The Democrats' Domino Approach to Rights

[Joe Cooper]

Will the government soon quarter troops in your home?

The Third Amendment prohibits that, sure — but if prominent and powerful
Democrats are so anxious to toss out the First and Second Amendments to
the Constitution, who’s to say they wouldn’t jettison the Third?

Last year, every Democratic U.S. Senator voted to repeal the First
Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and replace it with new, broad
powers for incumbents in Congress to regulate their own campaign spending
and their opponents’, and thereby regulate essential political speech.

Luckily, those 54 senators still lacked the two-thirds margin needed to
send their constitutional amendment to the House and then possibly out to
the states.

Now, in the face of “gun violence” in San Bernardino, California — what
has finally, ever so reluctantly, been acknowledged to be terrorism —
President Barack Obama, presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton, and
congressional Democrats, advance the idea that we should immediately
scrap the Second Amendment.

“For those who are concerned about terrorism,” said Mr. Obama, as if he’s
not so concerned, “some may be aware of the fact that we have a no-fly
list where people can’t get on planes. But those same people, who we
don’t allow to fly, could go into a store right now in the United States
and buy a firearm, and there’s nothing we can do to stop them. That’s a
law that needs to be changed.”

How would such a statute work? By first scrapping the Fifth Amendment,
which guarantees that “No person shall be . . . deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

These Democrats demand that Americans on the so-called “No-Fly List” — a
subset of the 700,000 folks found on the Terrorist Watch List — be denied
their Second Amendment right to a firearm, despite the fact that the
bureaucratically created list is recognized to be a mess and, moreover,
offers not a scintilla of due process: no charge, jury, trial.

Would this new regulation have prevented the San Bernardino murderers
from getting guns? No — they had recently flown to Saudi Arabia, half-way
around the world.

The globe-trotting Boston Marathon bombers didn’t make the no-fly list,
either.

But the list did label an 18-month-old girl a terrorist, snatching her
rights like taking candy from a . . . toddler.

For many years, embarrassingly, the late Nelson Mandela was on the no-fly
list, along with South Africa’s foreign minister, and also Stephen F.
Hayes, the Weekly Standard columnist — not to mention my innocent nephew.

On MSNBC’s Morning Joe last week, GOP presidential candidate Carly
Fiorina was asked if it wasn’t merely “common sense” to block those on
terror watch lists from getting guns. “I actually think it’s ideology,
not common sense,” Fiorina replied, “that causes the left-wing every time
in a knee jerk reaction to say the answer here is more laws, when we’re
not enforcing the laws we have.” Instead, she urged, explaining that
“less than one percent” of those obtaining guns illegally are ever
prosecuted, “Let’s start by enforcing the laws we already have.”

Fiorina added that she, too, had a friend mistakenly placed on the no-fly
list.

“On this particular issue, we do have a Constitution,” House Speaker Paul
Ryan (R-Wisc.) bluntly reminded folks on CBS This Morning. “People have
due process rights in this country. . . . Let’s make sure that we act
accordingly, let’s make sure we act according to citizens’ rights (and)
the Constitution.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), long on record for
confiscating the guns of law-abiding citizens, told reporters she would
introduce legislation to empower the U.S. Attorney General to simply
decree that a citizen was barred from obtaining a gun on any “reasonable
belief” that said person might engage in an act of terrorism.

Crystal balls would be sold separately, of course, as I’m certain her
legislation will clearly note.

And to put an exclamation point on the headless thinking of Senate
Democrats, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) declared that, “The worst thing we
can do is do nothing.”

On the campaign trial, Hillary Clinton asked, “Just what will it take for
Congress to overcome the intimidation of the gun lobby and do something
as sensible as making sure people on the terrorist watch list can’t buy
weapons?”

What will it take? An illegal abrogation of the most fundamental and
cherished rights in human history.

Source: http://bit.ly/1ObRzHI

--
Obama Nine Hours Before Paris Terror Attack: "We've Contained ISIS"

"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who aren’t and to impose their will on those who
didn’t ask for it." (Derek Hunter)

"Liberals never argue with one another over substance; their only dispute
is how to prevent the public from figuring out what they really
believe." (Ann Coulter)

[someone else]

On 12/6/2015 10:22 AM, Joe Cooper wrote:
> An illegal abrogation of the most fundamental and cherished rights in human history.

Someone else would say that your fears have turned to anger



Never has the success of terrorism been more apparent than it is with
the common American conservative. Americans in general have been wary of
radicalized Islamic juhadists for decades, but since the attacks of
September 11, 2001, conservatives have found a common bond in fear.

Fear sells. Let’s face it — after the 2000 election and the subsequent
appointment of Dubyah by the Supreme Court, the man spent the next nine
months being as useless as he could be. Some reports had him on vacation
more than 60 percent of the time. His administration was but a glimpse
of the laughing stock it would become. After the September 11th attacks,
Republicans learned a valuable lesson. They learned that fear and fear
alone can win elections, and in 2002 successfully gained control of both
the executive and legislative branches of government.

Who can forget that debate in 2004 when Dubyah stepped away from the
podium with his arm outstrectched like a schoolyard bully shouting,
“tell that to Tony Blair!” when John Kerry made the remark that America
was alone in Iraq. That year, as Democrats argued logic and tried to
point out the direction of the economy, Republicans again ran their
campaigns based on fear.

They became the “we’ll keep you safe” party. Safe from what? We’re still
trying to figure that out, as Bush’s policies led to an increased global
Al Qaeda presence as well as the rise of ISIS. At last check, the
creation of more terrorists is the opposite of “safe.”

Still, that tactic is still going strong. While they’ve added a few new
tricks to attract the worst America has to offer to replenish their
dying base, fear is still tantamount to any Republican campaign. A
recent Reuters poll show that while Americans overall aren’t buying it,
a vast majority of Republicans are.


http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/12/05/report-terrorism-is-working-on-republicans/