How Trump Can Change Congressional Math On Gun Control

As President Trump rallies to the gun control cause, many conservatives are relying on congressional Republicans to block any restrictive new gun laws. The problem is that congressional party breakdowns make it more difficult for pro-gun Republicans to stave off new gun control laws under President Trump than it would if Hillary Clinton was in the White House.

If Hillary was president, resisting gun control would be a simple matter. Republicans control the Senate with 51 seats. As long as Republicans remained unified, they could filibuster anti-gun bills proposed by the Democrats. The anti-gun coalition would need 60 votes to break the filibuster, which would be difficult to achieve.

Things are different with President Trump in office, however. For most of the gun control proposals on the table, the Democrats can probably count on unanimous support from their caucus. The 49 votes controlled by Democrats are not enough to pass the bill alone, but, with a Republican president working to bring Republicans across the aisle, gun control has a chance that it would not have with a Democratic president.

Eleven Republican votes for cloture would be needed to advance the bill to a Senate vote. After cloture, President Trump would only have to flip two Republican votes to pass the bill.

In the current anti-gun climate, any number of Republicans might be pressured to vote with the Democrats on a “common sense” gun control bill. Perennial aisle-crosser Susan Collins (R-Maine), who sponsored a bill in 2016 to ban gun sales to people on the no-fly and terrorist watch lists, would be a senator likely to join the effort. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is another Republican moderate to watch. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.), Pat Roberts (R-Kans.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) have already expressed support for an increase to the minimum age for purchasing rifles.

Other Republicans joining the coalition might come from both blue states and the strong pro-Trump camp. Republicans from states that lean Democrat would feel pressure from their constituents to support the legislation while pro-Trump Republicans would feel pressure from the White House.

A fail-safe for pro-gun Americans is the Republican congressional leadership. With control of both houses of Congress, Republican leaders have a lot of leeway in deciding which bills are scheduled for floor votes and which are pigeonholed away to die a silent death in committee. Having a president of the same party who supports anti-gun legislation weakens this fail-safe by allowing the president to influence his fellow partisans.

The Hill reports that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called on senators to “try to make some progress on the bills we agree on,” in particular bills to enhance background checks and make schools more secure. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the majority whip, is sponsoring a bill with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Ct.) that would improve background checks. Cornyn has expressed doubt about the effectiveness of raising the minimum age, but both he and McConnell are undoubtedly under heavy pressure from the White House.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) has indicated that gun control may have a more difficult time in the House. Republicans hold a 45-seat majority in the House of Representatives so gun control advocates would need to flip at least 23 Republican votes.

Speaker Ryan told reporters, “We shouldn’t be banning guns for law-abiding citizens, but focusing on making sure that citizens who shouldn’t get guns in the first place, don’t get those guns.”

In the end, the success or failure of the gun control effort will depend largely on Donald Trump. For his part, Trump seems to relish the opportunity to forge a historic bipartisan coalition. The president has engaged in a rhetorical attack on the National Rifle Association in recent days and said that he willing to fight the gun lobby.

“You have a different president now,” Trump said in meeting on gun control in the White House Monday. “I mean, you went through a lot of presidents, and you didn't get it done. But you have a different president, and I think, maybe, you have a different attitude, too. I think people want to get it done.”

Sen. Murphy agrees that Trump is the key. “Mr. President, it's going to have to be you that brings the Republicans to the table on this,” Murphy told the president, “Because right now, the gun lobby would stop it in its tracks.”

“I like that responsibility, Chris. I really do,” the president replied. “I think it's time. It's time that a president stepped up, and we haven't had them -- and I'm talking Democrat and Republican presidents. They have not stepped up.”

It would be an unhappy irony for gun owners if Donald Trump, endorsed by the NRA even though he was a former Democrat who had supported gun control in the past, became the Republican president who overcame the gun lobby to enact the first significant gun control legislation since the 1990s. Stranger things have happened.

Originally published on The Resurgent

In Defense of Bump Stocks

In the days since the Parkland school shooting, politicians of both parties have lined up in favor of a ban on bump stocks. Even many Republicans voters have given their assent to a ban on the rapid fire devices without much more than a whimper.

Two things make the matter of Republicans favoring gun control even more odd. First is that the proposed ban is an emotional reaction from a party that typically counsels against quick, emotional legislating after tragedies. Second, the Parkland massacre did not involve a bump stock.

A maxim of aviation is “don’t just do something, sit there.” It is very seldom that that any action needs to be taken so quickly that the consequences cannot be considered. In that spirit, let us take time out from the cacophony to look at the issue logically.

First, are bump stocks a public safety problem? Probably not. I am aware of only one crime committed with a bump stock, the October 2017 Las Vegas shooting spree. Most people had never heard of a bump stock six months ago.

Bump stocks may be rare in crimes because they decrease the accuracy of the weapon. Andrew Wickerham, who trains police and security guards, told the Christian Science Monitor, “I’ve always thought these bump stocks were just a novelty. They’re not that good, and they’re hard as hell to control.”

A bump stock ban would almost certainly be ineffective because a modestly handy gun owner can craft a bump stock from common parts cheaply and quickly. It took me about two minutes to find the instructions on the internet.

Second, if a bump stock ban is in the public interest, can President Trump simply order the DOJ to draw up regulations to implement it? For those of us concerned with the rule of law, the answer should be no.

In 2013, the assistant director of the ATF wrote to a member of Congress that bump stocks “are not subject to the provisions of federal firearms statutes” and were therefore legal. The letter stated that the devices did “not provide an automatic action — requiring instead continuous multiple inputs (trigger pulls) by the user for each successive shot” and were therefore not subject to the Federal Firearms Act.

“I relied on (ATF’s) firearms technical branch to provide subject-matter expertise,” Assistant Director Richard Marianos told the Albany Times Union last year, “but now after talking to other firearms experts and reflecting on my own career, anything that fires two or more rounds at the pull of a trigger is a machine gun, and should be regulated as such.” In other words, Marianos now believes that his own changed opinion carries more weight than the expert opinion of the ATF’s firearms technical branch.

Marianos’ change of heart is exactly why the rule of law is important. Laws should be objective and consistent, not subject to the changing whims of regulators. If the Federal Firearms Act did not apply to bump stocks in 2013, it doesn’t apply now just because the president wants to ban them.

If President Trump and the rest of the nation decides that a bump stock ban is what the people want, there is a constitutional process in place to make it so. This is How A Bill Becomes a Law.

President Trump is falling into the same trap of abusing executive authority that plagued President Obama. The difference now is that Republicans at least tried to hold President Obama accountable.

Some conservatives don’t believe that bump stocks are worth fighting for. They argue that no one needs a bump stock and that it would be a throwaway concession.

What President Trump and other pro-gun control Republicans don’t consider is the precedent that they are setting. A presidential bump stock ban would begin a pattern of emotionally regulating policies that would make no difference to the overall problem of mass shootings. It would reinforce the Obama-era model of presidents bypassing Congress to decree laws from the Oval Office. Further, the argument that “no one needs a bump stock” sounds suspiciously like the left’s argument for a total gun ban.

President Trump’s bump stock ban won’t reduce the crime rate or solve the problem of school shootings. It also won’t placate the anti-gun left. It will, however, force Republicans to live with themselves after violating their principles on multiple levels.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump Moves Left On Guns

In the wake of the Parkland school shooting, Donald Trump has done something that no other Republican president would have done (except maybe John Kasich). In a series of moves that seem calculated to test the strength of support from his base, the president has endorsed a series of new gun control proposals.

Trump’s left turn on guns began with instructions to Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday to “propose regulations that ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns.” The move would use new interpretations of existing laws to ban bump stock devices such as the one used by Stephen Paddock to kill 58 people in Las Vegas in October 2017.

The proposed executive bump stock ban was quickly followed by a presidential Twitter endorsement of raising the legal age to purchase long guns to 21 from 18, expanding background checks to include mental health histories and arming teachers with concealed weapons. Federal law currently mandates that buyers of pistols be at least 21 and establishes schools as “gun-free” zones.

The reaction from Republicans to Trump’s embrace of stricter gun controls has been muted. In a town hall meeting in Florida, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) signaled a willingness to accept the increase to the minimum age as well as new limits on the size of magazines, but opposed the idea of arming teachers.

President Trump said that many congressmen and pro-gun activists had indicated support for his proposals, particularly the idea of expanding background checks. “There's a tremendous feeling that we want to get something done ... including at the [National Rifle Association],” Trump said in a White House meeting with law enforcement officials.

The effectiveness of Trump’s proposals is likely to be mixed. A You Tube video shows how gun owners can make their own bump stock device from commonly available parts and underage school shooters typically obtain their weapons illegally or steal them from their parents. On the other hand, including mental health information in background checks would have prevented many spree killers from buying guns legally.

Prior to 2016, the idea that conservatives would rally around a president who openly supported expanded gun control would have been laughable. Then again, the idea of Republicans nominating a president who once openly favored the assault weapons ban and waiting periods was also once unthinkable. No longer.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Democrats Don't Realize That Trump Can Make Their Wishes Come True

Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is real malady and Democrats have it bad. Democrats are so invested in Trump hatred that they don’t comprehend that they are on the cusp of realizing much more of their agenda under Donald Trump than they could possibly have accomplished under Hillary Clinton.

The first sign of hope for Democrats was the Republican failure to reform Obamacare. The tax reform bill repealed the individual mandate and that was enough for President Trump to proclaim Obamacare “essentially repealed,” leaving the vast majority of the health law untouched. The GOP has gone silent on further attempts to repeal, reform or replace the Affordable Care Act. Republicans fought for six years under President Obama to repeal Obamacare, but President Trump has apparently stifled the repeal movement.

Next, President Trump turned to immigration and infrastructure, two subjects near and dear to liberal hearts. The president proposed a deal with Democrats to extend DACA and unveiled a $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan. In keeping with the Trump-brand philosophy of doing things in a “YUGE” way, Trump’s proposals were even bigger than the programs enacted by his predecessor. President Obama’s DACA program enrolled about 700,000 participants. Trump’s version would expand that to include an additional 1.1 million. President Obama’s 2009 infrastructure bill had a price tag of $787 billion. Trump’s plan is twice as hefty at $1.5 trillion.

CNBC editorialized that “Democrats would be crazy to reject Trump's DACA deal,” but reject it they did. Were they crazy or were they merely deranged?

But wait, there’s more. A promise kept by candidate Trump was to engage in protectionist trade policies. In 2016, Trump said that his views on trade were “very similar” to those of Bernie Sanders. Trump withdrew from the TPP, is renegotiating NAFTA and has enacted several tariffs. Protectionist Democrats should be ecstatic.

Democrats have spent years calling for a gas tax in the name cutting carbon emissions. President Trump recently endorsed the idea of a twenty-five cent gas tax as well. The Trump tax would not be intended to stop global warming and would instead be used to generate revenue for his infrastructure spending, but will Democrats really want to quibble over the purpose when they can soak auto owners, save the planet and blame a Republican president?

To top it all off, President Trump today signed a memo that instructed the attorney general to propose regulations banning “devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns.” That’s right. President Trump is not only enacting the first significant gun control legislation since 1994, he is using his executive authority to bypass Congress to do it. What liberal cannot celebrate a new gun control law that isn’t subject to the congressional stalemate?

In fact, President Trump’s progressive proposals are more likely to become law than anything Hillary Clinton would have proposed. Hillary’s agenda would have been DOA with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. On the other hand, Trump can probably deliver enough Republican votes to pass the Democrat wish list into law… if the Democrats can get over their TDS to form a bipartisan coalition.

On the other side of the aisle, there has been remarkably little furor as President Trump moved to the left. Immigration and deficit hawks have been largely silent as Trump acceded to “amnesty” and a trillion-dollar deficit. Thus far, there has also been little reaction to his bump stock ban even though conservatives have traditionally had zero tolerance for new gun control measures.

Apparently, Trump Derangement Syndrome is a bipartisan epidemic.

Originally published on The Resurgent

A third of Americans believe armed revolution may be necessary

A new poll released May 1 shows that nearly one third of Americans (29 percent) believe that armed revolution to protect civil liberties might be necessary within the next few years. The poll, by Fairleigh Dickinson University, found that almost half of Republicans (44 percent) believe that armed revolution may be necessary, only marginally higher than independents (27 percent). Only 18 percent of Democrats believe that armed revolution may be necessary.

The poll contrasts views on armed revolution with views on gun control. Fifty percent of the 863 registered voters polled believe that new gun control laws are needed while 39 percent disagree. Democrats favor new gun controls by 73 percent while 65 percent of Republicans are opposed.

Dan Cassino, a political science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson said, “The differences in views of gun legislation are really a function of differences in what people believe guns are for. If you truly believe an armed revolution is possible in the near future, you need weapons and you’re going to be wary about government efforts to take them away.”

An alternate explanation is that Americans view the right to keep and bear arms as an important civil liberty that is being threatened and that assaults on civil liberties make revolution more likely. The possibility of armed revolution may be a reaction to perceived attempts by the government to take away the guns owned by Americans. There are perceived threats to other rights as well. These include religious freedom , freedom of speech and government control of health care. The dramatic growth of government and increase in the federal debt have also led many to fear another financial crisis or the collapse of the federal government. President Obama’s disregard for the Constitution and rule of law in many instances from flouting bankruptcy law in the auto bailout to making unconstitutional recess appointments while Congress was not recessed have not eased conservative fears.

The results of the poll are even more surprising because of the lack of violence from conservative activists. In spite of fears from the administration and media, Tea Party meetings have produced few, if any, violent confrontations. Fears that prominent shootings, such as the one in which Gabrielle Giffords was wounded, were committed by right-wing extremists have proven unfounded.

It may be the first time that a poll has addressed the question of whether another armed American Revolution is likely, but with the surprising results in the Fairleigh Dickinson poll, the question will likely be revisited. It cannot be said with certainty, but it is extremely likely that the poll results would have been far different just a few short years ago.

Originally published on Examiner.com
http://www.examiner.com/article/twenty-nine-percent-believe-armed-revolution-likely-america

Fast and Furious primer

The first major scandal of the Obama Administration was not the recent revelation that Obama’s Department of Energy had expedited federal loans to solar panel maker Solyndra for political reasons. The first scandal came much earlier but received scant attention in the media in spite of spawning a congressional investigation. Arguably, the first scandal is more important than Solyndra because it involves the deaths of more than 200 Mexican nationals and a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

Operation Fast and Furious was a sting set up by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) as part of Project Gunrunner, a long-running program focused on preventing American firearms from being smuggled into Mexico for use by drug cartels.

The stated intention of Fast and Furious was to track straw purchasers, people who illegally buy guns with the intent to sell them to criminals on the black market, of guns from American stores and then trace the path of the guns as they were smuggled to Mexico. The operation apparently began in late 2009 in ATF’s Phoenix, Az. division according to “The Department of Justice’s Operation Fast and Furious: Fueling Cartel Violence,” a congressional report on the subject.

According to the report, in late 2009 an abnormally large number of weapons from the Phoenix division’s area were noticed by ATF officials in Mexico. The ATF agents there contacted the Phoenix office with their concerns, but the flow of guns continued unabated.

Unknown to the ATF attaché in Mexico City, what was happening in Phoenix was apparently that ATF agents were intentionally letting illegal gun purchasers complete their transactions and smuggle the guns to Mexico. Whistleblowers later told Congress that when local firearms dealers tipped the ATF off to suspicious purchases, the ATF agents often instructed the dealers to complete the transaction. John Dodson, an ATF Special Agent, specifically told Congress that “We were mandated: Let these guns go.”

Hundreds of weapons traced to the Fast and Furious purchases were recovered in separate crime scenes in Mexico. These weapons included military style guns such as AK-47s, AR-15s, and Barrett .50 caliber rifles. In addition, 40 Fast and Furious guns were recovered in El Paso, Tx. in January 2010.

The guns were traced to Phoenix using an ATF computer system called eTrace and the ATF’s Suspect Gun Database, a collection of information on weapons that the ATF believes might be used in a crime. The congressional report notes that Phoenix agents deliberately slowed traces of Fast and Furious guns to prevent ATF agents in Mexico from learning the origin of the weapons.

As the number of gun seizures in Mexico increased, ATF agents there were raising the alarm. After getting reassurances but no action from Phoenix, the ATF attaché in Mexico City first contacted Dan Kumor, the ATF’s chief of international affairs. According to the whistle-blowing agents, they eventually contacted many members of the ATF’s senior management including Bill McMahon, the deputy assistant director for field operations, Mark Chait, the assistant director of field operations, Bill Newell, the special agent in charge of the Phoenix division, and even the Acting Director of the ATF, Kenneth Melson. Even Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer discussed the case in meetings with ATF’s agents in Mexico.

In their conversations with ATF management, the Mexican ATF agents were led to believe that Fast and Furious was being shut down in the summer of 2010. In reality it continued.

On December 15, 2010, Border Patrol agents encountered a group of men who were preying on illegal aliens near Rio Rico, Az. A firefight ensued and Agent Brian Terry was shot and killed. As many as three guns, including two AK-47s, from the incident were traced to Fast and Furious. The following month the program was shut down.

In May 2011, several months after Terry’s death, cartel members used a .50 caliber rifle to attack a Mexican federal police helicopter, forcing it

to make an emergency landing. The rifle fire punctured the “bullet proof” glass in the helicopter’s cockpit and wounded two officers. After the police raided the cartel stronghold several days later, several of the weapons found were traced back to Fast and Furious. Heavy duty body armor was also found for the first time.

Fast and Furious is embarrassing to the Obama Administration for several reasons. First, during the same time period that Fast and Furious was active, Attorney General Eric Holder and other members of the administration were using the issue of U.S. weapons linked to Mexican violence as a means to push for more gun control in the U.S., including a new “assault weapons” ban. Members of the administration propagated the myth that 90 percent of guns seized in Mexico came from the United States at the same time that the ATF was letting thousands of illegal guns “walk” across the border to Mexico.

Fast and Furious has caused an international crisis with Mexico. Mexican President Felipe Calderon has said that the United States bears some of the responsibility for cartel violence. Mexican Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa said that if the ATF intentionally allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico that those involved should be prosecuted.

Fast and Furious is damaging to Obama because the trail leads directly to the White House. In particular, Attorney General Eric Holder may have perjured himself when he denied knowing about Fast and Furious until recently. Recently released documents show that Holder got at least five briefings on Fast and Furious since July 2010. If Holder was aware of Fast and Furious then other members of Obama’s inner circle, and possibly the president himself, were likely involved as well.

It has been suggested that the ATF and the administration purposely allowed the guns to walk in order to use Mexican violence as a means to push for gun control at home. Investor’s Business Daily notes that not tracking the guns past the border “seems odd if the purpose was to catch gun traffickers and their drug-lord bosses. It makes sense, however, if the real purpose was to perpetuate… the administration's gun-control agenda….”

In aftermath of the scandal, the Department of Justice shook up the management of the ATF. Acting Director Kenneth Melson was forced to resign. Mark Chait was reassigned to lead the Baltimore office. Bill McMahon and Bill Newell were rewarded with promotions to ATF headquarters in Washington.

In addition to attempting to silence whistleblowers, the government has also tried to intimidate journalists covering the story. Sharyl Atkisson, a CBS reporter, told talk-show host Laura Ingraham that White House and Justice Department officials yelled and screamed at her because she was not being “reasonable” in her pursuit of the Fast and Furious story.

Recently the administration has attempted to justify Fast and Furious by claiming that a similar program was active during the Bush Administration. So far there is no indication that the Bush-era program, Operation Wide Receiver, was connected to the White House the way Fast and Furious is. However, if the ATF did let guns walk across the border during the Bush Administration, whether with or without White House approval, it still does not excuse the Obama Administration for following a similar policy.

Most importantly, Fast and Furious matters because allowing illegal guns to be smuggled across the border for whatever reason was a violation of the public trust. The thousands of guns that the ATF allowed to walk resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens and at least one American. The majority of the guns are still unaccounted for so law enforcement officers in both countries will be dealing with the legacy of Fast and Furious for years to come.

 

Read the this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/fast-and-furious-primer

Does Obamacare establish a paramilitary secret police force?

Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William G. Boykin

I recently received in my email a video of Lt. Gen. (Ret.) W. G. Boykin entitled “Marxism in America.”  I recognized Gen. Boykin’s name, but could not immediately place him.  It took only a brief search to find that Gen. Boykin has a distinguished record as an army officer.

Boykin’s career began in 1971 as an infantry lieutenant in Vietnam.  He joined the elite Delta Force in 1978 and served within the unit 1993.  He was the Delta operations officer for the 1980 attempt to rescue the hostages being held in Iran as well as the 1983 invasion of Grenada.  He also took part in 1989 invasion of Panama and the hunt for drug lord Pablo Escobar in Colombia.  In 1993, he advised the government during the Waco standoff with David Koresh before taking command of the Delta contingent in Somalia that was tracking Mohammed Farrah Aidid.  He was wounded in a mortar attack after the Battle of Mogadishu (the battle depicted in Blackhawk Down).  Afterward, he held a number of desk jobs until his retirement in 2007.  These included Deputy Director of Special Activities at the CIA and Commanding General of the US Army Special Forces Command, where he helped plan the Special Forces strategy for the War on Terror.

General Boykin has long been a committed and outspoken Christian.  He was almost denied entry onto the Delta Force because he was “too religious.”  His wife of 28 years left him in the 1990s, citing similar opinions of his faith.  He was criticized on several occasions for framing the War on Terror in Biblical language.

In his six-minute video, Boykin cites his experience as a Special Forces officer who has studied and fought communist insurgencies around the world.  He lists six common steps of Marxist takeovers throughout history.

The first step is “nationalizing major sectors of the economy.”  He states that this was the purpose of the bailouts.  There is some truth to this statement.  President Bush’s TARP, loans to the banks, has largely been repaid.  President Obama’s use of TARP funds to bail out the auto companies has not.  President Bush’s plan gave banks loans.  President Obama’s plan had the government taking equity in companies that it still holds.

Further, President Obama also nationalized the student loan industry as part of his health care reform law in March 2010.  The health care reform law itself stopped short of Obama’s desired total government takeover of the health insurance industry, but it did set up a situation in which the government will soon be required to step in again to correct the mistakes made by the current legislation.  Many Democrats hope that this will lead to a “public option” and, ultimately, a single-payer takeover of the health care industry.

Boykin says that the health care reform law reflects the second step of Marxism:  redistributing the wealth.  To support this claim, Boykin cites a quote by Donald Berwick, President Obama’s Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  In a 2008 speech, Berwick supported the idea that health care reform is a means of wealth redistribution:  “Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.”  Berwick, who President Obama appointed during a senate recess to avoid confirmation hearings, also supported the idea that government control of health care will lead to rationing.

Third, Boykin says that Marxists discredit the opposition.  Here, he cites a 2009 Department of Homeland Security memo that warned against right-wing extremism.  The memo said that there was “no specific threat” but listed second amendment activists, disgruntled military veterans, religious extremists, as well as radicals concerned “about the election of the first African American president.”

Boykin says that censorship is the fourth step toward Marxism.  In 2009, Congress passed a federal hate crimes law that Boykin believes is meant to intimidate people, pastors in particular, from exercising their freedom of speech.  Because the law makes it a illegal to incite a hate crime, if a pastor says that homosexuality is a sin and that gay marriage is wrong, he could be prosecuted if a member of his congregation then assaulted a gay man. 

In other instances, people have already been persecuted in this country for standing up for their religious beliefs.  Notably, a Georgia woman was forced by Augusta State College to renounce her statements about homosexuality and attend re-education in order to graduate as a counselor.  The Alliance Defense Fund defends many other believers who face retribution for speaking out against abortion and the homosexual agenda.

Fifth, Boykin says that Marxists disarm the citizenry.  Gun control (as well as bans) has long been a goal of Democrats.  Boykin points out that President Obama supports a UN small arms treaty that would regulate the international weapons trade.  The goal is to eliminate insurgencies and violence, but as the Washington Times points out “not all insurgencies are bad.  As US history shows, one way to get rid of a despotic regime is to rise up against it.”  The problem is not guns.  The problem is bad people who have guns.  Many members of the UN are dictatorships who should rightly fear justice from their countrymen.

Finally, Boykin points out that Marxists usually establish a paramilitary constabulary, such as Hitler’s brown shirts.  He claims that yet another surprise in Obama’s health care reform is that it establishes such a constabulary, referred to in the law as the “Ready Reserve Corps.”  Boykin actually cited the correct bill number (HR 3590) and provided a section number (5210), so it was easy to verify his claim.  The law does establish a Ready Reserve Corps.  (In the event that the link is broken, you can view the entire section at the end of this article.)

Specifically, the law establishes a “Regular Corps” and “Ready Reserve Corps” for national emergencies.  The officers are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.  They are separate from normal civil service and report to the Surgeon General.  The stated purpose of the Ready Reserve is to provide manpower for “routine public health and emergency response missions.”   A total of $17.5 million per year from 2010 to 2014 is appropriated for the Ready Reserve.

Boykin believes that this Ready Reserve Corps is the basis for a civilian national security force that President Obama has championed.  Boykin and many conservatives believe that this would be on the order of a secret police force.  This sort of organization has already existed in America another Democratic president.  During WWI, Woodrow Wilson, under the Espionage Act, created the American Protective League, a paramilitary force that beat up political opponents and conducted warrantless searches and interrogations.  In reality, Boykin is off base.  When taken in context, President Obama’s remarks point toward something more like AmeriCorps than the Gestapo.

USPHS officers meet patients in Peru.

It took only a brief search to find a fact sheet on the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) Commissioned Corps.  The USPHS already has a website, www.usphs.gov, which explains its role as a group of medical professionals who respond to health crises.  Recently USPHS officers responded to the Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, and the Haitian earthquake.  USPHS officers are authorized to wear Navy uniforms (as is the Surgeon General).  The Obamacare law did not create the USPHS Commissioned Corps, but it did create a Reserve Corps for the service that is similar to the reserve system for the military services.  The USPHS Commissioned Corps traces its roots back to President John Adams in 1798. 

Many of Boykin’s other claims, while factually true, are also greatly overstated.  For example, with respect to gun control, Obama would have to contend with two recent Supreme Court decisions (District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago) that the second amendment is an individual right.  Another case (Reid v. Covert) states that international treaties do not trump the US Constitution.

Ultimately, a small arms treaty might make it easier for Democrats to push through gun control measures.  Depending on the judge, a treaty might also result in court decisions that favor international law or consensus over American law and precedent.  This sort of decision occasionally comes from activist judges, including Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Woodrow Wilson

Similarly, Boykin’s concerns about a chilling effect on the freedom of speech are well founded, but hate crimes laws fall short of censorship.  Again, Woodrow Wilson sets the standard for American censorship.  His Sedition Act made it illegal to criticize the federal government.  His Post Office refused to deliver materials, such as magazines and newspapers, which were critical of the war or Wilson.  Numerous Americans were actually convicted and imprisoned for speaking “disloyally.”

Although President Obama has stated his belief that too much information is available to Americans and puts “pressure on our democracy,” he has made no move to shut down outlets critical of his administration or imprison people like Rush Limbaugh.  While some Democrats might harbor this fantasy, they have made no move to actually do so.

Domestic terrorists such as the Klan are still a threat.

The DHS memo on right wing extremism, while offensive and overblown, did make cogent points.  Although generally rejected by mainstream conservatives, there have been examples of right wing terrorists, from Timothy McVeigh to Eric Rudolph.  The Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups are a legitimate concern.  A number of domestic terror groups can be described as right wing, including some whose beliefs are based in Christian theology.

One of the most horrifying domestic terror attempts was the Tyler, Texas poison gas plot in 2003.  White supremacist militia members attempted to detonate a cyanide gas bomb that could have killed thousands.  Fortunately, the FBI disrupted the plot and arrested the conspirators.

The memo was not unique.  There was also a memo warning against left wing extremism, which warns against cyber attacks by animal rights, environmental, and anarchist groups.  The radical left discussed, played games about, longed for, and even made a movie about killing George Bush.  Michigan hutaree members, who were widely portrayed as right wing Christians, were at least partially Democrats.  Similarly, the light plane attack on a Texas IRS office building was portrayed as being carried out by an anti-government, anti-tax crusader.  In reality, his manifesto railed against capitalism, religion, and the wealthy.  While the majority of terrorists are not right wingers, there are enough right wing terrorist groups to confirm that the memo addressed legitimate, if overstated, concerns.

Boykin’s last two points involve redistribution of wealth and nationalizing the economy.  It is true that Obama wants to use government to “spread the wealth around,” but his higher taxes and subsidies pale in comparison to the redistributions of other countries.  Communist redistribution often came in the garb of land reform in which the property of the wealthy was seized and distributed to the poor or held by the state.  Nothing on this scale has been attempted or proposed by the Obama Administration.

With respect to nationalizing industry, Obama’s auto bailout did give the government an equity stake in the car companies, but the stock held by the government does not entitle the government to a shareholder vote.  Nevertheless, voting rights or not, the government’s purse strings do give it influence over the auto industry, including the power to force out CEOs, name members of the board, and shape product lines.  Much of this influence was exercised through Obama’s appointed “car czar.”

Nationalization has largely been limited to Chrysler, GM, and troubled banks.  Now that the economy is stabilizing, it seems that the push toward nationalization is abating.  Even though Congress has passed legislation expanding government control of the health insurance and financial industries, they have stopped short of nationalization.  Nationalization of the auto companies, student loan industry, and certain banks has affected only a small part of the economy.

In total, Boykin’s claims are overstated.  I can find no confirmation for the claim that President Obama is ushering in a Marxist takeover of the United States.  Rather, he is a typical Big Government Liberal who wants to expand the role of government and raise taxes.  He seems to be a true believer is the power og government and Keynesian economics.  Probably no one was as surprised at the abject failure of the stimulus package, and the looming implosion of health care reform, as President Obama himself.

President Obama completely misread the mandate of the American people after his election.  The people wanted Obama’s “post partisan” leadership.  What they got was a hard left, hyper-partisan push toward record federal spending and expansion of unpopular government bureaucracies.  The electorate responded with an overwhelming rejection of the policies of President Obama and the Democrats.

It is not out of the question that Obama and his dwindling supporters will veer even further left toward Marxism, but after the “shellacking” that the Democrats took in November 2010 Obama may be ready to seek bipartisan solutions.  The compromise to extend the Bush tax cuts may be an early indication of a new, more moderate Obama.

There have also been no indications that President Obama would violate the Constitution by rejecting the will of the voters when his term is up.  Just as some leftists were wrong when they claimed that President Bush would refuse to voluntarily leave office when his term expired, conservatives who believe that Obama will consolidate power and become a Marxist dictator will be similarly disappointed.  Hopefully, this point will be proven on January 20, 2013.

REPRINT OF SECTION 5210 OF PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.

Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:

‘SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.

‘(a) Establishment-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- There shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.

‘(2) REQUIREMENT- All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended.

‘(3) APPOINTMENT- Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

‘(4) ACTIVE DUTY- Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.

‘(5) WARRANT OFFICERS- Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service.

‘(b) Assimilating Reserve Corp Officers Into the Regular Corps- Effective on the date of enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.

‘(c) Purpose and Use of Ready Research-

‘(1) PURPOSE- The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.

‘(2) USES- The Ready Reserve Corps shall--

‘(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;

‘(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;

‘(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and

‘(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 799B) to improve access to health services.

‘(d) Funding- For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for recruitment and training and $12,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for the Ready Reserve Corps.’.