“Support the Troops” is a popular patriotic catchphrase. By having that bumper sticker on your car, with the added emphasis of red, white, and blue colors, we can seek the validation from our peers that soldiers have our support. Standing with those bravely living and dying for our freedoms abroad is a noble task. But do we do this in spirit or just in words?

There’s only a small handful of days in a year that people thank a veteran for their service or kneel down before the grave of a lost soldier.

On Memorial Day, we have long parades featuring floats and flashy things that are irrelevant to the point of the day. After these parades, family and friends retreat to their homes and gatherings for cookouts. What a better way to enjoy a weekend?

Veteran’s Day is that one day where people will greet an individual wearing a “Vietnam Veteran” hat with a thank you and shake their hand. It’s the one day where people will post status updates thanking those who served for doing just that.

But what does it mean? In a lot of instances, it’s a mere shallow act to seek the validation from those around us that we did enough.

Are we supporting the troops by showing up at a town parade to wave our mini-American Flags and sing patriotic anthems? It’s not wrong, it’s just not enough.

A soldier is someone who signed up to protect their country from threats foreign and domestic. They signed their life to the military with the understanding that their lives are secondary to the safety of the nation and that if the country called for it, they could be sent into combat. Here in combat, people die. Any soldier runs that risk of being one of the casualties.

This isn’t an easy thought to bear and some do it with that in mind because they feel it’s the right thing to do. Some are fortunate to come back in tact. Others return, but have psychological issues resulting from the traumatic experiences of war. Some are not even fortunate to come back at all.

What does it truly mean to honor these brave souls who give the ultimate sacrifice?

The ultimate sacrifice has a lot of real world effects. Families are affected when loved ones are sent faraway to fight a war or conflict that will become subject to global politics. It shapes global politics and can shake things up. That makes the soldiers targets in political struggles.

Our Founders realized that not all war is just and reasonable. This is why the power to actually declare did not rest with any single individual. Under the Constitution, Congress declares war. This requires a thoughtful congressional debate as to whether or not these brave soldiers should be sent off into harm’s way.

Unfortunately, this no longer occurs. Soldiers are sent off into harm’s way without Congress even bothering to debate their involvement in a foreign conflict. A single human being can make the decision based on politics alone to send a soldier off to a foreign land to die.

How is this standing for our troops? How is this a show of support?

If we are to respect the military and show support for the troops, we must resist the urge to enter war easily. War puts these brave souls on a battlefield faced with possible death. While it’s something they all proudly accept when standing for America, it’s important for Americans to not allow them to be used for politics. Soldiers shouldn’t be sent into combat without a thoughtful debate and subsequent constitutional declaration by Congress. Soldiers shouldn’t be involved in a conflict that doesn’t affect American interests or threaten American safety.

Senator Bernie Sanders has lead a revolt through the Democratic Party over the last several months, crashing the Hillary Clinton coronation and getting under the skin of the Democratic National Committee. Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, never once hiding her bias, kept the primary in the bag for Clinton. Superdelegates have been Chairwoman Wasserman Schulz’s willing army of disciples keeping the party establishment on track.

But to his credit, Senator Sanders stayed in the race and fought through each primary state. His movement expected him to stay in until the end and it became clear over time he was serious about fighting for his electoral chance.

But in order for an election to become a movement, there has to be a willingness to go against the political grain.

Senator Sanders already foreshadowed his imminent capitulation to the establishment weeks ago after meeting with President Barack Obama and Clinton herself. After these meetings, he stated that he would work with Clinton to prevent probable Republican nominee Donald Trump from becoming President.

In order to stop Trump from becoming President, there are a few options. Senator Sanders could vote for Hillary Clinton, who the Associated Press nominated for the Democratic ticket. This would not be in step with his own movement of progressives, but it would appease the Democratic establishment and put his political career in better standing.

But if you’re going to step up your game and stand up to anti-progressives, Clinton is not an option.

There is Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, a former Governor of New Mexico with a libertarian lite philosophy that leans to the left. Recent polls have shown he actually beats Clinton among Independents, which Senator Sanders has long identified with as a United States Senator.

Green Party candidate Jill Stein is likely more left-leaning however, and has made more open attempts to attract progressives. She has even gone as far as offering to share her Green Party ticket with Senator Sanders.

Stein has also made the case that Clinton is worse than Trump, because whereas Trump has words, Clinton has a history of terrible actions.

Senator Sanders has now all but confirmed what many suspected he would do, by revealing he would be voting for the AP-nominated Hillary Clinton in the upcoming general election.

The reasoning behind Senator Sanders finally caving and selling out his movement is the idea that Donald Trump would be a disaster for the United States of America as President. While this isn’t wrong, it’s a stretch to admit that Hillary Clinton is a good alternative.

Hillary Clinton has a long record of disregarding the law, mishandling classified material, supporting big government, wanting to imprison whistleblowers against the surveillance state, and encouraging undeclared conflicts as part of her constant push for war.

If Senator Sanders can comfortably say he’s voting for Hillary Clinton in November, knowing all of the things he criticized her for, he’s a sell out. It shows he never seriously considered her a bad candidate and never seriously took issue with who she is as a politician or potential leader.

If the future of the progressive movement is a sell out like Senator Bernie Sanders, progressivism is dead.

Government watchlists have become the next big thing in American politics. Whereas we once had due process to decide guilt and innocence by an impartial arbiter, we now have politicians and unelected bureaucrats deciding this for us. In order to ensure the power of big government remains strong, House Democrats have gathered together to sit in the middle of the floor in the House of Representatives and do absolutely nothing.

This group of constitutional scholars is led by Democratic Congressman John Lewis.

The concept behind due process is fairly basic. We are all innocent of any crime until proven innocent in a court of law, with the burden of proof lying upon the accuser. The accused has a right to face their accuser in court, hear the case against them, and fight it. After both sides are presented, only then is a decision offered.

Government watch lists work differently. They’re maintained by government agents who operate outside of the judicial system and decide guilt based purely on suspicion. People on these lists cannot fly and are monitored closely by the federal government, purely on suspicion.

Which part sounds more in touch with the American legacy and the principles of freedom?

While Congressman Lewis would lead you to believe he heavily favors the latter, he once upon a time not only found himself on a watch list, he was quite inconvenienced by it and upset by the repeated issues. Why? He hadn’t been convicted of a crime and was being treated like a criminal, all because some government bureaucrats saw he had the same name as someone else on a list and that was enough to be treated like a criminal.

In 2004, Congressman Lewis was stopped 35-40 times, according to his congressional office. The repeated inconveniences led the Congressman to contact the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Transportation, and executives at various airlines. The most that the Transportation Security Agency could do for him was offer a letter that stated essentially the practice would continue.

Like others who face extra scrutiny and are treated like criminals without due process, Congressman Lewis faced thorough searches of his luggage and was bombarded with questions aboard the plane.

Congressman Lewis was also contacted by another John Lewis who was experiencing the same problem.

Twelve years later, either Congressman Lewis doesn’t remember this or doesn’t care. Regardless, there wasn’t a lesson learned. It was an outrage that he was inconvenienced because his name appeared on a government watch list compiled by government bureaucrats who determine guilt based on suspicion.

It isn’t an outrage when it happens to anyone else however. Congressman John Lewis may have taken a stand for civil rights once upon a time, but now he’s supporting oppressive big government and embodies the worst kind of political hypocrisy.

The Lewis Doctrine states that regular Americans who appear on a watch list should be deprived of their constitutional rights because of two reasons: government bureaucrats said they’re guilty based on suspicion and they’re not important like Congressman John Lewis.

Famous singer Cher has made an entrance into political debate with the same tired third party blame game. In a tweet, she took a stand against Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein. The implication of the singer, who supports Associated Press-nominated Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, is that supporting any candidate other than those of either two major party is simply dividing the vote.

This is the argument two party supporters resort to when no more logical points exist. Why should we vote for Hillary Clinton? Let’s not discuss the points of such an argument, instead opting for fearmongering over a Trump presidency. Does Cher believe that fear will give Clinton a clearer path to the White House?

The problem is when Cher does defend Clinton on the issues, it is still deprived of logic.

Recently, Cher appeared at a Hillary Clinton rally. At the rally, she declared “I know that Hillary fights for equality for all people and we are no good unless all of us are equal.”

We’re equal with the Clinton family? If every American got paid millions of dollars just so people could hear them speak, the economy would be in a much better place. Unfortunately, not everyone gets paid good money just to hear their mouth move, like Clinton or Cher.

In terms of LGBT rights, Clinton supported her husband signing the Defense of Marriage Act as President. The controversial Defense of Marriage Act defined marriage at a federal level as being between one man and one woman.

In a Senate speech in 2004, Clinton specifically stated, “I believe marriage is not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a women. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman.”

Clinton’s position is that only heterosexual couples have a right to get married. Would the LGBT community agree that this is equality for all people?

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson actually favors equality and wants the government out of marriage. Hillary Clinton wants government involved with marriage to maintain inequality. Jill Stein has long supported gay marriage, as well.

Cher later said of Republican nominee Donald Trump, “When I see Trump talking, I just want to blow my brains out.”

For someone who claims a lot of concern and care for equality, making light of suicide should be the last thing they do. But apparently committing suicide is comparable to listening to a politician talk.

The Trevor Project, an organization dedicated to ending suicide among LGBT youth, has detailed facts and statistics regarding suicide. Suicide is the second leading cause of death among individuals between ages 10 to 24, with questioning youth 3 times more likely to attempt suicide and LGB youth 4 times more likely. Nearly half of all transgender people have had suicidal thoughts and a quarter of all have actually attempted suicide. 1 in 6 students between grades 9-12 have seriously considered suicide in the last year.

If Cher is going to attack Johnson and Stein, at least be honest about it. This isn’t about LGBT equality or rights, it’s about politics. If it was truly about LGBT freedom, Cher would be supporting Johnson or Stein, and not Hillary Clinton. But she’s not. Instead, the clear implication in her deeply insensitive rhetoric is that all of these suicidal teenagers should at least be thankful that, despite being harassed and mistreated, they don’t have to listen to a certain disagreeable politician speak.

The political response to the tragic Pulse shooting in Orlando, Florida has been like 9/11 all over again. Like after 9/11, the limiting of constitutional rights is presented as the only solution to keeping America safe. At the time, legislation like the USA PATRIOT Act was presented and pushed aggressively on Congress using fear tactics. The same is occurring now in regards to an attack on constitutional due process under the guise of supporting gun control.

A number of proposals with varying strengths have been presented, all with the same general idea. The federal government maintains a number of watchlists that keep track of individuals suspected of being terrorists or having terrorist ties. Though these individuals generally have not been tried in a court of law, they are treated as guilty in the eyes of the law. Now various politicians want to take this watchlist and use it to limit the constitutional rights of American citizens.

Republican United States Senator Susan Collins is joining forces with Democrats to push this attack on due process, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is on her side.

Senator Collins’ legislation is being sold as a compromise, which aims to bring opposing sides together to support a piece of legislation. The proposal would restrict gun sales to anyone appearing on any of two different government watchlists, one of which is the “no fly” list. American citizens who have their rights rejected by the legislation would have the right to appeal to have their rights restored, but essentially they would be guilty until they can prove their innocence because a government bureaucrat suspected them of bad things.

The legislation would also require that the Federal Bureau of Investigation be notified if anyone appearing on these lists purchases a gun.

Just to recap, the watchlists will require your name be submitted and rights be rejected as though you’re a criminal, without a judge or jury actually declaring you one.

Naturally, Harry Reid would support Senator Collins on this heavy-handed attack on the Bill of Rights. Senate Republicans had been leaning towards legislation that would’ve required the FBI to get a court order to stop a gun sale to someone suspected of a crime. Senator Collins, like Senator Reid and their Democratic allies, don’t agree with that.

Senator Reid’s backing reflects growing support among Democrats, which also includes Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin. The idea that the “no-fly” list should block American citizens not convicted of a crime from purchasing a gun is popular among Democrats. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein has also taken the position that anyone suspected of a crime and placed on the list should have to appeal the status, but only after the fact.

From a historical perspective, watchlists have been used to block political opponents and watch them. Martin Luther King Jr., who had applied for a concealed carry permit and was denied, was also on an FBI watchlist. He was closely monitored because the FBI suspected him of being a communist, but was not convicted of any crime.

Does Senator Collins believe that Martin Luther King Jr., a suspected communist, should not have been allowed to carry a gun for self-defense? Does Senator Collins believe Americans suspected of a crime should be considered guilty until proven innocent? Her position on the issue of due process is in lockstep with prominent Senate Democrats Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, and Dick Durbin.

The gun control debate continues in the political mainstream, now with many Americans and politicians calling for an end to due process. The idea is that someone who appears on a government watchlist, such as the “no fly” list, should not be able to purchase a firearm. The flaw in this argument is that American citizens who appear on the list will be deprived of constitutional rights based purely on suspicion. These citizens appearing on a watchlist aren’t necessarily convicted of a crime, but merely suspected of possibly committing one by government agents and bureaucrats.

Senator Dianne Feinstein argued that American citizens concerned that they appear on the list without due process should appeal their listing, but otherwise are guilty until proven innocent. This concerning position also would have disarmed prominent historical leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. But this doesn’t bother House Democrats either, who staged a sit-in in the House of Representatives to treat American citizens like criminals without a conviction.

The implication here is that terrorists need to be stopped and if an American citizen is suspected of terrorist ties they should be deprived, regardless of the Bill of Rights.

The problem with this issue is that most convicted terrorists are actually foreign born. At least 380 of 580 individuals convicted of terrorism specifically were born outside of the country, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest.

Why are the constitutional rights of United States citizens being targeted if most of those convicted of terrorist ties aren’t even born here in the United States?

The answer is simple: this isn’t about stopping terrorism and this isn’t about stopping guns. It’s about power and control.

This has been a disturbing trend in American politics and law since the devastating attacks of September 11th, 2001. The United States Constitution is treated like an accomplice to terrorism, with the erosion of freedoms under the Bill of Rights being sold as the only solution to keeping the country safe.

Now the Pulse shooting has led to politicians to exploit fear to push the elimination of due process of Americans, although at least 65% of terrorists convicted since 9/11 are foreign born. It’s a dishonest portrayal of the terrorism situation and a heartless way to exploit tragedy for political gain.

While refugees continue to gain entry into the United States with minimal vetting, American citizens are held at greater scrutiny. This approach has no logical basis given most terrorists are foreign born, with a number of those being refugees as well. Statistically, most convicted terrorists in the last decade and a half are not natural born Americans. If American citizens were allowed due process in regards to the watchlist, many theoretically would be cleared.

When will our politicians admit the true nature of this push is the erosion of due process? Senator Feinstein and Congressman John Lewis both claim this is about guns, while Senator Susan Collins joins them with the support of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Whip Dick Durbin. Facts show us this is not the truth.

After the horror of the Orlando night club shooting, which killed over 50 people and injured over 50 more, each party has scrambled to encroach on fundamental Constitutional rights of the American people in an attempt to provide them with a sense of security. On the Democrat side, as we speak, members of the house of representatives are staging a sit in protest over the house GOP’s refusal to replace due process with secret lists as the tool to determine whether or not someone can be denied the right to own a gun.  Unfortunately, on the Republican side we are dealing with a proposal every bit as heinously unconstitutional, a proposal which would grant the FBI warrantless access to the internet records (including web search history, browser history and email metadata) of every American. This assault on our basic constitutional rights was proposed in the aftermath of the Orlando shooting, and represents a sharp turn from the GOP’s recent tendency to look more closely at civil liberties issues, especially after the rise of Rand Paul’s political star in 2014.

Probably the greatest personification of the GOP’s move from paying lip service to the notion of civil liberties towards its current state of simply ignoring them is Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who ran on a platform of abolishing the TSA and internet censorship bills like SOPA along with other libertarian causes such as setting up an exit strategy for Iraq and Afghanistan. He has since gone back on nearly every one of those promises. Cruz voted in favor of allowing the FBI to warrantlessly collect the internet records of American citizens, completing a process that saw him go from trying to position himself as more pro liberty than Rand Paul in 2014-2015 during the USA Freedom Act debate to arguing with Marco Rubio that the same exact piece of legislation actually expanded spying during the 2016 debates. This is a shift that has seen Cruz blatantly flip flop on issues such as criminal justice reform, marijuana legalization, whether the Freedom Act ended bulk data collection or expanded it, military intervention in Syria and nearly a dozen other issues.

Cruz is a particularly instructive example for liberty activists due to the attempts by Cruz to court them as part of his campaign. Early in the campaign Cruz released a video with about a half dozen former Ron Paul supporters from Iowa who came out in support of him, and created his “Liberty Leadership Team”, led by former Libertarian Party nominee (and drug warrior) Bob Barr. Though this effort turned out to be largely unsuccessful, it created an environment where Rand Paul had to fight to maintain his base instead of expanding on it, and as a result the liberty candidate in the race was pigeon holed into irrelevance. Those liberty activists who did choose to support Cruz over Rand are in large part to blame for the anti liberty tone of this presidential campaign and they oughta be ashamed of that.

It is not as if Ted Cruz didn’t give us very clear signs that this sort of a betrayal was coming. Whether it was his Motley Crew of neocon foreign policy advisors, his career as an acolyte of George W Bush, his praise of Joe Lieberman as a potential defense secretary  or his vote against offsetting cuts to increases in defense spending there are probably dozens of examples of why libertarians should have been very skeptical of him. That being said, his anti liberty posturing pre Iowa caucus pales in comparison to how he has acted since New Hampshire ended and libertarians became a much less important voting bloc for him. Along with this latest vote, Cruz has had several other transgressions.

For example, he endorsed against David Simpson, perhaps the greatest champion of liberty in the Texas state house, instead endorsing Simpson’s opponent Bryan Hughes. He also grilled attorney general Loretta Lynch on her willingness to allow states to legalize marijuana, asking over a dozen questions which were framed in a way which implied clear opposition to the idea. Cruz abandoned the free trade position over the course of the campaign, resorting to language that would make the SEIU proud in a naked attempt to pander to Donald Trump voters.  Finally, and perhaps worst of all, Cruz called for Edward Snowden to be charged with treason for his heroic exposure of the bulk collection of the metadata of millions of Americans, the very same sort of collection which Cruz just voted to allow the FBI to conduct without a warrant.

A little over a year ago Ted Cruz announced his candidacy for President of the United States, running on a platform which seemed somewhat libertarian and very appealing to fiscal conservatives. Yet as the campaign went on and the tone of the party shifted Cruz chose politics over principles and bolted from the liberty movement as fast as he could. If there is one lesson for liberty activists to learn from all of this it’s that you should not give somebody your support for a major office such as the presidency if you cannot verify their support for liberty in a tangible way. That when somebody is presenting you with major red flags you should focus intensely on those areas rather than avoiding them. We have a budding group of prospects for higher office to choose from in 2020 and beyond, there is no reason to settle for establishment snakes who are trying to harness our movement’s energy to their own ends. What Lying  Ted Cruz did to the liberty movement happens to every political movement at some point, our job is to learn from it and make sure it never happens again.

Senator Marco Rubio is an interesting character in the United States Senate. While he’s not known for his word, he’s known for how he uses his word. Despite having an abysmal attendance record and poor stances on liberty, Republicans love the fact that he can make a whole lot of nothing sound like something. His oratorical skills have kept him in the light for a lot longer than he should have.

When he launched his bid for the presidency, he revealed that he would not seek re-election in the United States Senate. Even after failing as a presidential candidate, he stood by his pledge that he would not run for re-election in the U.S. Senate, reaffirming his anticipation to become successful in the private sector.

That has all now changed, as Senator Rubio announced he has flip-flopped and will now run for re-election in the U.S. Senate.

Senator Rubio just barely made the filing deadline and has reversed course because of the direction of the country. In an online statement, he specifically stated “No matter who wins the White House, we need a strong group of principled, persuasive leaders in Congress who will not only advance limited government, free enterprise and a strong national defense, but also explain to Americans how it makes life better for them and their families. I ultimately changed my mind about this race because on that front, and in that fight, I believe I have something to offer.”

The talk of advancing limited government and a strong national defense is just an empty promise. As a Senator, Rubio has always been a strong supporter of big government and undeclared conflicts. Under the Constitution, the power to declare war lies with Congress, something that hasn’t been done officially since World War 2. He has stood firm on the need to maintain the National Security Agency’s massive surveillance state operation, many of which is unconstitutional and hardly considered limited government. Through his hawkish desires abroad and Orweillian dreams domestically, he has supported massive military spending and opposed a more responsible approach to the defense budget.

These are all bad policies, but nobody can expect Senator Rubio to be aware, given the amount of times he misses Senate action.

Like fellow hawks in the Senate Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, Senator Rubio made a habit of not showing up to work. From June 24, 2015 to to June 22, 2016, only Senators Cruz and Bernie Sanders have missed more than him. In that time, Senator Rubio missed 46% of votes.

And now, in case you were curious as to what kind of Senator Rubio intends to be as he pushes forward to re-election, he has given his answer: the same as before.

Wednesday morning there was a closed Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on security for sales of military equipment to other nations, which he skipped to focus on his re-election announcement.

This is interesting, given Senator Rubio’s own claim that he believes he has something to offer to the fight for a strong national defense in the United States Senate. How is that even possible if he misses almost half of all the votes in the chamber and then skips foreign policy hearings involving military sales to other countries?

Senator Rubio is running for re-election, breaking a pledge he repeatedly made, and will be doing the same old thing. He will be collecting a government paycheck, getting the perks and benefits, using the title as a platform for his hawkish statism, and not showing up for work in the United States Senate. Nothing’s changed, except that now he’s a liar who can’t get his own word.

Congressman John Lewis is leading a defiant movement on the House floor to push new legislation against the Second Amendment and due process of law. The movement, which involves a bunch of grown men and women sitting on the floor in the middle of the House of Representatives, is pushing for legislation that would make anyone appearing on a government watchlist ineligible for a gun purchase. The premise of the argument is that if you are on a government watchlist, you’re guilty until proven innocent and thus should be deprived of your constitutional rights.

This is interesting because of who Congressman Lewis is. Congressman Lewis, once Chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, is one of the “Big Six” civil rights leaders from the sixties. As one of these six major leaders, he was a major leader in the Civil Rights Movement and also helped organize the March on Washington.

Of the other five leaders in the “Big Six” was Martin Luther King Jr. King’s history is well documented as a leader in the movement. Unfortunately, his time on this Earth came to an early end because of an assassination. We will never know how history might have been with King living out his full life.

The threat of assassination was something that was always there, though. The Civil Rights Movement was a tumultuous time and even King himself had been the target of assassination attempts and many death threats. For this reason, King carried a gun for self-defense.

Martin Luther King Jr. was also on a government watchlist and the Federal Bureau of Investigation watched his every move. Desperate to undermine him, the FBI also wiretapped his communications as well. The entire setup was because the FBI suspected that Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist.

King wasn’t a proven communist or hadn’t gone before a judge to be convicted of aiding the Soviet Union. There was just a suspicion based on government bureaucrats believing they might think they know something and they thus stalked him because of it.

Today, Congressman Lewis believes that a government watchlist is enough to stop an individual from owning a firearm. This is because a terrorist took a gun and went to a nightclub, murdering innocent people because of who they were. Instead of calling for better protections of our country, more efficient law enforcement, or encouraging responsible self-defense, Congressman Lewis just wants to purge due process and obstruct the Second Amendment.

A government watchlist is all it takes to disarm an American citizen. This is the law as Congressman Lewis wants it to be.

It’s a shame that a civil rights leader holds this position, given that Martin Luther King Jr. did apply for a concealed carry permit and carried a gun for self-defense. Given the number of death threats he received and actual assassination attempts, it’s no surprise that King would want to defend himself. But King was also on an FBI watchlist and being closely monitored because government agents merely suspected him of aiding the enemy.

Logic would dictate that Congressman Lewis would have supported disarming Martin Luther King Jr. and leaving him defenseless with many opponents of the Civil Rights Movement wanting to kill him.

In the aftermath of the tragic shooting in Orlando, Florida, the gun control lobby has stepped up it’s action. It’s no big secret that Democrats have often felt threatened by the Bill of Rights, but now we’re experiencing new extremes. Advocates for gun control are now pushing to not just take down the Second Amendment, but now eliminate constitutional due process.

This is not The Onion.

Democrats have spent the last week pushing legislation that would make it so anyone who appears on the “no fly” list cannot purchase a gun. The idea is that if you are suspected of being a terrorist, citizen of this country or not, you should be denied your constitutional rights. This is not a case of being proven to be a bad person in a court of law, but merely just being suspected.

Senator Dianne Feinstein responded to questions about innocent people appearing on the “no fly” list by stating that those people should petition the government to prove their innocence. Those who appear on the government watchlists have been declared guilty by government agents, not a judge or jury. No due process of law occurred.

Now House Democrats are stepping up their push to eliminate due process by staging a sit-in on the House floor to express outrage. Congressman John Lewis himself stated, “We have been too quiet for too long. There comes a time when you have to say something. You have to make a little noise. You have to move your feet. This is the time.”

Now is the time to make noise, move your feet, and lie down on the House of Representatives floor to take a stand against due process.

What is it about due process that makes Democrats feel threatened?

For eight years, Democrats feigned outrage over former President George W. Bush’s abuses of power. From the expansion of government under the USA PATRIOT Act and various executive orders, to undeclared conflicts such as the Iraq invasion, the problems of the Bush Administration are numerous. Bush himself had an American citizen by the name of Jose Padilla thrown in a military brig and held without charge for years simply because he deemed him an enemy combatant.

Why did Democrats ever complain about the Bush Administration?

The Bush Administration expanded the surveillance powers of the federal government under the guise of protecting America. On September 11th, terrorists hijacked airplanes and turned them into suicide bombs full of innocent people to take down many more lives. As a result, the memory of those killed by evil were exploited to advance a big government agenda.

At the recent shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, a terrorist turned a gun on a gathering of people simply because of who they were. The loss of lives has been exploited by Democrats to advance a big government political agenda.

Whether it be the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration, Senator Feinstein or House Democrats, the agenda is all the same. The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are a threat to the unchecked power of government bureaucrats and power players. Through tactics of fearmongering, these parties have all supported the erosion of constitutional rights under the guise that if we don’t take down the Bill of Rights, the terrorists will kill more people.

When Senator Marco Rubio stated he would not seek re-election in the United States Senate, he was going all-in with the presidential election. In theory, it wasn’t a bad idea. Traditionally, Republicans nominate moderate candidates who learn slightly to the right while bending left whenever the wind blows. What makes Senator Rubio special is his ability to speak. He melts the hearts of moderate Republicans with his ability to speak in beautiful soundbites.

Senator Rubio also favors the continued expansion of the surveillance state, supports endless war, and is in lockstep with the failed legacies of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Senator John McCain.

Emphasis on the failed parts, because the former couldn’t even beat a political rookie in the United States Senate and the latter couldn’t beat the one-term rookie who was a wrecking ball to the American legacy.

But general elections victories are less important than having a controllable safe candidate. When former Florida Governor Jeb Bush failed a primary long described as his coronation, the moment was set for Senator Rubio. Bush was a wooden speaker and a flat personality. He never once seemed inspired and appeared more entitled by name. Senator Rubio could at least make up for his shortcomings in the principles department with oratorical prowess.

It’s for this reason, Senator Rubio was going to reverse course if he fell apart. And he did.

For months, the Republican Party has panicked about the seat. Beyond this, the Party is panicking about their numbers in Congress altogether, because of the ascendancy of Donald Trump and what that means when approaching the general public in November.

The problem with the entire scenario is Senator Rubio played a role in the rise of Trump. The best thing he could ever come up with was to criticize Trump for the size of his hands, implying that his genitalia was small because of his small hands.

This is presidential?

But this is the legacy of Senator Marco Rubio. He and other candidates who ran for the Republican nomination aided in the rise of Trump. Instead of attacking the questionable policy positions of Donald Trump, they discussed sizes of private parts and talked about how Trump was saying mean things that hurt people’s feelings.

Instead, they attacked Trump for not having a teleprompter or speechwriter, tweeting too quickly, and saying some mean things. For conservatives, this validates the accusation that even Republicans are giving into the culture of political correctness. It validated the candidacy of Trump and helped aid his rise.

But realistically, how could Senator Rubio dare attack Trump for being an authoritarian when he himself loves government big? How could Senator Rubio portray Trump as a fraudulent conservative when he himself does not understand what it means to support freedom?

Now Florida Republicans are in a panic because of the state of limbo Senator Rubio’s seat has been in throughout the primary, enabling Democrats to seize a chaotic moment. Republicans are worried about their numbers because of the rise of Donald Trump. But the Republican Party as a whole, Senator Rubio included, is to blame.

But let’s dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing, he knows exactly what he’s doing.

The tragic shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida has opened up a wide open debate on a number of topics. Should weapons like the AR-15 be readily available legally and easily in the United States of America? Should those suspected of ties to terrorism be allowed to even purchase a gun? It’s a passionate debate, but one that has largely been clouded by emotion and devoid of logic.

United States Senator Dianne Feinstein has joined the debate.

After the Pulse shooting, Democrats immediately seized on the political opportunity. The gun control agenda sparked again, with the same old used talking points about how gun control would have prevented the tragedy. Would background checks had stopped a security guard from having a weapon? Not likely, but this doesn’t matter to those with a political agenda.

But beyond this, Senator Feinstein and others have taken the debate to a new extreme. Anyone on a watchlist should not be allowed to acquire a gun.

In theory, the idea of a terrorist not being able to legally purchase a gun seems like a logical idea. Who wants bad people to have weapons and misuse them by murdering innocent people? Nobody, not even gun rights advocates, want that. But how do we decide who a terrorist is and what defines a bad guy?

Senator Feinstein believes that the watchlist is enough to decide who a terrorist is and that being on said list shows you’re a bad person.

Was 8-year-old Mikey Hicks a terrorist when he found himself on the watchlist simply because he shared the name with a Michael Hicks who was being monitored by the federal government? Does the fact that some government agents decided that sharing a name warranted enough suspicion mean he’s a bad person?

Does Senator Feinstein believe it was right for this little boy to be touched thoroughly at an airport and be humiliated in front of parents and other people?

This is wrong and most people would agree. This is why due process exists in America. If you’re suspected of being guilty of a crime, the accuser brings a case against you and then you have your day in court. The principle of innocent until proven guilty is central to the freedom this country stands for.

Unfortunately in recent decades, this has eroded. People like Jose Padilla, a United States citizen, have been detained and held without charge for a number of years simply because the President declared him an “enemy combatant.” That’s it.

In America, a judge no longer has to preside over a case and allow the accused to defend themselves. The President of the United States or government agents can decide your guilt for you. This is enough to have your access to rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights taken away.

This is about more than just a gun. Liberals may feel that this is all worth it just over a gun. But we now live in a lawless society. The judicial system is a mere charade that exists to give the appearance of separation of powers.

The Republican Party has become gripped with chaos and fear over the probable nomination of controversial businessman Donald Trump. Trump has developed into a character of strong and unapologetic statements, with some positions concerning for Republican leaders. Everything from assassinating the families of suspected terorrists and defending the application of “no fly” lists to building a big wall, are positions of significant concern, among other things.

And there are those mean things he says.

There’s a number of registered Republicans who believe Trump’s level of proposed tyranny and hatred is unmatched within the Republican Party. Never before has there been a candidate so thoroughly authoritarian.

Not quite.

The absurdity of the #NeverTrump movement was discussed previously in The Liberty Conservative. The idea that Republicans have been some shining beacon of hope and freedom prior to 2016 is quite comical. In all reality, the Party has always been a weak foundation for conservatism. Instead, it has always been inviting to a weak, flimsy moderate position that is friendly to liberalism and even at times, progressivism.

The idea that Republicans just this year started embracing authoritarianism reflects the rise of the Safe Space Republicans.

Authoritarianism has long been an accepted part of the Republican Party. Through the embrace of the USA PATRIOT Act and executive orders under the Bush Administration to bypass the legal process, the Party has opposed the Constitution. Jose Padilla was a U.S. citizen that was held without charge in a military brig for a number of years without charge simply because former President George W. Bush deemed him an “enemy combatant.”

The idea that one man could strip due process of law was never widely criticized while their own Party was in control of the White House. These things are only wrong when a Democrat is in power. This is why it is so surprising Republicans are upset about the possibility of a Republican acting like a tyrant.

It’s happened before and Trump certainly won’t be the last. Conservatism and even libertarianism will never be widely embraced by Republicans. If Donald Trump isn’t libertarian or conservative, he is actually in more lockstep with Republican tradition than not.

Donald Trump’s language is what really scares people. He says a lot of words that are mean. He doesn’t hold back on his opponents, often coming up with nicknames for those he doesn’t agree with. “Lyin’ Ted” is Ted Cruz, “Crooked Hillary” is Hillary Clinton, and Senator Elizabeth Warren is “Pocahantas.” Are these offensive? Perhaps. And while we should certainly have respect for others, mean words won’t have nearly as strong of an effect as authoritarian principles.

The Republican Party is in hard shape and it’s not because of Donald Trump. Trump exposing all the weak-spined closet social justice warriors of the Republican Party shows us just how finished the Party really is. While the Democratic Party embraces the tyranny of centralized power, the Republican Party is still very much in denial and will only call out such authoritarianism if the candidate hurts their feelings enough.

This is the world of the Safe Space Republican: Be a liberal-leaning moderate tyrant all you want, just don’t hurt my feelings.

A British man who attempted to grab a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officer’s gun said he wanted to “kill Donald Trump,” further demonstrating that those on the far-left are incapable of responding to speech they disagree with without violence.

The suspect, identified as 19 year-old Michael Sandford, attempted to grab the officer’s weapon from its holster after striking up a conversation with him inside the Treasure Island Casino where Trump was speaking.

When he appeared in court, Sandford said he intended to try again at Trump’s next rally in Phoenix, Arizona if he had been unsuccessful in Las Vegas.

Sandford reportedly arrived in Las Vegas last Friday, went to a local shooting range called “Battlefield Vegas,” and learned how to use a gun for the first time. According to court documents, he fired 20 rounds from a Glock 9mm.

It is no surprise, given Donald Trump’s policy views, that Sandford is an illegal immigrant, having over-stayed his visa; he has reportedly been living out of his car for the last month in California.

Threats to commit acts of violence against Trump are nothing new, as the riots outside many Trump campaign events are well-documented.

A far-left writer for the Huffington Post doubled down on comments he made in an article in which he called for “violent resistance” to derail Donald Trump’s candidacy.

In an op-ed titled “Sorry Liberals, A Violent Response To Trump Is As Logical As Any,” Jesse Benn laid blame for any violence that occurs on Republican Primary voters for “normalizing” Trump in the first place, as well as on Trump himself.

“In the face of media, politicians, and GOP primary voters normalizing Trump as a presidential candidate—whatever your personal beliefs regarding violent resistance—there’s an inherent value in forestalling Trump’s normalization. Violent resistance accomplishes this,” he said.

“Violence that takes place at Trump rallies—in support or opposition—is a reaction to the tone he’s set,” Benn claimed, “and the blame for it should land primarily on his shoulders.”

Benn went to on to regurgitate the discredited left-wing talking-point that Donald Trump’s supporters are racists and sexists.

“The rise of Donald Trump has exposed the frightening underbelly of America’s foulest tendencies. Our racism, nativism, xenophobia, misogyny, Islamophobia, ableism, and propensity towards authoritarianism have been laid bare,” he suggested.

Following an outpouring of negative comments regarding his article, Benn took to Twitter and arrogantly suggested only “right-wing lunatics” and white racists are up-in-arms over his call for violence against Trump.

It is funny I wrote that piece specifically calling out liberals but it's #AltRight fanatics/White Supremacists throwing a tantrum over it.

— Jesse Benn (@JesseBenn) June 8, 2016

White America is fine with political violence – we barely notice – except when it's employed as a tactic of resistance by oppressed peoples.

— Jesse Benn (@JesseBenn) June 10, 2016

On top of this, his rise represents an existential threat to millions of undocumented immigrants & their families, Muslims, & Sikhs alike…

— Jesse Benn (@JesseBenn) June 9, 2016

Benn’s comments came after another left-wing writer was suspended for inciting his Twitter followers to riot if Trump comes to their town.

Emmett Rensin, a deputy editor at Vox, called on his Twitter followers to “start a riot” if Trump holds a campaign event in their town. Vox’s founder Ezra Klein announced Rensin’s suspension, saying, “we do not condone writing that could put others in danger.”

Rensin’s suspension is particularly interesting (and hypocritical) given Vox’s past history of seeking to justify riots in Baltimore and Ferguson following officer-involved shootings in those respective cities.

It’s been over two centuries since this country was founded. Even in an era of printing presses, muskets, and the absence of electronic technology, safe guards were required to protect citizens from a tyrannical government. Muskets could still injure or kill people, whether they’re used by authoritarians such as the British occupiers or private criminals. Because of the need to self-defense, the founding generation felt that the right to bear arms was essential to security.

The Second Amendment isn’t a right to call the police or summon the sheriff, it’s a right to bear arms for the purpose of defense.

At the same time, the Second Amendment was drafted at a time where weaponry was significantly simpler. Muskets aren’t bullets, old weapons don’t have the high capacity many present guns have. The latter was clearly not taken into account by the founders, because who could anticipated such progression in technology? Nobody anticipated more efficient and higher capacity weapons.

Would the founders have approved of such weapons in the possession of everyday Americans?

The better question might be why we’re allowing everyday citizens to continue having access to the Internet. We’re living in a time that allows for the facilitation of fast communication. Our words no longer require a simple printing press. Anyone can log onto the Internet, open up any given social media platform, and literally reach millions of human beings in an instant.

It makes for efficient outreach. Terrorists use the Internet to spread propaganda to all who will listen. Would ISIS be as efficient in radicalizing people in America and abroad if it relied on printed pamphlets using a press and distributed physically? It would be costly and inefficient.

Similarly, revolutions and uprisings have been sparked using the Internet. Facebook has become a strong personal platform for communication and networking. Twitter has become an active format for quick relay of information and news. Instagram allows for the same high speed efficiency in communication with a specific focus on pictures.

Is this what the founders had in mind?

The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, but it was written at a time when speech was simple. Similarly, it’s freedom of the press was created at a time when journalism was a simple newspaper.

Speech has evolved into a more efficient, high capacity communication. The Internet and other forms of digital communication reach people at far higher rates than any automatic weapon. While in a lot of ways, this can be used for good, the Internet has been misused resulting in bad things occurring.

For this purpose, why aren’t there background checks for Internet usage?

There theoretically isn’t a constitutional right to the Internet, because the Internet didn’t exist at the country’s founding. This point mirrors the argument that high capacity guns aren’t protected under the Constitution, because the types of guns that exist today were not present at the country’s founding.

This is the logic of gun control advocates applied to another scenario.

Gun control logic would lead us to a very simple conclusion that high speed communication, such as the Internet or the usage of cellular phones, are not protected under the Constitution. Because they did not exist at the country’s founding, it’s impossible to expect that the Founders intended for it to be protected under the First Amendment.

It’s not necessarily a new idea for gun control advocates. The idea of blaming gun manufacturers for gun violence has already surfaced this cycle, as Hillary Clinton has previously criticized Senator Bernie Sanders for not embracing the liberal bandwagon. For all his questionable progressive ideas, at least the Vermont Senator was indeed Independent minded enough to realize the flaw in blaming gun manufacturers for gun violence.

Contrary to what gun control advocates would often lead one to believe, gun manufacturers don’t make guns simply for the enjoyment of murder. Executives don’t huddle around a board room table talking about how many people they can let crazy people slaughter.

But herein lies the problem of leftwing propaganda.

Instead of discussing safe alternatives to allow innocent, law-abiding Americans to continue carrying a gun while keeping society safe, gun control advocates seize an opportunity in a massacre and push politics.

The problem isn’t in the fact that guns exist, but that guns are misused. Guns aren’t manufactured for senseless slaughter, but rather to protect against it.

But instead of recognizing this fact, politics is played.

Remington is now being sued because their guns were misused to commit senseless slaughter against the unarmed and defenseless. Wouldn’t it make more sense to allow those responsibly trained individuals present to be able to carry for the purpose of defense?

Again, instead of taking a more logical position, some are blaming the makers of misused tools.

Why doesn’t anyone complain about motor vehicles? Motorcycles result in countless deaths because people are reckless or otherwise not following safety protocol. Should we sue Harley Davidson or any other motorcycle company?

Nobody sued Oldsmobile when Ted Kennedy ran Mary Jo Kopechne into a lake and left her to drown. Instead of being punished for the incident, liberals rewarded him by celebrating his name and electing him United States Senator.

After Omar Mateen proclaimed his devotion to Allah prior to shooting up the Orlando nightclub Pulse and later was revealed to have ties to terrorist organization ISIS, nobody blamed radical Islam. Instead, the Obama Administration covered up the words “Allah” in 9-1-1 transcripts.

If we can’t blame Oldsmobile for Kennedy running Kopechne into the water and leaving her for dead, why can a gun manufacturer be held liable for misuse of it’s product?

If we can’t blame radical Islam for taking otherwise regular Americans, Islamic or otherwise, and radicalizing them, then how can gun manufacturers be blamed for the misuse of their products?

Perhaps we’re looking at this all wrong. Given that it was a body of water that officially claimed Mary Jo Kopechne’s life, perhaps we should lay the blame on Mother Nature. If it weren’t for God, the Big Bang, or some other religious deity or scientific event, that water may not have existed. Kopechne could still be alive, no matter how reckless Ted Kennedy wanted to be.

But that’s crazy, right? Blame water for someone drowning? It’s really almost as crazy as blaming Remington for the senseless slaughter at Sandy Hook by someone who was clearly misusing a product not intended for mindless murder.