Posted on 02/01/2021 8:12:17 AM PST by rustyweiss74
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA), in an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, blasted Nancy Pelosi for portraying Republicans as the enemy.
He went on to assert the devious characterization was a means to attack the Second Amendment.
The House Speaker took aim at Republicans earlier this week, asserting fears amongst her caucus for their safety in the presence of GOP lawmakers had grown so much that they would have to increase funding for security details.
“I do believe and I have said this all along, that we’ll probably need a supplemental for more security for members when the enemy is within the House of Representatives,” she alleged.
The simple-minded amongst Democrats have parroted her smear campaign, culminating with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who literally accused Senator Ted Cruz of “almost (having) me murdered.”
...
Scalise accused Pelosi of ratcheting up the rhetoric as a means to distract from President Biden’s executive orders which have implemented a far-left agenda and killed jobs by the thousands.
Worse, he asserted Pelosi was laying the groundwork for eviscerating the Second Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at menrec.com ...
Says the guy who couldn’t be bothered to object to the stolen election.
Those who support the Second Amendment and those who support the Constitution are essentially the same.
When Nancy dies the Devil better watch his back
Scalise said on Fox that Trump’s words “didn’t help and in fact caused a lot of real division.”
Statements like this are not helpful.
Socialists must take away our guns to control us,,,,that is why the Dems want the guns, CONTROL. Without taking them, the Socialists are as far as they can go. They have taken down the Church, they are trying to take out President Trump, they are trying to flood the country with illegals. It seems their next objective is inflation and food control......
Nazi Pelosi’s reading material
How to create a social state by Saul Alinsky:
There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important.
Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.
Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible; poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the government. That way you are able to create a police state.
Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).
Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.
Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the government and schools.
Class Welfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more disconnect, and it will be easier to take (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.
When did Steve say this? Cause I’d like to know if he feels the same about Bernie Sanders and Rachel Maddow people the guy who shot up his softball game used to follow religiously
The question that I have is “Why is Nancy Pelosi filled with so much hate?” It seems to me that her hate is an indication of her sanity, or lack thereof.
Seems like he should have stopped helping to import Democrat voters about 20 years ago.
Typical Bush League Republican.
The voters keep taking Speaker away from her and she plans to fix that
Look at your fellow traitor Republicans, they are your enemy. But little bitch would rather pick on an old, demented, botoxed brain lady.
what a putz.
The Democrats are the enemy of the State. I will not surrender my guns to the enemy. Molon labe.
Ask Steve Scalise if he felt the same about Bernie Sanders and Rachel Maddow and if Trumps voters should sit out the
Midterms next year and get back to me
When did Steve say this?
*************
But more importantly than 2A imo, patriots are reminded that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to regulate peacetime ownership/use of firearms. So by pushing for the feds to take away our guns without the express constitutional power to do so, Pelosi is unthinkingly openly rebelling against the federal government's constitutionally limited powers and needs to be removed from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment imo.
"14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same [emphases added], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
The excerpts above are also mentioned in material below from a related thread, but with more details of the ramifications of the states never expressly constitutionally giving the feds the specific peacetime power to regulate arms.
…………………………..
Restrictive, constitutionally indefensible federal gun laws provide a great opportunity for pro-2nd Amendment (2A) citizens to learn about the significance of the federal government’s constitutionally express, limited powers.
More specifically, pro-2A patriots need to consider a major constitutional oversight on their part as a consequence their 2A tunnel vision (imo) in the context of the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers.
The first thing that patriots need to do whenever they hear about any action of the federal government, the introduction of a new bill in this example, is to find where in the Constitution the states have expressly given the feds the specific power to justify that action.
This is because if no clause is found in Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, or elsewhere in the Constitution, to justify the action, then the lawmakers who introduced the bill are in contempt of the Constitution imo and need to be removed from office for rebellion against the Constitution under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment imo.
”14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof [emphases added]. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Regarding our express constitutional right to bear arms, it would arguably have been a better idea if the early states had included that express protection in the 1st Amendment's list of powers prohibited to Congress imo.
H O W E V E R…
Constitutional Convention delegates had previously given Congress the express power to arm the militia, evidenced by several clauses in Section 8 of Article I.
From the Constitution's Article I, Section 8:
"Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming [emphasis added], and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
Again, the states couldn't easily amend the Constitution to include the right to bear arms in the 1st Amendment's list of powers prohibited to Congress since the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had already given Congress such powers.
Next, and hypothetically speaking, let's take away 2A just to see what happens. Doing so would mean that we would have no constitutionally enumerated right to bear arms, right?
W R O N G !!!
Regardless of Congress's constitutionally express powers to raise an army, it remains that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to restrict peacetime use of firearms.
In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that the states have never expressly constitutionally given Congress the power to make peacetime penal laws, not even for murder.
"Our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the United States the power - sacred as life is, first as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave - to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized states; and Congress has never attempted to do it. There never was a law upon the United States statute-book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most unoffending, as well, of your citizens, within the limits of any State of the Union. The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column.)
This means that the very corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification, Democratic-controlled Congress still has no express constitutional power to make laws restricting the peacetime use of firearms.
But if you don't believe Bingham and me, then maybe you'll believe the 19th century Supreme Court about the right to use firearms to defend oneself.
"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress [!!! emphasis added]. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States." —UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL.
Again, evidenced by clarifications of the respective scopes of federal and state government powers by Bingham and the Court, it remains that the states have never expressly constitutionally given Congress the express power to make peacetime laws that take away our guns and ammo — even if 2A was repealed!
Here again is excerpt from United States v. Butler for emphasis.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
With respect to unconstitutional attempts by renegade federal and state government leaders to prohibit citizens from policing themselves with firearms, the great irony about the feds and our 2A protections is this. The congressional record also shows that Bingham had included that amendment when he read the Bill of Rights as main examples of constitutionally enumerated privileges and immunities that 14A a applies to the states.
John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See 2nd Amendment (Article II) about in middle of 2nd column.)
In other words, the only power that Congress now has to make 2A-related laws is to use its 14A power to STRENGTHEN 2A protections from unreasonable infringement by the states. The Supreme Court had put it this way in general in Minor v. Happersett.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
So why is the federal government now making peacetime laws that restrict the use of firearms?
It is disturbing that federal civil gun regulations seem to have started appearing in the books during FDR Administration, FDR and the Congress at that time infamous for making laws which they had no express constitutional authority to make.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
The bottom line is that patriots need to start making sure that Section 3 of 14A is used to give the boot to rebellious federal and state lawmakers when federal lawmakers refuse to make law to strengthen constitutionally enumerated rights, especially 2A, from infringement by state lawmakers.
As a side note to this post, consider that former Arizona federal Representative John Shadegg had proposed an Enumerated Powers Act which would have obligated Congress to justify every bill with its constitutionally enumerated powers. But the last that I heard is the bill unsurprisingly wound up in the circular file.
In fact, Congress's canning of the Enumerated Powers Act is arguably another act of rebellion against the federal government's constitutionally limited powers that deserves Section 3 of 14A penalty imo.
Corrections, insights welcome.
How do these Republicans even look in the mirror? If you would have Done Your JOB when you had the Majority, we wouldn’t be here today
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.