Free and Fair Elections? Oh Puhleeze!

I’m going to pick up where I left off in 2022, talking about elections. It pains me to say the United States of America’s electoral process has become a worldwide joke. I’d compare it to what is going on to third world, banana republic nations, but sadly most of them have better elections than we do. 

Why is a Second Amendment advocate so concerned about elections? It is because the people we elect, our representatives to local, county, state and federal positions, are the ones responsible for upholding our Constitution and any additional laws. When I hear politicians say “I support the Second Amendment, but…” that means they don’t understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights, or they just don’t care. Either way, I don’t want them representing me. 

So, what were some of the shenanigans we saw during the 2022 midterm elections? 

Lifelong democrats running as republicans.
Democrats actively supporting and financing low tier republican candidates as the ‘only person who can beat’ an incumbent democrat, knowing they have zero chance of doing so. 
Setting up phony news organizations to publish campaign propaganda. 

Ballot printer failures, misconfigurations and voting machine errors in primarily republican districts, all of which worked flawlessly up until changes made on election day.
Uncounted ballots mixed with counted ballots. 
Voters disenfranchised in primarily republican districts.
Stacks of ballots being dropped off, fanned out for photographs, before being deposited into ballot boxes.

Legally required chain of custody paperwork not completed.
Ballots accepted and counted after cutoff times.
Ballots purposely sent to incorrect addresses.
Ballots purposely sent to illegal voters.
Completed ballots unaccounted for. 
Completed ballots found in ditches. 
Unexplained wild jumps of votes for only one candidate. 
Counting taking days, weeks and even MONTHS.

Where does the establishment republican party stand on this? Pretty much nowhere. Since most of the election issues occurred in places where republican candidates supported by a certain former President were running, the GOP has been shockingly silent. So focused on purging anyone associated with the former President, they were willing to give up control of Congress to do it. 

What has the GOP been up to instead? Well, there’s the supposedly critical to the country work of who will be on what committee, who will occupy what office space, what pointless political hearings need to be initiated as well as what bold, patriotic go-nowhere-because-they-know-they-can’t-get-past-the-senate bills can be passed in the house. And let’s not forget the backroom negotiations leading to 15 votes to install a Speaker of the House. Pathetic. 

Funny, you and I had to endure the confusing and often disenfranchising punishment of ranked choice voting, but the Speaker of the House election didn’t. We also must trust the absolute integrity of absentee voting and ballot harvesting when our elected officials don’t. And when the big companies who throw their support behind mail in ballots for elections are faced with union votes, they insist on in-person voting because of the propensity of mail in voting fraud. Yet, we’re told this is essential, and anything less is a threat to democracy. 

Some on the right have suggested that if one side cheats, the other side should cheat even harder. Naturally, that isn’t the answer and anyone who is cheating doesn’t deserve to win. Ensuring a level electoral playing field where the will of the people is respected is. 

Election integrity matters for every seat on every board, from the local school board to the President of the United States. Without it, only the interests behind those running the elections are represented. Every community should insist on 100% compliance with the law and full open and accountable auditing. 

Of course, if this isn’t for you or you’re just happy with all the shenanigans, so be it. But keep in mind the changing winds. There may come a day when you too may disagree with the way elections are run and the lack of accountability, and there will be nothing you can do about it. 

Is that the free and fair elections you want? 

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #Politics, #CivicDuty, #GunControlFails, #GunVote, #ElectionFraud, #medium, #mewe, #parler, #gab, #gettr, #Telegram, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

You’ll Never Catch Me Doing That – Election 2022

Admit it, as a kid you probably said this to your parents more than a few times. You figured you were pretty damn clever too. You figured your parents would accept this statement as meaning ‘I won’t do that’, when what you really meant is ‘You won’t catch me when I do that’. Well, that’s pretty much the same thing going on with the 2022 Midterm Elections. You’ll never catch me doing that!

If the 2020 elections are known as *the most secure elections in history (the asterisk for all the laws broken, illegal votes, ballot box stuffing, election monitoring interference and results that took days to cheat/count), the 2022 elections will be ones that fine-tuned and perfected the process.

All the affidavits, lawsuits and videos – you know, all that conspiracy theory stuff that never happened – has become nothing more than training materials for this year’s elections. Instead of running vote tally centers like a Las Vegas casino floor or cash room with super high-definition cameras covering every activity from multiple angles, we can expect to see far fewer cameras of lesser quality with more obstructions. We can expect new physical barriers to block public views. Even without the COVID excuse for distance, monitors will be keep further away and not allowed to do their jobs. Tabulation machines will be on hidden networks and those middle of the night, unexplainable spikes in votes for only one candidate will be far more gradual and easily justified by pre-planned statements. In other words, you’re going to see far slicker, more sophisticated operations to get the desired result.

What is the desired result? A victory for “certain” candidates.

We’ve already been warned that Pennsylvania results will take days to be finalized. Why? Because it takes that long to massage results and craft the evidence to support it. Just about every other country in the world can count their votes and declare a winner the same day as the vote. Every village, town and city, no matter how big or small in this country used to be able to do that too. Has our population grown so much, and elections grown so complex that it takes days to do a simple count? No, of course not. But it does take that long to get the results you want.

It’s not much of a stretch to say a lot of people in our country have lost faith in our election process. Recent verified reports show multiple states’ election official training programs instructing their personnel directly in violation of state laws. “Mistakes” in sending out absentee ballots mean illegal ballots abound. Anarchist group members are already claiming to be voting multiple times.

Those in charge of elections are rejecting court rulings and implementing their own standards, guaranteeing the results will be back in the courts for days, weeks, months, and years, only to have the rulings ignored again the next time. Instead of embracing monitors and audits of the election process, administrators and city/county/state councils are stonewalling and refusing to grant access to their processes, systems, and documentation.

For you, the voter, how does this look? Does this give you confidence everything is being done by the book or does is raise questions about what is being done behind closed doors?

I’m also looking at incumbent candidates this year who are trying to obfuscate their track record. Let’s look at how our country has been doing over the past two years and see if these people deserve to continue doing the same thing.

Who shut down your state for two weeks to flatten the curve, that turned into two years to flatten the economy?
Who shut down your business because it wasn’t considered “essential”?
Who quarantined you in your home and arrested you if you went out for “non-essential” reasons?
Who caused you to stand in the cold outside a store for hours just to get what little was available to feed your family?
Who decided you could buy vegetables but not vegetable seeds?
Who put sick patients back into nursing homes filled with the most vulnerable residents?
Who didn’t allow you to morn your family members deaths or attend new family births?
Who sent heavily armed police squads to shut down your business and place of worship?
Who forced people to choose between an experimental vaccine and food or a job?
Who has increased the costs of all essential goods including food, gas and clothing not seen for four decades?
Who has opened our borders to drugs, disease, crime and anyone that wants to walk in unobstructed?
Who has released criminals into our communities, defunded the police, stopped enforcing laws, and allowed crime to skyrocket as public safety plummets?
Who has been sending our tax dollars overseas when we can’t afford to take care of our own people?
Who has been deliberately suppressing YOUR free speech in partnership with the largest technology and social media companies?
Who has been targeting, harassing and arresting parents and concerned citizens for minor or imaginary crimes with large, heavily armed law enforcement officers using tactics once reserved for the most violent of criminals?
Who has blamed YOU for everything that is wrong with this country, when it was their policies, programs and laws that created the problems in the first place?

We’ve been told over and over that we are violent, out of touch extremists who are a direct threat to democracy, when it was someone else all along. Go figure.

I have high hopes that this election cycle will be the correction of the lies and misinformation that has spread across our country, and there’s only one thing that can make that happen.

It’s time to vote.

Bob

Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #Inflation, #Politics, #CivicDuty, #GunControlFails, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #parler, #gab, #gettr, #Telegram, #truthsocial, #oddstuffing.com

A Shot Across The Bow of the USS SCOTUS

In case you missed it, the incoming congress just fired another warning shot across the bow of the United States Supreme Court. This warning specifically targeted the most vulnerable member of the court, at least in the eyes of the hypocrite extremist left. Funneled through a less than unbiased newspaper as a ‘breaking news’ story, it is another blatant attempt to influence litigation before the Court. It also presents a compromise scheme for forcing political control of the Supreme Court to those who are a little squeamish about packing the Court. Either way, this highlights the importance of the Senate runoff elections in Georgia are for the future of an independent Judicial branch. 

This latest attempt to influence the court comes from a New York Times review of a book – by two New York Times staffers – that contains “new” allegations of sexual misconduct by Justice Kavanaugh while he was in college. The “new” allegations, introduced in the 11th paragraph of their story, involves a woman who declined to be interviewed by the Times reporters and has through friends indicated she did not recall the event. It’s important to know that this incident, the supposed witnesses and the woman’s denial of it occurring, were all known to the reporters in 2018, during Justice Kavanaugh’s hearings. The story resurfaced briefly in 2019 during the Democratic Presidential primaries but did not result in any action. Now, in 2020, it surfaces again as a “new” story. 

It’s not as if his Democratic party detractors haven’t done their level best to destroy Justice Kavanaugh’s reputation and life based on the unsubstantiated accusations leveled against him during his confirmation hearings. 

Of his coaching his daughter’s high school basketball team, a Time magazine reporter wrote: “Ford’s charge shattered Kavanaugh’s carefully crafted tableau, calling into doubt the image he projected. The row of young girls, legs bare in their private-school skirts, looked different now.” 

Of his teaching at Harvard, a letter from staff, students and alumni organized by friends and family of Congressional Democrats was sent that said: “We believe that Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment as an HLS lecturer sends a message to law students, and in particular female students, that powerful men are above the law, and that obstructive, inappropriate behavior will be rewarded.”

With this “new” allegation resurfacing yet again, members of the new administration’s transition team are calling for a congressional investigation into the matter. “If accurate, this would represent a big mistake on the part of the FBI. Without the truth, a cloud will hang over Kavanaugh’s head and an asterisk will accompany his decisions. The only way to repair the damage is for Congress to pick up where the FBI left off.” Note that Congressional investigation in this context of course means impeachment proceedings.

Having members of the Democratic party threaten the United States Supreme Court is nothing new. Remember the Senate Democrats who sent the “Heal Thyself” letter threating to pack the Court if it ruled incorrectly in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York. That letter is widely credited with flipping Chief Justice John Roberts to the liberal wing in an attempt to save the structure of the Court. Of course, that threat has now been revived into an action plan should the Democrats retake the Senate. 

In this situation, there does not appear to be one case to be influenced but rather a series of cases now under consideration and likely to be taken up by the Supreme Court regarding the 2020 elections. The not-so-subtle implications are for Justice Kavanaugh to vote ‘correctly’ or face impeachment. But as anyone can see from the “Heal Thyself” letter, voting correctly won’t make this threat go away. 

There’s also another side of this “new” accusation and call for Congressional investigations. It represents an alternative plan to take over the Supreme Court. The well-advertised threat to pack the Court with liberal appointed justices to “reduce the influence of politics” has been unpopular with many non-extremists in the Democratic party. This plan, removing just one originalist Justice, one that has been demonized by the Party, and allowing a liberal appointee would cement a solid 5-4 liberal majority. 

If you’re wondering what the big deal is with the Senate runoff elections in Georgia, this is it. A Democrat win of both seats results in a 50-50 tie in the Senate which would be broken by the (possible) new Vice-President who is the most extremist left politician to ever be elected. This is a grandstanding, elitist politician who has already stated her position on Justice Kavanaugh as being “He must be impeached.”

What else is at stake? Only the ability to have free and fair elections, the Electoral College, the future of the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment and the independence of the Judiciary branch. 

Simply look at what campaign promises have been made and ask yourself what will happen if the final check and balance of power, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, were no longer a hinderance? What if every law that brazenly infringes on your Constitutionally protected natural rights was deemed fully Constitutional in the name of the new socialist agenda by a Court more interested in social reengineering than Constitutional rights? 

If you have a few bucks to spare, sending it down to support the Republican candidates in Georgia might be in all of our best interests. 

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #FirstAmendment, #SecondAmendment, #SCOTUS, #Politics, #Georgia, #2020Elections, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com

Can’t Win? NO PROBLEM! Change The Rules!

In any contest there is a set of rules to ensure fair play and equal competition. The rules are long established and understood by both sides. But what if one side is having a problem winning under the rules? That’s when you start hearing complaints that the rules are wrong and give the other side an unfair advantage, even if they’ve won under the same rules in the past. Am I speaking of games? Of course not. I’m talking about the uncivilized blood sport of United States politics where truth is relative and the only thing that matters is winning. This is what is behind the push to pack the United States Supreme Court and eliminate the Electoral College are all about.

The latest and greatest version of Change The Rules is playing out right now with the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court. Should she be confirmed, and the Democrats win the White House and Senate in November, they have promised to pack the court with additional liberal appointed justices to “reduce the influence of politics” in the court.  

If that rational makes any sense at all to you, you’re one of the first. Appointing left wing advocate justices to “reduce the influence of politics” is like serving donuts to your family to make their breakfast healthier. This is all because with Judge Barrett’s appointment, there will be a 5-4 majority of “conservatives” to “liberals” on the Supreme Court. 

Some argue it will actually be 6-3, but they forget Chief Justice John Roberts was already flipped during the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York case when Senate Democrats issued their “Heal Thyself” letter threatening to pack the Supreme Court if it didn’t moot the case. Chief Justice Roberts must have believed that was a one-time threat and giving in to it would protect the future of the Court. It was not. 

The whole idea of political leanings for any judge is an abomination to the bench, but that has become the norm in many areas. Extremist politicians appoint activist judges to rubber stamp their social justice agenda laws and expect them to legislate for them from the bench. The Constitution, Bill of Rights, rule of law and precedent are not considered obstacles in reshaping society to someone’s utopian vision. 

So why is changing the rules for the Supreme Court so important to them? Because all those draconian gun control laws they’ve crafted are in jeopardy.  Even with the claims that “lifesaving policies has repeatedly withstood legal challenges in the lower courts” (see previous paragraph), a hearing before Supreme Court that would actually take the Constitution into account would undeniably invalidate them. Instead of passing laws that pass Constitutional muster, you change the rules and make it so nobody can invalidate your unconstitutional laws. 

The Electoral College is facing the same threat in an attempt to change the rules to make it easier to win the White House. In short, the Electoral College was put in place to elect the President by our founders who were afraid of democracy, hence why our country is a Republic not a pure Democracy. They were concerned about “the tyranny of the majority” and created the Electoral College to preserve “the sense of the people”. 

What we see today is a balance between urban and rural areas. Urban areas are predominately liberal / Democrat and rural areas tend to be conservative / Republican. With a direct, popular vote, a handful of urban areas in our country would determine the President in every single election. 538 electors chosen by their states award all their votes according to the winner of the popular vote in their own state, except Maine and Nebraska who have a slightly different system.  

As with every election loss, we saw a renewed call to abolish the Electoral College following the Democrat candidate’s loss in the 2016 elections. The election was “stolen” and the “will of the people” was ignored because the candidate with the most votes didn’t win the most votes from the Electoral College. 

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an attempt to nullify the Electoral College without actually abolishing it. Participating states would award their Electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of who won the popular vote in that individual state. 

Following the 2016 elections, there were increased drives across the country that were being courted to join the Compact. Popular themes included “one person one vote” and “make your vote count”.  People were promised that politicians would be forced to campaign for votes in every state not just the most populous areas. Of course, that’s not true. 

A true popular vote election would see the candidates trying to appeal to the handful of urban population centers that currently make up the majority of the popular vote. A few swing states might be in play as a counter to an unwinnable urban center for a candidate, but the rest of the country would have no say or influence on the presidential election. Their votes, their opinions, their needs, would be too small to matter. 

So why is eliminating or nullifying the Electoral College so important to them? Because playing by the rules would require coming up with a candidate, platform and strategy that appeals to the entire country instead of one that is supported by just the handful of urban population centers where furthest-from-center message is better received.  

Rules matter, especially when it comes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. When you look at the checks and balances our Founding Fathers built into the establishment of our country, understand they did this for a reason. They looked at world history and knew what had worked and what had failed. Our country is what it is today because we have held true to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not in spite of it. 

When someone is advocating changing the rules of the game to benefit a political purpose, you can bet your life you will not be the one that wins. 

Vote wisely, 

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #Politics, #Rules, #SCOTUS, #ElectorialCollege, #2020Elections, #VoteWisely, #EatMoreBacon, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com 

Expand vs. Defend the Second Amendment?

Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment to the Supreme Court begin this week and it is sure to be a spectacle of epic proportions. As a preview of the line of questioning we’ll see regarding the Second Amendment, the billionaire bankrolled “grass roots” “community organization” gun control group released a statement opposing Judge Barrett’s nomination on the grounds she “would dramatically expand the Second Amendment”

Dramatically expand…  A better and more accurate description would be Judge Barrett would actually defend the Second Amendment. But their description should give you some idea of how the gun control extremists view the Second Amendment as a second-class right. 

Let’s be clear about what the Second Amendment is. The twenty-seven words read: 

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The reason for the gun control extremists’ concern is quite simple and outlined in their statement. They are afraid Judge Barrett will vote to overturn their so called “gun safety” laws by “invalidating gun control measures around the country”.  

Gun control measures around the country are an utter failure and continue to target only law-abiding citizens. The cities and states with the strictest, most draconian gun control laws in this country are also the most violent, least safest places. They constantly blame other non-gun controlled areas for their own crime rates while refusing to hold the actual perpetrators of violence accountable for their actions. As always, they claim they are just one gun control law or one closed loophole away from their citizens being safe. 

The article claims that these “lifesaving policies has repeatedly withstood legal challenges in the lower courts”. 

These lower courts where they have withstood legal challenges are the ones where left extremist politicians have appointed like-minded political activist judges who will ignore the rule of law, legal precedent and rules of evidence to rubber stamp blatantly unconstitutional gun control laws. 

They also point to Judge Barrett’s “dangerous views” through her dissent on a case involving a man convicted of a “serious felony” appealing for restoration of his firearms rights. 

Of course, this “serious felony” was a single count of mail fraud and Judge Barrett’s dissent was that nonviolent felons should not be subject to the same gun restrictions that apply to violent criminals. 

Keep in mind these are the same zealots who believe the District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago decisions granted an individual right to own a firearm for the very first time in United States history.  In reality, it simply took until 2008 for a government entity to create an unconstitutional law, have that law successfully challenged AND have that case appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The individual right to keep and bear arms always existed. 

Just as the Second Amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms – it restricts the government from infringing upon what is considered a Natural Right – the Supreme Court DOES NOT have the ability to expand, dramatically or otherwise, Second Amendment rights. The court may ONLY rule on the constitutionality of existing laws that have been appealed to them. 

So, while the gun control extremists and their hand selected politicians claim the appointment of an originalist, constitutionalist jurist to the Supreme Court will somehow dramatically expand Second Amendment rights, what they are really concerned with is that their ineffective, unconstitutional laws may be overturned and simple, basic natural, constitutionally protected rights will again be available to their citizens. The People with their Second Amendment protected rights means government control over whom they chose to provide basic safety and security to will be lost forever. 

If we’ve learned anything from Justice Kavanagh’s hearings, these confirmation hearings will feature the worst behavior, accusations and insinuations politicians can muster. We’ve already seen lies, smears and exaggerations along with gloom-and-doom predictions about how our very democracy is at stake if Judge Barrett is confirmed. 

What can we do as ordinary, everyday citizens? We can let our Senators, the people WE elected to represent US, know we want them to support the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court. 

If you live in a blue state like me and think your opinion won’t matter in what will undoubtedly be a party line vote, I say BUNK! If we don’t let our representatives know what we want them to do and remind them that they are accountable to us, NOT their political party, then the ONLY voice in their ear will be from the political party. It’s time to be clear and loud about what WE THE PEOPLE demand from them. 

A list of United States Senators and their contact information may be found here: https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #Patriots, #Politics, #SCOTUS, #Community, #Nation, #2020Elections, #VoteWisely, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com

It’s The End Of Democracy!!! (And Other Supreme Threats)

With the sudden passing of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a whole new dimension has been added to this year’s elections. Completely dismissing any resemblance of respect for the Justice’s life or service, the vile political rhetoric began almost immediately following the news of her death. Lies, exaggerations, hypocrisy, threats of violence and political consequences are the new norm – even more so, if you can believe it, than we’ve seen so far in this election.  The future of the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is being determined and the results are critical for every American.  

I’m going to start off with painfully obvious elephant in the room, politics on the bench. The whole three equal and separate branches of government thing our country was built on relied on the courts being the non-political, independent arbitrator of fact, the Constitutional and rule of law. However, that seems to be a wildly outdated notion. At the local, state and federal level, the litmus test for judges is now their political party affiliation and wiliness to rule favorably on issues brought before them by the political masters who appoint them. That is absolutely wrong. 

Judges should be guided by the Constitution and the law, period. Yes, there may be different interpretations of how the law should be applied but that’s the whole function of the appeals process up to United States Supreme Court. There should NEVER be situations like we have now where the Constitution and the rule of law is viewed through a political lens in order to progress a social agenda. 

We are being told filling the vacant judicial seat with a nominee from the current administration will be catastrophic for the nation. We’re told it will delegitimize the court itself and cause irreparable damage. Lives and liberty will be lost.  Really?? 

The SCOTUS is now pretty equally divided politically. The Chief Justice had been considered a conservative and swing vote, but it’s widely accepted now that he capitulated to the threats from the extreme left Senators last year that threated to restructure and stack the court if it didn’t “heal thyself”. 

“Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”

The irony of course is adding a ‘conservative’ justice now would tip the court just slightly to the right, something the left just cannot tolerate. It’s not the reduction of the influence of politics they seek, it’s the reduction of the influence of politics THEY don’t agree with. Interestingly enough, it was a Second Amendment case that had the potential to define standards for Second Amendment cases around the country the brought the threats by the Senate Democrats. 

If the Senate attempts to fill the seat before the elections, we are being told there will be violence and riots like we’ve never seen before. Arson in the form of “burn Congress down” and “burn it all down”. The Democratic party has promised retaliation in the form of eliminating the filibuster in the Senate and restructuring and stacking the SCOTUS as soon as they retake the Senate, presumably to reduce the influence of politics. The Speaker of the House of Representatives has come out to say she won’t rule out impeachment of the President or the Attorney General as an option to prevent filling the seat, as well as other options. One of the more likely options is attempting to impeach Associate Justice Kavanaugh, a threat made during the “heal thyself” intimidation campaign by the Senate Democrats. 

A friend recently posted a definition that bears repeating:  Terrorism: The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 

Of course, hypocrisy and politics go hand in hand. The people who are demanding the seat be left vacant until after the elections are the VERY SAME ones who demanded the Senate fill a vacant seat in 2016. It seems fulfilling constitutional responsibilities is only important when it serves a certain political need. 

The political focus has already shifted to the most vulnerable votes from Republican Senators in Alaska, Maine, Utah and Arizona to block a nomination. Expect the political posturing, campaign contributions and no holds barred back room bargaining to be at historic levels in these states. 

Whomever is nominated by the President to fill this vacancy is sure to face excessively hostile confirmation hearings in the Senate. Much like the Kavanaugh hearings, we can expect the rudest, most obnoxious behavior from the Senate Democrats along with demands for delay after delay after delay for ‘just discovered’ surprise information. In the end, whenever a vote is called, expect grandstanding from both sides of the aisle. 

If you’re wondering why filling this seat is so important, simply look at how this election is being set up to be the most litigated in history. With mandated mail in voting and the potential for widespread voter fraud, the final result will very likely be decided by the United States Supreme Court. Assuming a split along Justice’s political lines, an appeal by either campaign will fail to a four-to-four split. 

Based on what has happened in the two days since Associate Justice Ginsberg passed away, what do you expect to see in the 43 days leading up to the 2020 elections?  

Vote wisely. 

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2020Elections, #SCOTUS, #Terrorism, #PoliticalTerrorism, #Lies, #ElectionTheater, #Corruption, #VoterFraud, #HealThyself, #Patriots, #Responsibility, #Community, #Nation, #Politics, #VoteWisely, #RIPRBG, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com

A Warning For Semi-Free Americans

California defending its unconstitutional gun control laws is nothing new. They write laws intended to strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights while simultaneously writing laws to keep criminals from being punished and releasing those who are already in jail. When these laws are challenged, activist judges put in place by extremist politicians rubber stamp them with some of the most outrageous legal rational to ever come out of a court. 

After having their laws against so-called large capacity magazines (LCMs) ruled unconstitutional at the District Court and with a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Duncan v. Becerra, California has requested a hearing by an en banc panel. Nothing new here, it’s the state just prolonging the fight and running up the bills for the opponents. But what might have gone unnoticed is the 18 Attorneys General who sent a friend-of-the-court in support of California’s law. While some of these states already have a form of magazine restrictions in place, others do not. If you live in one of these states, what do you think this means for the future of your standard capacity magazines?

Attorneys General from Washington D.C, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington all signed onto the brief. 

Of the states with magazine restrictions, most limit them to 10 rounds, a couple are 15 or mixed 10 & 15 for rifle & handgun. Others, like New Jersey, were at 15 and recently cut that to 10. A couple of these states have “grandfathered” clauses which allow those who possessed them to keep them after the law change. Of course, we all know that “grandfathered” just means deferred confiscation as California residents found out when the state changed its mind on legally possessed “grandfathered” magazines and decided they were now illegal. 

The other states, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington do NOT have laws against so-called large capacity magazines. BUT… their Attorney General supports them. What do you think this means for the future of magazine capacity laws? It means sooner or later, like it or not, these states WILL restrict magazines to 10 rounds. 

Why 10 rounds? There really isn’t any rhyme or reason to it. 15 was apparently too many and seven as implemented and ruled unconstitutional in New York was too few. There certainly isn’t any science or research to support it. If you read the rational from extremist gun control think tank & quasi law center, you see how careful wording is used to justify it. It explained how few self-defense shootings “needed” more than 10 rounds and how many firearms from unlawful shootings were found with “large capacity magazines”. No mention of the fact that more rounds HAVE in fact saved the lives of law-abiding citizens or the ACTUAL number of shots fired by criminals, just the capacity of their magazines. Facts matter, unless you’re trying to infringe on constitutionally protected natural rights. 

California argues to the Court that the majority of citizens voted for Proposition 63 which, among other gun control measures, outlawed magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, and as such should be considered valid. Of course, this has ZERO bearing on the legality of this case, and that’s a very good thing. 

Despite the popular misconception, the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic, or better known as a democratic republic. The distinction is critical.  In a democracy, the majority rules on every issue and there are no protections for the minority opinion. If 51% of the population decides there is no right to free speech, then there is no right to free speech, period. 

In a republic, there is a constitution which protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if a majority of the population votes for it. So even if 99% of the population votes there is no right to free speech, then the law is unconstitutional and invalid. 

The Attorneys General friend-of-the-court brief is much the same argument. 18 party loyal extremist prosecutors who don’t believe the Second Amendment right to a standard capacity magazine exists for the average citizen believe their opinion should sway the court.  Guess what, it means DIDDLY SQUAT!! But then again, this is the 9th Circuit, so any extremist view will likely be taken into consideration. 

Where do these Attorneys General opinions matter? In your home state. These are the people who will help draft the anti-standard capacity magazine legislation and give it their stamp of approval. These are people who will lobby the legislature from within to get this law on the books. These are the people who will ensure law-abiding citizens who defy them are prosecuted to the full extent of the law as an example to others. This is YOUR Attorney General. 

Why am I directing this as a warning to semi-free Americans? Because if your state has already started down the gun control path, this is in your future. Gun control starts slowly with the least objectionable, easiest to pass infringements like universal background checks. After all, who could object to something that will keep firearms out of the hands of criminals? It doesn’t matter that the universal background checks have been shown to be completely ineffective means of curbing crime or violence, it’s a toe in the door to more infringements.

While the Duncan v. Becerra directly relates only to California’s magazine ban, it would provide precedent for other western states to appeal their magazine bans, and indirectly those in the rest of the country. While this is important, I’m going to repeat what I’ve said time and time again.

It’s a fool’s errand to believe that once a law has been enacted, it can successfully be drawn back. Of the thousands of gun control laws passed around the country, precious few are successfully appealed and reversed. The best way – the ONLY way to stop them is to prevent them from being enacted in the first place.  And the only one who can do that is you.

If you live in Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia or Washington, your Attorney General has already cast his vote on your Second Amendment rights. It’s time for YOU to cast your vote to stop them. 

Vote wisely.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #CaliforniaGunControlScheme, #California, #GunVote, #Patriots, #Responsibility, #Community, #Nation, #Politics, #GunControlFails, #VoteWisely, #Delaware, #Illinois, #Michigan, #Minnesota, #NewMexico, #Oregon, #Pennsylvania, #Virginia, #Washington, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com 

Election Theater Act 2, The Candidates

Way WAY back on May 6th, 2019, I wrote Election Theater Act 1, The Lightning Rods. At that time, I placed my first and second choices for the official Democratic Party candidates in an envelope, sealed in a mayonnaise jar on Funk & Wagnalls’ back porch to be opened following the 2020 Democratic National Convention. The convention is over, we have nominees and direct descendants of both Funk & Wagnalls have delivered my jar. My guesses at the time were: First choice: Kamala Harris. Second Choice: Hillary Clinton.  I’m claiming a “damn close” with a big honk’n asterisk for things to come. 

I’ll repeat my previous warning: What follows is my opinion and my opinion alone. It is based on my observations of far too many elections and the political process as I currently see it. 

That Joe Biden is the Democratic nominee for President is shocking, to say the least. With the Party focus on the vote from youth, minority, immigrants, progressives and the newly “woke”, the Democratic party has chosen an elderly white male millionaire establishment candidate with 47 years in the D.C. political swamp. A candidate who has already failed twice as a Presidential hopeful and at age 78 would be the oldest President to ever take the oath of office. 

Somewhere along the line, the plan seems to have gone astray. And not for trying either. The nominee has made more gaffes than can even been listed. Things so serious any other candidate would have been tossed to the side like yesterday’s fish wrapped newspaper. These include sexual misconduct allegations that seem to have been swept away along with his involvement in his family’s misdeeds and his own history of racism and questionable cognizance. 

Which brings us to his choice of running mates, Kamala Harris. A former Presidential hopeful herself who crashed and burned badly during the Democratic debates. Yet Biden’s made a promise to choose a black female candidate to fill his Vice President slot and he chose the former top law enforcement official of California during the Defund The Police movement supported by the Party. 

As you can see from my predictions, I always thought Harris would be the nominee. She had all the right supporters and backers but was never able to get over her own poor showing or her highly dubious history as a prosecutor and politician. 

Now here’s my big honk’n prediction asterisk. Should Biden be elected and not be able to fulfill his full term as President, Harris would become the President, a reality many now believe as a given. 

But what of my second choice, Hillary Clinton? My prediction backup was the leading candidate would fall from grace so badly that a demoralized Democratic party would turn to her as their savior and, bypassing all scrutiny of the pre-election theater, nominate her as their Presidential candidate once again. It’s still not outside the range of possibilities but early voting is starting soon, time is running out fast. 

Clinton has recently said she would be open to serving in a Biden administration. But what position would someone who to this day still thinks she was robbed of the presidency be willing to take? Certainly not something subordinate to the President, it would have to be something decidedly superior. The only thing I can think of would be an appointment to the United States Supreme Court. It’s not outside the realm of possibility, and extraordinarily terrifying. 

So let’s take a preview of what will certainly be Election Theater Act 3, The Elections. 

With COVID-19 still making it too unsafe to vote in person – even though mass riots are perfectly safe – mail in voting will be the key to making this election the most hotly contested and litigated in United States history. 

Those of you who are old enough will remember the absolute CF that was the 2000 Presidential elections, how long it took to resolve and the intervention of the Florida Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court in determining the end result. 2020 is going to make that look like a walk in the park. 

Imagine late ballots, non-postmarked ballots, boxes upon boxes of lost then mysteriously found ballots, defective but still certified ballots, ballots from the dead and many, many ballot recounts – in every state around the country. This election is being set up to be contested for MONTHS by armies of lawyers on both sides. Which brings up the nightmare scenario where the Electoral College is unable to declare a winner by January 20, 2021. 

In that case, the election would go to the House of Representatives for a vote by state, with each state voting on their own, independent of their state’s election results. Whatever candidate (and it could be anyone) has a majority of 26 states would become president until Jan. 20, 2025.

If you think the elections have been nasty and stupid so far, you haven’t seen anything yet. 

Of course, this is only MY opinion. 

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #2020Elections, #BaitAndSwitch, #ElectionTheater, #Corruption, #VoterFraud, #Patriots, #Responsibility, #Community, #Nation, #Politics, #VoteWisely, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com

Un-Happy Labor Day

Today is Labor Day in the United States, a time we should be taking to celebrate the American worker. We should be, but this year is a very different. With the twin plagues known as COVID-19 & election politics in full bloom, millions of Americans are out of work, their “non-essential” businesses shut down or only able to open at a small fraction of their capacity.  In my state, today is day 180 of the mandatory Two Weeks to Flatten the Curve of COVID-19 economic shutdown.  Businesses closed, many forever, means workers idled, dependent on emergency government assistance to provide them with enough money to simply survive. Too many businesses are closed, families broken, and lives lost for not being able to endure the anguish.  This is not the way to celebrate Labor Day.

I don’t believe for a moment American workers want to be dependent on the government for their existence. American workers want to work. They want to provide for their families themselves. They want to be independent and make their own choices about the safety of their families, but they are not allowed to. 

A little reminder on what Labor Day is. 

The modern observance of the holiday seems to have forgotten the roots that brought Labor Day into being. Following the Pullman Strike of 1894 where 30 workers died and 57 were injured at the hands of the United States Army and Marshals Service, Congress approved Labor Day as an official holiday. It was an attempt by President Grover Cleveland to gain support among the trade unions following the strike. While it is disputed who first proposed the holiday, Peter J. McGuire, general secretary of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners or machinist Matthew Maguire, the intent was to create a “workingmen’s holiday”.

Recently the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) revised their numbers to show the number of sick and dead from COVID-19 were never as bad as they had been reported. Also revised has been the guidance for travel indicating the mandatory 14-day quarantines are not necessary. Still further evidence shows the economic shutdowns have been overly broad and unnecessary. Yet extremist governors refuse to revise their shutdown orders and let people go back to work. Those who attempt to defy these orders have been issued shockingly excessive fines for simply opening their businesses. 

The longer this pandemic shutdown goes on, the more we see it has not been a health-related emergency but a political exploitation. The purpose has been crystal clear, to cause as much economic disruption as possible to influence people to vote against an administration THEY blame for the economic turmoil and promise to rebuild the economy THEY themselves are responsible for destroying. 

When the U.S. Congress comes back into session this week, we’ll see if they are willing to work towards helping those who have been shut out of their jobs or holding them hostage until they can pass a full agenda of socialist reform measures. 

Better yet, how about some encouragement to the states to get them to reopen their economies. Perhaps if the politicians who have yet to go without a paycheck from the economic shutdown lost their income too it would prompt them to action. Perhaps a complete shutdown of all federal dollars to any state that hasn’t reopened would get them to take a fresh look at the economic impact vs. their political positioning under the pretext of a health emergency. 

American workers deserve the opportunity to work and celebrate their Labor Day as actual workers. 

Bob

#oddstuffing, #constitution, #2A, #SecondAmendment, #LaborDay, #MadeInTheUSA, #COVID, #Politics, #SmokeAndMirror, #Vote2020, #GunVote, #Responsibility, #Community, #Nation, #Politics, #VoteWisely, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com

Not Well-Suited for Self-Defense?

As expected, the State of California filed an appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit three-judge panel that upheld the ruling that the State’s ban on Large Capacity Magazines (LCM) was unconstitutional in the case of Duncan v. Becerra. Nothing about the request for a rehearing by an en banc panel was a surprise, from the arguments being made to the appeal being filed on the final day. California will do anything and everything to protect one of its signature gun control measures and bleed the opposition dry while doing it. And just because you’re not from People’s Republik of Kalifornistan doesn’t mean this case shouldn’t be important to you. 

All of the materials, filings and rulings on this case are available at the link below. It’s worth your time to read and understand what is going on since California likes to export its bad, expensive and unconstitutional policies to the rest of the country. 

There are a few things I found particularly interesting in the State’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

First, the State sees no reason or need for any civilian to have so-called large capacity magazines. In fact, the filing indicates “The record here demonstrates that LCMs are not well-suited for self-defense.” It rationalizes that Californian’s can have as many 10 round magazines as they want, and (currently) as much ammunition as they want. 

The photo that accompanies this article is from a home security system in a Fremont, CA home invasion burglary on August 28, 2016. It shows five armed men coming into the house, at least one carrying a handgun with a magazine extending below the pistol grip, a LCM. Fortunately, the residents were not home at the time. Even if the resident was armed with a California 10 round magazine, he would most certainly have been killed in this encounter. In this burglary the homeowner was able to call the police while watching the burglary on his home cameras remotely. Unfortunately, the armed home invaders left before the police arrived and were not caught.

The State has never explained why a so-called LCM is not-well suited for self-defense, but it’s the exact opposite of the training and advise of every reputable self-defense instructor I’ve ever known, including my own. It has also never offered any explanation why 10 rounds is the magic, safe enough for civilians number, but 11 is way too dangerous. 

Let’s also keep in mind that in some places like New York City, firearms that simply have the capability to accept a so-called LCM are banned. So, if even one magazine is made for it with a capacity over 10 rounds, the firearm itself is banned.

The State also references the Fyock v. Sunnyvale, a local California ordinance banning magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, which was upheld by a three-judge panel, as a binding precedent. 

There are several issues that come from Fyock, not the least of which is that California does not have a preemption law banning local jurisdictions from passing their own more restrictive firearm regulations. As we’ve seen in states without preemption, this results in a patchwork of laws throughout the state that are impossible for any law-abiding citizen to understand or comply with. Virginia recently removed its preemption for firearm regulations and now anti-gun cities are drafting unique and highly confusing laws regulating use and possession within its borders. 

Fyock was also decided under what is known as Intermediate Scrutiny, which is what the State believes is the correct level for Second Amendment cases. Duncan’s ruling utilized Strict Scrutiny. 

A quick note on Rational-Basis, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Strict Scrutiny

Under Rational Basis the government must have a legitimate interest and the law must be “rationally related” to the interest. 

Under Intermediate Scrutiny, the government must have an important interest and the law must be substantially related to the interest. 

Under Strict Scrutiny, the government must have a compelling interest and the law must be narrowly tailored to the interest.

Note that the likelihood of a law being overturned increases as the level of scrutiny increases. Few government laws survive a Strict Scrutiny test since they are generally far broader than need be. 

The argument for the use of Strict Scrutiny review of Second Amendment cases has been going on for years. Government agencies don’t like that because it severely restricts their regulatory powers, something most of us would argue is appropriate in a case involving the Bill of Rights. 

For the next step, the 11-member en banc panel to hear this will be randomly drawn from the Nineth Circuit Court of Appeals. While there has been significant progress in helping to balance the court with justices appointed by the current Presidential administration, it still has a 16 to 13 liberal slant. Of course, that ANY judge should be considered liberal vs. conservative is absolutely asinine. The law, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights should be interpreted by every judge each and every time WITHOUT regard for political party platforms, but that’s a topic for another time. For this case, the outcome will likely be decided by the draw instead of the legal arguments in the case. 

Why is this case important? A successful appeal by the State reverses the initial District Court ruling and magazines with a capacity higher than 10 rounds are once again illegal in California. The only hope for a reversal comes from the United States Supreme Court which has not been willing to hear Second Amendment cases. 

In the unlikely event of Duncan being upheld, the State will have to decide if it wants to risk an unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court where it has the potential to impact magazine bans around the country or find another way to restrict them in California. 

However, in my opinion the most important thing this case points out is the importance of our local and state elections. Laws like this are enacted by the people we elect to office. When we elect gun control politicians, we enable them to restrict our Second Amendment protected rights and the only recourse we have is to have them overturned in the courts. 

And guess what, you and I are paying for both sides of this fight. Our taxes pay for the lawyers to defend the laws that take away our rights and our dues and donations pay for the lawyers to try to get them back. The only ones who win regardless of the outcome are the lawyers. 

It’s a fool’s errand to believe that once a law has been enacted, it can successfully be drawn back. Of the thousands of gun control laws passed around the country, precious few are successfully appealed and reversed. The best way – the ONLY way to stop them is to prevent them from being enacted in the first place.  And the only one who can do that is you.

Vote wisely this year. 

Bob

#oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #GunControlFails, #CaliforniaGunControlScheme, #California, #GunVote, #Patriots, #Responsibility, #Community, #Nation, #Politics, #GunControlFails, #VoteWisely, #mewe, #medium, #parler, #oddstuffing.com