And here’s another Friday LinkSwarm!
Posts Tagged ‘Republicans’
I couldn’t go to the NRA annual meeting in Houston this weekend, as much as I would have liked to, because I went to a family even in Houston last week.
But fortunately, Ted Cruz is there.
“The Constitution matters. All of the Constitution matters. You don’t get to pick and choose.”
Republican Senators have been yelling at Ted Cruz. At the top of their lungs, no less. “How dare you make me stand on principle???”
We won the gun control fight because Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul stood up for principle and shamed other Republican Senators into standing up as well.
We sent Cruz to Washington to shame Republicans into acting like Republicans. Not, you don’t get to to betray conservative principles and expect us to keep donating and working for you merely because you have an (R) after your name. No, you don’t get to cave into Washington’s permanent liberal establishment without cost. No, you don’t get to enjoying fawning “strange new respect” profiles from the media without getting primaried. “You could just not be a bunch of squishes.”
Does anyone doubt that we’d now be seeing fawning profiles of Senator Dewhurst for his help in forging a “compromise” on gun control?
Haven’t watched all of it yet, but it’s been getting rave reviews.
Ted Cruz has announced he’s forming a new Jobs Growth & Freedom Fund PAC. Or rather, will be announcing it at 4:10 PM Eastern Time at CPAC. (You can watch Cruz’s address live.) “Our mission is to elect strong conservatives and to build a Republican Senate Majority in 2014.”
Cruz is “paying it forward,” since endorsements from Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservative Fund and the Club for Growth were hugely important in gaining early momentum in Cruz’s Republican primary fight. So far I think Cruz has done an excellent job as senator, so I kicked in a few shekels myself.
“George Prescott Bush filed the official paperwork Tuesday to run for Texas land commissioner next year.”
That would be Jeb Bush’s son, Bush43′s nephew, and Bush41′s grandson, one of the “little brown ones.” The Bush name alone is probably enough to win him the office, but add to that the fact that the Bush family has one of the most powerful money machines in all politics and you have a prohibitive favorite. Jerry Patterson was probably right to think he’d have an easier time defeating a post-Senate-race-meltdown David Dewhurst for Lt. Governor.
Deeper analysis of a continuing Bush dynasty, and of how Democrats and the press react to facing a Bush scion who happens to be Hispanic, will have to wait until (at least) tomorrow.
Rand Paul has won some liberal plaudits for his filibuster against extra-judicial drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil. Fine and dandy. But what liberal don’t realize is that debate, the debate over government spending, the debate over gun control, and the debate over ObamaCare are not separate fights, they’re the same fight over the central issue: what is the proper size and scope of the federal government in a constitutional republic with limited, enumerated powers?
The founders were deeply and rightly suspicious of centralized government power. They set up a system in which the federal government’s power was not only limited, but balanced against competing power. Not only were the executive, legislative and judicial branches balanced against each other, all were balanced against state governments, and against the power in the people themselves, which is why the Bill of Rights is an enumeration of what the federal government could not do to its citizens. The state exists not to do things for people, it exists to keep things from being done to them.
Those right have been eroded by the excessive expansion of the federal government, and those checks and balances thrown off by the creation of a permanent parasite class in Washington D.C. that benefits from raking its percentage off the top of an ever-expanding redistributionist state.
Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, etc. all know, understand, and believe this. To them, the Constitution is a constant, a vessel of liberty to hand down from generation to generation to keep America strong and free. To liberals, the Constitution is an obstacle to be nullified by left-wing federal judges who ignore provisions like the 2nd and 10th Amendments because the limit how much power Democrats can take from the people and give to government.
The larger government’s sphere, the smaller that of the American people. Drone strikes on U.S. soil are a big, bright line even liberals can understand. But gun control, outrageous deficits, and ObamaCare are all chipping away at the constitutional republic left to us by the founding fathers, day by day. Barry Goldwater once said that “A government big enough to give you everything you want it is big enough to take away everything you have.” Rand Paul and Ted Cruz understand that. Liberals either don’t, or actively want to participate in the taking.
Some very quick and exceedingly brief impression of today’s TPPF conference call with Mario Loyola and Arlene Wohlgemuth:
I said brief…
Bad news: There are signs that some Republicans are thinking of caving on magazine capacity bans. “An increasing number of lawmakers in both parties appear willing to compromise on high-capacity magazines, the one component of gun control legislation that seems palatable to Republicans who view a full ban on assault weapons as politically toxic.”
There’s also this report from last year that suggests some Republicans are thinking of caving.
Democrats in congress have already introduced bills to ban standard capacity magazines. In the Senate, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has introduced legislation (S.33) that would ban the manufacture and sale of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. In the House, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)’s H.138 would do the same.
If there’s a bright spot, it’s that neither piece actually names any Republicans. It could be the usual case of Democratic allies in the media trying to make a magazine ban look “inevitable,” when in truth it’s anything but.
But gun owners can’t take that risk. Democrats believe they can achieve gun control (and eventually a complete ban on civilian firearms ownership) incrementally, and a useless, cosmetic ban on easily machined pieces of metal and plastic is part of their divide and conquer strategy. We need to make a magazine capacity ban every bit as “politically toxic” as any other gun control measure. Gun owners should let their senators and congressmen know we’re having none of it. You need to tell them you absolutely oppose any magazine capacity ban.
I’ll even provide a sample letter:
Dear ENTER NAME HERE,
Since you’re my representative, I just wanted to write you today in opposition to the firearm capacity bans currently proposed in congress. Both Senate Bill 33 and House Bill 138 seek to ban firearm magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. This is a foolish, irrational, and unconstitutional idea for many reasons.
First, several modern weapons are designed and shipped with magazines of higher capacities. Glock pistols, for instance, regularly ship with 17 round magazines. Second, like all gun control laws, it only penalizes the law abiding, as criminals will continue to use any capacity magazine they want. Third, with tens (if not hundreds) of millions of higher capacity magazines already in circulation, the ban would only penalize law-abiding gun owners purchasing from licensed firearms dealers. Fourth, the ban would be unenforceable for the non-law abiding, as magazines, being relatively simple mechanisms of metal and plastic, can easily be manufactured by anyone with basic machining equipment. Finally, such a ban violates not only the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, but also the 10th, as the Constitution nowhere specifies a role for government in regulating firearm magazine capacity, thus leaving the matter to the states.
This issue is very important to me, my family, my friends, and all other law-abiding firearms owners. We’re being scapegoated and hung out to dry by irrational appeals to emotion and knee-jerk legislation being pushed in response to the isolated actions of madmen. Instead of addressing the real root causes of mental health, liberals and their media allies seek to cow and stigmatize the sane and law-abiding over the actions of the criminal and insane as part of their long-term goal of completely eliminating civilian firearm ownership. As such, there can be no compromise on this issue, and any ban on 15, 20, or 30 round magazines must be categorically rejected as an irrational infringement of the rights of law-abiding Americans.
I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject any magazine capacity ban bills.
YOUR NAME AND CONTACT ADDRESS
Here’s Dwight page of contact information for their Texas Congressional representatives, and here’s a link for any other congressional critters.
And the NRA-ILA just sent around a list of senate phone numbers to contact:
And after you’ve contacted your representatives, follow up. If they say they’re opposed, send them a thank you note. If they say they support such a bill, or waffle (“the Senator only supports reasonable firearms legislation”), keep after them. Ask them for a definitive answer and express your opposition. Tell them voting for a bill is cause not only for voting against them, but for backing both primary and general election challenges against them.
Gun banners only succeed when we fail to oppose them hard enough. Keep up the pressure.
There’s much news about Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott as of late, so I’m just going to put it all here in this big virtual pile: