Pascrell Demands Removing 'Treasonous' Republicans from Congress


First, we confiscate your guns and then we put you on trial for opposing us. OK? (Bill Pascrell for Congress/Facebook)

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “BREAKING: I’m demanding that the 126 Republicans who have endorsed a malignant lawsuit to overturn the will of the people and undermine our democracy not be seated in Congress,” New Jersey Democrat Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. tweeted Friday. He was announcing his letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in which he made clear his definitions of “insurrections,” “treasonous” and “traitors” extend to anyone he politically opposes.

The excuse given for his latest public tantrum was the lawsuit filed by the State of Texas (and joined by 17 states) challenging the legality of voting procedure changes by Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case citing “lack of standing,” with Justices Alito and Thomas stating they would have “grant[ed] the motion to file the bill of complaint.”

While Roberts being a weasel was no surprise, the decision to punt points to future disappointments we can expect from Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. It also seems to corroborate establishment fears of retaliation by court-packing, and to speculation that many are terrified cities will burn if a Biden “victory” is ultimately proven fraudulent to enough citizens.

“Donald Trump and other prominent Republicans have commenced a daily assault on the legitimacy of the election that includes filing dozens of frivolous lawsuits seeking to have the results invalidated,” Pascrell complains in his letter. “Tragically, Members of our House of Representatives are supporting and amplifying these attacks on democracy, now culminating in 126 House Republicans joining a malignant lawsuit filed by the state of Texas…”

As for “frivolous,” that depends on who you’re talking to.

18 states thought the Texas complaint was valid, and daily revelations continue to raise disturbing questions that deserve thorough and impartial investigations (or as Pascrell characterizes them, acts of treason).

“As you know, Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution gives each chamber of Congress ultimate authority to decide its membership, positing that ‘[e]ach House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.’” Pascrell declares. He’s muddying the waters here, deliberately, one suspects, to make his supporters believe the majority has lawful authority to boot minority members.

Not so, says the National Constitution Center in its “Common Interpretation”:

“While the House and Senate may decide contested elections, they may not disqualify otherwise duly elected persons who meet Constitutional qualifications for membership.”

So what authority would Pascrell use?

“The courageous Reconstruction Congress implanted into our governing document safeguards to cleanse from our government ranks any traitors and others who would seek to destroy the Union,” he says, then citing the Fourteenth Amendment  prohibition on holding federal or state executive or judicial offices by anyone who “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof…”

“Stated simply, men and women who would act to tear the United States government apart cannot serve as Members of the Congress,” Pascrell declares. “The fate of our democracy depends on us meeting that moment.”

To paraphrase Seinfeld’s Soup Nazi, if you’re  a Republican who thinks the “official” election tallies stink, “No representation for you.”

Note Pascrell keeps referring to “our democracy,” even though the word appears nowhere in the Constitution, which instead proclaims “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”

Guarding against the dangers of mob rule, the Bill of Rights defined some of the areas where the individual would be immune to the will of the collective. That means no matter how many of us disagree with you, we cannot lawfully use force to shut you up, to suppress your political views, or to make you worship in the way WE see fit. We cannot break into your house and search your property without cause and a legal warrant. We cannot torture you into confessing to a crime. Barring behaviors on your part that disqualify you, we cannot strip you of your ability to keep and bear arms (which, if you think about it, is useless unless you’re also locked up). No matter how many of us vote on it.

Pascrell doesn’t much go in for the Second Amendment and we’re starting to see why. So leave it to him to call the First Amendment-articulated right to peaceably petition the government for the redress of grievances as treason. Leave it to Pascrell to demand ejecting from Congress the only representatives the Constitution called for to be democratically elected (Senators were intended to be elected by state legislators until the Seventeenth Amendment took away another vital check and made ultimate rule by high population urban areas inevitable).

By defining the most basic of American values as treason, Pascrell turns the meaning on its head. Again, that Constitution he keeps deliberately misrepresenting tells us what the term really means (Article III, Section 3, Clause 1):

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…”

If anyone is doing that, it’s politicians like Pascrell seeking to undermine “the security of a free State” by “infring[ing]” on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

By first declaring President Donald Trump “has engaged in … treason” and demanding the prosecution of him and his “enablers,” Pascrell has in effect endorsed executing the president. That’s not hyperbole if you look at what United State Code says:

“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death…”

By using that same language to describe lawsuit-supporting Republican Representatives, Pascrell subjects them to more than mere exclusion from the House—they too, if guilty, would be subject to the same penalty. As would any citizen who agrees with them and supports what they support. If that includes you, Pascrell considers you guilty of the capital crime of treason.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable,” a Democrat president from an earlier era noted. John F. Kennedy, a Life Member of the National Rifle Association, also had this to say about the Second Amendment:

“By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ the ‘security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”

Pascrell wants to make a peaceful revolution impossible. And he’s moving the “fears of governmental tyranny” from “extremely unlikely” to “We’re he-re…”

What the hell, I’m in.  You?

Also see: NJ Democrat’s Demand for Prosecution of Trump ‘Enablers’ Ups the Stakes for All


About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

David Codrea





Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *