The Uniparty: a refresher course

 

Our household cut the cable many months ago, so we see only a few segments on cable or network news that get linked on various aggregators.  JD Rucker at America First linked to yesterday’s Tucker Carlson segment calling out the RINOs in DC (especially Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy, but all the RINOs signing on to, e.g., the pending gun control legislation).  What was significant is that Mr. Rucker’s report was based on Sundance’s commentary at Conservative Treehouse – a good sign that Sundance’s analyses are increasingly popping up on alternative media. 

Sundance has been pointing out the corruption in the Uniparty for years, but this update from him the other day spells out the dynamics:

. . . what Tucker Carlson outlines in this monologue is accurate insofar as it merely scratches the surface of the DeceptiCons in Washington DC. {Direct Rumble Link}

The UniParty issue does not start in Washington DC, it surfaces in Washington DC.

The UniParty agenda, the origin of the crap that we see surface in a toxically corrupt federal government, starts IN YOUR STATE.

The UniParty is an outcome of the private organizations that run the political parties known as the RNC and DNC.  This is where almost all voters and political followers get lost.  The Republican and Democrat parties are not affiliated with any construct of the United States government.  They are private entities, private clubs, that can establish any set of rules and regulations for the people within the club/party.   That’s where the origin of the feces begins.

The club can accept or deny membership for any person who wants to run for political office.  The RNC and DNC clubs essentially select the politicians.  There is nothing within this process that is even remotely democratic, representative or even visible in the framework of the U.S. constitution.

Private corporations known as the RNC and DNC run the professional political apparatus, and from that origination all of the corruption in the body politic -as outlined in the visible UniParty agenda- surfaces.   Two clubs, both funded by Wall Street power brokers, globalists and ultra-rich mega-donors, select the members who will represent their interests in Washington DC.   That’s the root of the issue.

The Republican National Committee (RNC), and the Democrat National Committee (DNC), are private clubs.

The RNC and DNC are corporations, private businesses; and just like all private businesses, they have the ability to make rules, bylaws, terms and conditions of membership and association that are completely arbitrary according to their charter.

The RNC and DNC are not entities of government.  The RNC and DNC are not affiliates of government.  The RNC and DNC have absolutely no connection to government, other than their arbitrary business model for helping politicians enter and remain within government.

. . .

Nothing within the business system of DC and club politics has anything to do with the constitutional framework of U.S. government.

Read the whole thing here. Links to Fox News' Tucker Carlson segment are at the Treehouse.

# # #

RINO Rob Portman does it again

 

Strictly speaking, it’s not on the Tea Party agenda, but the latest gun-grab attempt is on everyone’s radar screen.  Don Surber links to the UPI report on legislation working its way through committee and congress:

"The 20 lawmakers -- 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans -- led by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, announced the package they said would 'protect America's children, keep our schools safe, and reduce the threat of violence across our country.'"

The compromise is to take your guns more slowly.

93% of guns used in crime are illegal. Enforce that law before you dare try to deprive me of my rights.

And guess who is one of the 10 Republicans are supporting the package?  Why yes, Ohio Senator Rob Portman (OH-RINO). 

RELATED:  Brandon Morse on red-flag laws at Red State here.  The law sounds reasonable, but it is too easily weaponized (pun intended) for political purposes.  And Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb is on board with so-called "common sense gun reforms.  

# # #

   

Arming Ohio teachers

 

meme seen on BookwormRoom

Jeremiah Poff at The Washington Examiner reports:

. . . Arming teachers has had mixed results in the past due to varying levels of participation. A 2020 report from the RAND Corporation found that 28 states already permit armed teachers under certain circumstances, while others, including Texas and Florida, have passed laws specifically encouraging the practice.

Now, in the aftermath of Uvalde, the policy has received renewed attention in state capitols as lawmakers look to enact new measures to harden security at schools.

Ohio

A bill allowing teachers in Ohio to carry firearms is headed to the desk of Republican Gov. Mike DeWine, who has indicated he will sign it.

"My office worked with the General Assembly to remove hundreds of hours of curriculum irrelevant to school safety and to ensure training requirements were specific to a school environment and contained significant scenario-based training," DeWine said of the bill. "House Bill 99 accomplishes these goals, and I thank the General Assembly for passing this bill to protect Ohio children and teachers."

Once enacted, the bill will add Ohio to a list of several states that already allow teachers to be armed. . . .

Read the full report here.

# # #

Protect your rights against those claiming a crisis

Our First Amendment rights are at risk because of corruption in Big Tech, and our Second Amendment rights are at risk because progressives are using crises and tragedy to go for the guns. Prof. William Jacobson puts both risks in perspective at Legal Insurrection:

Every time I think the media-Democrat frenzy could not get any more frenzied, it gets more frenzied.

How seamlessly they have transitioned from almost three years of Russia-collusion-mania to the current frenzy claiming that anyone and everyone who supports Donald Trump is a white supremacist.

Trump supporters now, according the narrative, are both Putin-puppet traitors AND Hitler-wannabees. It’s all so dishonest by design; the leaders of this charge don’t actually believe it, they cynically manipulate their media and social media power to drive their supporters, many of whom do believe it, into hating political opponents as an ideology. MSNBC is ground zero for this manipulative denigration of half the population.

If it only were dishonest, it would be bad enough. But it’s worse because it now has become a hunt to find heretics for public shaming. This is not new, but now it is legitimized as an anti-Trump strategy by the Resistance. Congressman Joaquin Castro naming names in his community, including retirees and homemakers, is a symptom of a culture of total political war on the left. Other symptoms include the attempt to deplatform non-liberal voices from the internet and airwaves, led by well-funded groups like Media Matters.

More here. And the Action Alert from my previous blog on proposed red flag legislation is here.

# # #

Action Alert: red flag legislation

Image credit: medium.com

Cleveland Tea Party rarely comments on issues such as abortion or gun control. But in the wake of the two shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Sen. Lindsay Graham has proposed legislation that begins the march toward gun control and confiscation.  However, yesterday's report in The Hill references his proposed legislation that “would create a federal grant program” – a bill that expands, rather than shrinks the federal government; a core Tea Party value is constitutionally limited government.

The bill introduces subjective “criteria” concerning the so-called “red flags.” Radius at Sparta Report has the definition:

A red flag law-also known as a gun violence restraining order-essentially allows a judge to order police to confiscate an individual’s weapons if that person is deemed a threat to themselves or others.

Sparta Report goes onto to explain why he thinks red flag laws are a bad idea and don't work. 

So here’s part of The Hill’s report:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Monday that he will introduce bipartisan legislation encouraging states to create "red flag" laws and that President Trump is "very supportive" of the idea. 

Graham, in a statement, said he has reached a deal with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) on a bill that would start a federal grant program to help and encourage states to create " 'red flag' protection order" laws, which are meant to make it easier for law enforcement to identify mentally ill people who should be banned from purchasing guns.

“These grants will be given to law enforcement so they can hire and consult with mental health professionals to better determine which cases need to be acted upon. This grant program also requires robust due process and judicial review. It does allow for quick action," Graham said in the statement. 

The full report is here. 

So the bill is a "’red flag' protection order” to facilitate “law enforcement so they can hire and consult with mental health professionals.” What could go wrong?  How about the mental health professionals who published The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President. None has examined President Trump in person, and any one of them could “identify mentally ill people who should be banned from purchasing guns.” People such as President Trump or members of his family? Or anyone else with whom they disagree.

According to Katie Pavlich at Townhall, Sen. Graham stated that President Trump "seemed supportive." Any wiggle room there?

The Action Alert: call or email any of these offices if you have concerns about the red flag legislation or any other bill leading to expanding the federal government in general, and gun control in particular.

Sen. Lindsay Graham’s phone DC Office: (202) 224-5972

Sen. Lindsay Graham’s email page is here 

White House switchboard Comments #: 202-456-1111

White House email page is here

UPDATE: Add Gov. Mike DeWine and Sen. Rob Portman to the list.

Gov. Mike DeWine: (614) 644-4357 or by email here

Sen. Rob Portman:  202-224-3353 or by email here

# # #

For or against gun control?

art credit: riversong.wordpress.com

Gun control is not one of the primary planks in the Tea Party platforms (those planks are limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets). However, Tea Party patriots may be interested in the gun control bills defeated yesterday in Congress. CNN reports:

Senators couldn't muster enough bipartisan support to pass a series of gun control measures Monday [yesterday], the latest in a long string of failed attempts at enacting tighter curbs on firearms in the United States.

Spurred by the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, senators from each party introduced the measures they said would have strengthened background checks and prevented suspected terrorists from obtaining weapons.

But tough election year politics, paired with disputes over the effectiveness of each party's ideas, proved too powerful to break the longstanding partisan gridlock that's surrounded gun issues for years.

The result was expected. A fifth option, set to be introduced and voted upon as early as Tuesday by moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins, has generated more optimism, but still faces long odds at passage.

Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat who sponsored one of the failed measures expanding background checks, reacted angrily after his provision was defeated.

"I'm mortified by today's vote but I'm not surprised by it," Murphy said Monday evening. "The NRA has a vice-like grip on this place."

More of the report is here.

According to Sen. Murphy, the National Rifle Assoc. is once again the villain in the piece. Thomas Sowell published an excellent opinion piece at RealClearPolitics:

Surely murder is a serious subject, which ought to be examined seriously. Instead, it is almost always examined politically in the context of gun control controversies, with stock arguments on both sides that have remained the same for decades. And most of those arguments are irrelevant to the central question: Do tighter gun control laws reduce the murder rate?

That is not an esoteric question, nor one for which no empirical evidence is available. Think about it. We have 50 states, each with its own gun control laws, and many of those laws have gotten either tighter or looser over the years. There must be tons of data that could indicate whether murder rates went up or down when either of these things happened.

But have you ever heard any gun control advocate cite any such data? Tragically, gun control has become one of those fact-free issues that spawn outbursts of emotional rhetoric and mutual recriminations about the National Rifle Association or the Second Amendment.

If restrictions on gun ownership do reduce murders, we can repeal the Second Amendment, as other Constitutional Amendments have been repealed. Laws exist to protect people. People do not exist to perpetuate laws.

But if tighter restrictions on gun ownership do not reduce murders, what is the point of tighter gun control laws -- and what is the point of demonizing the National Rifle Association?

There are data not only from our 50 states but also from other countries around the world. Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm's empirical study, "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," should be eye-opening for all those who want their eyes opened, however small that number of people might be.

Professor Malcolm's book also illustrates the difference between isolated, cherry-picked facts and relevant empirical evidence.

The rest of Sowell's article is here.

# # #