Democrats perform sit-in in Congress to protest 5th amendment of Bill of Rights

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The fascist Democratic Party: For the past two days Democrats have been holding a sit-in protest in Congress against the idea that American citizens should have the right to due process before their rights under the Bill of Rights are denied.

Not 24 hours ago, Senate Democrats had the chance to vote on a bill that would have given them the core of what they want, namely, DOJ power to block gun purchases by anyone on a terror watch list. All they had to do was make a simple concession to due process by requiring the feds to go to court and show their work, proving to a judge within three days of the attempted purchase that the person on the list was actually dangerous. Too many innocent people have been put on watch lists erroneously to grant the federal government power to strip them of their rights with no judicial safeguard. That was the Cornyn bill; it died in the Senate, 53/47, when Democrats refused to give it the 60 votes it needed for cloture. The left killed the bill only because it provided due process to gun owners. [emphasis in original]

Previously the Democrats introduced a constitutional amendment to nullify the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, and this protest not only demands a nullification of the fifth amendment and due process, it is focused on nullifying the second amendment as well.

But I have been told I shouldn’t call these fascists fascists, because it might hurt their feelings. Well, I hope I hurt their feelings bad, along with the feelings of anyone even thinking of voting for them in the future. If you do, you are enabling the rise of oppression, and should be ashamed of yourself.


  • Cotour

    When will these anti Constitutional, liberal hypocrites hold a sit in protesting the governments incompetence and inability to control a segment of the population and all of the gang gun violence and the murders of the innocent people in Chicago?

    When they do that then they will have some sort of credibility, otherwise they are I.D. (intellectually dishonest)

    A disconnected stunt, let them sit there until Congress resumes.

  • wayne

    Good point on Chicago, they have literally scores of shootings every week.

  • Cotour

    I just heard some audio from the floor of the Congress, they seem to think that this is a civil rights sit in. Loud and obnoxious, the Borg all work together as they make a mockery of the Constitution and the people’s rights to defend themselves. But it all looks good, like they are doing something noble for the public. Pure BS.

    They would rather leave everyone defenseless as long as they are able to push their agenda forward. There is no law that could have been passed, or that they propose that would have stopped the Orlando shooter. The FBI AND Homeland Security both gave the guy a pass!

    That’s why I say that these people at their core rejoice when some crazed nut creates some reason to senselessly kill innocent people. It is a part of their sickness, liberalism really is a sickness.


    I didn’t like the burden of proof in the Cornyn Bill. .the government would have to show “probable cause” that the person is a terrorist… . .Shoot if the government has probable cause to believe that a person is a terrorist. . . .the government should arrest that person and charge him with a crime. . . .reasonable suspicion is a better standard to prevent a gun sale….but the NRA has rejected this standard…

  • wodun

    Sheila Jackson Lee was on tv today saying how much it hurt to sit on the floor and how cold it was in the chamber because the AC was on during the summer.

    I guess if you are an old fogey, it does hurt to sit on the floor but you can tell they didn’t plan on sitting on the floor very long by the clothes they were wearing.

  • Edward

    From the article: “Too many innocent people have been put on watch lists erroneously to grant the federal government power to strip them of their rights with no judicial safeguard.”

    Innocent people like Senator Ted Kennedy. Getting off the list is a problem. Even the influential Kennedy took six months of pulling strings to get off the list. How long does it take someone who has no political pull at all?

    From the article: “too many of our children, too many of our sisters and brothers, our mothers and fathers, our friends, our cousins are dying by guns and we have to do something about it.”

    Of course we have to do something about it, but we have to do something intelligent about it. We have to learn the lesson of France, which completely disarmed its population yet suffers terrible terrorist gun attacks. In the case of Charlie Hebdo, the onsite police officer who was “protecting” the publishing company was unarmed, like the people inside the building, and like the rest of the country. The unarmed officer was the first victim of the terrorists.

    We have to learn the lesson of Orlando and the airline marshals. The armed police officer guarding the nightclub was an obvious first target, yet airliners use undercover armed air marshals so that the terrorists don’t eliminate the marshal before wreaking havoc in the air. Few terrorists have tried to attack US airliners after the air marshal program started, and the ones who tried were surreptitious in lighting their shoe bomb and underwear bomb so as to avoid gaining the attention of any air marshal that might be on board.

    We have to learn the lesson of Pamela Geller’s Mohamed Cartoon Contest. The unarmed security guard was the first terrorist target (wounded, not killed), but the armed police were there and ended the attack before it could get to the point of killing the unarmed security guard.

    Having armed personnel will not always work, as a uniformed defender becomes the first target. But as we have learned, even a lone non-uniformed defender presents a greater threat to the terrorists than they seem willing to take on.

    If we eliminate the guarantee that the terrorists have gun-free/defense-free attack-zones, then they will have to look for other ways to wreak their havoc, and our rights need not be abridged in order to accomplish this.

    But it is too much to ask Democrats to do anything intelligent about it. It is too hard for them to use logic or learn any lessons from life. These are precious snowflakes who need their safe-zones — and Congress (unlike We the People) gets enough armed guards to discourage terrorist attack. I guess we now know who the government thinks the important people are, and it ain’t us.

  • PeterF

    Well said

    P.S. I have discovered a capitalist plot promulgated by the reCAPTCHA organization. Their constant requirement to identify store fronts is a thinly veiled attempt to get us to spend money.

  • wayne

    Edward: yes, well said.

    PeterF: referencing the identify store fronts reCAPTCHA’s, is it just me… or is the signage always (99%) in Spanish? (what’s that all about?)
    I get that challenge far more than any of them.

  • Cotour

    The other day I was asking the Brit customers that cycled through my place about the Brexit. It was interesting to hear their takes. One man who I know well has lived and worked in America for the past 30 years had not heard of it. After explaining it to him, which he was very appreciative of and which he later made a phone call to a friend in England who also explained it to him, we moved on to the Second Amendment and the Congressional sit in and the Orlando shooter.

    His immediate response was “well the guns just have go !”. I then asked him what his understanding of the Second Amendment was. He said ” the Second Amendment was written over two hundred years ago, it has no place in modern society”. After an intense yet rational and well structured 10 to 15 minute conversation about the difference between a LIST, a LAW and someones RIGHTS, it was like someone turned a light on in his head. (I have never seen this before to this extent) He stood in front of me slack jawed, no one had ever explained things to him in such a way before. He had never really understood what the differences were, nor what the actual function of the Second Amendment was designed to accomplish. Most people in the general public also do not properly understand the issue and so their conversation is mostly a flailing emotional mess that can never come to a rational conclusion.

    I again saw him this morning and he again seriously thanked me for changing his understanding. He now has something concrete to further think about and a point from which to have a more informed and intelligent conversation about this simple yet complex subject.

    Hope springs eternal……………In America.

  • Nick P.

    I can’t help but wonder how the Left would react if someone proposed requiring a background check before allowing a person to speak in pubic. How about passing a competence test before attending Church? Should we require that each person have their books registered? What qualifications should Bob have before speaking on the radio? Should we require he be licensed? What if we allow Radio and Television to continue to operate but limit the use of microphones and cameras? Is it so far fetched?

    How would the Left feel about that?

  • Debbies21

    It’s rich protesting the 2nd amendment & advocating for gun control when you own guns. More than 1/2 of the representatives literally sitting down on the Job, own guns. Presumably anything theses dolts would pass wouldn’t apply to them.

Leave a Reply

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