ACTION

Recall back in 1937, Franklin Roosevelt, frustrated by SCOTUS’s ruling against several of his New Deal programs, sought to expand the size of the Supreme Court so he could pack it with justices of his own choosing. At the time, the scheme was recognized for what it was — a bald-faced power-grab, which FDR’s own party wisely shot down.

But several leading Democrats today clearly don’t share  the same sentiments. In fact, Democrat presidential hopeful Kirsten Gillibrand recently stated that she’s open to court-packing. Don’t be surprised if other 2020 contenders follow suit. The Wall Street Journal observes, “Having dominated courts for decades, progressives can’t abide that the highest Court might no longer be an engine of progressive policy. Donald Trump’s determination to nominate highly qualified and principled judicial conservatives has heightened their panic.”

The most obvious objection to Holder’s idea would be the fact that such an action would only serve to further inject politicization into the one branch of government that was designed to be nonpartisan. It’s already the despotic branch. But that’s not enough.  ~The Patriot Post

For years, Democrats have refused to enforce U.S. immigration laws, declaring themselves to be “sanctuary” cities and states. Refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, they have harbored illegal alien criminals to prevent deportation. In one case, an Oregon judge even helped an illegal alien, just convicted of DUI after having been previously deported, escape from ICE agents waiting outside her courtroom to take him into custody.

Despite the thousands upon thousands of murders, rapes, robberies, and assaultscommitted against U.S. citizens each year by illegal aliens, Democrats stand defiant against enforcement of laws stopping illegal immigration. Despite the metastasizing threat of the brutal, violent Salvadoran gang MS-13, which has grown to tens of thousands of members in the U.S., engaging in murder, rape, child prostitution, drug and human trafficking, gun-running, etc., Democrats stand with the criminals.

So it seems only fitting that the tables are being turned. In leftist, Democrat-run states where draconian gun-control laws have been and continue to be passed, citizens and sheriffs in more conservative, rural counties are declaring themselves to be “Second Amendment sanctuary cities” and refusing to enforce the anti-gun, unconstitutional laws that seek to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Arguably, New Mexico leads the biggest rebellion against these infringements on constitutionally protected rights. In response to several gun-control bills passed by the Democrats in the state legislature, 30 of the state’s 33 county sheriffs signed a letter pledging their refusal to enforce the new laws.

One of the leaders of the rebellion, Quay County Sheriff Russell Shafer, explained his position, stating, “If a state or city can become a sanctuary for illegal immigration, then we can become a sanctuary for Second Amendment rights.”

In fact, the local governments of 25 of New Mexico’s 33 counties have declared themselves to be “sanctuary” counties where the gun-control laws will not be enforced, and 29 of the 33 county sheriffs are refusing to enforce the laws. The New Mexico Sheriff’s Association has also warned it will sue the state if the new gun laws are enacted.

No doubt part of the rebellion comes from indignation at having rights infringed by elected officials whose knowledge of guns is imbecilic at best. New Mexico’s Democrat Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham last year called for a ban on “high magazine cartridges.” That’s not even a thing!

If the underlying intent wasn’t so nefarious, listening to Democrats expose their absolute stupidity about guns would be hilarious.

One of the bills in question is the so-called “red flag” legislation that allows family members or even acquaintances of a gun owner to petition a court to temporarily confiscate the owner’s weapons if they believe the person presents a danger to themselves or others. The obvious danger is that such a provision could be abused without significant safeguards. Sheriffs argue they already have legal recourses to remove a weapon from a potentially dangerous person, and the new laws fail to protect the due process rights of gun owners. 
Sheriffs say they are responding to the wishes of the voters who elected them, in counties that have passed resolutions banning county funds from being used to enforce these laws.

Newly elected New Mexico Governor Grisham mocked the revolt by county sheriffs in her state, accusing them of being “rogue sheriffs throwing a childish pity party,” claiming they are undermining public safety.

In reality, it is the statist, gun-grabbing Democrats who are undermining public safety by disarming law-abiding citizens, leaving them as easy prey for violent criminals. In January 2013, to much leftist fanfare, Barack scumbag/liar-nObama directed the Centers for Disease  Control to commission a study on how to reduce gun violence in America. The results were released later that year with a whisper. Why? Because the study determined that the number of defensive gun uses, which prevented or stopped a crime, occurred as much as 10 times more often than criminal gun uses.

These revolts are occurring not just in New Mexico, but in even more Democrat-dominated states like Washington,  Colorado, and Illinois, where the state legislature is seeking to ban commonly owned semiautomatic weapons; which is to say, nearly all firearms.

It’s no wonder that there is such a deep divide between “red” and “blue” America. Red America wants the Constitution respected and immigration laws enforced. It wants God-given rights protected by the government that supposedly serves them. Blue America insists we allow in wave after wave of illegal aliens, including violent criminals, while also demanding that law-abiding citizens be stripped of their right to arm and defend themselves.

Thomas Jefferson was right when (quoting Cesare Beccaria) he declared that “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.”

Therefore, we recommend that gun-grabbing Democrats abide by the same advice they give pro-lifers on abortion; namely, if you don’t want one, don’t get one, but don’t take away our right to one. And unlike the “right” to abortion, the right to keep and bear arms can actually be found in the Constitution.  ~The Patriot Post

The Korean Peninsula is one of the most dynamic and dangerous operating environments on earth. It’s a mature theater: The U.S.-led United Nations Command has either been conducting or planning operations continuously since 1950, and a robust exercise program has been in place for decades. While some might argue that these characteristics make Foal Eagle a cheap “chip” to trade for better relations with North Korea, they are only part of the equation.

One of the main reasons the theater has received so much attention (and money) for so long is because it’s hard to think of a place on earth where the combination of high tensions and proximity form a more volatile mix. North Korea has enough short-range missiles and conventional artillery within range of Seoul to inflict unthinkable casualties in the first few hours of an attack. Most believe those volleys would be accompanied by extensive sabotage and acts of terror carried out by North Korean sleeper agents and special operations teams. If the North Koreans launch an attack, those tasked with stopping it will have minutes to make critical decisions; there simply won’t be time to make introductions and check playbooks.

U.S. personnel policy also complicates matters. The majority of servicemen and women are on one-year “unaccompanied” orders — they leave their family at their last stateside duty station for the year they’re in Korea — which does actually save “hundreds of millions of dollars” by minimizing the infrastructure required (e.g., family housing, schools, etc.) as well as the cost of shipping household goods across the Pacific. But it also means that the relationships formed and lessons learned at last year’s exercises have no more than a 12-month shelf life.

Foal Eagle alone won’t make or break the good guys’ war-fighting capability, but canceling it is neither a purely symbolic move nor one that’s going have a meaningful financial impact. In the long run, President Trump’s statements couching the U.S.-South Korea relationship in primarily financial terms and absolving North Korean leader Kim Jong-un of any responsibility in the death of University of Virginia student Otto Warmbier continue a troubling trend of bashing our allies and providing platforms that boost the credibility of opponents. There’s a lot of “The Art of the Deal” in Trump’s mix, but at some point, the leader of the free world has to call a spade a spade.  ~The Patriot Post

While conversing with “Bubba The Love Sponge,” Carlson used salty, misogynistic, racist, and degrading language about women, blacks, Iraqis, and others. It was indeed objectionable. He also made comments defending white men for “creating civilization and stuff.” That’s an arguable point, regardless of the race-baiters’ “outrage.” In any case, the muckrakers at Media Matters — try not to laugh, but it’s a leftist website dedicated to finding conservative bias in the media — dug up those comments, fomenting hysteria and calls for boycotting and firing Carlson from the Fox News show he’s been hosting only since 2016.

Now, we’re not going to defend everything Carlson said. In fact, we’d likewise condemn a lot of it. But context matters, as does a simple question: Did Carlson’s comments reflect his actual beliefs? Leftists aren’t concerned with that. They’re too busy trying to get his scalp.

Carlson addressed the controversy in his monologue last night:

As anyone who’s ever been caught in its gears can tell you, the great American outrage machine is a remarkable thing. One day you’re having dinner with your family, imagining everything is fine. The next, your phone is exploding with calls from reporters. They read you snippets from a press release written by Democratic Party operatives. They demand to know how you could possibly have said something so awful and offensive. “Do you have a statement on how immoral you are?” It’s a bewildering moment, especially when the quotes in question are more than a decade old.

There’s really not that much you can do to respond. It’s pointless to try to explain how the words were spoken in jest, or taken out of context, or in any case bear no resemblance to what you actually think, or would want for the country. None of that matters. Nobody cares. You know the role you’re required to play: You are a sinner, begging the forgiveness of Twitter. So you issue a statement of deep contrition. You apologize profusely for your transgressions. You promise to be a better person going forward. With the guidance of your contrition consultants, you send money to whatever organization claims to represent the people you supposedly offended. Then you sit back and brace for a wave of stories about your apology, all of which are simply pretexts for attacking you again.

So, what can be made of Pulosi’s statement? Three possibilities, and perhaps a combination of all three.

First, it’s important to note that Pulosi’s statement does not preclude any future impeachment attempts. Instead, she has simply conceded that Democrats do not presently have enough political capital to instigate impeachment proceedings. In other words, Pulosi recognizes that as things currently stand, an attempt at impeachment would be more politically damaging for Democrats than for President Donald Trump. And practically speaking, with the Senate under GOP control, an impeachment attempt without any real evidence would only push Republicans to further coalesce behind Trump. To put it bluntly, Pelosi knows it would be a politically damaging effort in futility.

Second, Pulosi may have deduced something about or even been privy to dirty cop-Robert Mueller’s forthcoming report. If, as we have long speculated, the report finds no evidence of any Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy, Pulosi will need to have her party repositioned in such a fashion as to avoid appearing to have invested any real political capital in dirty cop-Mueller’s findings. By downplaying the impeachment mantra that has been entirely linked to Russian collusion, Pulosi is attempting to pull back and make Democrats look the part of objectively minded statesmen, not the politically invested hacks they are.

Finally, Pulosi is flexing her intra-party authority over the young and popular upstarts within her own party. By publicly speaking out to a prominent Leftmedia outlet, Pulosi is communicating to her young leftist firebrands that whatever their rhetoric may be, she will be the one to decide what if any action will be taken on impeachment, not them. And no action will be taken — yet. Of course, that will all change if House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerrold Nadler’s fishing expedition turns up anything.   ~ The Patriot Post

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) noted the irony of a bill ostensibly crafted to expand and protect the voting rights of Americans but doing the exact opposite: “It sounds like I’m making it up. What kind of government would cancel the vote of its own citizens, and replace it with noncitizens?” Crenshaw added, “Today I offered a motion to recommit #HR1 reaffirming that only US citizens  should have the right to vote. Dems rejected it. Next time you go to the ballot box, keep that in mind. The future of their party is in cities like San Fran, where illegals can vote. Let that sink in.”

The bill makes an absolute mockery of federalism, as it would establish greater centralized control over elections by Washington bureaucrats. In other words, this bill is little more than a federal power grab that National Review’s editors criticize for “creating a chilling effect on political communications through sheer uncertainty and confusion.” NR’s editors further note, “Democrats seem to believe that political speech is just too dangerous to be unrestrained. It has to be micromanaged, regulated by technocrats until it is directed into its government-approved lanes. This is of course exactly what incumbent politicians tend to prefer. They want predictable debates, reliable funding streams, and (above all) power — including the power to punish their opponents.”

In fact, HR 1 is so bad that even the leftist American Civil Liberties Union opposes it, writing in a 13-page letter that the bill would “unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech rights of American citizens and public interest organizations.” And the chairman of the Institute for Free Speech, Bradley Smith,  observes that the Democrats’ “goal seems to be to limit discussion of candidates to the candidates and parties themselves, at the expense of the public at large. However, even candidates are likely to find their speech severely restricted were H.R. 1 to become law.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky astutely argues, “All legislation proposed by Congress should be necessary, constitutional, and good policy. H.R. 1 is none of these things. It is unnecessary, unconstitutional, and bad policy. It does nothing to protect voters or to help election officials administer a fair and secure voter registration and election process. Put bluntly, it imposes federal micromanagement on the states, reversing the local oversight of the election process that our Founders believed was essential to preserving liberty and freedom in America.”

This is nothing but a bald-face attempt by Democrats to further direct and control the outcome of America’s national elections. It is anything but constitutional or democratic for that matter. Legislation like this, coupled with the attempt by several Democrat-controlled states to subvert the Electoral College, is yet more evidence of the extreme Left’s near-complete takeover of the Democrat Party. And for all intents and purposes, the current Democrat Party has more in common with one-party Marxism than the U.S. Constitution.  ~ The Patriot Post

Trump hit upon a sore subject for many conservatives: the ongoing attempt by many American universities to silence and limit conservative voices on campuses all across the country. It’s a very real problem that has been repeatedly documented by many, including The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro, himself a frequent target of leftist protests and abuse.

However, while we respect the president’s desire to protect the free-speech rights of all Americans, especially where those rights are being systematically and sometimes violently attacked, his proposed executive order runs into the realm of overreach. Unlike instructing executive agencies as to how and where to spend money based on an emergency declaration, President Trump has no authority to determine policies at our nation’s universities. One of the many problems with federal funding is that it comes with so many strings. But Trump is proposing a rope. Instead, he should do the constitutional thing: Work to cut off funding altogether.  ~ The Patriot Post

Take Social Security, for instance. Now that Nancy Pulosi is once again speaker of the House, her party is working on a plan to make all those young people pay more to keep Social Security solvent. Rep. John Larson (D-CT) wants to expand benefits through his Social Security 2100 Act.

Yet, as the editors at The Wall Street Journal remind us, “The political pitch is that this would make Social Security more financially secure, but it would do the opposite. Social Security financing is increasingly stretched as fewer workers are available to support each baby boomer retiree. Social Security’s trustees reported in 2018 that filling the looming financing gap would require an ‘immediate and permanent’ payroll tax increase to 15.18%, a 17% benefit cut, or some mix of both.”

Someone should alert these up-and-coming American socialists that they’re actually going to have to pay for all that “free” stuff. And they’ll pay big when they finally enter the workforce. Some of them will have to fork over a third or even half of their income to foot a bill that’s becoming an ever-more massive portion of federal outlays.

The editorial board at USA Today writes that in the next fiscal year, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will “account for nearly 62 percent of all expenditures, far exceeding national defense (15.7 percent) and interest on the national debt (9.7 percent.) In fact, the federal government might best be described as a nuclear-armed, if woefully underfunded, health care and retirement provider. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in just 10 years, half of all federal spending (except for debt service) will be benefits to senior citizens.”

And that’s one of the main issues with the Social Security 2100 Act. The plan may very well keep Social Security funded, but there won’t be a penny left for all those other utopian projects Democrats dream of implementing. How many Millennials would support this act if they knew it would require putting aside fantasies of free tuition or the Green New Deal?

Of course, all of this assumes that the money collected for Social Security is put aside for our seniors. How many times have we heard about a Social Security “lock box” or trust fund that the government raids whenever it needs funding for its pet projects? And let’s not forget about the national debt, which has just surpassed $22 trillion.

Democrats and Republicans alike don’t seem to care about anything other than pandering to their interest groups. In this case, it’s seniors. But at least Democrats reward their supporters — unlike the GOP, which talks a good game about reform but doesn’t tend to follow through when it has the opportunity.

During the first two years of Donald Trump’s presidency, Republicans controlled all branches of the federal government. They could have done what they’ve promised but failed to do for decades: rein in federal spending and privatize entitlements in order to keep the government leaner and more efficient.

That’s a tall task for a party that couldn’t even muster enough support in its own ranks to repeal and replace scumbag/liar-nObamaCare. It doesn’t help that President Trump himself has promised to not touch entitlements. For now, the Social Security 2100 Act isn’t likely to go very far with Republicans holding the Senate. But Democrats are moving forward to expand government programs that Republicans didn’t have the courage to tackle.

Unfortunately, this latest scheme is nothing more than a shell game designed to help Democrats attract more senior votes in the next election. Sure, it may put a few more bucks into grandma’s purse during her golden years. But everyone contributing to the system now will pay the ultimate price when this fiscal house of cards collapses.  ~The Patriot Post