Let the Democrats Keep Showing Their Hand

Let the Democrats Keep Showing Their Hand

U.S.A.-(Ammoland.com)- The Democratic Party's emerging radical bloc is alarming, but the leftist group's youthful intemperance could backfire and re-energize Republicans' 2020 electoral prospects.

Even before all the hanging chads and miraculously divined ballots have been examined in Florida, newly elected leftist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is already engaging in activism in the halls of Congress. On Tuesday morning, the future representative from New York joined a protest organized by the Sunrise Movement outside the offices of Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi to demand immediate action on climate change — as if the dinosaur wing of the Democratic Party weren't sufficiently extremist on environmental issues.

Ocasio-Cortez, who validates the maxim “youth is wasted on the young,” is part of the Justice Democrats, which promoted leftist challengers during the 2018 Democratic primary cycle. The Sunrise Movement is demanding House support of a “Green New Deal,” which contemplates forming a committee to write policies aimed at creating jobs by moving the nation off fossil fuels — as counterintuitive as that may strike you.

Waleed Shahid, the Justice Democrats' communications director, insists that the Democratic Party's leadership must get serious about the climate and the economy. “Anything less is tantamount to denying the reality of climate change,” said Shahid. “The hopeful part is that we're ushering in a new generation of leaders into the Democratic Party who understand the urgency and will help build a movement to create the political will for bold action.” Yes, they must get moving before any more of Al Gore's hysterical doomsday predictions fail.

The adage “with age comes wisdom” is biblically based and objectively observable — except, perhaps, in the case of Pelosi and her old-guard Democrats. They have invited all types of radicals into their coalition, so they can hardly complain when the fruit of their poisonous tree begins to blossom. Accordingly, Pelosi pretended to support this presumptuous upstart's mini-rebellion.

“We are inspired by the energy and activism of the many young activists and advocates leading the way on the climate crisis, which threatens the health, economic security and futures of all our communities,” said Pelosi. “I have recommended to my House Democratic colleagues that we reinstate a select committee to address the climate crisis. … We welcome the presence of these activists, and we strongly urge the Capitol Police to allow them to continue to organize and participate in our democracy.”

Her groveling wasn't enough to pacify the implacable Justice Democrats, who tweeted: “Our response: Not good enough. Pelosi is reinstating a 2007 committee tasked with investigating the harms of climate change. We don't need more investigation. We need specific plans matching the urgency and scale mandated by the UN's IPCC report on catastrophic climate change.”

The good thing about cliches is that, usually based on human experience, they're often true. So, the current plight of the Pelosi Democrats is that they have made their bed and now have to lie in it. For the next two years, they're going to be lying in the same bed as the rebels — a bed that has two left sides.

The Democrats have lived by the sword of radicalism, embracing every last crazy idea of the extreme left and incorporating it into their agenda, and may they electorally die by that sword in 2020.

Democrats used to tack to the center during general election season, knowing America has been a center-right nation. But since Obama's presidency, they've begun playing their left hand more openly. In the bluest of areas, they can afford to reveal their outright socialism, which explains Ocasio-Cortez's unapologetically socialist campaign message. In other venues, such as Arizona, their radicals have to feign centrism, which explains Kyrsten Sinema's chameleonic transformation to would-be centrist.

The developing schism in the Democratic Party is a positive sign for Republicans, who should greatly benefit from Democratic fissures, especially if they lead to the Democratic Party's moving even further to the left and exposing its radicalism.

Though the electoral demographics seem to be shifting leftward — and though our public schools, universities and dominant media culture are indoctrinating more Americans every day — it's unlikely the majority of the country will be comfortable with leftist extremism as soon as 2020.

But this is hardly something Republicans can rejoice over, because until they get their own act together, they won't be able to properly capitalize on intramural conflict among Democrats. But from my perspective, anything that awakens a complacent America to the existential dangers posed by the radical left, which increasingly controls the Democratic Party, represents cause for hope and optimism.

About David LimbaughDavid Limbaugh

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book is “The True Jesus: Uncovering the Divinity of Christ in the Gospels.” Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com.

  • 12 thoughts on “Let the Democrats Keep Showing Their Hand

    1. I think both major parties are now experiencing the same kind of split. A large percentage of each party has become fed up with the long recent history of failure to accomplish anything their base wanted. This has led to the rise a few years ago of the TEA Party activists, and eventually the development of split off groups like the House’s Freedom Caucus as the GOP’s “radical” conservative wing, and the new “radical” socialist wing now developing within the Democrat Party. This is leading to internal civil war within each party. My prediction is that the “establishment”, go along to get along elements within each party will eventually fade out of power, and we will see the rise of a “Communist/Socialist Party” and a true “Republican/Constitutional Party” within 20 years or so.

    2. This is a Spartacus moment, a watershed moment, a defining moment or perhaps the highwater mark moment of the Antifah Party, aka the Democrat Party. They have/are truly shown what they stand for. People, real Americans, have seen for themselves what they are. The leftist Representative from the loony state of Califronicateya tweeted in jest, he says. That if you don’t turn in your guns when the Communists tell you to, you will be nuked. Americans are seeing what this bunch is really up to. This year, 2018, is their highwater mark. They are on their way to becoming a footnote in history. That is if the RINOs do not screw it up.

    3. That’s a whole big bag of flowery prose dancing around the issue that there must become two nations of the current one. The two prominent philosophies at play are incompatible. This nation has already largely ceased to exist as a cohesive single state – it is ungovernable, ineffectual, schizophrenically motivated, and bankrupt. I imagine that once again, this will devolve into one group seeking to peacefully secede and the other group choosing to use force in subjugation under one throne. One guess as to which side is going to be which.

      1. @Mike S, So will one of your two hypothetical nations (from the current one) be divided into one consisting of all the cities and the other of all rural areas? That is where the libetard/conservative line is drawn, around the cities. Dividing the nation any other geographical way will not solve the political problem.
        Look at any voting map. All the rural, work for a living, areas go conservative. All of the, vote for a living, cities go libtard. I think it better that we stick to the current “Drain the Swamp” and get back to the Constitution revolution.
        We can always surround the cities and kill every man, woman, and child, if the current “get back to the Constitution” non-violent revolt does not work.

        1. Hi Bill,
          I’d very much prefer not to kill anybody over territory, as I suspect is your preference as well. I know quite well, as most of us that pay attention do, that this situation cannot be resolved by simply drawing new imaginary lines on some map and posting guards like the Korean DMZ. I have no idea how it’ll be divvied up eventually – for the forseeable future and likely the rest of my life (42 at present), there will simply be more of what’s already occurring both here and abroad: group/self-separation along ideological lines and increasingly enforced no-go zones for “The Others”, whomever that may be. So much land has been rendered unusable or contaminated by decades of chemical abuses and gross mismanagement that fighting over it may or may not make sense, depending on where we’re talking about. The big cities? Screw that. Let nature spend the next thousand years cleaning those up. I’ve got better things to do.

          We’re not to the point of a wholesale shooting war yet, despite so many internet ninjas’ (and MSM’s, apparently) grandest fantasies which happen to be among my greater fears. Things will continue to deteriorate, people will continue to kill and die at each other’s hands, politicians will continue to see tyranny as a viable solution, bankers will continue to rape all sides of wealth, the militaries will continue to consume gargantuan sums of debt money fighting imaginary enemies, health and retirement will continue to be illusory for we peasants… this is going to take the better part of a century to work out and there are exactly zero guarantees of it working out well.
          As for the immediate circumstances regarding The Swamp and its vile inhabitants, sure. Let’s try to vote them away. Asking tyrants to be nicer to the plebs has worked so well for the entirety of human history – I’m sure it’ll work for real this time. Until the string pullers are put up against a wall, nothing will be allowed to change beyond the Approved List of Acceptable Debates. I believe we’re past the non-violent revolt stage. It’s quite violent now already, only with us being violent towards each other and the tyrants being violent against us all. The Constitution is dead. I will still uphold it as I promised to all those years ago, but it’s dead. I guess that’s what they call ‘faith’, huh? See you on the field, sir.

          1. You make some magnificently insightful points, Mike. But I’m afraid you’re wrong on one point… the Civil War is indeed unavoidable, and it will unquestionably be a shooting war.

            In 2015, Homeland Security advised Congress of that fact (in writing), and even provided estimates (in round numbers) of roughly 80 million casualties, broken into estimates of 20 million conservative and 60 million liberal casualties. Homeland Security felt certain of their prognostications, and they took a number of physical steps to specifically prepare to apply the response they expect to make. But they know of no preemptive way to avoid civil war…

            See you one the field, too, sir.

        2. We don’t necessarily have to kill them. All we have to do is cut their supply chains. And deal with any “breakouts” accordingly. They’ll accomplish the rest on their own.

          1. A good strategy for the previous war. There are too many overseas leftists and communists that would be more than willing to air-drop supplies to the blue zones if we were to lay siege, to say nothing of the attacks we would face from drones, aircraft, infiltration, or any number of vectors is we were to attempt to cut off areas of the continental US. If the global grid were largely downed, your approach might work since there would be no way for the blue zones to request assistance. As it is now though, siege unto starvation is unfortunately unworkable.
            Conservatives are globally greatly outnumbered at present. Demographics both here and elsewhere seem to indicate the trend is not going to be our friend in this battle either. Long story short, it appears the doom of repeating history is almost upon us and it’s gonna suck hard. Hold your ground, teach what you know to those that will learn, and if you’re inclined to pray, now would be a good time. See you on the field.

        3. Oldmarine >>> Wild Bill
          I’m with you on that but eventually some hothead Democrat politician will light the fuse and there will be some bloodshed. Cities will be hard put mainly because of food shortages and that can lead to even more violence. Eventually Conservatives that live in cities will be forced to move to a more rural environment. This could take time or come rather swiftly like the French revolution did. When the pot is boiling over someone has to kill the fire or it becomes a real mess. I personally believe that one thing that would help is if no politician could hold office more than two terms. If the President can’t hold office for more than two terms than no one should. It looks like almost all of our problems in this country originate in the Cities. Looking at ancient history it appears that as a civilization reaches it’s peak then the great cities are abandoned and the earth is covered with them. Democrats have a nasty habit of sticking their nose into other’s business and causing trouble.The forefathers were good pragmatic men with a good set of standards based on Man’s nature. Some day the Constitution will be hailed as the greatest document in the history of mankind.. The Swamp is drowning in it’s own scum that will take generations to correct or the US will fall save for the country areas. Well enough thought on the future and hope thing get better but not holding my breath.

      1. Tue as it has nothing to do with climate change,global cooling/warming aka the weather,in the words of Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.

        U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare


        Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.

        At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

        “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

        Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

        The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.

        Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming “the economic development model” because she’s really never seen it work. “If you look at Ms. Figueres’ Wikipedia page,” notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.


    Leave a Comment 12 Comments