Critical of Critical Race Theory  by Tom Reynolds

President Trump’s “Executive order on combating race and sex stereotyping”, effectively banned promoting Critical Race Theory within the federal government.  His opponents attempt to label President Trump as a racist but it is those who promote Critical Race Theory that are the racists.  In his Executive Order, Trump laid out principles that would have been embraced by Martin Luther King Jr. and his civil rights movement.  Critical Race Theory directly opposes the racial progress made in the last half century; it divides, rather than unites. 

Many people are not familiar with the details of Critical Race Theory, which clearly does not correspond with the spirit or the letter of the Constitution and the civil rights laws; this unconstitutionality allowed President Trump to ban it. 

In order to familiarize you with it, so you can better defend the Constitution, the following is a direct quote from the President’s Executive Order, “This ideology (Critical Race Theory) is rooted in the pernicious and false belief that America is an irredeemably racist and sexist country; that some people, simply on account of their race or sex, are oppressors; and that racial and sexual identities are more important than our common status as human beings and Americans”.

In the executive order, Trump banned teaching the following divisive concepts that are at the heart of Critical Race Theory:

an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;

an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex;

an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;

any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex;

meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic and objectivity were created by a particular race to oppress another race;

an individual’s character traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status, or beliefs are because of his or her race or sex”;

an individual’s fault, blame, or bias is a result of their race or sex;

members of any race are inherently racist or are inherently inclined to oppress others;

members of a sex are inherently sexist or inclined to oppress others;

and last but not least, the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist; 

In direct contradiction to Critical Race Theories, on Monday, in Washington D.C., a black man from Georgia swore in a white woman from Indiana to be one of only nine Supreme Court justices.  Take that you race baiters!

Those that want to take away your 2^nd Amendment rights will embrace the divisiveness of Critical Race Theory as a way to destroy America.  President Trump can attempt to stop this divisive theory within the federal government but the private sector has the freedom, under our Constitution, to continue to divide us.  Check out your local schools funded by your taxes or the colleges charging tens of thousands of dollars in tuition, as they are indoctrinating our youth, counter to what Trump is outlawing.  Ask candidates for political offices to condemn Critical Race Theory.

On November 3^rd, vote against the proponents of Critical Race Theory.

Packing the Supreme Court  by Tom Reynolds

With Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), there is talk amongst Democrats about “packing” SCOTUS.  Biden’s silence on the subject confirms that, if elected President, he will probably go along with this idea.  The purpose behind “packing” is to create more justice positions and fill them with anti 2A liberals in order to gain a liberal political majority on SCOTUS.  They may go beyond that and increase the number of other federal judges (over 600 now) to add even more anti 2A judges at all levels

The Founding Fathers created two branches of government that are political and representative in nature: Congress and the Presidency.  The third branch of government, Judicial, is supposed to be the non-political, non-representative branch.  Its’ role is to make impartial non-political decisions based solely on the rule of law, as written in the Constitution or passed by Congress.  Being non-political gives the Judicial branch a moral authority as well as a Constitutional authority. 

To insulate justices from political pressures and keep decisions non-political, the only way to remove a justice is for Congress to impeach that justice.  Congress has been very loath to impeach judges since that would open the door to Congress threatening impeachment in order to get a political judgement. While Congress could legally do it, political impeachments would destroy SCOTUS’ moral authority. Only fifteen federal judges have been impeached in the entire history of the USA. Congress has, until now, usually recognized the need for the Judiciary’s moral authority by not using its impeachment power to influence the judiciary.

Supreme Court decisions are obeyed by the other two branches and by American citizens because those decisions are, theoretically, based on non-political judgements.  Americans – and especially legal gun owners - want to obey the law.  If SCOTUS reflected the whims of a temporary majority, rather than upholding the principles of law, it would soon lose its moral authority. If the court is packed, it becomes just another instrument of partisan politics and loses its credibility as the defender of our fundamental, constitutional values.

The main difference between justices is in the way they interpret the Constitution; some are Strict Constructionists and some are Loose Constructionists.  Political definitions are flexible but, in general, Strict Constructionists believe the Constitution and laws passed under the Constitution mean what the laws meant when passed.  They do not believe in legislating from the bench since the ability to pass laws belongs only to Congress, which is elected by the citizens.  Loose Constructionists believe the law can be changed by judges to fit current needs - as the unelected judge sees those needs.  That is not a democracy!  The issue should only be the Constitution and not a judge’s feelings.

Democrats justify court packing to “even the playing field”.  With SCOTUS divided 5 to 3 between Strict Constructionists and Loose Constructionists, (no one knows what John Roberts is), would Democrats add only 2 more justices to even the playing field or leap at the opportunity to tilt the playing field in their favor by appointing more than 2?  Everything in Democrats’ recent history indicates they would do the latter!

Some Democrats justify court packing if Obamacare is struck down because millions of Americans are on it.  But the number of people on a plan does not and should not affect its constitutional status.  It’s either constitutional or it’s not.  

Stare Decisis is a legal term that gives great weight to previous decisions when making current decisions on the same subject.  If the law is constantly changing with every change in political power, the law will not be viewed as impartial and loses its moral authority.  SCOTUS has consisted of 9 justices for over 150 years, through both Republican and Democrat political majorities, and only Franklin Roosevelt tried to change that for political purposes.  That consistency has helped preserve SCOTUS’ position as the final arbiter.  Shouldn’t Congress apply Stare Decisis to its own decisions on SCOTUS, in order to keep SCOTUS’ moral authority intact?  

For 2A supporters, a “packed” SCOTUS would be a disaster as the Democrat Party and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have consistently been anti 2A and you can be sure they would appoint like-minded, anti 2A judges to the court.  Our temporary opening to strengthen 2A would close in a flash.

Vote!

A Referendum on Liberty  by Harold Moskowitz

Life is full of far-reaching decisions.  We choose a means of earning a living, a lifestyle, and perhaps another person with whom to share our life.  These choices can be changed if necessary.  Soon, all of us will have an additional choice to make.  It will profoundly affect not only your future but that of those people we care about as well.

On November 3, 2020, an election will be held.  This election does not involve the mere choice between two candidates of different political parties.  In reality, this election will serve as a national referendum on whether or not we will become a socialist nation.  By extension, it will determine whether we remain a free nation with unalienable rights or a nation of “peasants and serfs” ruled by a tight-fisted soviet style “politburo.”  Should the candidate representing this second scenario win, the levers of government power will be used to stifle dissent and to institute changes designed to create and maintain one party rule in perpetuity.

Without viable opposition, our constitutional republic’s safeguards against tyranny, which were built into our government by the Framers, will be removed or ignored.  In that case, we would be left with unrestricted one-party rule as is currently seen in repressive states such as California and New York.

The choice will be yours to make.  Only you can stop socialism and the loss of individual liberty.  Some choices cannot be undone without having to risk your life.  A choice resulting in the loss of freedom and economic opportunity for those you love is one such choice.  Vote November 3rd to keep your freedom, your cherished values, and your way of life.

Indoctrinating about Intimidating  by Tom Reynolds

Sunday’s Gannett papers featured an Associated Press article headlined, “Intimidation effort feared at polls”.  Given that riots went unchecked for months and rioters have felt free to try to intimidate bystanders and the police, that seems like a legitimate concern for polling places; the article’s first paragraph even referenced the riots as a cause of concern.  (But it doesn’t ever call them riots; they are only protests and civil unrest.)

Who does the article identify as the people to be concerned about?  “Anti-government extremists and other armed civilians” are cited.  An American University professor puts the blame on the “extreme right” and he also worries about guns being carried into polling places. President Trump’s call for an “army of poll watchers” is also cited at the beginning of a paragraph that ends warning, “…observers will harass or intimidate voters”.  (Hint.  Hint.  Trump wants his “observers” to intimidate voters, not watch for fraud.)

The article even includes reference to the group that plotted a kidnapping of Michigan’s governor.

And, of course, the article included the mandatory liberal lie about Trump not condemning right wing extremists.

Wow.  Sounds as if we had better beware of right-wingers intimidating voters; like those right-wing extremists who have been rioting for months in major cities, burning, looting, shooting and causing $2 billion in damage. Oh, wait.  That’s Black Lives Matter and Antifa that did that!  Don’t Black Lives Matter and Antifa qualify as “anti-government extremists”?  Do their actions constitute anarchy?  Surely, the article has to also include them as groups to be concerned about if the article is going to be comprehensive?  Nope.  Not even a hint of criticism of anything leftist.  Apparently, Gannett newspapers and the Associated Press believe that Black Lives Matter and Antifa have great respect for our rights as citizens and they would never use violence to intimidate anyone, so there was no need to mention either group in the article.

Greater NY Black Lives Matter President Hawk Newsome admits to saying, “If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down the system and replace it”.  Can voters rely on Black Lives Matter to not interfere with the election and, mercifully, give us one-last-chance to do what they want - before they burn down the system of voting and replace it with…?  (I’m gonna take a wild guess and say that Newsome’s replacement system parallels the old USSR system by allowing us to vote for Newsome’s candidate, or else.)

The mention of the Michigan governor’s kidnapping plot made sure that we know she is a Democrat. (Hint.  Hint.  It must have been those nasty right-wing, bible clinging gun owners at work again.)  But according to social media posts, two of the six plotters initially arrested are anarchists that hated Michigan’s governor and hated President Trump and a third plotter identified with Black Lives Matter.  (One thing about right-wing extremists – they believe in diversity - and they’re even willing to include left-wing extremists.)

The anti-gun rhetoric in the article pushes making polling places into “gun free zones”.  That’s worked out well in the past as criminals, historically, show great respect and deference for gun-free zones…

This article was a terrific example of the deceit of the media in general and Gannett newspapers in particular.  They took a legitimate news concern and, by figurative winks-and-nods, turned it into an anti-Republican, anti-Trump editorial hiding in plain sight.  And they even got in a few “shots” for gun control.  Should we have expected anything else?

At least this article didn’t say that Trump was dividing America…That article was on page 6.

Lies During the Debate – And After  by Tom Reynolds

During Thursday’s debate, “fact checkers” usually have a field day identifying what they claim are lies and misrepresentations.  Here’s what CNN said about Trump lying. 

Anchored by Wolf Blitzer, CNN’s headline was “Trump was better behaved but he lied more”.  And according to CNN, the specifics he lied more about were:

Trump said 2.2 million people would have died.  CNN concedes it’s accurate but the number was describing what would happen if nothing was done about the virus. 

Trump said the virus was going away.  Obviously, it did not go away.

That’s all the specific instances they gave of Trump lying.  And no mention of Biden lies.  But SCOPE will make up for CNN’s shortcomings, below.

Biden will/will not ban fracking.  Biden has been on all sides of this, depending upon his audience.  Trump can produce videos of Biden saying definitively he will ban fracking and Biden can show a video of himself saying he would not.  Since his party is definitely anti fracking and he was anti fracking everywhere except when he was in Pennsylvania, he’s definitely anti fracking.

Shut down the country.  Biden definitely has said he would do it in spite of his denials during the debate.

No one lost insurance under Obamacare.  Estimates for cancelled policies range from 2.6 million to 4.7 million.  Not only did people lose insurance but most people who did keep insurance had big premium increases and huge increases in deductibles.

US had a good relationship with Hitler.  It just never happened.  FDR, the president at the time, was anti Hitler from the start of Hitler’s ascension.

Biden praised New York as to dealing with the Corona Virus.  If you live in New York, the response is LOL.

Biden distanced himself from progressives.  Does he know who his vice president candidate is? 

Trump is a dog whistle to racists.  Dog whistles are only heard by dogs and the ones hearing Trump’s racist comments are Democrats.

Biden blames Republican congress for Obama not passing criminal justice reform.  Democrats held both houses in Obama’s first two years and both houses were held by Republicans in Trump’s first two years.

Trump has a secret bank account in China.  Opened 2013 and closed in 2015.

No evidence that businesses will go out of business if the minimum wage is raised.  Is Biden familiar with Seattle, pre-riots?

The laptop. 

It’s Russian disinformation?  Not according to law enforcement that has seen it and also according to a recipient of the e mails.  Former national security people who have not seen it claim it is disinformation. 

Biden said he has not taken a penny from a foreign source.  Money from China and Ukraine flowed to his son but e mails on the laptop indicate that Joe “wet his beak”.

10% for the big guy?  A recipient of the emails says that is definitely Joe.

Hunter says that dad takes 50%?  If the lap top is true, the statement is true.

Post-debate, CNN tried to dismiss any questions that viewers had after observing Biden’s ongoing struggles with thoughts and the discussion of Biden’s possible mental decline. CNN’s Don Lemon blamed Biden’s missteps on stuttering.  It’s true that Biden stuttered as a child but it has been unmentioned and unnoticed for 60 years, until his recent mental lapses.  In 1987, the left-wing Washington Post reported, “…no trace of the stutter he had as a child.” Biden’s confusion about which state he is in, the inability to hold on to his train of thought, forgetting where he is and who he is with and inappropriate behavior are not symptoms of a stutterer.

2^nd Amendment.  Unfortunately, moderators steered the debate away from any question on the 2^nd Amendment.  If there had been, Biden is definitely anti 2A and Trump is definitely pro 2A.

Don’t Vote.  Cuomo Only Wants “Assault Weapons”  by Tom Reynolds

There are many gun owners in New York (perhaps millions) who do not believe that Cuomo and company are coming for their weapons and, thus, there is no need to vote.  Well, guess what? There is now evidence that Cuomo and company are going after all guns!

Bills that were introduced in both the New York State Senate (S7065) and the Assembly (A01589-A) will require that before any sale, exchange or disposal of a firearm, rifle or shotgun, the purchaser must pass a mental health examination.  No exemption for hunters.  No exemption for target shooting.  No exemption for self-defense. No exemption for…anything.

Violators would face a non-violent Class D felony charge. (Some other non-violent Class D felonies in New York include robbery, burglary and vehicular manslaughter, so this is serious business.) If you are convicted of this felony, you face up to 7 years in prison, lose your right to own a firearm and your right to vote.  (Of course, if you won’t vote anyway, what difference does the latter mean to you?)

The NY Department of Mental Health would oversee this.  Some Mental Health organizations believe that 1 in 5 persons has a mental health problem…so the fox is guarding the hen house.    

What if the NY Department of Health sets a low bar for denial or the Mental Health Professional doing the test is predisposed against guns?  It’s a “twofer”; fail you and get a potential customer to treat! 

Fail the test and you face a huge legal bill for lawyers and expert witnesses to challenge the denial in court.  Of course, NY State will use your tax dollars to fight you and will act as if they have bottomless pockets.  Guilty until you prove your innocence (or to be precise, prove your sanity).

The bill does not address what happens to guns that you already own if you fail the mental health test.  A “loophole” to be closed by future laws?  Cuomo’s China Virus lockdown got you feeling a little depressed?  Best not to mention that issue if you want to keep your guns.  (The left wanted drugs decriminalized so there would be no impediment to drug addicts seeking help.  If you are a gun owner, the same logic does not apply.)

The bill does not address stopping criminals from buying guns illegally, which is how most criminals get them.  

The bill does not address if you must again take the test if you recently passed the mental health test.  (But other pending bills like S01275 will limit how often you can purchase a gun, anyway, so it will not be a problem.)

Expect a future law, once the psych door is open, that says your mental health exam must be renewed every few years. Exaggeration?  Before the SAFE Act, pistol permits had no end date but now they must be renewed.  (Retest to make sure the gun owner hasn’t mentally degenerated.)

Are the costs of a firearm, ammunition and a hunting license putting a financial squeeze on you?  Wait until you see what a “Mental Health Professional” charges for administering the exam!  (The law does not limit what they can charge.)  And if that is not enough, NY Assembly bill A00095 wants to force you to buy liability insurance.  (Don’t count on any of this being tax deductible, to ease the financial burden.) 

The purpose of gun control is not to stop criminals but to increase government control and power.  Want proof?  As of January 1st, Governor Cuomo and his radical left friends implemented a law that allows violent felons to walk free until their trail–without even posting a bond.  If Cuomo was really interested in stopping criminals, shouldn’t there be a mental health exam for people already accused of a crime and in jail, before releasing them to endanger the law-abiding public?

Using mental health issues was a favorite trick of socialist icon Joe Stalin.  Oppose him and you were sent to Siberia or an insane asylum.  One had to be crazy to want to go to Siberia, so opposing Stalin was ample evidence to commit anyone who opposed Stalin to an insane asylum. 

The first step in stopping this insanity is to vote the NY Senate away from the gun grabbing New York City liberals who propose these worthless laws.  That would require gun owners to vote, which brings us back to the original problem that many gun owners won’t vote because no one is coming for their weapons…yet.

Coming to a town near you…Part 2  by Tom Reynolds

Yesterday, SCOPE wrote about a riot in Ithaca and warned that they will spread.  The primary lesson here is that liberal socialists consider themselves to be our moral and intellectual superiors.  As such, they believe that, if they make the decisions in our life for us, we will be better off than if we made the decisions ourselves.  Because they believe that what they are doing is in our best interests, that excuses their every action.  They won’t admit that their actions are in pursuit of their own power and privilege. Coming from people who believe in the same system that spawned Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Castro, this would be laughable if those socialists weren’t so convinced that they really are superior and that excuses all of their actions.

Let’s take advantage of reporting in the Cornell Daily Sun about the riot to point out how delusional these people are in their egotistical beliefs.  Beware of people who will riot, burn, murder and use fear and intimidation in pursuit of their beliefs because lying will mean nothing to them.    

The Cornell Daily Sun said, “Earlier this week, the Ithaca Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) planned in response a Trump Rally counter-demo, to ‘let them know they are NOT welcome here,’ the group wrote in social media posts”.  Later in the Sun’s article, a DSA member and History Professor is quoted, “It was a spontaneous and almost joyful display.

So, I was a spontaneous planned response! That is called an oxymoron, with the emphasis on moron.

The Sun further reported, “…counter protesters approached members of the Trump rally, yelling…you’re racist if you support a racist.’’ An organizer of the pro Trump rally was reported as saying that, “…people calling us members of the KKK”.

The DSA was protesting at the wrong rally.  They excuse away the racist DNA of the Democrat Party, just as they excuse away Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Castro. Let’s look at the record and not the rhetoric or, as Mike Pence said to Kamal Harris, “You can have your own opinion but not your own facts”.

The KKK was a spawn of the Democrat Party.  Famous Democrat Senator Richard Byrd was an organizer, recruiter and leader of the KKK.  Byrd also filibustered the Civil Rights Act and then voted against it.  Why is Byrd important to know about?  Of Byrd, Democrat Presidential Joe Biden said, "To me...for a lot of us, he was a mentor and a friend, and for a lot of us, he was a guide."  The racist Senator from the KKK was a mentor and guide to the current Democrat presidential candidate! 

Democrat Biden said of Barack Obama, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy”.   Joe Biden believed Obama was “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy”!  Racism?  Nah, nothing to see here if you are the Ithaca DSA.

Ithaca DSA does, indeed, welcome racists - as long as they are Democrats.

In contrast, in 1986, Donald Trump was honored with the Ellis Island Award, along with civil rights icon Rosa Parks and boxing legend Muhammad Ali.  (Will the DSA disown Parks and Ali for associating with Trump?)

Upon purchasing Mar-a-Lago resort in 1997, Trump opened up membership to African Americans and Jews. To do this, he had to sue the town council.  He succeeded, prompting changes in membership at the other local clubs.   

Thanks to Trump’s economic policies, prior to the pandemic, unemployment amongst women, blacks and other minorities had reached all-time lows.

If that’s a racist, the black population needs more like him.

The chair of Ithaca DSA said, “If pro-authoritarian forces are going to keep showing up in Ithaca we need to show them that they are not welcome here.” Authoritarian is defined as, “favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority…at the expense of personal freedom”. Don’t “freedom of speech” and “peaceably to assemble” count as personal freedoms? 

The Ithaca DSA believes that, from the same movement that spawned Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Castro, a benevolent leader will emerge.  Socialist icon Vladimir Lenin coined a phrase for people like this, “Useful idiots”.

Coming To A Town Near You…Part 1  by Tom Reynolds

Big city riots are coming to a small town near you and the 2^nd Amendment may be your only defense when police refuse to protect law abiding citizens! 

Last week, pro Trump supporters in Ithaca (yes, there are Trump supporters in Ithaca) held a rally.  It was interrupted by counter demonstrators and turned violent, originated by the counter protesters who identify themselves as the Ithaca Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).  (Apparently, they don’t understand the part about “democratic” covering people with opposite opinions having the right to say and vote their opinions.)  The Ithaca police intervened, temporarily, when a main street was blocked, but eventually the police left.  The mayor of Ithaca is a kid (almost literally) who identifies with protesters, as long as they are left wing. Non-support by the Ithaca police should not have surprised anyone.

Faced with violent opposition, what will Trump supporters in Ithaca do?

Ithaca is in Tompkins County.  In response to this violence, the Tompkins County GOP said that the only appropriate response to the violence is to hold another rally next Saturday and that’s exactly what they plan to do.  “If the mob learns that they can intimidate people into silence, it’s over,” the GOP wrote on Facebook. “At that point, we no longer have freedom of expression in the place where we live. The ONLY way to show them that this doesn’t work is to show them that this will cause us to show up.  We hope to see you at the Back The Blue rally on Saturday”.

SCOPE has written previously about the importance of voting for down ballot candidates such as DA’s, sheriffs and Mayors and has given several examples of rogue DA’s who put their personal left-wing politics ahead of protecting law abiding citizens.  This lawlessness was previously confined to major cities and then we saw it spread to intermediate sized cities like Rochester.  Now that it’s in small cities like Ithaca, will your local towns and villages be far behind? 

Whether they are on the ballot this year or not, it would be wise to put your local officials on record as to how they will react.  Presumably, they are all going to say that peaceful protests are to be safeguarded.  But what will officials do after the first bottle is thrown?  When the first road is blocked? When MAGA hat wearers are accosted?  Will the authorities act swiftly to prevent this from continuing and spreading?  Do they have a plan to deal with the rioters, especially since the riots seem to not be spontaneous, are well organized and equipped and the rioters will probably outnumber the police?  Will they arrest and prosecute these lawbreakers?

It’s better to ask these questions now, before there is an immediate threat, and you can sort through your representatives and decide who is on your side.  Write an open letter to your Mayor, Sheriff, DA or County Administrator and copy the local media.  Ask that these questions be put on the local legislature’s / council’s agenda.  Go to the meetings and when there is time for public comments, ask these questions.  If any of these officials are on the ballot, it will be interesting to see how forthright they are in their answers.   

Below is a link to a news story describing what happened and below that is a link to the rioters patting themselves on the back.  Pay attention because it is coming to a town near you. 

https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/10/pro-trump-rally-attacked-in-liberal-ithaca-ny/

https://www.facebook.com/1090380894423575/posts/3153462368115407/?extid=0&d=n

Dick Durbin versus the 2^nd Amendment  by Tom Reynolds

In the Supreme Court nomination hearings, Democrat Senator Richard Durbin questioned Amy Coney Barrett’s “originalist” view of the Second Amendment.

The Senator said, “I’m going to take you back in history for a moment and note that when the Second Amendment was written—and you did the analysis of it—we were talking about the likelihood that the person could purchase a muzzle-loading musket…We are now talking about virtual military weapons that can kill hundreds of innocent people. It is a much different circumstance…Maybe an originalist pins all their thinking to that musket. I’ve got to bring it to the 21st century, and the 21st century has people being killed on the streets of Chicago because of the proliferation of deadly firearms.” 

Senator Durbin obviously believes the 2^nd Amendment freedoms do not apply to modern arms and that “originalists” are hopelessly out of touch with modern technology.

Let’s paraphrase what the Senator might have said if he had been speaking about the First Amendment “…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

“I’m going to take you back in history for a moment and note that when the First Amendment was written—and you did the analysis of it—we were talking about the likelihood that the person could purchase a quill and ink pen…We are now talking about virtual free speech that can spread a lie around the world in minutes, misinforming millions of innocent people. It is a much different circumstance…Maybe an originalist pins all their thinking to that quill pen. I’ve got to bring it to the 20th century, and the 20th century has people being killed by the tens of millions because of the ideas and lies of communist socialist and fascist countries.”

If Senator Durbin were consistent (he isn’t) he would also condemn the First Amendment freedoms for the same reasons he condemns Second Amendment freedoms.  The written word in colonial times could, at best, have reached only thousands of people over months while modern technology can spread lies around the world in seconds.

Being such a progressive thinker, (I know, progressive thinker is an oxymoron) perhaps the Senator thinks that the Second Amendment was only to protect hunting.  Let’s go back to June of 1789 and a conversation that never happened when the Bill of Rights was introduced.

Congressman James Madison rises to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

“We fought eight long years to free this nation and we are now surrounded by enemies of that independence such as Britain, Spain and the Indian tribes.  I have proposed other amendments that protect life, liberty and property against a malevolent government.  With that in mind, it is essential that we protect hunting deer against government intrusion.  And in fairness to deer, this protection should only apply to current muzzle loading technology since science may advance humans’ hunting ability, creating an unfair advantage to the hunter.  And besides, if you take more than one shot to kill a deer, you shouldn’t be hunting.” 

“Originalists” are labelled extreme but the Founding fathers took an extremist view of what a too intrusive government would do to individual rights.  “Originalists” are only following the dictates of people who were much smarter than Senator Durbin.  

And finally – I can’t resist – Durbin is also wrong when he equates the 2^nd Amendment to muskets.  He said, “…the likelihood that the person could purchase a muzzle-loading musket”.  The muzzle loading musket was a military weapon that had an unrifled barrel and was highly inaccurate; it was not a desirable civilian weapon.  Real shooters, in colonial times, wanted advanced technology and they bought “rifled” barrels because they were far more accurate in shooting deer and redcoats.

But who would expect a gun grabber to actually understand what he is talking about?

Who cares about the District Attorney Races? by Tom Reynolds

Portland Oregon District Attorney Mike Schmidt refuses to prosecute rioters and admits to being an “old buddy” to an Antifa militant. Schmidt campaigned for ending cash bail. In an interview, Schmidt said, "...I think our criminal justice system very much fails victims..." But he was referring to “the vast majority of perpetrators” as the victims. About riots he said, "This dystopian image that is being painted nationally is not at all what it looks like on our streets”. (I guess we imagined the images of burning buildings and cars.)

On July 30th, Fox News reported, “St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner… announced her office was bringing felony charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the couple who brandished guns outside their home as protesters marched by in June. The McCloskeys have said many times they were defending themselves, with tensions high in St. Louis and other cities over race and law enforcement”.

About Kim Gardner, the Washington Times reported on June 4th that, “At least 36 people have been arrested on felony charges related to violent protests in St. Louis since May 29, and every one of them had the charges against them dismissed, according to a St. Louis police department spokesman”.

Seattle City Attorney Peter Holmes has an unusual approach to prosecuting rioters.The Post Millenial reported on June 23rd, “The DA's office has received 37 misdemeanor cases so far from the latest civil unrest in Seattle. Many are for obstructing police, but the list includes half a dozen assaults, theft, reckless endangerment and attempted property damage. Holmes said he hopes to refer these protesters to “Choose 180, a restorative justice program with a proven track record.” However, Choose 180 is one of the groups that was part of the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP).

The Post Millenial also reported, “Holmes…under fire for not prosecuting crimes long before the current violent rioting, looting and protests rocked Seattle. Seattle and King County have a track record of releasing violent Antifa activists. In 2019 business groups in Seattle commissioned a report on 100 prolific offenders who were terrorizing downtown Seattle residents and businesses. The report blamed a ‘revolving door’ justice system that a criminal could be arrested in Seattle over 70 times and still be released or diverted for treatment rather than incarceration”.

Townhall reported on July 7th, about Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, “…has been heavily criticized throughout his 10+ years as the DA of New York County for inserting his own progressive politics into the rule of law. After decades of low crime rates and a thriving economy in NYC following a major crackdown in policing and enforcing the rule of law, it seems Vance, with the support of Mayor Bill de Blasio, are determined to undo all the hard work of the NYPD and the people of the city”.

The New American reports on January 28th, San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin said, “My parents were all dedicated to fighting U.S. imperialism around the world. I’m dedicated to the same thing”. (His parents are convicted murderers.) CBS News reported about Boudin on January 23rd, “San Francisco's top prosecutor announced his office will no longer ask for cash bail as a condition for defendants' pretrial release”.

What do all these District Attorneys have in common? They are all Progressive Democrats. (Some of them, and many others not mentioned here, were funded in their campaigns by George Soros, the Progressive billionaire who hates the U.S.A.) They were also elected to their positions by the voters!

Pay attention to that last statement. They were also elected to their positions by the voters. Do you know any gun owners who refuse to vote? This is what happens when people refuse to participate in our republic on its most elementary level: voting. It isn’t just the presidency and other offices at the top of the ballot that matter; down ballot races for judges and D.A.’s can and will effect your future.

Can’t happen here? Don’t vote and find out.