Archive for the ‘Bill of Rights’ Category

According to this resolution, racism is a health crisis. That isn’t my implication. That’s from HR1 from the House Second Special Session. The resolution starts by saying “A House resolution declaring racism a public health crisis. WHEREAS, race is a social construct with no biological basis; and WHEREAS, racism is embedded in the foundation of America, beginning with chattel slavery in 1619; and WHEREAS, much of the Black experience in America has been endured under slavery and Jim Crow, which created preferential opportunities for white people while subjecting people of color to hardships and disadvantages in every area of life;”

First, let’s dispose of the myth that the United States started in 1619. In 1619, the colonies were still under British rule. The Boston Tea Party, which was one of the first rebellious acts by the colonies against British governance, didn’t happen until Dec. 16, 1773. This is proof that timelines matter. The British indeed loved a two-tiered system of government. Royalty and commoners weren’t supposed to mix. The US didn’t want that system so they did something revolutionary.

The US said that our rights came from “Nature’s God” and that “all men are created equal.” The 56 men who signed the Declaration believed that each person was created in the image of Nature’s God. That’s why the US fought a civil war to end slavery. The US is the only nation that’s fought a war to abolish slavery. That isn’t something that a nation committed to systematic slavery would do.

Even after the Civil War, the Confederacy, the home of the Democrat Party, still insisted on building impediments to full-fledged liberty. That’s what Jim Crow was about. It’s a biological fact. Next, most of the embedded pockets of racism, especially slavery and Jim Crow, were mostly found in the South when Democrats reigned supreme:

Black codes were strict local and state laws that detailed when, where and how formerly enslaved people could work, and for how much compensation. The codes appeared throughout the South as a legal way to put Black citizens into indentured servitude, to take voting rights away, to control where they lived and how they traveled and to seize children for labor purposes.

If the DFL wants to admit that the GOP was created to end slavery and that Democrats were the party of the KKK, Jim Crow and the Confederacy, that’s fine. The things that Democrats have stood for have been evil. Recently, Democrats haven’t protected minorities, letting Antifa and BLM rioters destroy minority-owned businesses and minority-owned neighborhoods. Democrats called for the dismantling of the police departments that protect minority neighborhoods.

WHEREAS, public health disparities have persisted for over 400 years and there are long-standing, unaddressed disparities as well as systemic racism and other socioeconomic inequities;

That’s a lie. The problems within the black community first appeared after LBJ’s signing of the Great Society legislation. Since then, poverty in minority neighborhoods has tripled.

WHEREAS, more than 100 studies have linked racism to worse health outcomes; and WHEREAS, in Minnesota the highest excess death rates exist for Black and Indigenous communities, at every age demographic; and WHEREAS, Minnesota must address persistent disparities in health outcomes and the social, economic, educational, and environmental inequities that contribute to them;

Linking worse health outcomes to racism is BS. How many of these ‘studies’ are peer-reviewed and questioned? Might outcomes improve if schools taught the value of proper nutrition?

If Kim Gardner wanted to pick a fight, she’s picked the wrong fight. She isn’t just fighting the McCloskeys, who are both attorneys. She’s also picked a fight with Antonin Scali, who wrote the majority opinion in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller. That’s a fight that she’s already lost. Further, she’s picked a fight against Eric Schmitt, the Missouri Attorney General and Josh Hawley, Schmitt’s predecessor. These are fights she’s destined to lose.

This Redstate.com article highlights the extent that AG Schmitt is prepared. This won’t be a pretty ending for Ms. Gardner. AG Schmitt’s tweet storm is both blistering and extensive. I won’t post all of AG Schmitt’s tweets. I’ll just post 3 tweets to illustrate the foolishness of Ms. Gardner’s case.


If Ms. Gardner wants to fight that fight, that’s her option. It’s a foolish option, though, because her prosecution might prevent the McCloskeys from assisting their clients. If the McCloskeys prove that they’ve been harmed financially because of Ms. Gardner’s prosecution, that might expose her office to a lawsuit.

If that happened, Eric Schmitt would make a powerful opening witness. Video of the broken down gate to the community would strengthen such a lawsuit. Testimony by the McCloskeys themselves would seal the deal. They’ve told law enforcement that the troublemakers pointed to specific rooms, then told the McCloskeys how they planned on using each room after they’d conquered the property.

Discretion is the better part of valor. If Gardner was smart, she’d drop this before this gets to trial. Otherwise, the outcome might be quite painful.

Anyone that thinks that today’s Democrats are similar to Hubert Humphrey’s Democrats or Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s Democrats is kidding themselves. Today’s Democrats aren’t even like Paul Wellstone’s Democrats. Democrats took a terrible trip when Harry Reid and Ms. Pelosi won leadership positions in the Senate and House respectively in 2006.

Since then, they’ve governed from a my-way-or-the-highway philosophy. In 2008, Al Franken joined the Senate. Discourse sunk even lower. During Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing, Franken struck up a conversation with Sotomayor about Perry Mason. We were so enlightened by the exchange:

The point is that Democrats aren’t about making America better. They’re about changing the US into something it isn’t. When Biden says that he wants to transform the US, just like his boss said, that isn’t what a patriot would say. That’s what a hater would say. If you thought that the US was founded on great principles and that we’ve helped dozens of nations achieve liberty or helped them through natural disasters. you don’t think that the US needs a transformation. It needs some changes. It doesn’t need a transformation.

If you’re a patriot, you think that the US is great, though it isn’t perfect. Patriots think that the US is constantly changing, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. We’re constantly a work in progress.

Far left Democrats think that slavery is the lasting mark against the US. It isn’t. That’s like thinking that a student who didn’t understand math at first is forever destined for poor grades. That’s like saying the student can’t get tutoring that changes everything. One day, the final piece of the puzzle drops into place and the struggling student starts acing tests.

Today’s Democrats apparently think that anyone white is a racist. They talk about white privilege and implicit bias. The only thing we can do is constantly ask for forgiveness for something that’s beyond our control.

Today’s Democrat leadership aren’t patriots. They’re liars. Check out this joint statement from Ms. Pelosi and Rep. Earl Blumenauer:

As our nation mourns the loss of our colleague and beloved civil rights leader John Lewis, we are again reminded of the immense power of peaceful protest in the fight against racial injustice and police brutality. Yet time and time again, the Trump Administration shows its lack of respect for the dignity and First Amendment rights of all Americans.

Last month, the Administration tear-gassed peaceful protestors in Washington, D.C. Now, videos show them kidnapping protestors in unmarked cars in Portland, all with the goal of inflaming tensions for their own gain. While Portland is the President’s current target, any city could be next.

We live in a democracy, not a banana republic. We will not tolerate the use of Oregonians, Washingtonians, or any other Americans, as props in President Trump’s political games. The House is committed to moving swiftly to curb these egregious abuses of power immediately.

What a pile of BS. Predictably, Ms. Pelosi intentionally left out a few important details. She intentionally omitted the fact that the rioting in Portland had gone on for 40 days prior to President Trump’s action. Pelosi intentionally omitted the fact that this wasn’t a peaceful protest, which are protected by the First Amendment. They were full-fledged pre-planned riots. Dozens of arrests were made, with virtually each arrestee getting charged with interfering with the police. Does that sound like it falls within the protections of the First Amendment, which permits people to peaceably assemble.

Riots aren’t protected by the First Amendment. Portland police declared a riot when Democrat protesters attacked a building housing the police officers’ union. So much for Democrats supporting working families.

The next time that Ms. Pelosi wants to lecture us about the First Amendment, she should commit to telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Intentionally omitting important details of a story is lying. Lying for partisan gain isn’t patriotism. It’s the opposite of patriotism.

In case Republicans haven’t figured it out, protesting at state capitol buildings is fun but it isn’t effective. I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t protest Gov. Walz’s questionable decisions. What I’m saying is that GOP activists shouldn’t limit themselves to just protesting. Saturday afternoon, the DFL issued this statement criticizing Kurt Daudt:

Today, Minnesota House Republicans have made it clear that they would rather play politics than help Minnesotans get back to work. By pledging to block Governor Walz’s Local Jobs and Projects Plan, Representative Daudt and House Republicans are standing in the way of thousands of hardworking men and women in the construction industry building our critical infrastructure throughout the state. Once again, Minnesota Republicans say one thing and do another – they say they want to pass an infrastructure bill but when the time comes to actually get it done, they stick it to working people who desperately need these jobs.

Representative Daudt’s foolish temper tantrum goes against the advice of public health experts, the wishes of the vast majority of the American people, and the guidelines for reopening states issued by the President of Daudt’s own party. Representative Daudt’s gambling with the health and economic well-being of Minnesotans everywhere proves just how unfit Minnesota Republicans are to lead, especially during times of crisis.

It’s time for the gloves to come off. It’s time to expose the DFL as the party who shut down Minnesota’s economy based on a model put together by our DFL governor and Jan Malcolm, his clueless commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Health and the U of M. That model was off by orders of magnitude. Gov. Walz tried frightening Minnesotans by telling us that 74,000 Minnesotans would die if we did nothing. That’s an outright lie. As of Saturday night, May 2, there were 6,228 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Minnesota and 395 deaths related to COVID-19 in Minnesota.

It’s time for Kurt Daudt and Paul Gazelka to step off the sidelines. They’re playing defense. They should play offense by filing a lawsuit that ends Emperor Walz’s reign of autocracy. Question the constitutional validity of Walz’s shelter-in-place orders. There’s nothing worthwhile about any of them. How many people lost their life savings thanks to Gov. Walz’s autocratic decisions? How many people lost their jobs thanks to Gov. Walz’s autocratic decisions?

It’s time to fight against Gov. Walz and the DFL’s autocratic rules. There’s nothing reasonable about how the DFL is infringing upon our rights to earn a living. Gov. Walz’s decisions has triggered a Minnesota deficit that’s likely to exceed $5,000,000,000 next year. That’s hiding the costs of draining the Rainy Day Fund and a multi-billion-dollar federal bailout.

Gov. Walz, if we save one life but destroy families upon families’ life savings, will it still be worth it? If you say yes to that question, then you’re a bleeping idiot.

Finally, We The People have the right to representation on the biggest issues of the day. When it comes to COVID-19 matters, we don’t have a say in any matters. That’s because Gov. Walz insists on making all of the decisions himself. That isn’t a constitutional republic. That’s a monarchy. 244 years ago, patriots stood up and fought against tyrants that insisted on controlling our lives. It’s time we started our own revolutionary war. This time, though, let’s use the courts instead of using muskets.

Apparently, Democrats think that the federal government is responsible for everything. That’s what you’d think if you just listened to Rep. Katharine Clark, a Democrat from Massachusetts. According to the article, Rep. Clark is quoted as saying “This is not how it is supposed to work. What we need is a coordinated federal system.”

The text of the Tenth Amendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Nowhere in the US Constitution does it talk about the executive branch to do the governors’ job. Each governor is expected to prepare for health crises. That includes stockpiling medical supplies like personal protection equipment, aka PPEs, ventilators, N95 masks, etc.

That also requires them to put in place plans on who does what when a crisis overwhelms the system. This is done in conjunction with the legislature so the best ideas become the official plan. After a crisis overwhelms a state, having a plan intact eliminates the confusion and speeds up the response because everything is laid out on an organizational chart.

Part of Sen. Schumer’s criticism of President Trump should actually be directed at Gov. Cuomo. Gov. Cuomo should’ve stockpiled ventilators after the H1N1 crisis. A wise administrator would’ve gotten out ahead of the situation. Nowhere in this article does Sen. Schumer talk about what Gov. Cuomo should do, though he spent plenty of time talking about what the federal government should be doing.

Sen. Schumer sent a letter to President Trump telling President Trump to put a senior military person in charge of supply chains. Here’s how President Trump responded to Sen. Schumer’s cheap shot:

Rear Admiral John Polowczyk is a professional by anyone’s estimation. Here’s just a smattering of information from his website:

Rear Adm. John Polowczyk is a native of Manhasset, Long Island, New York. He graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1987 with a Bachelor of Science in engineering. He holds a Master of Science in Contract and Acquisition Management from the Naval Postgraduate School and a Master of Science in National Resource Strategy from the National Defense University Industrial College of the Armed Forces. He also completed an executive education program at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth.

I mean, he just has an advanced degree from an Ivy League school. He doesn’t sound qualified to me. (I’m just kidding.)

It’s best to think of this as asking which level of government handles which part of the crisis best. Once that’s figured out, federalism becomes simple.

With impeachment now temporarily out of sight and with the year coming to an end soon, it’s time to look forward at next year’s campaigns. The House Democrats’ impeachment farce has made them the laughingstock of swing district independent voters nationwide. When Speaker Pelosi enticed her freshmen to walk the plank vote to impeach President Trump, she enticed them to sign their political death warrant. This isn’t just about the 30 Democrats serving in Trump-won districts. It’s about Democrats serving in districts that Trump narrowly lost, too.

Somehow, Speaker Pelosi has morphed into a tragic figure, something Republicans didn’t think was possible. Still, that’s what happened when she trusted Adam Schiff’s and AOC’s political instincts more than her own political instincts. One side of her majority couldn’t wait to impeach President Trump. The other side of her majority wanted to legislate.

The bad news for Speaker Pelosi is that the 2 sides compromised and spent their time investigating, then impeaching President Trump. The worse news is that Chairmen Schiff and Nadler impeached President Trump without citing the high crime President Trump had committed. The public hearings in the House Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee were a total disaster for Democrats.

Meanwhile, Democrats in the House Problem Solvers Caucus didn’t produce solutions to any of the pressing issues that need to be addressed. A Problem Solvers Caucus that doesn’t solve problems is essentially worthless. House Republicans will tell voters next fall that the way to get things done is through unified Republican government, with President Trump orchestrating the agenda from the Oval Office.

Republicans have President Trump to support. Further, Republicans have a positive, pro-growth agenda to support. The Democrats have don’t have a figure to rally around or a positive, pro-growth agenda to support. They have to defend Speaker Pelosi’s decision to withhold articles of impeachment from the Senate in an attempt to negotiate with Mitch McConnell.

Apolitical citizens can’t identify with Pelosi-style trickery. They think, rightly, that people who’ve been indicted (impeached) should get their day in court. In fact, the wise men that wrote the Constitution codified that principle into the Constitution. It’s part of the Constitution because they ratified the Sixth Amendment, which states this:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

This isn’t a request. It’s a requirement. Since Speaker Pelosi declared the impeachment inquiry into existence, she’s been talking about the solemnity of this process, the requirement that the Constitution be protected and the need to protect our democracy:

While the Democrats are split on whether they should have travelled down the impeachment path, they’re united in that they won’t avoid the voters’ wrath for ignoring We The People‘s agenda. Democrats will feel the people’s wrath for pursuing the Resistance’s agenda of unlimited investigations and repetitive impeachments:

That Democrats would promote this type of division is the source for the Democrats’ 2020 demise.

Mark Zaid, the faux whistleblower’s attorney, apparently has a bone to pick with President Trump. He’s apparently a prolific Twitter user, too. Zaid’s tweets might hurt his client.

According to Zaid’s tweets, he wants Trump out of office ASAP:


What’s laughable is what’s written on Mr. Zaid’s profile page:

Attorney handling cases involving national security, security clearances, govt investigations, media, Freedom of Information Act, & whistleblowing. Non-partisan

That should read “Hyper-partisan” instead of “Non-partisan.”

Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, “I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president.” Also that month, Zaid tweeted, “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters.”

Only in Washington, DC, would a man who tweeted out such tweets be considered non-partisan.

Tim Murtaugh, the Trump campaign’s communications director, told Fox News that “The whistleblower’s lawyer gave away the game. It was always the Democrats’ plan to stage a coup and impeach President Trump and all they ever needed was the right scheme. They whiffed on Mueller so now they’ve settled on the perfectly fine Ukraine phone call. This proves this was orchestrated from the beginning.”

As dense as Mr. Zaid is, apparently, Justin Amash is just as clueless:

“Actually, the Constitution specifically provides for the right of the accused to meet his accuser,” Hemingway tweeted. “Whistleblower protection has never — could never — mean that accusations are accepted without question. He of course must testify. To say otherwise is silly.”

Amash made this feeble argument against Hemingway:

“Yeah, at *trial* in a *criminal* prosecution,” Amash responded. “To say otherwise is silly. The best argument one could make is that it also should apply at trial in the Senate, despite not being a criminal prosecution, following impeachment in the House.”

Seriously? So a person can get impeached without the accuser having to testify? When did the USA’s judicial system become predicated on the notion that a person could get indicted by anonymous accusations?

It’s one thing to say that a person can get indicted without having their accuser cross-examined. While a criminal indictment isn’t fun, it’s a breeze compared with getting impeached. Getting impeached means that the president isn’t permitted to run the nation for the betterment of a nation. Does Mr. Amash think that the impeachment process not affect the entire nation?

If Mr. Amash thinks that, then he and Mr. Zaid deserve each other. They’re both losers if that’s the case.

If there’s anything that’s predictable, it’s that the Swamp protects its own. Nowhere is that more visible today than with the faux whistleblower, whose name (allegedly Eric Ciaramella) was disclosed by Donald Trump Jr. today. According to this article, “current and former intelligence officials tell NBC News” that “pressure is building on the spy agency’s director, Gina Haspel, to take a stand on the matter.”

Fine. Here’s a stand that these Swamp critters won’t like. Haspel should side with the Constitution. Specifically, Haspel should side with the Sixth Amendment, which says “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

TRANSLATION: Anyone accused of a crime has the right to cross-examine his accusers, just like he has a right to accuse those accusers. The standard is that defendants shall have the right to confront their accusers. It doesn’t say that defendants might have that right if the wind is out of the west and if we’ve just had a full moon. It says that, in all situations, the defendant shall have that right. Predictably, the faux whistleblower’s attorney isn’t fond of the idea of his client’s name getting outed:

Andrew Bakaj, the whistleblower’s lead lawyer, has said that disclosure of his client’s name would deter future whistleblowers and he has threatened legal action against anyone who reveals the name. In a statement Wednesday, the whistleblower’s lawyers said “identifying any suspected name … will place that individual and their family at risk of serious harm.”

First, it isn’t known if this person qualifies as a whistleblower. Just because his/her attorney says the person is a whistleblower doesn’t make it Gospel fact. Next, if the alleged whistleblower has a partisan political agenda that includes removing the president from office, then exposing the alleged whistleblower’s identity is a patriotic thing. I want people who gossip about things that they heard to not be protected. If this person didn’t abide by the laws of integrity, they don’t deserve protection.

The inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, found the whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s alleged pressure campaign on Ukraine to be credible. The description of events in the complaint, which has been public for weeks, has largely been confirmed by the transcript of Trump’s July phone call with the Ukrainian president and by the publicly available testimony of other witnesses in recent weeks.

Michael Atkinson should testify when the House Impeachment Committee, chaired by hyperpartisan Democrat Adam Schiff, conducts public hearings. What made the whistleblower’s testimony credible? Was it the fact that none of it was first-hand information? Was it the fact that no court in the nation would’ve admitted this information into a court because it’s hearsay, which is inadmissible except in a few exceptions?

“Since the affiliation of the whistleblower is unacknowledged, it is up to the Acting DNI Joe McGuire to take a firm public and private stance against any effort to expose the whistleblower,” Brennan told NBC News. “Other leaders of the Intelligence Community should privately oppose any attempt to name the whistleblower. Senator Paul’s appalling call for the naming of the whistleblower by the media should be denounced in the strongest terms possible; a statement signed by the heads of all the intelligence agencies would be most appropriate.”

Based on what, Mr. Brennan? Why should partisan snitches peddling gossip get protection? This isn’t the case of a patriot saving the nation from a madman. This is the case of a renegade madman trying to save a nation from a patriot.

It isn’t often that Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul agree so I’d better record this for history’s sake:

Since Angie Craig and Dean Phillips announced that they supported impeachment proceedings, they’ve resisted making it a level playing field for Republicans and Democrats alike. Thus far, the ‘rules’ have been made up on the fly.

If that’s the Democrats’ definition of constitutional fairness, I don’t think many people will agree with Democrats. We’ve been told by Ms. Pelosi that this is a solemn matter that requires constant prayer and introspection. These hearings haven’t featured fairness, much less constitutional principles. Why haven’t Phillips and Craig insisted on investigative fairness? If this is supposed to be a time of solemnity, why hasn’t Schiff displayed fairness throughout?

Craig and Phillips flipped their opinions on whether to conduct an investigation into impeachment based on nothing. Let’s remember that these freshmen Democrats switched their opinions before the facts of the case changed. When Craig and Phillips switched to yes on the impeachment investigation, they didn’t switch their opinion on whether they think President Trump should be impeached.

Craig and Phillips switched their opinion the Friday before Queen Nancy declared the impeachment inquiry was official. Let’s not forget that the Trump-Zelensky transcript wasn’t released until the day after Queen Nancy’s declaration. Let’s not forget that the CIA snitch’s complaint wasn’t released until that Thursday. It’s fair to ask Craig and Phillips why they changed their minds.

Let’s ask this Democrat duo what rules must be put in place to ensure fairness and constitutional due process. Should President Trump’s attorneys have the right to confront President Trump’s accusers? If not, why not? If defendants’ representation are allowed to cross-examine witnesses, shouldn’t a man have that right if he’s about to potentially be thrown out of office?

Craig and Phillips haven’t pushed for a real impeachment vote. Apparently, they won’t vote for a real investigation. Apparently, Democrats are willing to vote for articles of impeachment without an investigation:

House Democrats believe they have the 217 votes needed to pass articles of impeachment against President Trump stemming from his Ukraine call, enough votes to impeach Trump and send articles to the Senate, even before their planned hearings or formal investigation.

That’s breathtakingly stunning. At least 40 of those Democrats just signed their political death certificate. It might reach higher; perhaps as much as 50-55 might get defeated. These Democrats just said that they’ll vote to undo an election without conducting an investigation. Remember this moment of solemnity?

That’s when Ms. Pelosi said “The actions taken to date by the President have seriously violated the Constitution, especially when the President says that “Article II says that I can do whatever I want.” It’s time Ms. Pelosi went to law school. She apparently hasn’t figured out that due process is a constitutional right. Likewise, Ms. Pelosi apparently doesn’t know that the right to a speedy trial doesn’t mean skipping the investigation.

Angie Craig and Dean Phillips are part of that 217 vote majority who will vote to impeach President Trump without investigating him. If that isn’t the definition of radicalism, then such a definition doesn’t exist. Craig and Phillips should join a lengthy list of radical Democrats who’ll need to look for work come New Years Day 2020.

Thursday night’s debate showed just how much contempt Democrat presidential candidates have for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Kamala Harris said that she’d issue an executive order to confiscate (my word, not hers) AR-15s and AK-47s if Congress didn’t act on banning assault weapons. I quoted from the DC v. Heller case in this post why she’d get slammed 9-0 in the Supreme Court:

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

The Supreme Court has ruled that guns that are in common use are beyond Congress because they’re protected by the Second Amendment. Period.

Harris isn’t the only Democrat that thinks they’re above the Constitution. Robert Francis O’Rourke, the rich brat from El Paso, went on this tirade during the debate:

O’Rourke himself is just a punk who won’t be president. With that tirade, he took himself out of the running for being a serious challenger to Sen. Cornyn, too. That’s why I couldn’t care less about Robert Francis. What I’m bothered about was the applause he received from the audience at the Democrats’ debate in Houston. Those idiots are our neighbors, co-workers and friends.

This is what happens when our schools don’t emphasize civics in the classroom. Increasingly, our society thinks that they’re beyond the law and the Constitution. Chief of those that think that way is AOC. Harris apparently thinks that she can ignore the Constitution, too:

Harris responded, “I would just say, hey, Joe, instead of saying, no, we can’t, let’s say, yes, we can. And yes, we can. Because I’ll tell you something, the way that I think about this is, I’ve seen more autopsy photographs than I care to tell you. I have attended more police officer funerals than I care to tell you. I have hugged more mothers of homicide victims than I care to tell you. And the idea that we would wait for this Congress, which has just done nothing, to act, is just — it is overlooking the fact that every day in America, our babies are going to school to have drills.”

To Sen. Harris: I’ve read the Bill of Rights. It trumps the autopsy pictures that Sen. Harris has seen. It trumps the attempt to play on victims’ emotions, too.

Perhaps it’s just me but Sen. Harris sounded like she was high when she said “Hey, Joe, instead of saying ‘no, we can’t,’ let’s say ‘yes, we can.’ That laughter made her sound like she was high.

Whether Sen. Harris was high or not, she’s definitely wrong on the Constitution.