Connect with us

Democrats

The Democrats will not save the Constitution

Published

on

The Democrats will not save the Constitution

Trump skeptical conservatives have reason to be concerned about the President’s convictions in constitutional government, but the Democrats’ contempt of constitutional values cannot be overstated.

We are living in what many have called a post-constitutional age. Both major political parties praise “constitutional norms,” especially when out of power. However, their conduct when granted the wheels of government by the people demonstrates the lack of seriousness these praises truly hold. Political commentators on the left and right can voice approval for what has ensued under this and the most recent presidencies, but few can seriously deny that we have been living under “phone and pen” presidential government for the last eleven years. Hardliners of either party have openly admitted that when it comes to constitutional values, it is a vague, secondary consideration next to the demands of “victory,” whether or not this victory is meaningful absent constitutional values or not.

It shouldn’t be any wonder that, under these circumstances, those who wish to reassert constitutional values into the national conversation have broken off from the main political parties and have attempted to create new movements and even found new political parties. These are admirable goals, but goals very much in the long-term. With another presidential election around the corner, a decision is quickly coming upon us where each of us must decide how best to be involved in the process. Some are going to choose to remain unaffiliated. Others, like me, will register Republican and try to reassert constitutional values in the party that has stood for them in recent history. Others may hope that voting for Democrats would send a shock through the Republican Party and force a re-calibration upon constitutional values in defeat. It is to those tempted to vote for Democratic candidates that I offer this word of caution.

I would be willing to concede that in the last three years, the Democrats have surprised me with how much they suddenly talk of “constitutional norms” and with how effectively they have used the mechanisms of federalism to combat what they oppose in the Trump administration. They have used state sovereignty to counter the president’s executive orders. They have asserted local values and beliefs in openly rejecting federal law they oppose. They have used the court systems to check the arbitrary actions of the executive. They have gained power in the House of Representatives and asserted the independence of the legislative branch in its relations with the executive branch. Chiefly, for the first time since the National Emergencies Act of 1976, they have forced a presidential veto to occur when a president has sought to use emergency powers. It might be easy for a casual observer to conclude that the Democratic Party is the party standing for constitutional government.

However, I can’t state it with enough emphasis: the Democrats will not save the US Constitution. Their use of constitutional mechanism and federalist checks-and-balances is nothing more than a convenient use of a system they have largely disavowed. While President Trump and his followers have primarily set aside constitutional values in exchange for their immediate goals of victory in the culture war, the Democrats have demonstrated open hostility to those values in both word and deed.

Democratic presidential candidates have embraced, almost without exception, a full gambit of progressive dream policies which would turn the constitutional order upside down. They have vowed to remove the electoral college, to pack the US Supreme Court, to socialize healthcare and higher education, to introduce gross punitive taxes on successful American citizens, to legislate an “assault weapons” ban and other attacks upon the 2nd amendment, and to introduce near absolute central planning of the national economy as part of the “Green New Deal”. Considering the virulent way in which many Democrats speak about the founding vision, it should go without saying these policies would only get them warmed up for further fundamental changes to our country.

It would be one thing if we could say these policies are just pipe dreams which, at most, we would only have to worry about at a future date far from now. However, the Democrats’ assault on the constitution and upon federalism is not just a future possibility. The first bill passed by the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, the For the People Act of 2019, was an outright shot across federalism’s bow. It would have upended the entire idea of state sovereignty and would have considerably shrunk free exercise of individual political thought.

I understand that once more we face the prospect of a difficult and frustrating presidential election year. Each citizen must search their heart and determine what it is they feel they must do to live with themselves moving forward. Whatever the choice is, I would strongly suggest that each of us take an honest look at the direction of the Democratic Party and truly consider what the consequences might be if some of us turn to them with the false hope that they will reassert the constitutional order. I, for one, trust them to do exactly what they say they want to do.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at jdrucker@reagan.com and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Democrats

Democrats imperiled whether they impeach or not

Published

on

Democrats imperiled whether they impeach or not

The Democratic Party is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have been refreshing talks about impeachment of President Trump for months as it ebbs and flows as a talking point. The threats have been constant, though often from different sources. Yet, they haven’t pulled the trigger. It seems like things are getting awkward.

The rock they face is the futile time- and resource-draining reality of it all. If the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives impeaches the President, it will then be tried in the Republican-controlled Senate where it will likely go nowhere. What makes it worse for them is that impeachment isn’t a popular action with voters; even many Democrats have voiced their concern that it would be a waste of time.

Meanwhile, the hard place they’re up against comes in the form of the radical progressive wing of the party that is growing in ranks and influence. They want the President impeached even if it has no chance of actually going anywhere. They’re pressuring their fellow Democrats and have been rallying their supporters around this goal. If Speaker of the House never brings it to the floor, she and her allies in the House will face the scorn of the likes of Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

They’re damned if they do and they’re damned if they don’t.

As for the President himself, he’s been done with all the investigations, implications, and attacks by the press. He just wants to be President and do his thing. But what he may not appreciate is that impeachment by the House will give him a huge campaign point. He can not only garner sympathy over the ceaseless attacks by Democrats, but he and the RNC can also use it to help them win back some of the seats they lost in 2018.

Personally, I’d love to see them impeach him. Assuming the get all of the Democrats and some Republicans on board, they’ll have the votes they’ll need to make the first leg of the impeachment process happen.

Unless something fresh comes to light that changes public sentiment, impeachment would be a poor move in the eyes of most Americans. But the radicals in the party will voice outrage if impeachment never happens. Such as silly group, the Democrats.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Top 5 ‘assault weapon’ technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written

Published

on

By

Top 5 assault weapon technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written

Just a sample of some of the repeating firepower that existed long before the 2nd amendment.

Leftist lore has it that the only guns in existence at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment were muskets that took 5 minutes to reload. This being exemplified by the New York Times in using an image of a musket contrasted with an assault rifle in an article on their usual obsession with gun confiscation. Or from a commercial from a liberty grabber group depicting the long, drawn out reloading of a musket. As is usually the case with leftist lore, this is a complete fabrication.

The fact is that multishot or repeating firearms existed long before the affirmation of the common sense human right of self-preservation in the US Constitution. We’ve already highlighted some of these technologies that predate the Constitution. However, for the sake of completeness, we shall fill out the list with the other fine examples.

Since there is no set definition of the term ‘assault weapon’ or ‘weapons of war’ or what ever farcical term the liberty grabber left has come up with to demonize ordinary firearms, we bestowed this term to these technology as some of the first ‘Assault Weapons’.

Repeating rifles of the early 1600s, predating the Constitution by 160 years

The Encyclopedia Britannica has a very informative article on this subject with this excerpt detailing the most important point:

The first effective breech-loading and repeating flintlock firearms were developed in the early 1600s. One early magazine repeater has been attributed to Michele Lorenzoni, a Florentine gunmaker. In the same period, the faster and safer Kalthoff system—designed by a family of German gunmakers—introduced a ball magazine located under the barrel and a powder magazine in the butt. By the 18th century the Cookson repeating rifle was in use in North America, having separate tubular magazines in the stock for balls and powder and a lever-activated breech mechanism that selected and loaded a ball and a charge, also priming the flash pan and setting the gun on half cock.

[Our Emphasis]

Please note that these multishot or repeating firearms existed almost 2 centuries before the writing of the Constitution, eviscerating the ‘Muskets only’ lie of the national socialist Left. For those who are numerically as well a factually challenged, this was also 370 years before the 21st Century.

The Lorenzoni repeating flintlock: Portable firepower that predated the Constitution by over 100 years

Our first video from the venerable website Forgotten weapons is of two London-Made Lorenzonis Repeating Flintlocks. This was a repeating flintlock developed in the early 1600’s that was able to fire multiple shots 160 years before the writing of the Constitution.

Early development of revolving cylinder firearms, predating the Constitution by over 109 years

Next on the Pre-constitutional timeline, we have One of the Earliest Six-shot Revolvers from the collection of the Royal Armory that we profiled in a previous article. The Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson notes that this wasn’t one of the earliest revolvers along with pointing out how the technology has ‘evolved’ over time.

This also brings up an important point, that arms and other weapons of self-defense were vitally important, a matter of life or death. Every living being is in a battle for survival, in the case of human society, these technologies determined its survivability. Thus it is a constant competition with these technologies constantly changing and evolving over time. Something that would have been known by the learned men that wrote the founding documents.

The Puckle or Defense Gun from 1718, was predating the Constitution by over 70 years

We have previously detailed the Puckle or Defense Gun invented in 1718 and demonstrated early ‘automatic weapon’ fire in 1721:

The Puckle Gun, or Defense Gun as it was also known, was invented and patented in 1718 by the London lawyer James Puckle.

This was an early ‘automatic weapon’ was capable of firing 63 shots in 7 minutes in 1721.

For those following along this missed the mark of being a 21st Century weapon by almost 300 years.

The multishot Girardoni Air Gun that predated the Constitution by 9 years.

This is another multishot weapon of war that existed before the Constitution.

Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket – 1786, this also predates the Constitution

Our last video of multishot or repeating firearms that predated the Constitution is the Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket from 1786. We’re trying to keep this as short as possible, thus we have left off other examples such as the Ribauldequin, Duckfoot or Nock gun.

Very much like the previous example, the Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket was known to the founding fathers because he corresponded with Congress on this weapon in 1777 [Again, before the drafting of the Constitution]. For those keeping score at home, 1786 is still is not of the 21st Century.

Leftist lies on this subject depends on a number of improbable fallacies and assumptions. The founding fathers would have known the history of technological developments and they would have expected those developments to continue. Thus rendering the fallacy that they could not have foreseen that weapons technologies wouldn’t of continued on to the point of absurdity.

The Takeaway

Unfortunately for the Liberty Grabber Left, firearms tend to be valuable historical artifacts, these videos show that multishot or repeating firearms existed well before the Constitution. Thus we have eviscerated the ‘musket myth’. It should also be evident that the violence problem hasn’t been caused by the ‘easy’ availability of guns or repeating firearms.

As is the case with most Leftist lies and prevarication’s, they depend on a lack knowledge of the subject to succeed. This is why is extremely important that everyone of the Pro-Liberty Right be apprised of these facts in engaging those of the Left who have little care for logic, science or truth. The fact that multishot or repeating firearms existed centuries ago should make it clear that the Left is lying about the subject of self-defense from beginning to end.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Democrats

4 Retweets in an hour: Bill de Blasio’s campaign failed to materialize

Published

on

4 Retweets in an hour Bill de Blasios campaign failed to launch

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was supposed to make an impact on the Democratic presidential nominating process. At least that’s what a handful of pundits thought. But after a little buzz on his first day and a few jabs by the President, it appears de Blasio was nowhere near ready to run for president despite coming in much later than most in the field.

Last week, we noted how his YouTube channel had failed miserably. But that embarrassment was nothing compared to his attempts to play on Twitter, which happens to be the President’s favorite social media playground.

Bill Tweet

In case he keeps the Tweet up (he shouldn’t) and doesn’t attempt to artificially boost his numbers (he shouldn’t), I’ll put it here to see if it got any traction. Out of sheer embarrassment for him, I shared it and encouraged people to help him out. This is just too cringeworthy to watch unfold on its own.

Is Twitter important? There’s actually as much of a risk to candidates saying the wrong thing on Twitter as there is of them gaining support as a result. But between Trump’s epic use of Twitter in 2016 and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s use of the platform to shoot herself up to fame, candidates need to at least try to do well on the platform. Bill de Blasio is not doing well. That indicates two possibilities: either he and his team were ill-prepared to run for president or they’re not really running for president but rather running for a cabinet spot or something else in exchange for his help delivering the New York delegates to the eventual nominee.

Either option seems viable at this point.

One thing is certain: Bill de Blasio’s campaign for president should not be taken seriously by anyone. Democratic primary voters and Republican operatives need to all ignore him. He’s going nowhere in 2020.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending