Progressive Prosecutions  by Tom Reynolds

Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals number 5 is: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.  Conservatives are less likely to do this but it’s just getting too easy!  Case in point: just when you thought the progressives couldn’t get crazier, along comes Manhattan’s new DA, Alvin Bragg.  The New York Post reports that he has issued some “interesting” directives to his staff, all of which should have people aching for more personal protection guns in the “Big Apple”.

Armed robbers who use guns or other deadly weapons to stick up stores and other businesses will be prosecuted only for petty larceny, a misdemeanor, provided no victims were seriously injured and there’s no “genuine risk of physical harm”.  (Isn’t a genuine risk of physical harm the reason criminals use guns in holdups?)

Convicted criminals caught with weapons other than guns will have those felony charges downgraded to misdemeanors unless they’re also charged with more serious offenses. (Will licensed gun owners caught with guns while passing through Manhattan also be treated so well?)

Drug dealers believed to be “acting as a low-level agent of a seller” will be prosecuted only for misdemeanor possession.  (Will drug dealers now open kiosks next to grammar schools since they will be mostly off-the-hook?)   

Suspected drug dealers will only be prosecuted on felony charges if they’re also accused of more serious crimes or are actually caught in the act of selling drugs.  (Basic management for drug dealers: delegate responsibilities and avoid responsibility.)

The DA’s office will only seek prison time for homicides and a handful of other cases.  (Roaming around free to commit crimes while on parole is such a disincentive for criminals!)

The Office will not seek a sentence of life without parole. (For a murder victim, the life sentence is still in order.)

When prosecutors seek a prison sentence that can’t be reviewed or changed by a parole board, the request can be for no more than 20 years.  (Do murderers often get parole before 20 years are up?)

“Charges should be brought consistent with the goal of providing services to such individuals…”  (Commit crimes to get government services!  What a novel method of getting attention from government bureaucrats?)

ADAs should evaluate the person arrested, and identify people: who suffer from mental illness; who are unhoused; who commit crimes of poverty; or who suffer from substance use disorders.  (Does the criminal’s criminal intent ever enter into this evaluation?)

Bragg also told prosecutors to take into account the impact prison would have on the defendant’s life.  (Perhaps Bragg would follow Biden’s example and give the criminal $450,000 because committing a crime and getting caught separates the criminals from their family.)

In an accompanying “Day One” letter to his staff, Bragg claimed, “These policy changes…will, in and of themselves, make us safer…”  (Wanna bet?)

He also pledged that “new initiatives and policies on guns, sex crimes, hate crimes, and other matters will be announced in the coming weeks.”  (Let me guess: criminals good, guns bad.)

Bragg, also made clear his mission is to reduce the number of defendants locked up pretrial; “…we must reserve pretrial detention for very serious cases.”  (Since Bail Reform has gone so well.)

He won’t prosecute low level crimes like prostitution and resisting arrest.  (Criminals should now feel free to resist arrest as, unlike with George Floyd, there will be no down side.)

“Bragg gives criminals the roadmap to freedom from prosecution and control of our streets,” said the head of the NYPD Detectives’ Endowment Association.  (Any west coast cities that might be good examples of this?)

Not to be outdone, the District Attorney of Albany County, N.Y., on Tuesday announced that his office was dropping a misdemeanor sex crime criminal case of forcible touching against former Governor Andrew Cuomo.  It allegedly occurred on the second floor of the governor’s mansion.  (One wonders if the decision would be the same if Cuomo were a Republican?) 

Never fear, New York Attorney General Letitia James is trying to take a tough law-and-order stance in her investigation of whether fraud “permeated the Trump Organization.”  James requested to take a deposition from former President Donald Trump on January 7th and she has now subpoenaed Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump.  (None of the Trumps are complying.  Perhaps the Trumps should “identify” as Democrats to make this go away.)

NYC’s Bragg also has to decide if he will pursue a separate investigation into Donald Trump and his business practices, inherited from his predecessor.  (Any bets on whether or not he pursues that one?) 

New York City residents should petition the Supreme Court for a quick decision on NYSRPA v Bruen.  They’re gonna need more guns.

The Audacity of Deception  by Tom Reynolds

On Monday, we wrote about Newsweek presenting a thoroughly dishonest piece about guns.  Although unrelated to the Constitution, here’s another example of the media’s audacity in deception.

In Rolling Stone, Jeff Goodell writes that cracks and fissures in the Thwaites Eastern Ice Shelf (Antarctica) suggest that ice mass “could fracture” and would cause the disappearance of “virtually every low-lying coastal city in the world.”

Sounds pretty serious.  What could possibly cause this? 

Goodell’s entire article blames this potential catastrophe on global warming and devotes only one sentence to the real story. “Thwaites is…melting from below, due to warmer ocean water eating away at its underbelly.”   No direct explanation of how this “warmer water” was generated but if you read the article, you cannot help coming away with the (mis)understanding that the “melting from below” is related to global warming.  He opened the door as to the true cause but then shut it, without explanation.  (Could it be that he knows the cause but has an agenda?)

Doomsday Glacier in Antarctica Could Collapse Soon: New Research - Rolling Stone

The leftist media feeds upon itself.  For example, John Vidal also wants to be the Paul Revere of melting ice and in the Guardian decries politicians’ inattention when he wrote: “Thwaites underlines that global heating and glaciers do not wait for politicians, and every year action to reduce climate emissions is delayed only accelerates global disaster”.

Just when you were sure – based on the above - that global warming was striking again in Antarctica, along comes Richard North writing in Turbulent Times on December 31, 2021: “…media reports cited are lying, directly by implying (and stating) that the potential collapse of Thwaites glacier is exclusively down to climate change, and by omission in not mentioning the geothermal activity”.

Turbulent Times: Climate change: a licence to lie | Turbulent Times

Media lies?  Say it aint so! 

What’s Geothermal activity?  James Edward Kamis explained geothermal activity in the Climate Change Dispatch on 2/25/2019: “Rapid melting of Antarctica’s Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers is the result of subglacial bedrock heat flow from a well-known and precisely mapped regional geological ’hotspot’ called the Marie Byrd Mantle Plume, not global warming”.  In the Thwaites Glacier area, researchers have identified: “Twenty-seven semi-active subglacial volcanoes…study after research study has now proven (this) beyond any doubt”.

So, the melting is caused by twenty-seven volcanoes, not global warming, and that fact is well known (but not by Goodell and Vidal, obviously).

Kamis, like Richard North, thrusts an ice pick into the heart of the journalism of deception: “Failure of the media to include in their numerous articles this telling scientific evidence…is difficult to reconcile with proper scientific methodology”.

Wait a minute!  The left, which constantly is telling us to believe the science, is not following proper scientific methodology? 

Kamis does a nice job of explaining in layman’s terms the technical aspects of what a “sub-glacial plume” is and how the Thwaites Glacier melting would not directly add to the sea level rapid rises that Goodell describes, (but it could open the door to eventual rises in sea level).

More Proof That Geologic Forces Are Melting W. Antarctic Glaciers (climatechangedispatch.com)

If the leftist media believes in global warming, they should not have to lie to prove their point.  Ditto for gun control. 

And just like articles on guns, internet search engines point you to articles confirming the leftist, global warming position.  Search for “Thwaites Glacier and volcanoes” and you will not find any articles contesting global warming as a cause until you get to page two.  Sound familiar?

Journalistic deception is not limited to just gun control.  The left believes lying or lying-by-omission is totally acceptable in their quest for power and control.   Just staying informed in the face of this mountain of disinformation is now a form of patriotism.

The Walking Dead Returns  by Tom Reynolds

Formerly, Newsweek’s distribution seemed to be primarily in the waiting rooms of doctor’s offices.  So, when Covid removed magazines from those rooms, it was natural to assume that Newsweek had gone out of business.  Imagine my surprise when it suddenly reappeared, risen and walking the earth like some brain-dead zombie in the “Walking Dead”.

In fact, Newsweek’s writer David H. Freedman all but equates the Walking Dead’s zombies to gun owners in his article “Millions of Angry Armed Americans Stand Ready To Seize Power If Trump loses in 2024”.  Apparently, Newsweek’s readers are expected to be just as mindless as those TV zombies were when they overthrew the U.S. government.  

Like Custer at the Little Big Horn, Freedman fights a losing battle, this time with facts and not against arrows.  For instance, he says, “…militias, which have been a feature of American life at least since the Ku Klux Klan rose to power after the Civil War”.  As a liberal, it’s fully expected that he is not familiar with the U.S. Constitution which, famously, mentions militias in its 2^nd Amendment.  Or that militias featured prominently in the Revolutionary War.  Both occurred 75 to 85 years before the Civil War ended. But as a writer, not as a liberal, shouldn’t he do some research before he impugns militias by linking their appearance to the KKK? 

Then he says, “In 2020, 17 million Americans bought 40 million guns and in 2021 we’re on track to add another 20 million. If historical trends hold, the buyers will be overwhelmingly white…”.  But, The Guardian  (and numerous other sources) report, “…approximately half of all new gun owners were female and nearly half were people of color.”  I know he’s a journalist and not a mathematician, but 3^rd grade math indicates that nearly half being people of color doesn’t leave an overwhelming number to be white.    Whatever Freedman believes are “historical trends” certainly didn’t hold true.  So much for journalistic research.  But gun grabbing liberals never let inconvenient facts get in their way.

Freedman then warns how, “America's massive and mostly Republican gun-rights movement…raises the threat of armed, large-scale attacks around the 2024 presidential election—attacks that could make the January 6 insurrection look like a toothless stunt by comparison”.  January 6^th wasn’t toothless by comparison to anything- it was toothless standing on its own!  Or did Freeman miss that not one protester fired a shot or not one has been charged with insurrection or that Biden was confirmed and inaugurated as president?

Then he wonders if the 2024 election might bring, “…protesters and counter-protesters into the street…plunging the country into chaos”.  He also writes, “Nearly a third of Republicans agree that ‘true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.’" Does he mean protesting and resorting to violence like Black Lives Matter and Antifa did in their “mostly peaceful protests”?  I may have missed it, but did Freedman write, in comparable terms, about those protests? I’m going to go out not very far on a limb and guess – not.

He also predicts that any violence over 2024 election results could only come from Republicans and, then, only if Trump loses a close race.  He dismisses any worry about violent Democrat protests by writing, “If Democratic protests include any violence, as was the case with several Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 in mostly isolated instances…”  Mostly isolated instances!  Can you begin to imagine how much damage would have been done if the “mostly peaceful protests” had included more than only “isolated instances” of violence?

Freedman throws out a scare tactic when he states that the Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen could lead “to the overthrow of the U.S. government”, because people will be allowed to carry guns “anywhere”, including while protesting in D.C.  Can you imagine – can you just image – Americans exercising their 2^nd Amendment rights in support of their 1^st Amendment rights?  A liberal’s worst nightmare!  Call out the National Guard and fence off the Capitol before that trend catches on!

Freedman continues in a similar way throughout the article but he does stumble upon one reasonable theory.  The vast majority of guns belong to Republicans and if the radical left pushes the country into a civil war, "One side has about 8 trillion bullets... Wonder who would win?"

Newsweek certainly can be compared to the brain dead for publishing this article.

A Christmas To Remember  by Tom Reynolds

After a devastating defeat in New York City, where surrendering Continental soldiers were bayoneted to death by Hessians, George Washington led his army on a retreat through New Jersey and into Pennsylvania.  At Valley Forge, Washington set up a winter camp and pondered his next move. 

The enlistments of the bulk of his army were due to expire in a few weeks and there was little hope of many reenlistments.  Not just because of the devastating defeat in New York but the army was undersupplied in almost every area; many soldiers had no shoes and had been wearing the same clothes – now rags - for months; food was scarce.  Defeatism ran through the army.

There is no record of Washington contemplating giving up but, certainly, some of his top generals must have contemplated getting the best possible terms from the British and surrendering.  Instead, Washington gained control over whatever negative emotions he had and formulated a plan, which led to the most important Christmas in American history.

With the temperature barely above freezing, on the early evening of December 25, 1776, the Continental Army loaded onto boats, in a freezing rain storm that lasted all night.  They crossed the ice clogged Delaware River in three groups; one group did not make it across and while a second group did make it across, it turned around and went back.  Only Washington’s group was able to march to the attack.

Hours behind schedule, with one-third strength, they arrived at their target, Trenton New Jersey.  Officers reported to Washington that the ice storm had soaked the muskets and many could not fire because of wet powder.  These officers suggested that the attack be abandoned.  Washington’s reply was the equivalent of “fix bayonets”.

While the enemy was yawning and waking up, they were suddenly attacked.  The Continental Army, in rags with long hair and matted beards all coated in rain and mud, came screaming down on the Hessians.  It must have looked to the Hessians like the army-from-hell had come from the depths to kill them.  The battle was brief and the Hessians surrendered. 

There would be another winter of deprivation at Valley Forge and a worse winter at Morristown in 1779-80, which was the coldest winter in 400 years.  But in 1776, in what was the potential breaking point of the Revolutionary war, when all hope seemed to be lost, Washington did not lose hope.  He and his army persevered and they eventually won.  They set an example that should live today: we’re Americans; beware; we’d cross a frozen river on Christmas to kill our enemies. 

Today, many are dejected and in a funk over the results of last year’s election.  Morale is cratering.  Summoning the energy to continue the fight to preserve the Constitution seems beyond some people’s wills.  To them it would be easier to surrender to the likes of Alexandria Octavio-Cortez and tell her, “You win.  We give up.  Do with the USA what you will.”   

We need to remember that many of us took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  That oath had no expiration date!  If you didn’t take that oath, it’s not too late to commit yourself to that principle. 

Thomas Paine wrote, “These are the times that try men’s souls.  The sunshine soldier and the summer patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman”.

Are you a sunshine soldier and summer patriot that will find other excuses to occupy your time, in this modern crisis, and let the Constitution be shredded by the forces of Socialism?  Do you believe our current situation is less winnable than it appeared on Christmas morning, 1776? 

Paine also wrote, “Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered, but…the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph”.  Did anyone believe that the Socialist lust for power would just go away and die when confronted?  Did people believe that Donald Trump could take on the entire Washington swamp by himself?

When we were born in the USA, we won the lottery!  It’s time to pay the price of that lottery ticket.  Our forefathers were willing to pay that price, we need to join with them.

Enjoy the holidays.  Reenergize and decide whether or not you are a “sunshine soldier” and will surrender to A O-C or if you are willing to stand up and fight for the USA: its Constitution; its traditions; its future; and your family.  The choice is clear - get engaged or surrender.

Merry Christmas from SCOPE!  Stay safe!  Enjoy your family and friends!

American Dunkirk  by Tom Reynolds

During World War 2, the evacuation of the British army from Dunkirk, in France, is celebrated as the great achievement that it was.  Cut off and about to be destroyed, the British army was saved to fight another day.  After Dunkirk, America eventually came to Britain’s rescue, but the history of WW2 would certainly have played out differently without the Dunkirk evacuation.

America had its own version of Dunkirk during the Revolutionary War and the American crossing of the East River was even more important; there was no other nation to come to America’s rescue if its army had been destroyed in Brooklyn.  It would have ended the revolution in a victory for Britain. 

On July 4^th 1776, the United States declared its independence from Great Britain.  While independence was being celebrated in Philadelphia, 23,000 British regular soldiers and 10,000 Hessian mercenaries were being unloaded by British ships in New York Harbor.   

George Washington was occupying New York City by order of the Continental Congress, even though he knew it was not defendable against the combined army and naval forces of Great Britain. 

On August 26^th, the first battle began on Long Island and the right wing of the American forces was about to be cut off and destroyed.  But a group of Americans who were variously called “Washington’s Immortals” and the “Maryland 400” did not retreat. Instead, they made a suicidal charge which bought time and allowed the American army to survive and prevented the British and Hessians from bringing their plans to fruition.  For their efforts, the Americans were bayoneted by the Hessians.

Less than two months after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the revolution was about to fail as a large portion of the American army had retreated to Brooklyn with the East River at their backs.  But the British generals did not recognize the appalling state of the Americans and, more importantly, remembered their horrendous losses taking Bunker Hill. So, they laid siege and used the Royal Navy to attempt to cut off the East River from retreat.

Washington knew his only chance was to cross the mile wide East River - with its treacherous tidal currents - to the temporary safety of Manhattan.  It had to be done immediately, after dark, in a horrendous rain storm. Multiple crossings would be needed.  Security had to be airtight and it was so secret that Washington did not tell his officers about the night’s plans.  John Glover, the leader of the “Marblehead Regiment” of mariners that would ferry the army across was not told of the purpose until it was time to man the boats. The crossing would be made in total darkness with the mariners depending on their experience to guide them to the other shore.  The boats were a combination of rowed and sailed boats.

The tides and winds cooperated for the first two hours and the multiple crossings went well.  Then, the tides shifted and the mariners were unsuccessfully rowing against tides and wind, making it impossible to complete the retreat before sunrise and the British becoming aware of what was happening.  Then, the winds died and shortly thereafter shifted in the American’s favor.

Having lost time because of the wind and tide shift, dawn was coming.  Panicked men were fighting for a place in the boats, which caused further confusion and angered Washington, who picked up the biggest rock he could find and threatened to sink the boat unless order was restored.  It was.

When dawn arose, Americans were still in Brooklyn but a thick fog rose over the Brooklyn side, but not the Manhattan side.  A fog was very unusual at that time of the year and it hid the Americans and allowed the complete evacuation.  Only one boat with three men on it was captured by the British.

Eventually, the colonial army was completely driven out of New York and it retreated across New Jersey to a place in Pennsylvania called Valley Forge, where things became even more desperate – and a more famous river crossing was to come.

The Maryland 400 made a suicidal charge that bought time enough to save he American army.  Luck certainly played a part in the successful evacuation when the wind turned and, later, an unusual fog allowed the whole army to safely evacuate. 

Or maybe God really is on our side. 

Another reason to be thankful this Christmas.

July 4^th, 1776 – Not for the Faint Hearted  by Tom Reynolds

On July 4^th 1776, the United States declared its independence from Great Britain.  It was not some academic effort - it had real world consequences.  One of the signers, Benjamin Rush, recalled the moment: “Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after the other, to the table of the President of Congress, to subscribe what was believed by many at the time to be our own death warrants?”

The British had recently put down an insurrection in Ireland and the sentence of the revolutionaries was: “You are to be drawn on hurdles to the place of execution, where you are to be hanged by the neck, but not until you are dead, for while you are still living your bodies are to be taken down, your bowels to be torn out and burned before your faces, your heads then cut off, and your bodies are to be divided into four quarters.”

Of late, our forefathers have come under a lot of undeserved criticism.  All but forgotten is the immense personal courage that it took to sign the Declaration of Independence.    If the Revolutionary War had failed, perhaps the British would celebrate George Washington day in the same way they celebrate Guy Fawkes day; just another failed revolutionary. 

As Americans, we have a lot to be thankful for at Christmas and those that risked their lives to gain us our freedom need to be thanked, not denigrated.

Why Do We Need More “Ghost Gun” Laws?!  by Tom Reynolds

In 1988, The United States Undetectable Firearms Act made it illegal to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm that is not detectable by walk-through metal detection or any firearm with major components that do not generate an accurate image using standard airport imaging technology.  The law had a 10-year life.

Then, in 1998, Congress renewed the law for five years.

Then, in 2003, Congress re-authorized the ban for another ten years.  

Then, in 2013, H.R. 3626 extended the act for another ten years.

It seems pretty clear that what are derided as “Ghost Guns” are already illegal under federal law.

A current lawsuit against the District of Columbia is a good example of the anti-2A’s confusion with all things involving guns: “District legislation in question is so poorly thought out and written that the City Council has managed to criminalize the possession of a vast array of popular, common handguns that it regularly allows residents to register, including the very handgun it issues to its police officers."

Speaker Trump  by Tom Reynolds

Tuesday, we wrote to remind you about some of the interesting side issues surrounding Biden’s seemingly loss of mental acuity and the possibility of Kamala Harris ascending to the presidency.  For 2A supporters, neither is a good option. 

But in SCOPE’s April 12^th Email, we wrote:

“And just for fun – imagine that Donald Trump runs for Congress from Florida in 2022 and is elected.  Once elected, he runs for Speaker of the House in a Republican majority Congress and wins.  That would put Trump next in line after the Vice President or first in line if Harris moves to the Presidency.  Can you imagine…can you even begin to imagine…the left-wing media’s frenzy!”

Trump as Speaker, a fun thought.  Then, on July 21^st, this was written in by Rusty Weiss in the Political Insider:

“Representative Brendan Boyle (D-PA) introduced a bill that would only allow sitting House members to serve as Speaker after Donald Trump said the post would be ‘interesting’.”

“Boyle, having seemingly resolved all other matters of concern for his constituents, moved on to legislation specifically targeting the former President.”

“Though the role has never been filled by anyone outside the chamber, the Constitution does not specifically state that the Speaker must be a House member. Anyone chosen by the House can serve as Speaker.”

Then, on December 8^th, Weiss wrote again in The Political Insider:

“Representative Matt Gaetz says he will move to nominate Donald Trump as the next Speaker should Republicans win back the House in 2022.”

“Gaetz says he’s gone so far as to discuss the matter with the former President.”

“When asked by a reporter if he’d like to see Trump as Speaker, Gaetz responded, “I would.”

“Pressed further on if he’s discussed it with him he added, “I have.”

The Florida congressman though said he likes to keep “conversations with the former president between the two of us.”

Who knows how seriously President Trump will take this proposal and its effect on any plans he might have to run for President in 2024.  But it would be ground breaking for a non-House member and for and ex-president to becomes Speaker - and we all know how Trump likes being a ground breaker!   

Given Trump’s pro 2^nd Amendment stances and the Democrat Party’s virulent anti 2^nd Amendment efforts, pro 2A supporters should be enjoying any nervousness going on in Washington at the thought of Trump as Speaker of the House.  The conversation probably goes something like:

Trump couldn’t be serious about this………could he????

Presidential Succession (Update)  by Tom Reynolds

Last April 12^th, SCOPE wrote about the problems the Democrats had – even then - with Biden’s apparent mental issues.  Politically, things have gotten worse with Biden’s and Harris’s (well deserved) plummeting approval ratings.  There are numerous articles being currently written about this issue, but the bottom line is that the Democrats don’t have any good political choices.  Below is a reprint of parts of the April 12^th article, which explains the box that Democrats are in.  The issues raised in it are even more relevant, today.

If Biden should step down or be removed in his first two years, it will be obvious that Democrat insiders knew, prior to the election, that he was failing and hid it from the voters.  That should cause a major negative reaction amongst voters, even amongst the usual Democrat supporters.  There would be legitimate questions: concerning the leader of the free world’s ability to lead; about the judgment of the man with his finger on the nuclear button; about the man tasked by the Constitution with defending it – and thus defending us – from all enemies foreign and domestic; was he incapable of doing his job; what unelected person was acting as President while pulling the strings from behind the curtain; who was really responsible for all the Executive Orders Biden signed?  The legitimate uproar would be overwhelming.  And it would be worse if Biden’s policies are failing at the time he steps down. 

If Kamala Harris did succeed to the Presidency within the first two years of Biden’s term, the Vice President’s position would need to be filled.  She would nominate someone but that person must be approved by a majority of both houses of Congress. Here’s the monkey wrench in Democrat’s planning; currently, both Houses of Congress are Democrat controlled but the Senate is split exactly 50-50 with the Vice President’s vote being the deciding factor that gives Democrats their control.  If there is no Vice President, the Democrats have only a tie and must seduce at least one Republican vote in order to approve a Harris nominee for Vice President.  (And if one or more Democrats do not vote for the Harris’ nominee, that makes the situation more difficult.)  As a side issue, while the Vice Presidency is vacant, the Democrats do not have a tie breaking vote on any proposed legislation.  Oops!  

This would force Harris to nominate someone very much less radical than the current President and Vice President.  Joe Manchin, the Senator from West Virginia, comes to mind but that would lose Democrats their majority in the Senate, at least until a replacement election was held, and maybe after the replacement election since West Virginia tends Republican.  

This leaves Democrat insiders with the option of delaying Biden’s removal until two years have passed and after an off-year election in 2022, which causes them more problems, (besides putting their own political careers above the safety and security of the nation).  Historically, the President’s party loses seats in Congress during an off-year election.  If Democrats should lose one seat in the Senate, they lose their majority.  If Democrats lose about a half dozen seats in the House, they lose their majority.  Losing one or both houses of Congress is a real possibility and must weigh heavily on Democrats’ decision making. 

If Kamala Harris should succeed to the Presidency after the 2022 election, she would nominate someone but, as previously stated, that person must be approved by a majority of both houses of Congress.  And if one or both of those houses has a Republican majority, a nomination would certainly have to be very much less radical than the current President and Vice President.  And depending on how firm the Republicans held, the person could be middle to right leaning.  

But it gets worse for Democrats.

When the Vice Presidency is vacant, the next person in line is the House Speaker and next after that comes the President Pro tempore of the Senate.  If either or both houses are under Republican control, they would be Republicans! If Republicans control the House, they might be very slow in approving any Harris’ nominee, in order to keep a Republican next in line.  And what if the Republicans decided that impeachment payback was in order at the same time that the Vice Presidency was vacant?

Back to present day. 

Many current articles are now writing about removing Harris from the Vice Presidency but none spell out how to do it:

She “aint gonna” resign, that’s for sure. 

She may be incompetent but that is not a basis for removal under the 25^th Amendment.

She could be impeached for her statements made about the riots in 2020.  If the Democrats are desperate enough to save their own skins, some might cross the aisle and vote for impeachment.  That would be good for the country but impeaching a semi-black woman might hurt their personal political support amongst those typically Democrat voters, so it’s not likely.

SCOPE has often said that the Socialist policies always fail.  Our problem is that the failure would take the rest of us down with it.  Twin international crises loom with China/Taiwan and Russia/Ukraine as well as always bothersome Iran and North Korea creating mischief. Then there continues to be the national problems with runaway inflation, a southern border open to criminals and Covid, a possible recession, and government overreach under Covid.  We need (the world needs) wisdom and strong leadership in the White House and that isn’t happening or likely to happen under the status quo.

In Case you Missed These from Steve Getman/Tom Reynolds

Schuyler County’s SCOPE Chairman Steven Getman publishes a monthly Legal Update on our Facebook page.  Some issues that he covers are also covered in our emails or in Firing Lines but we want to be sure the others don’t get lost.  Below are some of the items that Steve covers and also the links, if you want to further explore the issues. 

Gillibrand pushes for new legislation amid recent violence in Rochester

In response to Rochester’s state of emergency, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand says she's working to address recent violence with new legislation. That includes banning assault weapons, enforcing a federal anti-gun trafficking law, ensuring reliable background checks and creating a data protection agency that has oversight over social media.

"There's also enormous amounts of anger and division in our communities that is fueling violence,” Gillibrand said. “A lot of that is caused by disinformation, lies and by social media platforms that are unregulated."

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/rochester/politics/2021/11/21/gillibrand-pushes-fornew-legislation-amid-recent-violence-in-rochester

Note from SCOPE: In one of her last acts as Rochester’s Mayor, Lovely Warren announced that Rochester was pairing with the anti-gun Brady Center to help prevent gun violence.  To validate this, she says “They did this in Chicago…”  The anti-gunners often say stupid things but using Chicago as an example of a successful gun program may be at the top of that list of stupid comments.  

New York cracks down on ghost guns, but will new laws be effective in curbing violence?

The trio of bills ban the sale and possession of ghost guns and requires gunsmiths to register and serialize firearms along with unfinished frames or receivers.

Tom King, Executive Director of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, believes the legislation won’t be effective in curbing gun violence. “Firearms laws are only obeyed by the lawful citizens of the state. Criminals do not pay any attention to any laws that are passed,” said King. “They get ahold of guns all the time. There is a criminal network in the United States. Guns move along in this network,” added King.

https://cbs6albany.com/news/local/new-york-cracks-down-on-ghost-guns-but-will-newlaws-be-effective-in-curbing-violence

Note from SCOPE: King’s point needs repeating over and over.  The laws only affect law abiding people and do nothing to stop criminals who do not obey laws.

The Amendment That Remade America

The First? The Second? No, the 14th—the basis for every claim against a state government for violating individual rights. That amendment, among its other provisions, bars states from abridging “the privileges or immunities” of citizens or depriving any person of life, liberty or property “without due process of law.” It’s best known for guaranteeing to all persons “the equal protection of the laws.”

The historical evidence is overwhelming that Second Amendment rights belong to individuals. But if there’s any doubt about that, raised by the existence of the Militia Clause of the Second Amendment, there’s no doubt whatsoever that the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause was aimed at the protection of the individual right—in this case the individual rights of the freed blacks to keep and carry their own weapons.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fourteenth-amendment-states-civil-rights-federalismoriginalism-abortion-dobbs-jackson-11635535364?reflink=share_mobilewebshare

Without False Claims About The Risk of Concealed Handgun Permit Holders, The Left Has Nothing

Since 1976, 18 states eliminated “proper cause” requirements, and gun control advocates have consistently predicted disaster. But in state after state, concealed handgun permit holders have proved to be extremely law-abiding, and Right-to-Carry states have never even held a legislative hearing to consider moving back to “proper cause.”

In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of firearms-related violations at one-twelfth of the rate at which police officers. In the 19 states with comprehensive permit revocation data, the average revocation rate is one-tenth of one percent. Usually, permit revocations occur because someone moved or died or forgot to bring their permit while carrying.

Academics have published fifty-two peer-reviewed, empirical studies on concealed carry. Of these, 25 found that allowing people to carry reduces violent crime, and 15 found no significant effect. A minority (12) observed increases in violent crime. These 12, however, suffer from a systematic error to varying degrees: they tend to focus on the last 20 years and compare states that recently passed concealed carry laws with more lenient states that had sustained growth in permits over the past two decades. The finding that crime rose relatively in such states is consistent with permit holders reducing crime.

https://townhall.com/columnists//johnrlottjr/2021/11/11/without-false-claims-about-therisk-of-concealed-handgun-permit-holders-the-left-n2598

Note from SCOPE:  Some good sources of information on gun laws are:

John Lott Jr.  https://crimeresearch.org/  

David Kopel  https://davekopel.org/

Allen Korwin  https://www.gunlaws.com/