2nd amendment supporters viewed as terrorists by Democrats

Maryland Democratic Party Secretary Robbie Leonard is in hot water for a recent Facebook post. The post, consisting of a picture of a 2A supporter carrying a sign that states, “We Will Not Comply,” included the statement, “Time to dox some homegrown terrorists.”

“Doxing” is the practice of researching and publishing private information about an individual or organization online. The practice is considered to be an invasion of personal privacy.

The Facebook post, which has since been deleted, was posted in response to a rally at the Maryland Capitol and quickly went viral. The rally was attended by members of a pro-2A group called The Patriot Picket. The group’s slogan is, “We Will Not Comply.” The slogan is the group’s way of communicating that they have “had enough” of gun control regulations.

The protest was organized to speak out against new proposed gun legislation in Maryland. Lawmakers there are considering bills that would: (1) add new requirements to the sale and transfer of shotguns and rifles; (2) make the manufacture of 3D-printed “ghost guns” illegal; and (3) add the Colt AR-15 Sporter H-Bar rifle to the existing list of regulated firearms, essentially banning its possession if purchased after October 1, 2013.

One member of The Patriot Picket who attended was Paul Brockman. Brockman did not appreciate Leonard’s Facebook post.

SEE ALSO: Teachers Now Have Confiscation Power Under New York’s Red Flag Law

“We think it’s disgusting,” Brockman told A Miner Detail. He [Leonard] should apologize for it. I mean, anybody who would . . . and, unfortunately we see it more and more on the Democratic side. They don’t want people exercising their First Amendment rights. And that was their First Amendment right to go out there on the sidewalk and say whatever they want — pro-gun, anti-gun.”

The Democratic Party Executive Director provided a written statement when asked by A Miner Detail to respond to Leonard’s post.

“When discussing firearm regulations, the specter of gun violence is always present. These fraught conversations require peace and healing, not escalated conflict. When activists wear shirts stating ‘We will not comply’ with new firearm regulations, that action escalates the conflict and a willingness to flout the rule of law. Doxxing escalates the conflict, and violates rights to privacy. The Maryland Democratic Party respects the rule of law, and peaceful participation in the legislative process. We ask that advocates on both sides do the same,” the statement read.

Patriot Picket founder, Jeff Hulbert, told A Miner Detail that the Facebook post and follow-up response is “a typical reaction from Democrats who want to feel first and then think later.”

“Government can’t operate when Democrats only navigate with their feelings, ” Hulbert said.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Murders in Mexico Rose by 33% in 2018 gun control is strict

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – Murders in Mexico rose by 33 percent in 2018, breaking the record for a second year running, official data showed, underlining the task facing the new president who has pledged to reduce violence in the cartel-ravaged country.

Investigators opened to 33,341 murder probes compared with the previous year’s record of 25,036, according to information from the Interior Ministry published on Sunday.

Mexico has struggled with years of violence as the government has battled brutal drug cartels, often by taking out their leaders. That has resulted in fragmentation of gangs and increasingly vicious internecine fighting.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Socialist Democrats. No voter I’d, automatic registration.

GOP wipeout came after the Democrats who dominate Sacramento passed laws aimed at greasing their voting machine. The project started in 2015 when California became the second state after Oregon to move to automatic voter registration.

Can’t be bothered to register? California does it for you, automatically adding to its rolls any person who has any interaction with its Department of Motor Vehicles. The system is already a threat to ballot integrity, with the DMV acknowledging in September it had incorrectly registered 23,000 voters.

In 2016 California passed the Voter’s Choice Act, which allows counties to mail every voter a ballot. Lots of Californians use mail voting, though previously they had to request it. Now ballots arrive automatically, whether voters want one or not. Thirteen million California voters received ballots in the mail last year, compared to about nine million in 2014.

The biggest score for Democrats is a separate 2016 law pushed heavily by unionsthat legalized what’s known as ballot harvesting. This allows any person—union activists, canvassers, community organizers, campaign staff—to show up at homes and collect mail ballots on behalf of voters.

California law also allows counting mail ballots postmarked or delivered on Election Day, as well as same-day registration and liberal use of provisional ballots. This year the Democratic vote totals piled up long after the polls closed. Fred Whitaker, chairman of the Orange County GOP, has estimated that an extraordinary 250,000 mail-votes were dropped off on Election Day thanks to harvesting.

All of this is carefully designed to enhance Democratic turnout. Media stories have detailed a sophisticated operation that pinpointed Democratic voters and deployed volunteers to harvest door-to-door. Republicans struggled to get conservatives to hand ballots over to strangers, and Democrats can’t be blamed for better organization.

But California law also creates opportunity for fraud and coercion. Voters in a 2017 special election for an open seat in the California state Assembly reported activists harassed them at their doors to fill out ballots for specific candidates and hand them over.

This creates opportunities for harvesters to “help” voters complete their ballots, or even pay to finish them, and it’s easy for the unscrupulous to lose ballots they think may go for the wrong candidate. This is why ballot harvesting is illegal in many states, or at least limited to drop-offs by family members.

House Democrats are now moving to impose much of this on the other 49 states. Their For the People Act, or H.R.1, would require all states to adopt automatic voter registration based on names in state and federal agency databases. This means anyone receiving federal food stamps in, say, Ohio, would be automatically registered to vote.

The bill also requires states to allow same-day and online voter registration. It mandates looser rules on provisional ballots, requires every state to provide two weeks of early voting, prohibits restrictions on mail voting, and limits states’ ability to remove voters from rolls. Oh, and it will require that the United States Postal Service deliver ballots for free. Vote harvesting isn’t in H.R.1 but give Democrats time.

All this is an affront to the American tradition of letting states set their own election rules. Few states have automatic registration, on the principle that voting is voluntary. Even liberal Slate magazine, in suggesting that the House bill would “Save American Democracy,” acknowledged that some of the bill might not survive Supreme Court scrutiny.

California has become a one-party state, and Democrats have used their dominance to make it even harder for Republicans to compete. Now they want to use their new House majority to do the same for the rest of America. The Senate can stop them for now, but look out in 2021.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Connecticut Democratic Lawmaker Arrested On 19 Voter Fraud Charges

On Friday, Connecticut state Representative Christina “Tita” Ayala, 31 years old, who represents Bridgeport was arrested on 19 counts of voter fraud. The Connecticut State Attorney’s office said that she is accused of voting in various local and state elections where she does not live. Ayala was originally elected into Connecticut’s 128th District in 2012 and lost her reelection campaign.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Where criminals get their guns

The Department of Justice just updated its decades-old study asking criminals where they got the guns they used in committing the crime for which they were currently incarcerated. After asking 287,000 prisoners in 2016 where they got the gun they used, 90 percent of them “did not obtain it from a retail source” and less than one percent obtained it from a gun show.

Half of them obtained their firearm from the “underground” market, while just six percent said they stole it. The survey reported that “most of the remainder had obtained it from a family member or a friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had purchased it under their own name from a licensed firearm dealer.”

In other words, current or pending laws banning “assault weapons” (usually variants of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle) almost totally miss the mark, as nearly every crime was committed using a handgun. Also, those closing the so-called gun show loophole miss the mark as well.

The survey’s results are very similar to the study the DOJ completed back in 1997. Back then, 93 percent of criminals obtained the guns they used illegally, with “straw buyers” — a person buying a gun for another so he won’t have to undergo a background check — representing 40 percent, another 40 percent being obtained from “street dealers (i.e., the black market), and 13 percent being stolen. That left just seven percent obtained legally: five percent from pawn shops or gun dealers, one percent at flea markets, and less than one percent from gun shows.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Congresswoman Cortez Ignorant on Electoral college

There you go again,” Ronald Reagan famously joked in 1980 when President Jimmy Carter painted an inaccurate picture of one of his policies. Perhaps he’d say the same of those who are distorting the history of the Electoral College today.

New York’s newest congresswoman, Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has been quick to jump onto this bandwagon, recently labeling the Electoral College a “shadow of slavery’s power on America.” Others have called it a “living symbol of America’s original sin,” an “antiquated relic of slavery,” or even a “pro-slavery compromise.”

Mere hours into the new Congress, a bill was introduced to eliminate this “outdated” system.

Such a view of the Electoral College’s roots threatens to become conventional wisdom, but nothing could be further from the truth.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

Obviously, some of the Founders owned slaves. Compromises were made in America’s early years because North and South couldn’t agree on whether to continue the institution. Just as obviously, virtually all Americans today wish that slavery had never existed. It’s a part of America’s heritage that is clearly at odds with America’s founding principles.

That does not mean, however, that the Constitution and its presidential election process are simply a “relic of slavery.” The discussions at the Constitutional Convention were shaped more by the delegates’ study of history and political philosophy, as well as their own experiences with Parliament and the state legislatures. They wanted to avoid the mistakes that had been made in other governments. They sought to establish a better constitution that would stand the test of time.

George Washington expressed this conviction, felt so strongly by the founding generation: “[T]he preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of government,” he concluded, “are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”

His words echoed an argument that James Madison had made about a year and a half earlier. Only a republic, Madison had written, “would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.” He thought the experiment worthwhile. The Constitution met these criteria.

Nevertheless, some modern commentators brush this history aside and insist that the compromises at the convention were nothing more than attempts to preserve slavery. Americans, they say, have been fooled into thinking that their heritage is more admirable than it is. The specific charges about the Electoral College in this context are inaccurate, but they need to be addressed since they are raised so often.

First, critics sometimes cite the Constitution’s “three-fifths” compromise, which determined how slaves would be counted in apportioning congressional representation. The South wanted to count each slave as a whole person. The North did not want to count slaves at all—a larger population would give the South more voting power. In the end, convention delegates agreed to count each slave as three-fifths of a person.

But did that compromise really do more for the South or for the North?

If slaves had been counted as whole persons (as the South wanted), then the South would have had even more representatives in Congress. In other words, while the three-fifths compromise is often cited as an advantage for the slave-holding South, it can also be interpreted as a win for the North.

One additional nuance complicates an assessment of the three-fifths compromise—the convention applied the same formula for apportioning direct taxes. The North effectively offered the South a compromise: In return for having fewer representatives in Congress, the South would be assessed less in federal taxes.

A more honest assessment of the three-fifths compromise shows what it really concerned—congressional representation and taxation, not the Electoral College. Indeed, the discussions about the compromise and the discussions about the presidential election system were largely separate. The main reason the compromise is cited today is because, late in the convention, it was decided that each state’s electoral vote allocation would match its congressional allocation.

Overriding all these discussions is a much bigger compromise that was brokered between the large and small states: The large states agreed that representation in the Senate would be based on the principle of “one state, one vote.” The small states agreed that representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population.

This blend between the two types of representation was later reflected in the Electoral College, which gives every state three electors, regardless of its size. The rest of the electors are allocated according to population.

Critics of the Electoral College ignore the larger context of the three-fifths compromise, focusing instead on one statement made by Madison. Taken in isolation, it certainly sounds damning.

“The right of suffrage,” he told the convention in July, “was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern states; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the negroes.”

Since Madison mentioned presidential electors in his very next sentence, Electoral College opponents contend that he was proposing such a system in order to increase Southern political power and to protect slavery.

But Madison wasn’t the first to suggest the use of electors that day. Rufus King of Massachusetts had already mentioned them. King was not in favor of slavery. To the contrary, he worked against it during his lifetime. William Paterson of New Jersey, another slavery opponent, also endorsed the concept of electors that day.

The reality is that the discussion that day wasn’t about slavery or the three-fifths compromise. Madison’s statement was a tangent to the main discussion, which revolved around the president’s eligibility for a second term of office. If the president were chosen by the legislature and also eligible for re-election, some delegates feared that he would end up working too hard to satisfy legislators. After all, he’d be worried about winning their support so he could be re-elected. Executive independence would ultimately suffer.

Indeed, Madison made exactly this point just before his now-controversial comment about the “right of suffrage” in the South. “[T]he appointment of the executive should either be drawn from some source,” he told the delegates, “or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the legislature.”

The delegates were discussing separation of powers. Slavery was not their focus. Indeed, the debates about the presidential election process never focused on slavery. Instead, the delegates discussed whether legislative selection or a national popular vote was preferable. The division was between large and small states, not between slave and free states.

Some of the larger states had slaves, some did not. Some of the smaller states had slaves, some did not. All of the small states, however—slave and free—were worried about the dangers of a simple national popular vote. As slavery opponent Gunning Bedford of Delaware had said so eloquently, the small states simply feared that they would be outvoted by the large states time and time again.

The Electoral College had everything to do with balancing power between large and small states in America’s new experiment in self-governance. It had nothing to do with slavery. What an inconvenient truth for those who would like to eliminate the system.

This excerpt was adapted and taken with permission from Tara Ross’ book, “The Indispensable Electoral College: How the Founders’ Plan Saves Our Country from Mob Rule” (Regnery Gateway, 2017). Some punctuation in quotations has been adjusted from the original version.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Virginia Governor gun control

One of the slang terms we use for gun control supporters is the word “gun grabber.” That term exists because many gun rights advocates feel that the ultimate endgame for gun control is to take away all of our guns.

Yet many gun control backers rankle at the term. I’ve seen more than one recoil at it, arguing that they don’t want to take away anyone’s guns. Who knows, they might even mean it…at least right now.

But the term persists because so many proposals call for taking away people’s lawfully acquired property despite no evidence that they’ve done anything wrong. Frankly, it’s going to keep on persisting too, because of people like Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s latest push.

The plan to ban the sale and possession of certain kinds of firearms proposed by Virginia governor Ralph Northam (D.) could affect millions of gun owners, an industry group said on Friday.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which represents gun manufacturers and dealers, said the vague description of the legislation released by Northam on Jan. 4 would apply to most firearms currently on sale in the commonwealth.

“The legislative proposals being discussed would put most firearms beyond the reach of law-abiding Virginians who choose the firearms of their choice to protect themselves, hunt, and practice recreational target shooting,” said Lawrence G. Keane, the group’s general counsel. “That could potentially impact the availability of tens of millions of firearms.”

While short on details, Northam’s announcement said part of the proposed gun-control package would ban the “sale, purchase, possession, and transport” of undefined “assault firearms” including “any firearm that is equipped with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” Since the vast majority of semiautomatic handguns and rifles in the state are sold standard with magazines capable of holding 10 or more rounds, it appears the proposed ban would affect most firearms on sale in Virginia. Additionally, the announcement of the ban did not include mention of any grandfathering to allow what NSSF estimated would be millions of Virginians who already own such firearms to legally keep them.

The governor’s office did not respond to multiple requests for more details on his proposed ban and confiscation plan or answer questions on how such a plan would be enforced.

Note that the law will ban possession of these weapons. That indicates there won’t be a grandfather clause built in. Instead, it will require gun owners to turn in the firearms the lawfully purchased in accordance with all state and federal laws or else face potential punishment.

Meanwhile, the criminals? Yeah, they’re not going to hand over jack squat.

Of course, neither will a lot of otherwise law-abiding citizens for that matter. They may stash their magazines and play nice while out in public, but they’re going to hold onto those standard capacity magazines.

Northam is simply trying to create a legion of new criminals.

The problem with this, though, is that it won’t accomplish anything. It won’t make anyone safer. We know this. The 1994 assault weapon ban had a negligible impact on crime at best. Banning standard capacity magazines doesn’t make them all go away. Especially at the state level. Especially in a state where so many already exist.

Northam needs to be shut down with this nonsense because all he’s going to do is empower the criminals who ignore the law and make life difficult for those who want to remain law-abiding citizens.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment