Swalwell Suggests Nuking America if Gun Rights Supporters Were to Resist Gun Control Measures

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Sadly I think this dumb bastard is serious about using nukes.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.) suggested the United States government would use nuclear weapons in a theoretical war against gun rights supporters who refuse to give up assault weapons.

The Democratic congressman’s comments were prompted by a Twitter user’s response to an article about Swalwell’s call to force gun owners to relinquish assault weapons. The piece recounts how Swalwell “has proposed outlawing ‘military-style semiautomatic assault weapons’ and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution.”

John Cardillo

@johncardillo

Make no mistake, Democrats want to eradicate the Second Amendment, ban and seize all guns, and have all power rest with the state.

These people are dangerously obsessed with power. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/dem-congressman-force-gun-owners-sell-assault-weapons-n871066 

Democratic congressman: Force gun owners to get rid of assault weapons

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., drops a grenade into the middle of the gun debate.

nbcnews.com

8,077 people are talking about this

“So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your fucking mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the [government] all the power,” Twitter user Joe Biggs said.

“And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities,” Swalwell tweeted in reply.

Joe Biggs

@Rambobiggs

So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your fucking mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power.

Rep. Eric Swalwell

@RepSwalwell

And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

21K people are talking about this

“So our government would nuke its own country in order to take guns? Wow,” Biggs responded.

“Don’t be so dramatic. You claiming you need a gun to protect yourself against the government is ludicrous. But you seem like a reasonable person. If an assault weapons ban happens, I’m sure you’ll follow law,” Swalwell tweeted back.

Joe Biggs

@Rambobiggs

So our government would nuke its own country in order to take guns? Wow

Rep. Eric Swalwell

@RepSwalwell

Don’t be so dramatic. You claiming you need a gun to protect yourself against the government is ludicrous. But you seem like a reasonable person. If an assault weapons ban happens, I’m sure you’ll follow law.

2,446 people are talking about this

A poll obtained by the Washington Free Beacon found that repealing the Second Amendment is the second most important issue for Democrats in this country, behind only single payer health care. Twenty-four percent of Democrats said it was their most important issue.

Swalwell later attempted to clarify his comments by saying he was being sarcastic.

“I sarcastically point[ed] out USA isn’t losing to his assault weapon (it’s not the 18th Century),” he said.

Rep. Eric Swalwell

@RepSwalwell

America’s gun debate in one thread.

1) I propose a buy-back of assault weapons

2) Gun owner says he’ll go to war with USA if that happens

3) I sarcastically point out USA isn’t losing to his assault weapon (it’s not the 18th Century)

4) I’m called a tyrant

5) 0 progress

13.1K people are talking about this

He also retweeted a back-and-forth with radio host Joe Walsh, in which Swalwell also said he was being sarcastic.

Joe Walsh

@WalshFreedom

Eric, I get that your use of “nukes” was sarcasm, and, yep, twitter doesn’t do nuance.

But understand how many of us gun clinging Americans recoil at the word “confiscation” and will do whatever we have to do to defend our guns against a government that would take them. Thanks

Rep. Eric Swalwell

@RepSwalwell

Replying to @WalshFreedom

Joe, it’s sarcasm. He said he’s going to war with America if gun legislation was passed. I told him his government has nukes. God forbid we use sarcasm 🤷‍♂️

2,101 people are talking about this

Swalwell has been floated as a potential 2020 presidential candidate, and the congressman said earlier this month he is “absolutely” looking into a run.

Update 5:16 p.m.: This post was updated with Swalwell’s later tweets describing the initial point as “sarcasm.”

Advertisements

The Bonus Army

H/T Beyond The Band Of Brothers.

A shameful example of how our veterans have been being screwed over by our government.

When World War I veterans faced U.S. troops.

War veterans are generally, and most often rightfully, considered to be the truest patriots of their nation. As a result, incidents of veterans facing down serving soldiers or police elicit great media attention and are often a sign that something is going very wrong. One such occasion occurred in July, 1932.

The U.S. military established the tradition of paying bonuses to veterans in 1776, during the War of Independence, with the purpose of compensating soldiers for the loss of money they could have made in better-paying civilian professions. World War I veterans were promised a $60 bonus but didn’t even get that after the war. Instead, Congress passed a bill in 1924, overriding the veto of President Calvin Coolidge, to award a bonus based on time served. Sums up to $50 were paid in cash. Bonuses above that, however, were paid as a certificate that would only mature and become payable 20 years later. Most of these were issued in 1925, for a maturity date of 1945.

unnamed
Veterans on the steps of the U.S. Capitol

The Great Depression struck in 1929 and many veterans lost their jobs and homes. They could borrow a part of their promised bonus as a loan but for many even this was not enough to support their families. In the summer of 1932, a group of veterans led by former sergeant Walter W. Waters set out from Portland, Oregon and hopped on freight trains, heading to Washington, D.C. to lobby for an early payment on their bonus certificates. As news of the venture spread, similar groups were set up and moved out towards the capital all across the country.

unnamed
Veterans headed for Washington, D.C. on freight cars

The first marchers, now called the Bonus Expeditionary Arm, or Bonus Army for short, reached Washington, D.C. on May 25, 1932 and started setting up, with their numbers soon bolstered to around 17,000 with another 26,000 family members and affiliated groups. Some stayed in empty houses or vacant lots but many built themselves shantytowns, the largest one on the Anacostia Flats a couple of miles from the White House, scavenging construction materials from a nearby dump.

unnamed (1)
An orderly street in a veterans’ encampment

The camp reflected its builders’ military discipline. It had clearly delineated streets, sanitation facilities, barber shops, a library, a post office and even a newspaper. Veterans could only move into the camp after registering and proving they were honorably discharged. Alcohol, fighting and communist propaganda were forbidden.

unnamed
One of several veterans’ shantytowns on the Anacostia Flats

Public opinion was on the veterans’ side and they even enjoyed the sympathy of Police Superintendent Pelham D. Glassford, who himself served in the war as a brigadier general. Another supporter, at least early on, was Army Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur, who sent the demonstrators tents and camp equipment.

unnamed
Hands in the air: on July 13, Glassford asked protesters on Capitol grounds to raise their hands if they had served in France and were 100 percent American

On June 15, 1932 the House of Representatives passed a bill to pay the veterans ahead of time but it was defeated in the Senate two days later. Many protesters packed up and went home but a strong contingent remained in the capital, making President Hoover and his administration panic.

unnamed (1)
Police clashing with veterans on July 28, 1932

On July 28, Glassford was ordered to break up the protest with the police. During the confrontation, shots were fired and two veterans suffered fatal wounds. With events spiraling out of control, the Army was sent in. The operation was personally overseen by Douglas MacArthur, who withdrew his support from the veterans. Dwight D. Eisenhower was serving as his aide and the cavalry troop slated to spearhead the effort was commanded by Major George Patton.

unnamed
MacArthur and Eisenhower during the conflict with the Bonus Army

Supported by six tanks for intimidation, infantry and cavalry showed up at the protest. Believing the troops were marching in their honor, the veterans cheered. Then the cavalry charged. Infantry followed with fixed bayonets and Adamsite candle: cans dispersing smoke laced with an arsenic-based vomiting agent. The veterans retreated to their main camp across the Anacostia River. Hoover ordered the troops not to pursue but MacArthur ignored the order and went after the protesters. During the fight, the shantytown was set on fire and burned to the ground overnight. A small child died, a veteran’s wife suffered a miscarriage, 55 veterans were wounded and 135 were arrested during the attack.

unnamed (1)
Bonus Army encampment on fire, with the Washington Monument visible in the distance

The Bonus Army was dispersed but moral victory was theirs. Glassford soon resigned from his post as Police Superintendent. MacArthur was heavily criticized for his part in the conflict and the incident is generally considered as the low point of his career. Later that year, in November 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt defeated President Hoover in the elections in a landslide victory, which was partially enabled by the events earlier in the year.

unnamed
Shacks burning in the aftermath of the attack, with the Capitol Building in the background

n 1933, another, smaller Bonus Army marched on Washington, D.C. again. Like Hoover, FDR was also unwilling to pay the bonuses early but handled the situation better. Giving the Secret Service the slip, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt visited the veteran’s camp without an escort, singing Army songs with them and giving an impromptu speech, successfully defusing the situation. To help the veterans in need, 25,000 positions were opened up for them in the Civilian Conversation Corps, a work relief program. The matter was finally laid to rest in 1936, when Congress agreed to pay the veterans’ bonus ahead of time – overriding the President’s veto and paving the way for the G.I. Bill of 1944.

You can learn more about how soldiers adapted to civilian life after the serving in war on our American Civil WarFields of World War I and World War II tours.

Dem Rep. Jim Clyburn Says Fellow Democrats Opposed To His Role As Majority Whip Are Racist

H/T Godfather Politics.

There is a war brewing in the DemocRat party.

Rep. Jim Clyburn accused other Democrats of using racially-charged “dog whistles” to undermine his bid to be House majority whip.

“I don’t know where it’s all coming from,” Clyburn, currently the assistant Democratic leader, said in an interview with McClatchy. “But someone came to me over the weekend and told me that (they heard), when I was whip before, I was a figurehead.”

TWFB:

Rep. James Clyburn (D., S.C.), the assistant Democratic leader, said Thursday that “dog whistles” were being used to oppose him in his campaign to be the next House majority whip, something he never expected to come from friends and fellow Democrats.

“This whole notion that I’m some kind of, or was some kind of a token is a bunch of poppycock,” Clyburn told MSNBC host Craig Melvin. “You expect those things … to be used in these campaigns, and I expect to hear dog whistles in campaigns. I never expected to hear it coming from friends and supporters of my colleagues.”

Clyburn is the only African-American on the top Democratic leadership team.

As Democrats prepare take back the lower chamber in January, there is a fight over leadership brewing. The Washington Post reports that Rep. Marcia Fudge (D., Ohio) is “overwhelmed” by the amount of support from fellow Democrats urging her to challenge House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) for the speakership. The race for speaker of the House is not the only leadership position that might be shaken up. More

Did Democrat Rep. Jim Clyburn just call his own party members racist? The Democrats are now playing the race card on each other. Wow, is anyone surprised by this?

Are they opposed to his role as Majority Whip because he’s older and needs to step aside for younger blood? A brief look at Clyburn’s district would make anyone question his competency to lead. How he stays in office is way beyond my understanding.

What is it with Democrats always looking for something said that is gender or racially insensitive as well as using the race/woman card when up against something? 

Police Chief Pledges Officers Won’t Enforce Washington State Gun Control Law

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Bravo Chief Loren Culp of the Republic Washington Police Department for standing up for the Second Amendment.

The police chief for the Washington town of Republic promised residents that his force would respect their right to bear arms, no matter the state’s restrictive gun laws.

In a Facebook post last week, Chief Loren Culp argued the U.S. Constitution ensured the private right of individuals to their firearms. “As long as I am Chief of Police,” Culp wrote, “no Republic Police Officer will infringe on a citizens right to keep and Bear Arms, PERIOD!”

The post had been shared over two thousand times by Friday morning. Republic is a town of just over a thousand residents.

Culp’s post followed a statewide vote on Washington State Initiative No. 1639 (I-1639). The Seattle Times described the initiative as making “Washington’s firearms laws among the strictest in the country.” The initiative passed with 60 recent of voters in support.

In comments to KXLY, Culp said disregarding the initiative’s result was the lawful thing to do. “We took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of Washington,” he said, and the initiative “completely flies in the face of both the U.S. and state constitution.”

Pro-gun and Bill of Rights groups have taken measures in response to last week’s vote. The Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association filed suit in court Thursday, challenging the bans as unconstitutional. “Initiative 1639 classifies ordinary, recreational firearms in common use as ‘assault’ weapons, denies young adults the right to self-protection, and bans the sale of firearms to out-of-state residents,” according to the NRA.

“A handful of billionaires put in millions of dollars to buy votes and we were outspent,” said Alan Gottlieb of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. “But while they were able to buy votes, our hope is they won’t be able to buy judges.”

Chief Culp is a veteran of the U.S. Army.

The Wrong Time to Cut Defense

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Please, Mr.President do not cut any money from the Defense Budget.

Bathhouse Barry Obama gutted had our military it needs to be rebuilt.

Column: A new bipartisan report exposes the dangers facing America.

Last month, when the Treasury Department reported that the fiscal year 2018 deficit was a staggering $779 billion, President Trump made an announcement. Before meeting with his cabinet, the president said he would be asking every secretary to trim five percent, “if not more,” from his or her budget. Nor would he exempt the department of Defense.

Here’s hoping Trump changes his mind. Cutting the resources available to the Pentagon is a bad idea. A new report from the bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission underscores just how bad.

Providing for the Common Defense” is the consensus of a dozen national security experts, including Jack Keane, Senator Jon Kyl, Eric Edelman, Gary Roughead, Michael Morell, Anne Patterson, and Roger Zakheim. These are sober people. Experienced people. They are not given to exaggeration. Yet their conclusions are alarming. “The security and wellbeing of the United States are at greater risk than at any time in decades,” they write. “America’s military superiority—the hard-power backbone of its global influence and national security—has eroded to a dangerous degree.”

Great-power competition returned as our military advantage dissipated. “America’s ability to defend its allies, its partners, and its own vital interests is increasingly in doubt.”

That’s more than a wakeup call. It’s an air horn inches from your ear.

Not only has the range of threats expanded. So has the battle space. In addition to China and Russia, there are the smaller weapon-states the autocracies use to probe, divide, and entrap America and her allies: North Korea, Iran, and Syria. Nor has the Salafi-jihadist movement left the field. Reduced to its last bastions in Syria, ISIS and its comrades await the moment the United States exits Afghanistan.

Once America had to assert supremacy over global sea-lanes and air traffic. Now it must also claim the high ground in the commons of space and cyber. “U.S. military superiority is no longer assured,” says the commission, “and the implications for American interests and American security are severe.”

This crisis was a long time in the making. For decades, America has short-changed defense, especially our navy, ground forces, nuclear weapons, ballistic missile defenses, and the research and development necessary to maintain a qualitative strategic edge. Yet the commission points to the Budget Control Act of 2011—the so-called sequester—as the essential instrument of our debilitation. “In percentage terms,” the authors write, the sequester was responsible for “the fastest drawdown since the years following the Korean War.”

The withering of resources occurred as American soldiers fought in Afghanistan, returned to Iraq and entered Syria, and found themselves deployed in places like Niger. “By 2017, all of the military services were at or near post-World War II lows in terms of end-strength, and all were confronting severe readiness crises and enormous deferred modernization costs.” The military budget was increased in FY2013, FY2015, and again most significantly in FY2018 thanks to President Trump and the Republican 115th Congress. It is not enough. “As the world has become more threatening, America has weakened its own defense.”

The commission supports the National Defense Strategy released earlier this year by Secretary of Defense James Mattis and lauds “its candid assessment of the strategic environment, the priority it places on preparing for major-power competition and conflict, its emphasis on the enduring value of U.S. alliances and partnerships, and its attention to issues of readiness and lethality.” The Pentagon document complemented the National Security Strategy and its doctrine of “principled realism” issued by the White House last December. What troubles the commission, however, is a lack of specificity. “Absent a more integrated, whole-of-government strategy than has been evident to date, the United States is unlikely to reverse its rivals’ momentum across an evolving, complex spectrum of competition.”

China, Russia, and Iran seek hegemony over spheres of influence. Aware of their weakness against the superpower, they advance strategic goals through unconventional means: hybrid warfare, gray-zone aggression, threats of nuclear escalation, cyber-attacks, industrial espionage, and the reflexive control that limits an adversary’s options before a conflict begins. Meanwhile, American strategic thinking is adrift. “Unfortunately, the innovative operational concepts we need do not currently appear to exist.”

Reducing defense spending in this environment would be more than foolish. It would be a non sequitur. The Pentagon budget is not the reason for America’s indebtedness. Consider last month’s deficit: revenues were $253 billion and receipts $353 billion for a deficit of $100 billion. Where did the spending go? Sixty-nine billion dollars were spent on defense, and $137 billion spent on Social Security and Medicare. That’s close to twice as much on entitlements than on the military. Defense spending is three percent of our economy. Interest on the debt—for which we get nothing but a solid credit rating—has averaged 2 percent. It may rise to 3 percent by 2027.

The debt won’t be fixed until entitlements are. And entitlements won’t be fixed until they absolutely have to be. An irony is that defense spending not only underwrites international security. It also backstops American profligacy. America hasn’t had to reckon with its debt because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency. This exorbitant privilege is as likely to be revoked by a national-security crisis as a financial one. That was the case when the dollar replaced the pound sterling, and America supplanted the United Kingdom as the guarantor of international security, at the end of World War II. Not only is defense spending a more effective economic stimulus than transfer payments. By deterring threats and promoting stability, it delays the day of reckoning when America’s accounts will have to be balanced.

The Trump administration has identified the enemy: resurgent great powers, most significantly China, whose ultimate objective is disestablishing American preeminence. The administration has also taken the first steps to counter revisionist autocrats by boosting the Pentagon, resuming freedom of navigation missions in the South China Sea, sanctioning Russia, opposing Nord Stream 2, and withdrawing from the INF treaty. The beginnings of a long-term strategy of American nationalism can be found in the administration motto that “economic security is national security,” and in its focus on the defense industrial base as the seedbed of American primacy. The National Defense Strategy Commission has 32 policy recommendations of its own. These include cancelling the remaining sequester and continuing increases in the defense budget. That is the very opposite of an across-the-board five-percent cut.

America spent years digging the strategic hole in which it finds itself. We stopped with last year’s defense appropriation bill. Why start again? Put the shovel away, Mr. President.

Making the Lame Duck Session Count

H/T AmmoLand.

The Lame Duck Session is critical for the GOP but look for Flakey Jeff to toss a monkey wrench in the works.

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Now that the midterms are over, Republicans have a short amount of time to accomplish a great deal. This is their last stretch of having full control of the Congress, and they should work with President Trump to take full advantage.

First, Republicans must pass the remaining appropriation bills, including spending bills for Homeland Security and agriculture. There will doubtlessly be Democrat attempts to stall or block conservative measures in these remaining spending bills, but leadership must insist on including them. It is very unlikely that Senator Chuck Schumer will want to start the 2020 presidential cycle by shutting the government down.

Second, Republicans have an opportunity this year to block a job-killing, innovation-halting, health care cost-increasing tax hike. If Congress doesn’t do something to stop it, the tax increase on medical devices, which was born out of Obamacare and has been temporarily halted by Congress twice due to its destructive consequences, will go into effect.

From 2013 to 2015, the years this tax increase was in effect, the medical device industry in America lost 28,800 jobs, while in the first year alone, investment in industry research and development fell by $34 million. (This is largely because of the way the tax is structured and the complex, competitive nature of the health care market. Companies can’t directly pass the tax on to consumers, so they must carve the cost out of salaries, innovation, and investment.) Further, it taxes 2.3 percent of revenue (rather than profit or quantity) made from selling a variety of different medical devices. This means that if a small company selling these devices doesn’t even make a profit for the year, they still must pay the tax increase. Weakening or killing small, innovative entrepreneurial startups hurts the economy and slows needed improvements in health care.

This tax increase is overwhelmingly opposed by members of Congress. In July, the House passed a measure to repeal the tax 283-132 – with 57 Democrats joining Republicans to kill this horrible tax. However, parliamentary maneuverings seem to have bottled up efforts to stop the tax increase in the Senate.

Since Democrats tend to like higher taxes, it is unlikely Nancy Pelosi will allow another vote on this in the House when she reclaims the speaker’s gavel next session. The time to act is now.

Third, Republicans have an opportunity to prove the media and the Left wrong, by passing the FIRST STEP Act – a bipartisan bill to reform our broken federal prison system. This bill follows the examples of states like, Georgia and Texas, which have all passed important reforms to reduce both crime and prison populations.

Among many other things, the FIRST STEP act would create a system by which every incoming federal prisoner would be assessed for their needs and risks and given the opportunity to participate in job training, faith-based activities, or other educational programs tailored to reducing the likelihood the inmate will return to crime upon release.

For those who enter the prison system addicted to drugs, the bill would instruct the Bureau of Prisons to develop a plan to actually help them get healthy – this importantly includes medication-assisted treatment for inmates addicted to opioids.

The prison system we have now is indisputably broken. There are more than 2 million Americans in state or federal prison right now. Further, 2.7 million children in the United States have parents who are locked up. Seventy-seven percent of those prisoners who are released are re-arrested within five years. No one can claim a system with a 77 percent failure rate is working. And the fact that we are spending $80 billion a year to support this failing system is an absurdity.

The FIRST STEP Act has passed the House by a bipartisan vote of 360-59, with 134 Democrats signed on to it. This is largely because the American people want these reforms. They instinctively know that people who are addicted to drugs or simply born into a violent life with limited options, will be less likely to commit crimes if they can do something better.

Republicans must pass this bill before the end of the year.

These achievements would guarantee a very successful lame-duck session.

Your Friend,
Newt


Flake to halt judicial nominees until Mueller protection bill passed

H/T The Washington Times.

There is nothing that can protect Witchhunt Mueller as he is an employee of the DOJ and can be fired at any time.

Sadly Flakey Jeff’s replacement in the Senate will not be any better.

Sen. Jeff Flake announced Wednesday that he will not vote to advance any new judicial nominees through the Judiciary Committee, nor will he vote to confirm picks on the Senate floor, until he gets his way on unrelated legislation to prevent the firing of special counsel Robert Mueller.

Mr. Flake made the announcement on the Senate floor minutes after his bid to pass the bill failed.

His threat could block the committee from approving any more judges this year, since the GOP only holds a one-seat majority on the panel.

It’s less catastrophic to approving judges on the Senate floor, where the GOP holds 51 seats. Even losing Mr. Flake, Republicans could still approve judges on a 50-50 vote with Vice President Mike Pence breaking the tie.

Still, the senator’s move was a major escalation in the battle over Mr. Mueller, who is investigating the 2016 election, Russian interference and Trump campaign figures’ behavior.

Mr. Flake and Sen. Chris Coons tried to get the Senate to pass a bill that would have prevented Mr. Mueller from being fired without good cause.

They said their bill is of critical importance now that Mr. Trump has ousted Attorney General Jeff Sessions and named an acting attorney general who some fear is looking to curtail the probe.

“The president now has this investigation in his sights, and we all know it,” Mr. Flake said.

He tried to speed the protection bill through the Senate, but fellow Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, blocked that.

“I don’t think any legislation’s necessary,” Mr. McConnell had told reporters hours earlier.

He said he agrees the Mueller probe should be allowed to finish, but said he has not seen any evidence that Mr. Trump will sink the investigation.

Still, Mr. Flake’s threat to action on judicial nominees strikes at Mr. McConnell’s heart. He has said his top priority as the GOP’s Senate leader is confirming the president’s judicial picks.