Radical Left’s 1st Item of Business: Retire Bill Of Rights, Starting w/ 2nd Amendment

H/T AmmoLand.

Remember one important fact the Second Amendment is the guardian of the other nine rights spelled out in the Bill Of Rights.

Bill Of Rights Suspended National Defense Authorization Act
Radical Left’s 1st Item of Business: Retire Bill Of Rights, Starting w/ 2nd Amendment

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- Recall, it wasn’t long ago that retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, remarked that the Second Amendment should be redrafted to make clear and unequivocal that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not an individual, unalienable, immutable right. Stevens authored a book audaciously titled, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.” In it, he proclaimed the need for a massive redraft of the Bill of Rights. Disagreeing with the idea of a set of fundamental, immutable, natural rights implicit in it, he wished to replace it, to reflect his vision of the world, one at odds with the vision of the framers.

In his book, Stevens devotes attention to the Second Amendment to reflect his philosophy, his vision of America. His remarks constitute a vehement denunciation of the Heller rulings—as penned by the late eminent high Court Justice, Antonin Scalia—a strong denunciation Stevens dared not articulate in his dissent to the Heller decision.

But, on further reflection, Stevens evidently felt that a substantial redraft of the Second Amendment would be insufficient to set the Country on the course he sought: one cohering with the tenets of Collectivism. So, he went further. He argued for the outright abolition of the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms. The left-wing Magazine Time, citing John Paul Stevens’ Op-Ed appearing in The New York Times, wrote:

“Retired Associate Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has an idea for addressing gun violence in America: repeal the Second Amendment.”

Unfortunately, John Paul Stevens isn’t the only Supreme Court Justice who has condemned and has exhibited contempt for the Constitution the framers gave to us. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who presently sits on the Supreme Court, has also espoused little regard for our Constitution. The Daily Signal took Ginsburg to task:

“Conservatives are often ridiculed for criticizing activist judges who fail to respect the Constitution. We are told that it is not conservative originalists (labeled ignorant and extremist) but rather enlightened liberal judges—with their nuanced understanding of constitutional penumbras—who truly respect the spirit of the Constitution.

Justice Ginsburg
For example, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an Egyptian TV station that she would not recommend the U.S. Constitution as the model for Egypt’s new government.

Conservatives, however, have good reason to be skeptical of the left’s ‘respect’ for the Constitution. . . for example, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an Egyptian TV station that she would not recommend the U.S. Constitution as the model for Egypt’s new government. The problem, you see, is that the U.S. Constitution is ‘a rather old constitution.’ Ginsburg suggested that Egyptians should look instead to the Constitution of South Africa or perhaps the European Convention on Human Rights. All these are ‘much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.’

Ginsburg’s comments echo those by Washington University professor David Law, who published a study with Mila Versteeg on the U.S. Constitution’s declining influence worldwide. In an interview, Law unfavorably compared the Constitution to ‘Windows 3.1’—outdated and unattractive in a world of sleek and sexy modern constitutions. Such obsession with the age of the Constitution is both absurd and irrelevant.

Equally ridiculous is the claim that the Constitution is too antiquated to apply to the modern world. The principles of the Constitution, although first articulated centuries ago, are not tied to the material conditions of a bygone age. They rest on that most solid and enduring of all foundations: human nature. The Constitution itself contains no policy prescriptions. Rather, it is a short, elegantly written document that creates a framework for a free people to confront the political questions of their times.”

Slightly over a year ago, the National Review pointed out that, with the various changes Democrats would like to make to the U.S. Constitution, they dared not mention, at that time, what they really are after. They realize that to make their Collectivist nightmare of America a reality, it is necessary to do away with the Constitution as it is the framework for our Constitutional Republic, which they seek to undo.

But even as Congressional Democrats do not, at least at the moment, talk expressly of rewriting the U.S. Constitution in its entirety, the Democrats’ bullhorn, the mainstream media, has shown no such reluctance in doing so: proclaiming what the Collectivist world view requires.

The Leftist magazine, Harper’s, emblazoned its October 2019 cover with an incredibly audacious question, as the lead-in to the magazine’s featured article, “Do We Need the Constitution?”

Perusing the article, the reader comes to understand that the question is not only audacious; it is rhetorical. A subtitle within the magazine makes that clear, as Harpers presumptuously asks: “Has America’s founding document become the nation’s undoing?” Several Radical Left academic luminaries, namely Donna Edwards, Mary Anne Franks, David Law, Lawrence Lessig, and Louis Michael Seidman, address the presumed and misplaced—as they see it—subservience of the Nation to the U.S. Constitution. Harpers’ readers are obviously supposed to take on faith that the arguments evinced are logically sound, reasonable, and profound. But even a perfunctory analysis makes clear enough that the remarks amount to nothing more than sophistry, a collective superficial polemic, scarcely hiding the academicians’ contempt for the very framework of our Nation. Consider: how is it that Harpers and the Radical Left academicians would reconcile abandonment of a Constitution, one that has stood the test of time, with the idea implicit in the concept of “Rule of Law” that they apparently subscribe to and to the notion that they would ostensibly also ascribe to, namely that, in our Constitutional Republic, we, as Americans are ruled by law, not by men? Without a Constitution, as the backbone of our body of law built up over time, how might the American citizenry fare, under a new transnational system of governance–one predicated on Collectivist tenets that, at their core, eschew the dignity, sanctity, and inviolability of the individual?

The slippery slope of incessant, incendiary, insufferable Leftist attacks on various parts of the Constitution in the Harpers’ feature article, ends with a proclamation in response to the rhetorical question, do we need the U.S. Constitution? “No we don’t need this U.S. Constitution at all”—which is to say, the concept of our Sovereign Independent Nation-State, as a Constitutional free, Democratic Republic, as laid out in our “rather old Constitution,” as Ruth Bader Ginsburg asserts, is too old-hat, to continue to exist and should be replaced: but replaced with what exactly?

Through the words and actions of the Democrat Party leadership, along with the words and actions of Radical Left elements within the Party and within the greater society at large, and with the policy prescriptions of the Democrat Party Candidates for U.S. President, as mentioned in the Party debates, the American people should have a pretty good clue what these people they have in mind for the Nation if they gain the reins of power.

How Can Jewish People Best Defend Against Violent Antisemitic Hate-Crime

H/T AmmoLand.

The best way that our Jewish brothers and sisters can defend against antisemitic violence is by being armed and train in the use of their chosen weapon.

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- The recent violent attacks against Jews in New York City and in other cities around the Country are not the first and, unfortunately, won’t be the last. But all Americans can be subject to violence.

National pro-Second Amendment websites such as Ammoland Shooting Sports News, NRA, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, The Truth About Guns, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, Second Amendment Foundation, and the podcast Lock N Load Radio, among many other pro-Second Amendment rights websites, podcasts, and pro-Second Amendment alternative media organizations, know this.

Immersed in illusion and delusion, incessantly bombarded by lies spawned by the seditious mainstream media propaganda machine which controls much of what the average person sees and hears, Americans are not only encouraged to act against their own best interests but are psychologically conditioned to do so. Mass psychosis is slowly and inexorably descending on the American citizenry, callously orchestrated and mercilessly executed through a massive, monstrous indoctrination and brainwashing disinformation campaign.

The Radical Left and mainstream media argue that the Second Amendment is no longer a necessary guarantor of Americans’ life and liberty but a dated and useless artifact.

Many Americans, especially those who are members of minority communities, learn this the hard way when they face brutal attacks. They find that responsibility for one’s physical safety and well-being rests, as it must and always did, with them, as individuals, and not in others; and certainly not in Government—and that Government, amassing complete control over the thoughts and actions of the American public, would be the ruin of us all.

First, the Government, through the police, does not have the resources to protect every citizen even if they wanted to. Second, there is no legal requirement that the police have a duty to guarantee the physical safety of an individual even when informed of an imminent threat to the physical safety of that individual. The Courts have made this point clear, as the Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out.

It is deception on the part of both government officials and the mainstream seditious Press to suggest otherwise, and it is deceitful of Government and the Press to keep this critical information from the American public.

Why do Government and the mainstream seditious Press do this? They do this because they want the American people to believe that the police exist to protect Americans, as individuals. Police, though, cannot protect the life of every innocent American and they do not have the legal duty to do so except in very rare circumstances.

These Radical Left government officials, and the mainstream seditious Press that is in league with them, are needlessly placing the lives of innocent people at serious risk of harm. Even as they claim to care about the sanctity of human life, they demonstrate their blatant disregard for it. The Arbalest Quarrel has written about this, pointing to the inconsistency, duplicity, and hypocrisy of the Radical Left government officials and the seditious Press that echoes their sentiments.

On October 27, 2018, a lunatic shot and killed eleven people and wounded six other Congregants of a Synagogue, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Then, fourteen months later, a raging, rabid, hate-filled lunatic, armed with a machete, brutally stabbed and slashed, one critically, members of a deeply religious sect of the Jewish Community in New York, who were simply, innocently celebrating their Holiday at the home of their Rabbi. This incident received wide coverage, and ABC News did extensive reporting on it, providing New York’s Governor, Andrew Cuomo, and New York City’s Mayor, Bill de Blasio, another political platform in which to enunciate the usual platitudes. And what were their answers to horrific violent hate-crime? As one might expect Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio merely offered Government as the sole solution to violent hate crime.

On his website, Governor Cuomo reiterates with pretentious certitude the demonstrative falsehood that the public can rely on government alone for protection.Cuomo snorts: “And government’s jobs is to protect people and this state government will protect people of the Jewish faith and every other religion in this state.”

Americans, though, are coming around to the truth; and the truth is that one’s physical safety and security rests with the individual. What counts is meaningful action, not more hollow government rhetoric.

Following the brutal attacks on innocent people, the Arbalest Quarrel consulted with a Rabbi, a leader of the York City Jewish community, who expressed concern over the proposed solutions offered by Cuomo and de Blasio.

The Rabbi asked us: “What can members of the Jewish community, as individuals, do to truly protect their life and that of their friends and family members.” We explained that “self-defense is not only a fundamental, natural right but a duty and the best means of self-defense is a firearm.”

Having made the points that we did, the Rabbi asked us how individuals in his Congregation can responsibly protect themselves with a firearm. We told the Rabbi that we would consult with the Seneca Sporting Range, and, after doing so, we prepared a letter on behalf of the Range which then sent the letter to members of the New York City Jewish community. The exact content of the letter is as follows:

Seneca Sporting Range Responds To The Urgent Needs Of The Jewish Community Of New York City

January 10, 2020

The recent violent attacks against Jews in New York City and in other Cities around the Country are not the first and, unfortunately, won’t be the last.

How can Jews best protect themselves and their families against continued violent attacks spawned by hate? Governor Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio recognize the threat.

Governor Cuomo says that the December 28, 2019 violent attack on the home of a Hasidic Rabbi is an ‘act of domestic terrorism.’ New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio calls the recent attack against Jews, a ‘crisis.’

And, in response to the horrific attack Mayor de Blasio announced more police patrols in Jewish communities and ordered an “‘intensified curriculum’ focused on anti-Semitism, to teach young people that attacks motivated by hate or ignorance breed more violence.”

City officials said they would add more security cameras and light towers in ultra-orthodox Jewish Communities.

This is all fine, but the burning fact remains antisemitism and violent attacks against Jews are not a new phenomenon.

The burning question is why didn’t Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio implement enhanced security measures all along to prevent from happening the very tragedy that occurred?

The problem is that politicians tend to operate reactively not proactively, and all too often a government’s response to a crisis is half-hearted, insufficient, and demonstrably deficient, aimed at defusing political fallout rather than on actually solving a serious problem.

But, if Mayor de Blasio’s proposals if implemented are not adequate to provide the Jewish community with the safety and security it needs and deserves, what, then, is the answer?

What can the Jewish community do? What can you do?

The first thing you can and, in fact, must do is accept the fact that the matter of securing your physical safety and well-being and that of your family rests ultimately on you, not Government. We are talking here of personal defense: self-defense.

Self-defense is a fundamental, immutable, unalienable right. It is a primordial right and the most sacred of God-given rights. And self-defense is an absolute duty.

Further, contrary to common belief, it is not the duty of Government, through the police, to guarantee your personal safety, security and well-being, and it never was. The Government is immune from liability to individuals for failure to ensure their protection. You can read about this here: http://arbalestquarrel.com/can-we-as-individuals-rely-on-the-police-to-protect-us/


A firearm in the hands of a responsible, law-abiding, trained individual is the best defense against a serious physical threat. This isn’t supposition. It is fact. But, the decision to obtain a firearm is a serious one; never to be taken lightly.

At Seneca Sporting Range we take the ownership and possession of a firearm seriously.

We provide a complete package of services that includes preparation of City handgun license applications.

Our certified instructors will guide you in the selection of and training in the use of and proper, safe handling and caring of a handgun. You will learn how to shoot a handgun and will gain proficiency in doing so. We will teach you techniques and the strategies of armed self-defense.

I am here to assist you in your personal decision to lawfully possess, handle, and safeguard your firearm. Please call Seneca Sporting Range at (917) 414-2186.

Our website is at this link: www.senecasportingrange.com. We operate by appointment only and all communications are confidential.


John Deloca,

Owner, Seneca Sporting Range, Inc.

It is our fervent hope that we can eventually change the false perception about guns and gun ownership that Radical Left politicians and a seditious Press have planted in the mind of many Americans. It is unfortunate that it takes a horrific act of violence before many Americans come to their senses and realize that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not an archaic and obsolete phrase, but an immutable, unalienable truth, as relevant and as necessary today as it was when the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791.

A Grassroots Movement in America has begun as a response to the serious imminent threats to the physical safety of individuals. Conversations are underway in Synagogues, Churches, Mosques, and other places of worship. And discussions are also taking place, if quietly, in our schools, universities, and workplaces, over the question of how a person can effectively defend his or her life in light of Government’s obvious failure to do so.

A firearm in the hands of a law-abiding, responsible, trained individual was, is, and will forever be the best means of self-defense. It is futile, dishonest, and vain for anyone to deny this.

Arbalest Quarrel

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

Conservatives Love McSally’s Brutal Media Diss

H/T Town Hall.

I want to say Bravo to Martha McSalley(R-AZ)for calling a spade a spade by calling the CNN commentator a liberal hack.

I had pretty much written off Martha McSally as a loser, a sure loss of the crucial Arizona Senate seat she got handed after flubbing a campaign to win the state’s other one, but it looks like I was wonderfully wrong. Somewhere along the line, McSally got woke, calling a liberal hack from CNN a “liberal hack” and inspiring a million Dem-loving media tears. It was glorious, and overdue. McSally laid out that simpering microphone jockey and showed that maybe she can take the fight to her gun-stealing, socialist-tolerating astronaut opponent and keep our seat.

Fredocon cruise director Bill “Ahoy” Kristol and the usual suspects wet themselves over her show of awesomeness – as a conservative, that’s a mighty credibility boost right there. By the way she owned her play and milked it for earned media afterwards, it looks like she figured out that she’s got zero chance if she’s just another GOP weenie too frightened by the over-paid, under-successful consultant class suits surrounding her to toss a haymaker at some punk reporter. It’s about time.

She used to be an Air Force A-10 pilot, riding a 30mm cannon into battle. I know from a pal who was an underclassman that she was a beast to her charges at the Academy (he says she’s top notch, but he’s also Air Force so you gotta factor that in).

Yet, like most career military going into politics, she was pretty useless for a long time, just sort of stumbling through, losing a key election and generally being nice and polite and open-minded and across-the-aisle reaching.

Ugh. Never go full Romney.

McSally is a literal hero, in military terms – an example to be emulated. But as a Republican senator, she just wasn’t getting it done. And she needed to hear that. She needed to unleash the Thunderbolt II pilot that was in there somewhere, buried under layers of consultant goo, just waiting for a chance to send a volley of figurative depleted uranium rounds at some Democrat lackey with a mic and a ‘tude.

Target acquired; target destroyed.

She needed to show us that she was willing to win.

Looks like she did, right Manu?

A lot of people are puzzled about why military vets so often disappoint us hardcore cons. Here’s the thing – most senior military people are not hardcore conservatives. They are mostly moderate squishes, and a disturbing number actively cavort with the libs. McSally’s Democrat opponent is one – he wants to take your guns and money and make sure the Supreme Court is full of judges who support abortion on a whim. And he must be stopped.

Remember that a lot of Republican vets who were fearless on the battlefield turn to gelatin in the political arena. They don’t bring that killer instinct to the fight in DC, and that’s no surprise. At the War Colleges (she went to the Air Force one, I went to the Army one) they teach you less about war than about how to behave so you don’t scare the civilians you have to work with at that level. Treating the members of the mainstream media like exactly what they are, with all the contempt they have earned – especially CNN – is not on the syllabus.

“But gee Kurt, you were a colonel too. Why are you so…uninhibited, while so many other retired officers seem reticent and unwilling to brawl?”  

Well, I’m a civilian litigator, and I was a reservist at the end (it’s a very different vibe than active duty, and I’ve done both), and I’m just a contrary SOB. Plus, I hung out with Andrew Breitbart.

McSally was on her way to losing again, but she has now demonstrated the requisite wokeness to take the attack to the enemy. She saw she drew blood and moved in for the kill, grabbing up the domain name liberalhack.com and using it to sell t-shirts. She’s fundraising off the viral vid and the media meltdown that followed. Arizona Republicans are thinking, “Maybe she’s not a loser after all.”

That’s crucial. McSally knows how essential morale is. If you are a commander and you are tepid, soft, and indecisive, your troops are going to resign themselves to defeat. But if you draw your saber, leap to the front, and shout “Follow me!”, they will – right through the gates of Hell.

This was a key moment for McSally. She was behind (but usually within the margin) and losing. Now, her voters are energized. She’s changed the paradigm and got inside the enemy’s OODA Loop. She needs to take it in for the win.

What she can’t do is doubt herself. What she can’t do is listen to the whiny sissies of the media sobbing uncontrollably because the mean senator said a mean thing to one of the media mean girls.

There’s a new Senator McSally in town, and we cons like her. What she did to Durwood R. Murrow was perfect. The only thing way she could have made it better is by preceding “liberal hack” with an obscene adjective.

The kind of nightmare world McSally’s gun-hating nanny lib opponent wants to create is chronicled in my newest novel Collapse. Check it out along with the other entries in the series, People’s RepublicIndian Country and Wildfire. America has split into red and blue, and both action and liberal-slamming hilarity ensue! The Never Trump losers call my books “appalling,” which is all you need to know.

Armed Man Fights His Way Out Of Ambush By Five Teens, Shoots Kills One Of The Attacker

H/T Concealed Nation.

This ambush would have ended differently had the intended victim had no been armed.

TURTLECREEK TOWNSHIP, OHIO — Five Ohio teens hatched a plan to lure, attack, rob, and kidnap a man. They brought with them a baseball bat and a firearm as their tools for the job. What they weren’t expecting was that their intended victim would be armed and ready to fight back.

According to a press release from the Warren County Sheriff’s Department, 18-year-old Dakota Cox of Kettering and four other teens, including Trudics, planned the robbery and kidnapping of an individual the night of Dec. 13. The individual was lured to a residence in the 1800 block of Oregonia Road in Turtlecreek Township.

According to police, upon arriving at the address, the individual was threatened with a bat and a firearm. Deputies say the subject then defended himself against attack with a firearm and in the ensuing battle, Mason Trudics was shot and killed and a 16-year-old was critically injured by gunfire.


Despite the fact these these ambushers were kids, they did come prepared with weapons and a plan. They lured the victim to a house where they were waiting to ambush. When he arrived, the five teens confronted him with a firearm and baseball bat. All we know after that is the intended victim drew his firearm and fought his way to safety.

The shooter fatally shot one of the teens, and wounded another as he escaped. The four remaining teens went to a neighbors house for help while their dead friend was lying on the ground. They pounded on the windows and screamed until the neighbor called 911 for help. When the police arrived, it didn’t take long for them to sort out what had happened.

The four teens are all being charged with murder in addition to a number of other crimes; including attempted kidnapping. Because a death occurred during an armed crime attempt, the murder charges apply to the boys. Who knows why they wanted to kidnap this man, or what they intended to do with him afterwards. Now, the boys will most likely be spending their prime years behind bars.

As for the armed citizen, he was questioned by police and later released. No charges have been filed against him.

The Impeachment ‘Kill Switch’: McConnell Dismissal Rule Corners Democrats, Blocks Antics as Trial Commences

H/T Breitbart.

I hope that Senator Mitch McConnell(R-KY)keeps this impeachment trial from becoming a DemocRat circus.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is as of now including in the U.S. Senate impeachment trial rules a “kill switch” that effectively allows for the president’s legal team to seek an immediate verdict or dismissal of the case should Democrats engage in any shenanigans like they did in the House process.

The revelation comes after the House finally late last week formally sent the Articles of Impeachment it adopted before Christmas—after holding them for more than a month without transmission—to the U.S. Senate, thereby triggering the start of a Senate trial. The Senate will formally commence its trial procedures in votes this coming week, and while some Republicans want to outright dismiss the charges altogether from the outset, others believe a trial should take place.

In so finally transmitting the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also named impeachment case managers—the Democrats who will present and manage the House’s case to the Senate—last week. They include House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY). Both Schiff and Nadler were widely panned for the highly unfair process they ran in the House of Representatives, and many Senate Republicans do not trust them to refrain from playing games that seek to make the Senate trial unfair to the president as the highly partisan process in the House ended up.

Republicans on the House side, who were essentially powerless to stop the Democrats’ shenanigans since they are in the minority in the lower chamber, are warning Senate Republicans to be on the lookout for Schiff’s gamesmanship and that from his ilk.

“It’s incumbent upon the Senate to preserve the right of the President’s legal team to ask for a verdict or move to dismiss this sham impeachment anytime they see fit during the Senate trial,” a source close to House GOP leadership told Breitbart News. “Otherwise, Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans risk allowing Adam Schiff and his conspiracy caucus to hijack and take control of the trial.”

Senate GOP leaders, including Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO)—the conference chair—say there are not yet enough votes to dismiss the charges altogether from the outset. But Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), a freshman senator who emerged as a top ally of the president and had previously drafted a measure dismissing the charges if the House did not formally transmit them by changing Senate rules to do so, has said that the rules package for the impeachment trial includes a measure that allows for the president’s legal team to quickly push for a summary judgment or dismissal at any time should things get wild.

Hawley’s original measure that would have dismissed the charges altogether before the House formally transmitted them to the Senate by changing Senate rules was co-sponsored by several GOP senators including McConnell—the GOP leader—and thereby forced Pelosi’s hand, making her finally transmit the Articles after holding them up for a month.

Now that the Articles of Impeachment are in the hands of the Senate, it’s up to the upper chamber of Congress to figure out what to do next. A quick and dirty dismissal of the charges might play into Democrats’ messaging that Republicans are trying to cover something up, and several vulnerable Republicans in battleground states up for re-election this year, such as Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), have made clear they want some kind of a semblance of a fair trial. There are also disagreements in some places on what to do regarding witnesses or new evidence, or whether to even consider such things—all sorts of wrinkles that will likely be ironed out this week and next

One thing is clear: Hawley’s confirmation, first reported by Axios, that McConnell’s rules package at least as of now includes that motion to dismiss or seek a verdict would allow the president’s team to block any Democrat gamesmanship in the Senate trial.

“I am familiar with the resolution as it stood a day or two ago,” Hawley told Axios’ Jonathan Swan on Saturday. ”My understanding is that the resolution will give the president’s team the option to either move to judgment or to move to dismiss at a meaningful time.”

Hawley further confirmed this on Sunday, tweeting out a link to Swan’s piece and commenting that Trump’s legal team deserves this option, otherwise the “trial will become endless circus run by Adam Schiff”:

Josh Hawley


.@realDonaldTrump deserves the right during Senate trial to ask for a verdict or move to dismiss – otherwise trial will become endless circus run by Adam Schiff https://www.axios.com/draft-mcconnell-rules-vote-dismiss-impeachment-trump-d381f127-56a8-49a5-81a5-638e52cbdf14.html 

Draft of McConnell’s rules for trial still allows motion to dismiss

Even if it’s doomed, a motion to dismiss impeachment could give Trump loyalist a vote they want.


4,895 people are talking about this

In other words, the big picture here is that it seems as though the Senate will move forward with an actual trial—details on a number of fronts on that as of yet to be determined—but that there will be one thing that is clear: If Schiff or the Democrats try anything untoward like they did in the House, the president and the Senate have the option to shut the whole thing down and blow it all up on them. That means Republicans hold the upper hand, and should things get crazy—while there are not currently enough votes to dismiss the trial or outright off the bat acquit Trump—after Democrat partisan gamesmanship there likely would be enough votes to dismiss the whole thing. Bad behavior, in a partisan way, from people such as Schiff and Nadler and other Democrats could drive more Republicans toward the motion to dismiss—the kill switch—if that ever becomes necessary.

McConnell, who a losing GOP primary candidate in West Virginia once derisively nicknamed “Cocaine Mitch”—a nickname he’s since embraced as indicative of his tough persona—has a history of outsmarting Democrats in the Senate. Most notably, McConnell beat them when they tried in late 2018 to tank the Supreme Court confirmation of now Justice Brett Kavanaugh. McConnell has had many other such end-run victories around the Democrats, and sources close to him expect this Senate impeachment trial will be no different

“My pal Cocaine Mitch is again proving his mettle when it comes to outmaneuvering leftist Democrats with this kill switch,” a source close to McConnell told Breitbart News. “If they even think about stepping out of line and being unfair in the slightest, it’s time to engage said kill switch and end this nonsense once and for all.”

A former White House official added that including this “kill switch” in the resolution gives Senate Republicans the tools they need to help McConnell keep the trial on the straight and narrow.

“McConnell has proven time and time again he is a more effective Leader than Pelosi is Speaker,” the former Trump White House official told Breitbart News. “This resolution ensures the President and his team has every tool at their disposal.”

The even bigger picture here is that when it comes to the Senate trial, GOP senators—in particular McConnell—are taking an active role in ensuring it will be fair. They are leading the way in framing this.

Vice President Mike Pence, in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News late last week, made it clear that “when it comes to the Senate trial, it’ll be for the senators to decide [on witnesses and process], but I think the fact that you hear people talking about witnesses in the Senate just proves how weak the case underpinning the Articles of Impeachment really is.”

“The fact that we’ve heard they had an open-and-shut case, that despite the fact the American people can read the transcript, see the fact the president did nothing wrong, no quid pro quo, the military aid was released,” Pence added. “The American people have the facts. We heard that Congress did what the facts demanded, and now suddenly we hear Democrats saying they need more facts and they need more witnesses. My view on this is the American people see through all of this—the sham investigation followed by a partisan impeachment. They’re saying ‘enough is enough.’”

Virginia Governor Sets a Trap for Lobby Day, 20 January 2020

H/T AmmoLand.

I hope all of the advocates for the Second Amendment do nGovot fall into the trap set by Governor Ralph “Blackface” Northam(Delusional-Va) has set for them.

U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Second Amendment supporters face a daunting challenge in Virginia for Lobby day, at the Virginia Capitol in Richmond, on 20 January 2020.  Those who wish to disarm Virginians have created a trap to frame Second Amendment Supporters as violent white supremacists, going to Richmond to destroy duly elected government.

Do not take the bait.

Armed Virginians have been going to the State Capitol in Richmond to lobby to restore Second Amendment rights since 2002. The Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) has been very successful in these efforts. VCDL was instrumental in moving Virginia from a may issue to a shall-issue state in 1995. It has made the shall-issue law better and better by such things as eliminating many gun-free zones and eliminating the requirement for fingerprints to obtain a permit to carry. It has kept improving the state preemption law, to prevent local governments from chipping away at Second Amendment rights.  It has been one of the most effective of the state organizations working to restore Second Amendment rights.

In 2019, a combination of a lawsuit used to gerrymander Virginia voting districts in favor of Democrats, millions of dollars of money spent by billionaires aimed at destroying Second Amendment rights, the influx of immigrants to areas next to the District of Columbia, the successful get out to vote campaign by supporters of Communist China for new immigrants, and the restoration of voting rights, but not the right to arms, to convicted felons, has resulted in the Democrat takeover of the Virginia General Assembly and the Senate, by Democrats who have vowed to impose severe restrictions on the exercise of Second Amendment rights.

Virginians have seen Lobby Day as a place to focus their actions to show how much they oppose the restrictions and violations of their rights.

It seems the opposition, led by Governor Northam, has seen it as an opportunity to paint Second Amendment supporters as violent white supremacists, against whom any action will be deemed moral and legitimate.

If we are to win the war to restore our rights, Second Amendment supporters must win the war to convince a majority, or at least, a majority of voters or judges, they have the moral high ground. The entire weight of the legacy media has been against Second Amendment supporters for 50 years, but Second Amendment supporters have been winning battles, gradually, for the last 30 years. We have organized, built networks, built alternate media, and educated much of the public over that time period.

The provocations by Governor Northam and the elected Democrats seem meant to destroy that progress and to portray Second Amendment supporters as lawless, violent white supremacists.

Matt Bracken has written an excellent essay on the potential for Lobby Day to be used to create a terrible media defeat for Second Amendment supporters. It is worth the read. Bracken lists several ways Lobby Day could be turned into another Charleston, or worse, to discredit Constitutionalists.

The opposition has the entire legacy media on their side. Northam and his allies control the ground at the Capitol. While many of the Capitol police are likely to be sympathetic to their oath and the Constitution, Northam and his allies will have control of the Capitol police. Northam and allies will control all the high ground.

It is known that agent provocateurs have been used by the Democrats to provoke violence, to discredit the Trump presidential campaign in 2016. It is plausible that similar tactics will be used to provoke Second Amendment supporters on January 20th in Richmond. Violence by leftists will be excused by the legacy media. Self Defense by Second Amendment supporters will be portrayed as criminal.

This is ground of the opposition’s choosing, where they have most of the advantages. The only chance of winning is a moral victory, where the General Assembly and the outside world are shown an overwhelming presence of peaceful Second Amendment supporters lobbying for their rights.  That can be a difficult goal to achieve when agent provocateurs and false flags are serious possibilities. The majority of the anti-Second Amendment politicians are unlikely to be moved.  The legacy media will sensationalize any violence. They will downplay even massive majority of Second Amendment supporters.

Those who want a disarmed population have been losing. President Trump has appointed 25% of federal judges. A third Supreme Court pick by President Trump could enable the restoration of Constitutional government. The current governing elite is getting desperate. Desperate opponents do desperate things.

Second Amendment supporters who attend will need to be extremely vigilant. This is not a place where an open carry protest is likely to succeed. The law is not clear. A court has upheld Governor Northam’s emergency order as lawful.

To those who say, you do not defend your rights by agreeing to allow them to be infringed: If simple disobedience of unconstitutional laws were enough to protect our rights, we would never have lost them.  Many refused to obey. They were unorganized, marginalized, lied about, arrested, prosecuted, jailed, beaten, and killed.

To win, Second Amendment supporters have the be smart, pick their battles, and work hard.

This particular exercise of the rights to assembly and free speech has been turned into a media trap.  All the usual suspects will be there, and they will be actively looking for any incident to smear Second Amendment activists. It is reasonable to believe some opponents will be working to create a violent event.

As a defense against the trap, everyone should be capable of recording incidents during the event. Every thing should be recorded from multiple perspectives, if only to assure accurate portrayals of the events and to have the ability to identify bad actors. The other side will be recording everything. Second Amendment supporters need to be able to prevent them from creating a singular, selective, and false portrayal of what happens.

Extreme measures should be employed to avoid any appearance for the national media to use to smear Second Amendment supporters. At this event, a Second Amendment supporter will serve his country better by taking recorded abuse than by defending themselves. Second Amendment supporters should use every opportunity to defuse any abusive or violent situation.  The opposition will, very likely, be looking to goad a Second Amendment supporter into violent self defense. The action would almost certainly be mischaracterized by the media. They are desperate. They lie without compunction.

If you go, wearing an orange Guns Save Lives sticker will be far more effective than camouflage.  Wearing camouflage aids the opposition at this event.

The more women, children, and minorities who are Second Amendment supporters at this event, the better.

There will be more opportunities for media events that favor Second Amendment activists. The Second Amendment sanctuary county and city movement has been very effective. That can, and should, be built upon.

Only 40% of Virginians voted in the last election. Virginians can win at the ballot box.

Those attending Lobby Day need to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

Virginians need to show courage,  exercise discipline, and be shrewd to avoid the trap this Lobby Day has become.

About Dean Weingarten:Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Supremes to Decide if Electoral College Voters Must Vote for Winner of State Popular Vote

H/T Town Hall. 

The Electoral College is part of the Constitution and it will take a Constitutional Amendment to do away with it so the votes of the college should go to the popular vote winner of the state.

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that would decide whether electoral college electors must vote for the winner of their state’s popular vote. Half the states currently have laws requiring electors to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote in their state.

Electors who do not vote in accordance to the winner of their state’s popular vote are known as “faithless electors.” According to NBC News, the so-called problem of faithless electors has never really been an actual problem before. In fact, most states simply throw out the ballot of an elector who doesn’t follow the state’s popular vote.

But in 2016, the Democrats ran such a rotten candidate that several electors in states carried by Hillary Clinton cast their ballots for someone else. One elector in Colorado voted for John Kasich, one in Hawaii voted for Bernie Sanders, and four in Washington state voted for two different people — three for Colin Powell and one for Faith Spotted Eagle, the name of a Native American activist, not Elizabeth Warren. Other Democratic electors contemplated voting differently but were reportedly pressured into voting for Clinton. Colorado simply replaced its errant elector with one that would vote for Hillary, while Washington state fined their independent-thinking electors for violating state law.

The Washington state Supreme Court ruled against the electors who challenged the fines imposed upon them. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Steven Gonzalez took issue with the court’s decision, arguing “[t]he Constitution provides the state only with the power to appoint, leaving the electors with the discretion to vote their conscience.”

While states can choose their own electors and require them to pledge certain loyalties, once the electors form the electoral college they are no longer serving a state function but a federal one.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Justice Gonzalez’s dissent, ruling that electors can vote for any legitimate candidate they choose.

“The states’ power to appoint electors does not include the power to remove them or nullify their votes,” the 10th Circuit declared.

Just like Arizonans voted to send Jeff Flake to the Senate, but, once there, the voters could not nullify Flake’s votes or fine the senator for voting his conscience, as much as the voters may have wanted to.

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state laws requiring electors to abide by the popular vote of the state did not violate the Constitution, but the high court never ruled whether the states can enforce those pledges after the fact.

The lawyer for the Washington State electors, Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig is hoping the case will focus attention on what he characterizes as shortcomings in the Electoral College when it comes to reflecting the outcome of the popular vote.

“It could also convince both sides that it is finally time to step up and modify the Constitution to address this underlying problem,” Professor Lessig said. The professor suggested such fixes as the National Popular Vote plan or even a constitutional amendment.

Because a Democrat lost the last presidential election, surely something must be wrong with the Constitution that allowed it to happen.

The case goes before the court this spring and a decision is expected by the end of June.