takeover. He wants to use government to manipulate the doctrine. So after he has taken your guns, he will use “civil rights” law to target the church. But remember, nothing about Beto O’Rourke is original. He’s just trying to be AOC while also trying to be Eric Swalwell. The Equality Act that Taylor Swift loves to promote would also place churches in the cross hairs of the law, should they remain faithful.

This isn’t a new ambition. Socialism is atheist by its nature and has never existed with a thriving church. In similar fashion, socialism has corresponded with the direct persecution of the church, often with genocidal purposes. An ideology that lumps people in with the collective dismisses the individual pursuit of a relationship with God.

The Second Amendment is a defense mechanism against various forms of government tyranny, among them the aforementioned scenario. Pacifying civilians is never an end but always a means to an end. A disarmed people are neither safer nor freer. In this case, Beto O’Rourke, by the progression of his rhetoric, wants to disarm the populace and coerce doctrine. This is the exact reason to refuse disarming. The socialists want to control our doctrine, by extension, what we think. They ultimately, as Beto O’Rourke’s policy suggestion explicitly demands, want to command us to disobey God, to rewrite doctrine to appease the latest whims of society.

The socialists aren’t floating confiscation just for the sake of confiscation. Institutions that have historically rejected collectivism and adhere to an objective morality standard are natural adversaries to the modern socialist movement. Therefore socialists would see strategic gains in undermining these institutions. This logic is not new or surprising, but is becoming increasingly obvious and less conspiratorial. The words of Beto O’Rourke corroborate the suspicion that gun confiscation is a means to enact religious persecution among other tyrannies.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Pete Buttigieg attempts to recreate God in his own image

Published

on

Pete Buttigieg attempts to recreate God in his own image

By Richard Ferguson

During a town hall meeting a CNN host asked Pete Buttigieg that question, “As a Christian, can you point to any teachings in faith that provide instructions to deny services to the LGBTQ community? His answer was a total copy-edit to both Christian and Jewish foundational writings, saying, “When religion is used in that way, to me, it makes God smaller.”

Instead of rebuking Pete’s answer, it was met with thunderous applause.

But just the ‘trinity’ of Pete, the Democrat audience, and it’s sycophants in media want to recreate Judeo-Christian truth into their own image, doesn’t mean the Creator of the universe is in agreement simply because He chose not to rain fire and brimstone from heaven as an immediate response.

Clearly, Almighty God, Creator of the entire universe of all that is seen and unseen can never be small in any way, shape, or form. Only a small mind would view God that way.

If Pete Buttigieg wishes to create a new small religion, it’s his prerogative. Such an effort is supported by the U.S. Constitution and the free will God allows all of us. Maybe he can call it the gospel according to Buttigieg, or just ‘Peteiology,’ but he dare not call it Judaism or Christianity.

Pete’s analogy about a Christian’s rights with his fist ending at the other person’s nose is totally out of place considering we are NOT talking about violence. Unconditional Christian love does NOT mean unconditional approval. Loving others does not mean ignoring wrong behavior that could lead to their annihilation. That is NOT Christian love. Christian love promotes moral guardianship. Just as friends don’t let friends drive drunk, we must not let ‘friends’ corrupt what we know is right.

This is what politicians do best. They frequently twist answers to questions to sound great and loving when in fact they are avoiding the question and giving false answers.

Pete’s form of Christian love seems to be “live and let live” and “let everyone do what’s right in their own eyes” which is not synonymous with the Judeo-Christian ethic. But whether Pete Buttigieg likes it or not, there are many Bible verses about homosexuality. The Judeo-Christian book of Leviticus is very specific.

Are we to have “agape” love for all people? Yes. But trying to copy-edit the Torah is ‘sloppy agape.’ Does the fact that Peter was an altar boy and claims himself to be a very knowledgeable Christian fountain of knowledge make a difference? Satan himself knows scripture inside and out and even quotes it as an ‘angel’ of light.

What is the essence of the one true Christianity? It is simple and absolutely beautiful as written in Matthew 22:36-40

In verse 37 Jesus replied: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” In verses 38-40 Jesus said, “This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Every other commandment and Christian principle is derived from these two simple and lovingly profound commandments. These are very simple, very profound and very HARD to apply in life in this physical world we find ourselves in today. This is why we must pray to God for His guidance every day.

Praying means we need to be humble before God. I cannot find a trace of humility in any of the Democrat candidates for president. These people have put on a thin veneer of humility, thinner than a worn-out paint job on a 1955 Chevy Bel Air left out in the desert sun too long. You should be able to see through their rusted-out socialist philosophies like a worn-out tissue paper.

So, do not believe our schoolboy altar boy who may envision himself as master of the theological universe. In reality, he is attempting to draw people into his deceptive web that includes false religion and recycled socialist dung. Open your eyes dear people and see the truth of things Petey is hiding from you.

Richard Ferguson is a retired business executive who once traveled the country visiting countless corporations and executives singing the praises of Hewett Packard products. Today he is a full-time author, sounding the alarm of how liberal Democrats are attacking the United States from within.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending